<figure><img width="2016" height="1186" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221110151112/636d06e69c7e80680e0a5f8djpeg.jpg" alt=""/><figcaption>UML's Madhav Kumar Nepal and Sher Bahadur Deuba during the unstable coalition politics of the mid-1990s, when both were rising in influence within their parties. Photo: MIN RATNA BAJRACHARYA</figcaption></figure>On Monday, Nepal's Supreme Court restored the House of Representatives that Prime Minister KP Oli had dissolved for the second time on 22 May. It then <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/here-now/nepal-court-orders-deuba-to-succeed-oli/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">ordered the Nepali Congress President Sher Bahadur Deuba to be installed as the next Prime Minister</a>. Sher Bahadur Deuba has now been appointed Prime Minister for the 5th time and preparations are already underway to form a new cabinet of ministers. Maoist Centre’s Pushpa Kamal Dahal has been tasked to finalise ministerial portfolios with Deuba while JSP has called a meeting of the Central Executive Committee today to decide on the ministers. In his address to the nation on Tuesday afternoon, outgoing Prime Minister Oli said that his party would accept the verdict but delivered a pointed rebuke to the Supreme Court ruling, including its decision to stop any action against UML dissidents, claiming that the move would undermine the multi-party system and democracy. “Such misinterpretation of the constitution for the fulfilment of certain aspirations of certain individuals has, in fact, served to amend the constitution regressively. Our democratic system will have to pay the price for the political implications of this decision,” he said. He added: “I had the people’s mandate but the order of the Supreme Court was in Sher Bahadur Deuba’s favour.” <figure><img width="1440" height="960" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221110151112/636d06e89c7e80680e0a5f8ejpeg.jpg" alt=""><figcaption> </figcaption></figure>Deuba, leading a five-party alliance of 146 MPs — from his own Nepali Congress, the Maoist Centre, as well dissident factions of the JSP and the UML — had filed a writ petition on 24 May after President Bidya Bhandari <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/2-ex-pms-vie-to-be-nepal-pm/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">thwarted claims of a House majority to form the next government</a>.The Supreme Court verdict by Chief Justice Cholendra JB Rana and his bench was the apotheosis of Oli’s years-long <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/banner/court-debates-nepal-pm-olis-future/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">attempt to hold on to power</a>, characterised by bitter infighting within the erstwhile NCP, ultimately leading to his estrangement from the party co-chair Pushpa Kamal Dahal as well as from comrades within his own UML.Ahead of his appointment, Deuba welcomed the Supreme Court’s order in a press release put out on Tuesday morning, which stated that the decision had put the constitution—which had veered off-course— back on track, and reinstated the faith and trust of the people in an independent judiciary.“Rather than taking the court’s decision as a matter of personal win or loss, the decision must be used for the betterment of our democracy, constitution, and our country and its people,” it read.Meanwhile, UML lawmaker Bijay Subba in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling said the right to appoint the Prime Minister lies only within parliament and blamed lawmakers for taking politics to the court.“The constitution clearly states the rights of the legislative, executive, and the judiciary. The court does not have the right to select the Prime Minister. It is against the principle of separation of powers,” he said.Subba also deemed the court’s ruling to stop any action against the UML dissidents unconstitutional, saying, “In a party system, per the spirit of the constitution, parliamentarians must align with the party whip.”Responding to the accusation, the Supreme Court said that it was the president’s responsibility to appoint the prime minister. But in case of an unconstitutional action, it will take steps to rectify them. <figure><img width="1440" height="960" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221110151112/636d06eb9c7e80680e0a5f8fjpeg.jpg" alt=""><figcaption> </figcaption></figure><img width="1440" height="960" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221110151112/636d06ee9c7e80680e0a5f90jpeg.jpg" alt=""><img width="1440" height="960" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221110151112/636d06f19c7e80680e0a5f91jpeg.jpg" alt="">Now, the newly-appointed Prime Minister must seek a vote of confidence in the House of Representatives within 30 days under Article 76(4) of the constitution. Any member of the house who backs PM Deuba shall not be penalised for not voting along party lines, the Supreme Court also ordered. If Deuba gets a majority, he cannot be subjected to any future no-confidence motion and will remain Prime Minister for the remainder of the tenure of the House and preside over the next election. But if he fails to get a vote of confidence, the President, on Deuba’s recommendation, will dissolve the House once again and set a date for elections to be held within the next six months, per Article 76(7) of the constitution. Monday’s Supreme Court verdict also barred any disciplinary action against the UML dissidents who were a part of Deuba’s alliance. However, Madhav Kumar Nepal, who led the dissident UML faction in support of Deuba’s Prime Ministership bid, withdrew his support from the opposition alliance following the court ruling. Oli had been trying to <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/here-now/making-up-is-hard-to-do/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">patch things up</a> with Nepal before the verdict, with working groups from both sides having come up with a 10-point deal to address differences within the UML. But between the appointment of Deuba as the new prime minister and Nepal withdrawing his support from the opposition, the fate of UML and its unification remains undecided.

Shristi Karki

original

674x448

610x380

500x500

400x266

400x240

400x203

301x200

1250x600

1084x550

Reinstate, remove, repeat

<figure><img src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221109121148/636b94129c7e80680e06f1dbjpeg.jpg" alt="" width="1500" height="1000"/><figcaption>Illustration: DIWAKAR CHETTRI</figcaption></figure>Nepal’s Supreme Court has been overturning Prime Minister K P Oli’s moves to remain in office one by one, even as it began crucial hearings on his <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/president-endorses-parliament-dissolution/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/president-endorses-parliament-dissolution/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1624615526031000&amp;usg=AFQjCNFcfwSAhJcN3o2YRfc09cycuI6fLg">second dissolution</a> of the Lower House on <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/nepal-sets-elections-in-middle-of-pandemic/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/nepal-sets-elections-in-middle-of-pandemic/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1624615526031000&amp;usg=AFQjCNGn9_SCp2XoTEVx1Y1q1wFMB0pVQQ">22 May.</a>Lawyers presenting their arguments at the Court’s Constitutional Bench on Wednesday and Thursday went beyond just <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/nepalis-outraged-by-pm-oli-move/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/nepalis-outraged-by-pm-oli-move/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1624615526031000&amp;usg=AFQjCNGyc7SBPAkNZ8daTmk8Xf4bMvaGpA">questioning Oli’s moves</a>, they blamed President Bidya Devi Bhandari for complicity.And beyond calling for a restoration of the House, they also demanded that Sher Bahadur Deuba of the Nepali Congress (NC) replace Oli, since he had amply demonstrated a majority in the House.The final battle in the court is the culmination of a long-drawn power struggle between Oli and comrades within the UML and his former NCP, even while the country faces an emergency with the coronavirus pandemic.President Bidya Devi Bhandari’s <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/2-ex-pms-vie-to-be-nepal-pm/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/2-ex-pms-vie-to-be-nepal-pm/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1624615526031000&amp;usg=AFQjCNEfhpSOMM9zO0aa-OOH9pv0unohLw">rejection of Deuba’s claim</a> to lead the government two months ago had prompted 146 politicians from a five-party alliance to file writ petitions in the Supreme Court on 24 May.<figure><img src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221109121148/636b94159c7e80680e06f1dcjpeg.jpg" alt="" width="1698" height="1272"><figcaption> </figcaption></figure>Chief Justice Cholendra SJB Rana and Justices Deep Kumar Karki, Mira Khadka, Iswar Prasad Khatiwada and Ananda Mohan Bhattarai will give a final verdict after a stipulated 32 hours of hearings over the next two weeks.That ruling will determine whether the House is reinstated and if Deuba becomes prime minister for the fifth time, or if Oli continues as prime minister to oversee early elections in November. If the House is reinstated, the five-party alliance could also choose some other prime minister.Like Deuba, other leaders of the anti-Oli alliance have also been prime ministers before: Pushpa Kamal Dahal (twice), Madhav Kumar Nepal, Jhalnath Khanal and Baburam Bhattarai.The signs do not look good for Oli whose latest setback was the Supreme Court’s decision on Tuesday reversing his <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/nepal-government-reshuffle-during-pandemic/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/nepal-government-reshuffle-during-pandemic/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1624615526031000&amp;usg=AFQjCNEucL_TDQmSld75IHcEemzl7UaY9g">appointment of 20 ministers</a>earlier this month, saying it was unconstitutional for a caretaker prime minister to do so.In fact, Water Supply Minister Anil Jha of the JSP was being welcomed in his constituency in Rautahat on Tuesday when word came from Kathmandu that the Court had directed all Cabinet ministers to stop working. And in a show of defiance, Oli told deposed ministers they didn’t need to vacate their official residence because “something will come up”.In the midst of a pandemic, Nepal's governing Cabinet is now down to Oli and four ministers. The third health minister in a year was among the 20 who had to step down this week after just 19 days in office.The five-party opposition alliance decided to put pressure on Oli by launching street protests starting on Thursday. Speaking to a gathering of editors on Thursday, the NC's Deuba said: "The prime minister and president colluded at midnight to dismantle democracy and the constitution, that is why we have formed this alliance. We will mobilise the public if needed, to fight against a return to authoritarianism."<figure><img src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221109121148/636b94189c7e80680e06f1ddjpeg.jpg" alt="" width="720" height="480"><figcaption> </figcaption></figure><img src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221109121148/636b941a9c7e80680e06f1dejpeg.jpg" alt="" width="960" height="640"><img src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221109121148/636b941d9c7e80680e06f1dfjpeg.jpg" alt="" width="960" height="642">Last week, the Supreme Court overturned a Cabinet decision to amend national park regulations so that Yeti Holdings got a license to build a hydroelectric plant in Langtang. The Court also over-ruled an attempt by Oli to allow ministers to automatically become ambassadors, without having to be graduates. Then, Oli’s loyalist chief minister in the UML was voted out of the Gandaki provincial government last week by a coalition of opposition parties.At the Constitutional Bench, the petitioners and the government’s defence lawyers have been allocated 15 hours each to present their case, after which four lawyers from an amicus curiae will be given two hours to give their opinion.Central to the argument will be whether President Bhandari was fair in rejecting claims by both Deuba and Oli that they had a majority in the House to form a new government. On 21 May, Oli claimed he had the support of a majority in the House that he had himself dissolved earlier, by counting the total membership of his own UML and the Janata Samajbadi Party (JSP) — even those in both parties who had defected to Deuba’s camp.Deuba presented President Bhandari with 149 actual signatures of MPs from the NC, Maoist Centre (MC) and dissidents from the UML and JSP. Only 136 votes are needed for a majority based on the current House strength.On Wednesday and Thursday, petitioners at the Constitutional Bench argued that Article 76 (5) of the Constitution clearly stated that if a prime minister cannot demonstrate he has the confidence of the House, the president has to call on any member who can do so to form the next government.Firebrand lawyer Sambhu Thapa argued: “Why does the president require any other proof other than the 149 signatures? Who gave the president the authority to choose her own prime minister, or take away the right of House members to vote? This is a right that was earned after a long political struggle.”<figure><img src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221109121148/636b941f9c7e80680e06f1e0jpeg.jpg" alt="" width="960" height="640"><figcaption> </figcaption></figure><img src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221109121148/636b94229c7e80680e06f1e1jpeg.jpg" alt="" width="960" height="642"><img src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221109121148/636b94249c7e80680e06f1e2jpeg.jpg" alt="" width="960" height="640">Last week President Bhandari’s office responded to a show cause from the Court with a written explanation that the <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/nepal-supreme-court-restores-house/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/nepal-supreme-court-restores-house/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1624615526031000&amp;usg=AFQjCNHluN7S9Tlzf7kz7vsDIVxJidoQig">Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction</a> over the Office of the President. The President’s advisers have said that she took the decision to dissolve the House because the support of some MPs was claimed by both Deuba and Oli.In his clarification letter to the Supreme Court, Oli argued that the Court had no role in a purely political matter.In Thursday’s Constitutional Bench hearings, former attorney general Raman Shrestha argued that the President was claiming a right over the Supreme Court similar to what Nepal’s kings had during the monarchy days.“This debate in the Court is not about Oli or Deuba becoming prime minister, it is about whether a Constitution drafted by an elected Constituent Assembly will remain or not,” Shrestha said.Another lawyer Badri Bahadur Karki argued that a decision on whether Deuba had a majority support of the House or not was not up to the president. “The president invoking Article 76(5) was for the formation of an alternative government, not to reinstate the same government,” Karki argued, adding in English, “the president should have told Oli, you are no more prime minister.”Oli, who has survived many earlier cliffhangers, probably expects the Supreme Court to reinstate the House, and he is planning to demonstrate a majority by <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/here-now/nepal-pm-oli-back-on-saddle/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.nepalitimes.com/here-now/nepal-pm-oli-back-on-saddle/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1624615526031000&amp;usg=AFQjCNEA1z9mRfljFFGu7HLVClQWlwriyg">wooing back dissident UML MP</a>s and the JSP floor test. Oli will need at least 114 of the total 121 members of the UML as well as at least 20 from the Mahanta Thakur faction of the JSP <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/banner/parliamentary-arithmetics/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.nepalitimes.com/banner/parliamentary-arithmetics/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1624615526031000&amp;usg=AFQjCNFHTBsAGOKmQ3mM0AWKIqW3ykM03w">to prove a House majority</a>.However, the tenor of the court hearings this week prove that they will not be satisfied with the restoration of the House — they want President Bhandari’s decision to disqualify Deuba’s claim to be prime minister revoked.

Oli's gambit

<img width="1574" height="658" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221110131128/636ceeb39c7e80680e09ae46jpeg.jpg" alt=""/>In response to President Bidya Devi Bhandari’s call for the formation of a government under Article 76 (5) of the Constitution, the Leader of the Opposition Sher Bahadur Deuba and Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli submitted <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/2-ex-pms-vie-to-be-nepal-pm/" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/2-ex-pms-vie-to-be-nepal-pm/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1622281099084000&amp;usg=AFQjCNEhPxVkCQEg7_nSphiFjbuMNCda9Q">separate claims on 21 May</a> to her of commanding a majority of parliamentarians. Deuba had the claim of support of 149 MPs while PM Oli had 153.  It is not possible that there would be two majorities in the House of Representatives (HoR), and with the President <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/nepal-sets-elections-in-middle-of-pandemic/" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/nepal-sets-elections-in-middle-of-pandemic/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1622281099084000&amp;usg=AFQjCNG_RvqaIUUq6AhnG_0i6F90-QNx7A">rejecting both claims</a>, the main question right now rests on the interpretation of Article 76 (5). While the basis on which the Head of State reached the conclusion is a matter of her judicial discretion which cannot be questioned in court, it is nevertheless important to interpret and understand Article 76 (5) holistically, given the national importance of a prime minister’s election.In order to fully grasp the basis of the President’s decision, it is important to go into the text of Article 76 (5): ‘In case where the Prime Minister appointed under Clause (3) fails to obtain a vote of confidence under Clause (4) and any member under Clause (2) presents the ground on which he or she can obtain a vote of confidence in the House of Representatives, the President shall appoint such member as Prime Minister.’Under the Constitution, therefore, this article requires four preconditions to be clearly fulfilled before a decision is made:FIRST, the results from the application of Clause (4). While applying this clause, PM KP Sharma Oli sent a written letter to the President stating that as he did not have the numbers to obtain vote of confidence under existing circumstances, he recommended issuing the call under Clause (5) for the formation of new government. With the Prime Minister's recommendation following from his Cabinet's decision, the President had no choice but to make the call.  The opposition parties in the HoR initially criticised the recommendation of the Prime Minister and demanded he should rather have gone for a floor test. But then the leader of the opposition Deuba laid claim to government with 149 members under the President’s call under 76 (5) as recommended by the Prime Minister. PM Oli then also laid claim to government, saying he had the support of 153 members.What we see thus is a majority in HoR recognising activation of Clause (4) by default and the prime minister’s inability to gain confidence of the House. If that were not the case, there would not have been the condition for the claims of both candidates to be considered under Article 76 (5). Thus, there we see unanimous acceptance of the fact that the Supreme Court’s 23 February 2021 decision requiring the House to proceed through the application of Clauses (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) had been followed to the letter. The political parties have themselves resolved the debate around this matter by participating in the call by the president. SECOND, the candidature for prime ministership under Article 76 (5) should be of a member of the HoR under Clause (2). This clause specifies, ‘any member of the House who can get a majority with the support of two or more than two parties’ may present the basis for obtaining the House of Representatives' vote of confidence.When read in the context of Article 76 (5), any House member, not necessarily the parliamentary party leaders of larger parties, who presents basis for gaining vote of confidence can be appointed prime minister. Under the process guided by these constitutional provisions, there can be no doubt that the support of political parties to such a candidate is a necessity.This aspect is evident in Deuba’s claim being supported by the Nepali Congress and CPN (Maoist Centre) along their party lines. In the case of PM Oli’s claim, however, the support of both the CPN (UML) party which he leads as well as the Janata Samajbadi Party is divided, denting his claim. His claim of majority is therefore subject to disapproval. THIRD, the prime question is whether the signatures or support of MPs during the process under Article 76 (5) that go against the decision of their parties are to be given validity. While the Deuba’s claim is based on an independent position taken by 38 MPs of the UML and JSP combined, the President appears to have accorded recognition to all members of the House.The president could have rejected the application at the first instance, using her privilege of office. Deuba’s claim was allowed to be registered following due process by the president herself.It was not possible to reject the application by Prime Mnister Oli because his claim included the decision of the parties concerned and the name-list of MPs by party. It was not unnatural for the two sides to place applications, given that the JSP as a party which had earlier decided to remain neutral had changed its decision at the last minute and to participate in the process under 76 (5). FOURTH, the application under Article 76 (5) made before the President for appointment as prime minister requires placing ‘the basis (आधार) to be able to win a vote of confidence’. What this means is that the President will have to have confidence that the prime minister appointed under Article 76 (5) is able to win the confidence vote within 30 days pursuant to Article 76 (4).In other words, regardless of the claims of a candidate to majority support at the time of application, the president’s concern would be to see if there is basis for the candidate winning a confidence vote within 30 days. As the defender of the Constitution and seeking stability for the polity, it would be natural for President Bhandari to see the verifiability of a claim to majority within the time frame of 30 days as stipulated in the Constitution. When there is no debate on the matter, there would be no questioning claims of a candidate of the support of MPs, whether numbering 149 or 153. They both are majority numbers.  But in the current instance, both applications to the President were contentious. Further, the president had been formally informed in writing that some MPs of the CPN (UML) and JSP have supported the application of another party, and that those two parties were to carry out disciplinary actions against those Members of Parliament.Given that the law on political parties stipulates clearly that the parliamentary procedure for the suspension or ouster of MPs can take no more than 15 days, it becomes clear that neither list before the President was likely to remain intact by the time the vote of confidence was sought within the 30-day stipulation. Thus, the president was unable to give her assent to either application.Can party MPs vote independently?It is important to understand here that while MPs may try to go outside the bounds set by their parties, the Constitution and law relating to political parties and associated regulations provide strong basis for the parties to keep their MPs in check and under party discipline. There is no existing law or constitutional provision that allows us to choose between what action by an MP attracts party disciplinary measures and what does not. There is no basis to the argument that the disciplinary action against MPs may not be applied selectively for certain clauses of the Constitution. In essence, the political parties are sovereign in their ability to ensure party discipline in Parliament under any and every circumstance.MPs must make a choice between party affiliation and independent vote, and choosing the latter course they have to be subject to discipline for defying the party whip. Voting outside the party decision can mean expulsion from the party, which would ipso facto mean vacating the parliamentary seat in the House. The Maoist Centre has already utilised this authority over its representatives by ousting several members in both the houses of the Federal Parliament and in provincial parliaments.According to the existing system, and as clearly spelt out in the Constitution and the law on political parties, MPs of nationally recognised parties are able to vote of their own volition only when electing the leader of their parliamentary party. Otherwise, in every sphere and activity, MPs are bound by his/her party’s decisions and directives. This principle was seen applied clearly during the proceeding of the just-dissolved HoR last year, when MP Sarita Giri’s seat was instantaneously revoked when she defied her party whip.The process of disciplinary action leading to expulsion is fairly simple. If a request has been formally made by a party to revoke an MP’s membership in the House, the parliamentary secretariat may take no more than 15 days to implement that notice. It should also be noted that other than cases filed in the courts on corruption and specific criminal offences, disciplinary actions against MPs are the prerogative of their parties.Difference between JSP and UML 'independents'Given that the JSP has a structure with two chairpersons, decisions to support or to take action under the party’s constitution require the agreement of both and hence may not be immediately implementable. For this reason, Deuba may get the benefit of doubt. JSP's case here is exactly like that of the erstwhile NCP, about which the Election Commission could not take decisions because of the party's statute requiring consensus between its two chairpersons. The JSP independents therefore may weigh in for Mr. Deuba.However, there would be no confusion in the case of the CPN (UML) dissidents. The President was officially informed before she took her decision that the chair and parliamentary party leader of the CPN (UML) was in a position to act immediately against the MPs who had gone against the party’s decision. This referred to the fact that UML's 26 MPs who supported Deuba's application had already breached their party whip on 10 May by abstention during the vote of confidence Prime Minister Oli had sought.Breach of party whip is one of the several legal conditions for vacating the seat of an MP. Existing laws and party statutes provide this right to all political parties. It thus appears that the list presented by Deuba was clearly fragmented and his claim of majority would have fallen short within the 30-day stipulated timeframe. There was no reason to be confident that the number presented by Deuba would remain intact until the required vote of confidence on the floor of the House. Both claimants, or either one of them, could have thought he would win the vote of confidence after the president appointed him prime minister but before the disciplinary procedure of the relevant party was activated. Or, one or other candidate could have hoped to have the Speaker of Parliament show indulgence and ‘good office’ towards himself in terms of handling the disciplinary proceedings. Such in-party and inter-party conspiracies are necessarily outside the consideration of the president, who will be concerned only with what is written in the law and Constitution.Should the President have verified both lists?The dissident MPs of the UML and JSP supporting Deuba's application are working as minority groups within their individual parties. They have their own claims of legitimacy still to be proven before the competent law. The provisions relating to breakup of parties and related aspects are clearly attracted by the application of both candidates, given that the party decisions of the UML and JSP are on one side while the minority groups of both parties have gone to the other side. Under such circumstances, it is not correct legally or on principle to demand that the President verify the lists of MPs provided by the two applicants. The law as it relates to political parties has set a specific process for the breakup of parties, which also allows minority groups to be sufficiently heard which often becomes a long-drawn process. The president’s office is not the place to utilise certain numbers or groups to divide up parties, it is meant to promote unity among the political parties and the nation generally. The place to decide majority and minority through a counting exercise is the Parliament.  It also goes against the principle of multiparty system of governance to lay claim to dissident minority of members of another political party as ‘independents’. Article 74 of the constitution clearly spells out: ‘The form of government of Nepal shall be multi-party, competitive, federal, democratic, republican, parliamentary form of government based on pluralism.’Both claimants who approached the President should have chosen a different path rather than put her office in a position of controversy. MPs wanting to support one among the two aspirants for the post of prime minister while going against their own party whip should have done so either after completing the party division process, or being able to establishtheir independent status. This would have been the only proper procedure. Even though the House membership of said MPs were intact at the time that the claimants approached the President, given the imminent action by both parties leading at the very least to the expulsion of a number of MPs, it becomes clear why the claims by both candidates did not carry credible ‘basis’ as required for the President’s decision under Article 76 (5).It is evident that the President has taken her decision based not only on immediate or short-term considerations, but with a concern for the future workings of Parliament. Take for instance a situation where because a party’s disciplinary proceedings is delayed for whatever reason and the MPs’ defiance of party whip is recognised, as a result of which one claimant wins the vote of confidence. Such MPs will still be a subject to party action, however, and when that happens the newly formed government will immediately go into minority. Constitutionally, the opposition cannot bring a motion of no-confidence until two years after a new prime minister is elected even if the government is in minority. Under such a situation, the government will not be able to adopt its policies and programs, neither the budget, nor get passage of bills in Parliament – a situation similar to that faced by current Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli. The goal of Parliament is not to create a minority government, or an even weaker one. Instead, the goal of the Constitution is to provide stability rather than weaken the system through repeated election of minority prime ministers. Therefore, the claims of majority placed before President Bhandari by the two aspirants were like blocks of ice under the sun, bound to diminish over time.Either claimant should have been able to present rock-solid majorities and outside of controversies, which would have been according to the spirit of the Constitution. Hence, on the basis of constitutionalism and the principles of parliamentary democracy, President Bhandari denied both applications. Tika Dhakal is Press Adviser to President Bidya Devi Bhandari. The views expressed here are his own.

Interpreting Article 76 (5) of Nepal’s Constitution

<img width="1574" height="658" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221109111152/636b86aa9c7e80680e067869jpeg.jpg" alt=""/>In response to President Bidya Devi Bhandari’s call for the formation of a government under Article 76 (5) of the Constitution, the Leader of the Opposition Sher Bahadur Deuba and Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli submitted <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/2-ex-pms-vie-to-be-nepal-pm/" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/2-ex-pms-vie-to-be-nepal-pm/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1622281099084000&amp;usg=AFQjCNEhPxVkCQEg7_nSphiFjbuMNCda9Q">separate claims on 21 May</a> to her of commanding a majority of parliamentarians. Deuba had the claim of support of 149 MPs while PM Oli had 153.  It is not possible that there would be two majorities in the House of Representatives (HoR), and with the President <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/nepal-sets-elections-in-middle-of-pandemic/" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/nepal-sets-elections-in-middle-of-pandemic/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1622281099084000&amp;usg=AFQjCNG_RvqaIUUq6AhnG_0i6F90-QNx7A">rejecting both claims</a>, the main question right now rests on the interpretation of Article 76 (5). While the basis on which the Head of State reached the conclusion is a matter of her judicial discretion which cannot be questioned in court, it is nevertheless important to interpret and understand Article 76 (5) holistically, given the national importance of a prime minister’s election.In order to fully grasp the basis of the President’s decision, it is important to go into the text of Article 76 (5): ‘In case where the Prime Minister appointed under Clause (3) fails to obtain a vote of confidence under Clause (4) and any member under Clause (2) presents the ground on which he or she can obtain a vote of confidence in the House of Representatives, the President shall appoint such member as Prime Minister.’Under the Constitution, therefore, this article requires four preconditions to be clearly fulfilled before a decision is made:FIRST, the results from the application of Clause (4). While applying this clause, PM KP Sharma Oli sent a written letter to the President stating that as he did not have the numbers to obtain vote of confidence under existing circumstances, he recommended issuing the call under Clause (5) for the formation of new government. With the Prime Minister's recommendation following from his Cabinet's decision, the President had no choice but to make the call.  The opposition parties in the HoR initially criticised the recommendation of the Prime Minister and demanded he should rather have gone for a floor test. But then the leader of the opposition Deuba laid claim to government with 149 members under the President’s call under 76 (5) as recommended by the Prime Minister. PM Oli then also laid claim to government, saying he had the support of 153 members.What we see thus is a majority in HoR recognising activation of Clause (4) by default and the prime minister’s inability to gain confidence of the House. If that were not the case, there would not have been the condition for the claims of both candidates to be considered under Article 76 (5). Thus, there we see unanimous acceptance of the fact that the Supreme Court’s 23 February 2021 decision requiring the House to proceed through the application of Clauses (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) had been followed to the letter. The political parties have themselves resolved the debate around this matter by participating in the call by the president. SECOND, the candidature for prime ministership under Article 76 (5) should be of a member of the HoR under Clause (2). This clause specifies, ‘any member of the House who can get a majority with the support of two or more than two parties’ may present the basis for obtaining the House of Representatives' vote of confidence.When read in the context of Article 76 (5), any House member, not necessarily the parliamentary party leaders of larger parties, who presents basis for gaining vote of confidence can be appointed prime minister. Under the process guided by these constitutional provisions, there can be no doubt that the support of political parties to such a candidate is a necessity.This aspect is evident in Deuba’s claim being supported by the Nepali Congress and CPN (Maoist Centre) along their party lines. In the case of PM Oli’s claim, however, the support of both the CPN (UML) party which he leads as well as the Janata Samajbadi Party is divided, denting his claim. His claim of majority is therefore subject to disapproval. THIRD, the prime question is whether the signatures or support of MPs during the process under Article 76 (5) that go against the decision of their parties are to be given validity. While the Deuba’s claim is based on an independent position taken by 38 MPs of the UML and JSP combined, the President appears to have accorded recognition to all members of the House.The president could have rejected the application at the first instance, using her privilege of office. Deuba’s claim was allowed to be registered following due process by the president herself.It was not possible to reject the application by Prime Mnister Oli because his claim included the decision of the parties concerned and the name-list of MPs by party. It was not unnatural for the two sides to place applications, given that the JSP as a party which had earlier decided to remain neutral had changed its decision at the last minute and to participate in the process under 76 (5). FOURTH, the application under Article 76 (5) made before the President for appointment as prime minister requires placing ‘the basis (आधार) to be able to win a vote of confidence’. What this means is that the President will have to have confidence that the prime minister appointed under Article 76 (5) is able to win the confidence vote within 30 days pursuant to Article 76 (4).In other words, regardless of the claims of a candidate to majority support at the time of application, the president’s concern would be to see if there is basis for the candidate winning a confidence vote within 30 days. As the defender of the Constitution and seeking stability for the polity, it would be natural for President Bhandari to see the verifiability of a claim to majority within the time frame of 30 days as stipulated in the Constitution. When there is no debate on the matter, there would be no questioning claims of a candidate of the support of MPs, whether numbering 149 or 153. They both are majority numbers.  But in the current instance, both applications to the President were contentious. Further, the president had been formally informed in writing that some MPs of the CPN (UML) and JSP have supported the application of another party, and that those two parties were to carry out disciplinary actions against those Members of Parliament.Given that the law on political parties stipulates clearly that the parliamentary procedure for the suspension or ouster of MPs can take no more than 15 days, it becomes clear that neither list before the President was likely to remain intact by the time the vote of confidence was sought within the 30-day stipulation. Thus, the president was unable to give her assent to either application.Can party MPs vote independently?It is important to understand here that while MPs may try to go outside the bounds set by their parties, the Constitution and law relating to political parties and associated regulations provide strong basis for the parties to keep their MPs in check and under party discipline. There is no existing law or constitutional provision that allows us to choose between what action by an MP attracts party disciplinary measures and what does not. There is no basis to the argument that the disciplinary action against MPs may not be applied selectively for certain clauses of the Constitution. In essence, the political parties are sovereign in their ability to ensure party discipline in Parliament under any and every circumstance.MPs must make a choice between party affiliation and independent vote, and choosing the latter course they have to be subject to discipline for defying the party whip. Voting outside the party decision can mean expulsion from the party, which would ipso facto mean vacating the parliamentary seat in the House. The Maoist Centre has already utilised this authority over its representatives by ousting several members in both the houses of the Federal Parliament and in provincial parliaments.According to the existing system, and as clearly spelt out in the Constitution and the law on political parties, MPs of nationally recognised parties are able to vote of their own volition only when electing the leader of their parliamentary party. Otherwise, in every sphere and activity, MPs are bound by his/her party’s decisions and directives. This principle was seen applied clearly during the proceeding of the just-dissolved HoR last year, when MP Sarita Giri’s seat was instantaneously revoked when she defied her party whip.The process of disciplinary action leading to expulsion is fairly simple. If a request has been formally made by a party to revoke an MP’s membership in the House, the parliamentary secretariat may take no more than 15 days to implement that notice. It should also be noted that other than cases filed in the courts on corruption and specific criminal offences, disciplinary actions against MPs are the prerogative of their parties.Difference between JSP and UML 'independents'Given that the JSP has a structure with two chairpersons, decisions to support or to take action under the party’s constitution require the agreement of both and hence may not be immediately implementable. For this reason, Deuba may get the benefit of doubt. JSP's case here is exactly like that of the erstwhile NCP, about which the Election Commission could not take decisions because of the party's statute requiring consensus between its two chairpersons. The JSP independents therefore may weigh in for Mr. Deuba.However, there would be no confusion in the case of the CPN (UML) dissidents. The President was officially informed before she took her decision that the chair and parliamentary party leader of the CPN (UML) was in a position to act immediately against the MPs who had gone against the party’s decision. This referred to the fact that UML's 26 MPs who supported Deuba's application had already breached their party whip on 10 May by abstention during the vote of confidence Prime Minister Oli had sought.Breach of party whip is one of the several legal conditions for vacating the seat of an MP. Existing laws and party statutes provide this right to all political parties. It thus appears that the list presented by Deuba was clearly fragmented and his claim of majority would have fallen short within the 30-day stipulated timeframe. There was no reason to be confident that the number presented by Deuba would remain intact until the required vote of confidence on the floor of the House. Both claimants, or either one of them, could have thought he would win the vote of confidence after the president appointed him prime minister but before the disciplinary procedure of the relevant party was activated. Or, one or other candidate could have hoped to have the Speaker of Parliament show indulgence and ‘good office’ towards himself in terms of handling the disciplinary proceedings. Such in-party and inter-party conspiracies are necessarily outside the consideration of the president, who will be concerned only with what is written in the law and Constitution.Should the President have verified both lists?The dissident MPs of the UML and JSP supporting Deuba's application are working as minority groups within their individual parties. They have their own claims of legitimacy still to be proven before the competent law. The provisions relating to breakup of parties and related aspects are clearly attracted by the application of both candidates, given that the party decisions of the UML and JSP are on one side while the minority groups of both parties have gone to the other side. Under such circumstances, it is not correct legally or on principle to demand that the President verify the lists of MPs provided by the two applicants. The law as it relates to political parties has set a specific process for the breakup of parties, which also allows minority groups to be sufficiently heard which often becomes a long-drawn process. The president’s office is not the place to utilise certain numbers or groups to divide up parties, it is meant to promote unity among the political parties and the nation generally. The place to decide majority and minority through a counting exercise is the Parliament.  It also goes against the principle of multiparty system of governance to lay claim to dissident minority of members of another political party as ‘independents’. Article 74 of the constitution clearly spells out: ‘The form of government of Nepal shall be multi-party, competitive, federal, democratic, republican, parliamentary form of government based on pluralism.’Both claimants who approached the President should have chosen a different path rather than put her office in a position of controversy. MPs wanting to support one among the two aspirants for the post of prime minister while going against their own party whip should have done so either after completing the party division process, or being able to establishtheir independent status. This would have been the only proper procedure. Even though the House membership of said MPs were intact at the time that the claimants approached the President, given the imminent action by both parties leading at the very least to the expulsion of a number of MPs, it becomes clear why the claims by both candidates did not carry credible ‘basis’ as required for the President’s decision under Article 76 (5).It is evident that the President has taken her decision based not only on immediate or short-term considerations, but with a concern for the future workings of Parliament. Take for instance a situation where because a party’s disciplinary proceedings is delayed for whatever reason and the MPs’ defiance of party whip is recognised, as a result of which one claimant wins the vote of confidence. Such MPs will still be a subject to party action, however, and when that happens the newly formed government will immediately go into minority. Constitutionally, the opposition cannot bring a motion of no-confidence until two years after a new prime minister is elected even if the government is in minority. Under such a situation, the government will not be able to adopt its policies and programs, neither the budget, nor get passage of bills in Parliament – a situation similar to that faced by current Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli. The goal of Parliament is not to create a minority government, or an even weaker one. Instead, the goal of the Constitution is to provide stability rather than weaken the system through repeated election of minority prime ministers. Therefore, the claims of majority placed before President Bhandari by the two aspirants were like blocks of ice under the sun, bound to diminish over time.Either claimant should have been able to present rock-solid majorities and outside of controversies, which would have been according to the spirit of the Constitution. Hence, on the basis of constitutionalism and the principles of parliamentary democracy, President Bhandari denied both applications. Tika Dhakal is Press Adviser to President Bidya Devi Bhandari. The views expressed here are his own.

<img src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221108141156/636a60809c7e80680e056e83jpeg.jpg" alt="" width="1500" height="1000"/>President Bidya Devi Bhandari concluded her four-day state visit to Burma on 19 October by inaugurating an exhibition on Lumbini, a UNESCO World Heritage Property, in Yangon’s iconic Shwedagon Pagoda. Nepali foreign minister Predeep Gyawali and Burma's Union Minister for Religious Affairs and Culture Thura U Aung Ko were also present at the event.The exhibition titled ‘Lumbini, Where I was Born’ brings glimpses of the Buddha’s birthplace to the Burmese audience and showcases Buddhist archaeological sites of importance.“It is a great honour to organise an exhibition in Shwedagon Pagoda, the most sacred site in Burma, holding relics of the four previous Buddhas of this era,” said Vice Chair Ven Metteyya Sakyaputta of the Lumbini Development Trust. “Given that three of the past four Buddhas were born in present day Nepal, as recorded by Emperor Asoka’s pillars, there perhaps could not be more ideal venue than this iconic gilded stupa area to showcase Lumbini and the surrounding sacred sites.”The exhibit particularly highlights the pivotal role of <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/here-now/u-thant-kenzo-tange-and-the-buddhas-birthplace/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">U Thant</a>, the then Burmese Secretary General of the United Nations, in the development of Lumbini. When Thant first visited Lumbini in 1967, he was moved to tears and was determined to turn the nativity site into an international centre for peace.Read also:<a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/banner/the-right-path/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The right path</a><a style="background-color: #ffffff; font-size: 15px; letter-spacing: 0.01em;" href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/here-now/u-thant-kenzo-tange-and-the-buddhas-birthplace/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">U Thant, Kenzo Tange and the Buddha's birthplace</a>, Kunda DixitPlans were drawn, a design was developed and approved, and funds set up. But over the years the masterplan languished due to corruption, poor governance and conflict in Nepal. Now, Thant’s grand vision is finally coming true after 40 years.“Lumbini is not just the birthplace of the Buddha, it is the birthplace of far reaching universal ideas such as tolerance, compassion and peace. In a world ridden with conflict and disillusionment, the universality of the Buddha’s message is even more relevant today,” said Sumnina Udas, founding director of the Lumbini Museum.<img src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221108141156/636a60839c7e80680e056e84jpeg.jpg" alt="" width="1500" height="1000"><img src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221108141156/636a60869c7e80680e056e85jpeg.jpg" alt="" width="1500" height="1000"><img src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221108141156/636a608a9c7e80680e056e86jpeg.jpg" alt="" width="1500" height="1000"><img src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221108141156/636a608d9c7e80680e056e87jpeg.jpg" alt="" width="1500" height="1000"><img src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221108141156/636a60919c7e80680e056e88jpeg.jpg" alt="" width="1500" height="1000"><img src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221108141156/636a60959c7e80680e056e89jpeg.jpg" alt="" width="1500" height="1000"><img src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221108141156/636a60999c7e80680e056e8ajpeg.jpg" alt="" width="1500" height="1000"><img src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221108141156/636a609c9c7e80680e056e8bjpeg.jpg" alt="" width="1500" height="1000"><img src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221108141156/636a609f9c7e80680e056e8cjpeg.jpg" alt="" width="1500" height="1000">The exhibition will run until 30th October. It is organised by the Lumbini Development Trust, Nepal as part of the Visit Nepal 2020 campaign and curated by the Lumbini Museum and UNESCO Chair from Durham University.Photos by Zwe Nyi Htet

Lumbini Museum exhibition in Burma

<figure><img src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221108111156/636a369c9c7e80680e04831ajpeg.jpg" alt="" width="1400" height="933"/><figcaption>RENEWABLE TRANSPORT: Symbolic gestures like President Bidya Devi Bhandari using an electric limousine, and more practical tax breaks for EVs have won Nepal international praise for a proactive energy policy. However, reforms are still needed to encourage electric public transport. Pic: THE PRESIDENT’S OFFICE</figcaption></figure>Residents of Kathmandu by now know that they breathe some of the <a href="http://archive.nepalitimes.com/page/every-breath-you-take-air-pollution" target="_blank" rel="noopener">dirtiest air in the world</a>. But unlike elsewhere, that awareness has not created the public opinion pressure to <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/here-now/open-air/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">force politicians to act</a>.Up to 35,000 Nepalis lose their lives annually due to diseases caused by air pollution. One in every 10 people in Kathmandu suffers from chronic lung diseases like COPD, bronchitis and emphysema. The average life expectancy of Nepalis <a href="http://archive.nepalitimes.com/article/Nepali-Times-Buzz/air-pollution-decreases-life-span,3999" target="_blank" rel="noopener">is reduced</a> by over two and one-half years because of air pollution.“We have seen that electric public transportation <a href="http://archive.nepalitimes.com/regular-columns/guest-editorial/public-transport-is-equal-to-public-health,844" target="_blank" rel="noopener">can improve public health by reducing pollution</a>,” says Sajha Yatayat Executive Director Bhushan Tuladhar. “Recent advances in electric transport provide the solution. What is sorely lacking in Nepal is political will, long-term commitment and strategic planning for electric mobility.”Read also: <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/?p=25485&amp;preview=true" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Life in the time of tornados</a>, Ajaya DixitIndeed, Nepal’s policy makers no longer have an excuse to do nothing about air pollution: they can follow the example of China and India and announce a national campaign to switch to <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/here-now/cleaner-air-with-greener-buses/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">electric public transport</a>.India is rolling out 7,000 electric buses this year. The Delhi Metro is now powered by solar energy and plans to go fully solar by 2021.All 16,000 public buses in Shenzhen are electric. China has replaced all its petrol two-wheelers with electric motorcycles and scooters.Global demand for electric vehicles is rising rapidly, and manufacturers are having a hard time meeting demand, mainly because of the shortage of lithium ion batteries. The sale of electric vehicles overtook fossil-fuel cars in Norway last month.Read also:<a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/banner/electri-city-cars/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Electri-City Cars</a>, Sikuma Rai<a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/banner/20-electric-by-2020/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">20% electric by 2020</a>, Om Astha RaiHere in Nepal, <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/banner/electri-city-cars/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">electric cars</a> now make up 10% all of all new sales. The first 40 Hyundai Kona EV sold out as soon as they arrived, and the next batch of 40 are already booked. In fact, Hyundai launched Kona in Nepal before it did so in Australia and the US. The Korean car-maker listed Nepal as a top priority market in the Asia- Pacific because of tax breaks for electric vehicles here.“We were able to convince the manufacturers that Nepal was ready to go electric because of our hydropower potential and the tax difference between electric and non-electric vehicles that showed a strong government commitment,” explained Nirakar Shrestha of Laxmi InterContinental, which represents Hyundai in Nepal.While the retail price of petrol and diesel reaches up to 261% above the cost price, electric vehicles carry just a 10% tax on the purchase price.  Electric cars are exempt from road tax, which can be Rs30-50,000 per year for fossil-fuel cars. Nepal is the only country in the world with such a huge relative tax difference.Read also: <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/banner/from-a-fossil-past-to-an-electric-future/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">From a fossil past to an electric future</a>, Om Astha Rai<a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/here-now/cleaner-air-with-greener-buses/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Cleaner air with greener buses</a>, Bhushan Tuladhar<figure><img src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221108111156/636a369f9c7e80680e04831bjpeg.jpg" alt="" width="1500" height="1000"><figcaption> </figcaption></figure>However, there are still challenges to overcome before electric vehicles gain greater public acceptance, including the lack of charging stations, undependable electricity supply, and inadequate parking lots. A fast-charge electric station costs a minimum of $30,000 and can charge only 25 vehicles a day. Establishing one requires a government subsidy as well as a regulator to permit the charging of different EV models.Kathmandu Valley alone has <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/banner/poisoning-the-air-we-breathe/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">750,000 motorcycles</a>, which are a major source of toxic gases like carbon monoxide and ozone. Introducing tax incentives for bikes and scooters similar to those for private cars could be a pivotal move. Also, at the moment there is no registration policy on electric two-wheelers, discouraging buyers.In October last year, Prime Minister KP Oli unveiled an <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/banner/20-electric-by-2020/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">electric mobility action plan</a>, proposed to transform at least 20% of the fleet of public vehicles into battery-operated ones by 2020. Amidst much fanfare he inaugurated the first five Chinese, BYD electric buses inducted by Sajha Yatayat. President Bidya Devi Bhandari herself has a BYD electric limousine.Last year, <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/here-now/mayoral-airs/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Kathmandu Valley’s 18 mayors gathered for a workshop</a> organised by ICIMOD to discuss an air pollution reduction strategy. Since then, beyond lip service little has been done to establish electric public transport and make emission tests for fossil vehicles more effective.Local and provincial governments have shown an interest in providing financial support to develop electric public transport, but the plans are sketchy and ad hoc. A case in point is the confusing and conflicting proposals for electric bus rapid transit, monorail and light rail transit along the Ring Road. The proposals are restricted to speeches and slogans, but nothing concrete has been done.One reason is the high investment cost of electric public transport, which requires government to step in with subsidies.Over the years, revenue from the Petroleum Tax has grown to a whopping Rs5.2 billion. Some of this could be invested in a clean-energy electric transportation strategy.The Seoul-based Global Green Growth Institute (<a href="http://gggi.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">GGGI</a>) has been helping the central government with just such a strategy on electric mobility, and to find potential investors. General Director Frank Rijsberman was in Kathmandu last week to sign an agreement to implement e-mobility in Nepal. GGGI is keen to help Nepal with its first purchase of 300 electric buses for cities across Nepal.  (See interview below)“Operating an electric transport fleet is more complex, requires higher initial investment and more infrastructure than traditional buses, but in the longer-term, renewable energy sources are not only ecologically but also economically viable,” said Rijsberman. “We believe that it is not only the right thing to do but also the best way of growing in the 21st century. In the coming years we hope to see a breakthrough and electric buses on the streets of Kathmandu.”Electric vehicles are now a necessity, not just an environmental statement. Neighbouring India and China have committed to manufacturing only electric automobiles by the year 2030. This means Nepal will be forced to go electric since most vehicle imports are from those two countries.Said Bhushan Tuladhar of Sajha Yatayat: “Like it or not, Nepal will have to go all electric in about a decade. So we may as well start planning for it. That way, the transition will be much smoother, efficient and advantageous.”<h2>Investing in renewables</h2><figure><img src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221108111156/636a36a29c7e80680e04831cjpeg.jpg" alt="" width="1400" height="799"><figcaption> </figcaption></figure>Frank Rijsberman of the Korea-based <a href="http://gggi.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Global Green Growth Institute</a> was recently in town to sign an agreement with the government and Sajha Yatayat on electric mobility. Nepali Times asked him about the future of electric public transport globally and in Nepal.Nepali Times: Why is your Global Green Growth Institute so involved in electric mobility around the world?Frank Rijsberman: We are a young intergovernmental organisation set up in 2012 with 32 member countries and 20 more in the process of becoming members, like Nepal. We help governments plan green growth, a model of economic development that is both more environmentally sustainable and socially inclusive. In Nepal, we helped the government develop a national electric mobility strategy, and we have also helped members mobilise $1 billion in climate finance.We are also working to make cities greener by managing water, sanitation and solid waste. I met with Nepal’s minister of forests and environment and he asked us if we could start working on forests as our next priority. We have done similar work in Indonesia and Myanmar, and that is likely to be our next priority here.Do you see Asian countries moving towards renewable energy?It is challenging to switch from big investments in coal and nuclear energy, because all those investments have become stranded assets. China and India are making enormous progress in renewable energy. Many other Asian countries are a bit behind — Vietnam is still planning to build 25 new coal fire power plants. We are working with governments to introduce large-scale renewable energy sources. The private sector will invest only if the government has the right policy, so we work with governments for that.Read also: <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/here-now/from-playing-victim-to-proactive-leadership-on-climate/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">From playing victim to proactive leadership on climate</a>How can Nepal mitigate on carbon, while adapting to climate change?Adaptation is still very much the number one priority for Nepal but it must grow to middle-income status by 2030, without increasing emissions, by investing in renewable energy. This is now the cheapest form of energy and decentralised solar energy is a much easier way to reach remote communities that were very poorly served by a centralised grid.So I would call it adaptation with mitigation co-benefits. It may well be possible to trade those emissions with countries that should reduce more but cannot on their own. You can have mitigation measures too, but the first priority for countries like Nepal that rely on agriculture is to make sure that society is no longer vulnerable and is more resilient to climate change.Also, many governments still want growth. But the quality of growth really matters; it should be environmentally sustainable. It used to be the right thing to do, but being sustainable is also commercially attractive.What progress are other Asian countries making to become low-carbon economies?China has become a real leader in electric transport. Shenzhen is the first city in the world with an all-electric fleet of buses. Beijing has also taken big steps in curbing air pollution. India has also made considerable progress in renewable energy. The next big thing will be energy efficiency in buildings.What are the prospects for electric public transport in Nepal?We have done electric bus projects in a number of countries and while it is more expensive initially, and also for infrastructure like charging stations and batteries, its operational cost is much cheaper. We are helping the Nepal Government find interested investors, and hope to see a breakthrough in coming years with electric buses on the streets of Kathmandu.

Sonia Awale

Nepal’s electric transport future is here

Recent outrage in Sikkim over an Indian Army expedition climbing <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/here-now/saving-kangchenjunga">Kangchenjunga</a>, the world’s third-highest peak, has spiked attention to the need to balance mountaineering jobs with indigenous reverence for sacred landmarks. Kangchenjunga (8,586m) is not a peak as much as it is a mountain range with 16 peaks above 7,000m on the border between India and Nepal -- the word itself means ‘five treasures of the snows’ in Tibetan. Some of the highest prominences like Kangchenjunga West and Kangbachen are in Nepal, while the Main, Central and South Peaks are on the border. Climbing the peak from the Indian side has been banned since 2001 because the indigenous Lepcha community there regard the mountain as the abode of Dzoe-nga, the patron deity of Sikkim, which was an independent Himalayan Kingdom until it was annexed by India in 1975.&nbsp; Buddhists in Sikkim say their saint, Padmasambhava, recognised the mountain as a protective spirit. The state has declared the base of the mountain Kangchenjunga National Park, which covers an area one-third of Sikkim. ‘The act of scaling this sacred peak is not only a matter of serious concern but also a violation of both the prevailing legal provisions and the deeply held religious beliefs of the people of Sikkim,’ read a letter from Chief Minister Prem Singh Tamang (Golay) to Amit Shah, India’s Minister of Home Affairs and Cooperation.&nbsp; Tamang continued: ‘We further request Your Honour to take up the issue with the Government of Nepal to ensure that no future expeditions are permitted on the sacred mountain, in deference to the deeply held beliefs and cultural values of the people of Sikkim.’ Kangchenjunga was climbed for the first time exactly 70 years ago by a British team who told King Tashi Namgyal, the Choegyal of Sikkim, that they would not set foot on the summit. Since then, there have been about 532 successful climbs of the peaks and 52 have died while trying.&nbsp;  <figure> <img src="https://publisher-publish.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/pb-nepalitimes/swp/asv65r/media/20250628060616_5c268e08cf49f36b79ef9b31933fc2d9bf9a6f65414e7ca06dd028bf04e7ccc1.png" data-media-id="editor_1" data-image-id="20250628060616_5c268e08cf49f36b79ef9b31933fc2d9bf9a6f65414e7ca06dd028bf04e7ccc1" data-rendition-name="original" width="1782" height="1178" loading="lazy" alt="Kangchenjunga: too sacred to climb NT"> <figcaption>Indigenous communities in Sikkim held purification ceremonies following the Indian expedition to Kangchenjunga. Photo: THE VOICE OF SIKKIM / FACEBOOK</figcaption> </figure>  <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/here-now/peak-climbing-season-2025-s4abrxny">This spring climbing season</a> alone, there were 70 climbing permits for foreigners issued for Kangchenjunga by the Nepal government, and made it to the top while one French climber died.&nbsp; One of the expeditions this year was an Indian Army team led by Col Ranveer Jamwal, who has summited the highest peaks on all seven continents, and Mt Everest thrice. Jamwal’s team was on the final leg of a ‘<a href="https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/nimas-summits-mt-kangchenjunga-concludes-historic-har-shikhar-tiranga-mission-successfully/articleshow/121341315.cms?from=mdr">Har Shikhar Tiranga</a>’ (The Tricolour on Every Peak) mission to plant the Indian flag at the highest points of each of India’s 28 states. Kanchenjunga was the last peak they had left, and the hardest, but the expedition put five climbers on the summit. What seems to have incensed the Sikkimese is that while it has banned climbing the mountain from its side, it was an Indian military expedition that went to Nepal to climb the mountain. After news broke of the climb in May, the Sikkim Indigenous Lepcha Tribal Association asked people to observe purification ceremonies in temples across the state. Mayalmit Lepcha of the association acknowledged that the Sikkim government was also partly at fault: “I don’t think such an expedition could have gone forward without the state government being informed, so it could have done something to intervene. It shows weakness. What’s done is done, all we can do is carry out these sanctification ceremonies.”&nbsp; In 2000, one year before Sikkim’s ban, the state allowed an Austrian team to attempt Kanchenjunga’s northeast face for a fee of $20,000, on agreement that they would stop 10m before the summit. Despite this, there was outrage over the expedition on the grounds that it violated Indian laws regarding the defiling of religious sites and Sikkim’s rights to maintain its culture after merging with India. The Indian Army expedition was also seen to have circumvented Sikkim’s law and violated religious sensibilities by going through Nepal. While the team may have thought they were respecting Sikkim’s beliefs by finding a way to complete the mission, the people of Sikkim saw it as defilement.&nbsp; The somber mood of the Sikkim people at the ritual contrasts sharply with Jamwal’s sense of accomplishment. “Without a doubt, the most difficult summit of my life,” he told reporters after the climb. “It tested every ounce of our will.”&nbsp;  <figure> <img src="https://publisher-publish.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/pb-nepalitimes/swp/asv65r/media/20250628060616_ccfe079c78dab788d19fe2080ee8a5d5dcb11de4157316f6d94e5964da097157.jpg" data-media-id="editor_4" data-image-id="20250628060616_ccfe079c78dab788d19fe2080ee8a5d5dcb11de4157316f6d94e5964da097157" data-rendition-name="original" width="787" height="377" loading="lazy" alt="Kangchenjunga: too sacred to climb NT"> <figcaption>Prayer flags along the Sikkim-Kangchenjunga trekking route. Photo: TREKKINGININDIA.COM</figcaption> </figure>  The <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/news/the-rise-and-fall-of-nims-purja">controversial Nepali-British mountaineer Nirmal Purja</a> was also on Kangchenjunga this spring the mountain, on a mission to summit all 14 8,000m peaks for a third time. He echoed Jamwal about the tough conditions: “The conditions above camp were extremely tough, with deep snow and challenging terrain—more crevasses than usual.” Nepal’s government has not said anything publicly, but it is unlikely that it will ban climbing on Kangchenjunga, since it is becoming popular with expeditions because of its technical challenges, and overcrowding on Mt Everest. Nepal does have bans in place for some of its mountains out of respect for local beliefs. <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/banner/to-open-machapuchre-for-mountaineering-or-not">Mt Machapuchre</a> (6,990m) the imposing pyramid that looms over Pokhara, for example, is seen as an icon of purity by the Gurung people and a symbol of Vishnu by the Hindu communities who live at its base. A strict climbing ban has been in place since 1957, when a British expedition led by Col Jimmy Roberts stopped 45m short of the summit – either because the last bit was too difficult or out of deference to local sentiments.&nbsp; Khumbila that stands above Namche Bazar is only 5,761m high, but like Kanchenjunga is considered the protector deity of the Sherpa people. Gauri Shankar on the Nepal-China border, called Chomo Tseringma by the local community, was off-limits between 1965 and 1979 due to its association with Lord Shiva and Gauri, his consort. Although expeditions are now allowed, there are not too many takers. In Tibet, climbing Mount Kailash is prohibited by the Chinese government because it revered by the Hindus, Buddhists and followers of the Bon faith. Even Mt Everest is regarded as sacred, and its Sherpa name is Chomolungma, Goddess Mother of the Earth.&nbsp; Economically, climbs on Kanchenjunga bring in decent revenue. This climbing season, the 41 permits, at $1,800 each, brought in $73,800. This is somewhat comparable to Makalu, Lhotse, and Annapurna I, but these numbers are dwarfed by the $4 million in <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/news/the-everest-industry">Everest permits</a>. Revenue from Kanchenjunga climbing permits is something Nepal could potentially forgo if necessary, but the expeditions also provide jobs to hundreds of high altitude guides, porters, base camp support staff and other logistical costs.&nbsp; As the third highest mountain in the world and the tallest in India, there will always be significant motivation to climb it from the Nepal side, especially as climbers are drawn by the technical climbing at high altitude.

Kangchenjunga: too sacred to climb?

The debate about who is less accountable to the public: politicians or bureaucrats is as old as Nepal’s democracy itself.
Some blame politicians for being beholden to the businessmen who finance their electoral campaigns, and are forced to return the favour with contracts and kickbacks when in power.&nbsp;
Others say it is civil servants who are neither civil nor servants, and know the inner workings of the system to exploit loopholes – they then teach ministers, MPs, mayors, or ward chairs which juicy projects can be squeezed. And everyone gets their share.
In reality, it is probably not a case of either, or. Both have their hands deep in the honey pot. Corruption is now such a given that yet another exposé in the mainstream press, like the latest visit-visa scam, does not raise eyebrows anymore.
We may have to edit Lord Acton’s famous quote to say that in Nepal we do not even need absolute power to corrupt absolutely. The ruling cartel has divvied up the spoils, so that no one ever faces charges. The three parties all know about the skeletons rattling in each other’s closets, and they cancel each other out.
Politicians and bureaucrats get all the blame for taking bribes, but what of the givers of bribes? In this crony capitalism, businesses invariably need political patrons in an elaborate <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/here-now/nepals-only-growth-industry-private-sector-corruption" target="_blank">national network of give-and-take</a>.
<a href="https://nepalitimes.com/here-now/nepals-only-growth-industry-private-sector-corruption" target="_blank">Politicians and businesses work hand-in-glove</a> so that conflict of interest in contracts, insider trading, cartelling, and non-performing assets of banks become the norm. Our survey after the 2017 local election showed that out of the 753 newly-elected local government chairs, <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/news/elected-contractors" target="_blank">nearly 300 were contractors</a> involved in sand-mining, quarrying, or transportation syndicates.
Nepal’s tycoons have discovered that instead of donating to election war chests of politicians, it is a much surer return on investment to spend the money to <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/news/the-business-of-politics-in-nepal" target="_blank">become legislators and politicians themselves</a>.
In democracies, there are checks and balances to control corruption when it becomes endemic. The Nepal Police and Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) are supposed to do the detective work without political interference. The courts are required to be independent in dispensing justice and punishing crooks.
But the less said about the judiciary the better. A writ petition in the Supreme Court last week accused our sister magazine <a href="https://www.himalkhabar.com/" target="_blank">HimalKhabar</a> of contempt of court for two stories: one about how high courts have been overturning a majority of verdicts of district courts in cases of rape, and another about the Biratnagar High Court clearing a self-proclaimed holy man, Krishna Bahadur Giri, of rape despite police presenting physical evidence.
The doctrine of the separation of powers stipulates that it is when the other three pillars in a democracy are compromised that the role of the free press becomes even more vital. The world over, as soon as populist autocrats are elected to the executive, their first order of business is to co-opt the legislature and the judiciary. Then they buy off, intimidate, or neutralise the media with Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP).
Nepal’s officialdom seems to be taking midnight Zoom lessons from other despots on how to gag the media. Last month, popular talk show host Dil Bhushan Pathak was served an arrest warrant by the Kathmandu District Court for <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CntsnTrtG8" target="_blank">a YouTube explainer</a> about the alleged involvement of the son of Foreign Minister Arzu Deuba Rana in a reported purchase of Kathmandu’s Hilton Hotel.
The Lalitpur District Court ruled that Pathak could not be arrested without fair trial, but this week the Kathmandu District Court filed another case against the journalist based on a complaint by the Cyber Bureau, and put him on a fugitive list.&nbsp;
Without going into the veracity of Pathak’s explainer, it is deeply problematic that the Electronic Transaction Act has been invoked – proof that politicians are getting the courts and investigating agencies to make an example of a high profile journalist.&nbsp;
The intention is to silence media investigations into the fake refugee scandal in which the main partner in the ruling coalition is implicated, and in which one of its former home ministers was jailed last year.
The Kathmandu High Court has been mysteriously active in targeting journalists these days. <a href="https://bizmandu.com/" target="_blank">Bizmandu</a> and <a href="https://nepalkhabar.com/" target="_blank">Nepalkhabar</a> were served a notice last month <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/news/no-freedom-after-expression-y4inku06" target="_blank">to withdraw a story they did</a> on the Chair of the <a href="https://www.sebon.gov.np/" target="_blank">Security and Exchange Board of Nepal (SEBON</a>) Santosh Narayan Shrestha allegedly demanding kickbacks from hydropower investors.&nbsp;
Incredibly, the court even asked the two portals not to report on the subject anymore – a ruling so absurd that the Patan High Court overturned it a week later.&nbsp;
The allegations against Shrestha were made in a public meeting of the <a href="https://www.ippan.org.np/members/3060/bungal-hydro-ltd" target="_blank">Independent Power Producers Association of Nepal (IPPAN)</a>, and MPs demanded a <a href="https://myrepublica.nagariknetwork.com/news/parliament-demands-probe-into-sebon-chairman-over-alleged-commission-demand-40-32.html" target="_blank">Parliament inquiry</a> into the regulator. <a href="https://www.himalkhabar.com/144523/santosh-narayan-shrestha" target="_blank">HimalKhabar</a> reported this week that while Shrestha was reportedly demanding commissions from private investors for IPOs, he cleared primary share sales in Bajhang’s 10.75MW <a href="https://www.ippan.org.np/members/3060/bungal-hydro-ltd" target="_blank">Bungal Hydro</a> in which his family members have investments, company records show.
And then just on Monday, bureaucrats hoodwinked MPs by deleting references in a bill requiring a two-year ‘cooling off’ period under which retiring civil servants could be barred from holding constitutional positions for two years.
The contest for who is more corrupt: bureauacrats, politicians, or the private sector is on.
Kunda Dixit

SLAPPing Democracy

The monsoon this year arrived on time, and brought life-giving rain — irrigating paddy terraces, recharging groundwater, reviving springs, and increasing electricity generation.
But Nepal has to deal with either too much water or too little. On a clear April day before the monsoon, the hills of Sindhuli district were parched, and there were wildfires burning out of control. There had been no rain for the past six months.
And that has been the perennial crisis for Nepal’s farmers: that 85% of the rainfall occurs during just four months of the monsoon with little rain for the other eight months.&nbsp;
The water crisis is related to the powerful changes sweeping the mid-hill region of Nepal. With better roads, higher incomes and more exposure, many residents now aspire to have the kind of water supply seen in urban homes. They want hot or cold water at the turn of a tap, showers and flush tank toilets.&nbsp;
To meet this rising demand, many local and provincial governments are investing in large water supply projects often by lifting water from rivers hundreds of metres down the mountain. But these new systems may not be sustainable in the long run.
Many villages in Sindhuli are switching from local springs to piped systems, and even in rural homes, overhead tanks are becoming common.
But this new convenience comes with big challenges. Lifting water from rivers far below requires long pipes, electric pumps, and constant maintenance. These systems are costly, and the streams themselves often shrink to a trickle in the dry months. Big water-lifting schemes look impressive, but there is doubt if they can meet growing water demand.
A much more sustainable solution would be what some communities are doing: restoring old ponds or build new recharge systems. But those villages are exceptions, in most places traditional ponds and wallows are being filled up to be turned into sports fields, or make way for buildings.
Where there are new ponds, they are sometimes in the wrong places or without proper design. Roads and drains are not engineered properly and have increased landslides and erosion. Water management in hilly areas is not just about building things, it is about building in the right way, in the right place.
Traditional water systems were based on nature. They were not perfect, but they used the land wisely. Ponds used to hold rainwater and slowly refill springs which supported families, farms, and forests.&nbsp;
Not everything worked well in the past, but we can learn from traditional water management practices. Across Nepal, some rural municipalities have launched campaigns to store monsoon runoff — either in tanks, ponds or by recharging the aquifers.
But not all efforts have been successful. Some ponds are built without any hydrological study. Some are rushed to meet deadlines rather than real needs.&nbsp;
Now, the Muhan initiative hopes to revive springs to make households more resilient and help farmings. With the financial support of the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, research is being done to understand how springs work and how they are affected by changes in rainfall, land use, and development.&nbsp;
Instead of just building pipes and tanks, the project maps the entire springshed so we can understand the root cause of water shortage. In Sindhuli, the problem is not the amount of rain, but the loss of natural systems that store it and the social systems that manage water.&nbsp;
Nepal’s towns and villages now face a major challenge: how to manage water all year round as demand rises with people’s living standards. Depending only on river-lift systems is not a sustainable solution.&nbsp;
We need a mix of approaches that help store water from the rainy season to make it available for the rest of the year, whether by directly harvesting rainwater, restoring ponds, managing springsheds, or smart management of demand.
Rural Nepal is also seeing dramatic depopulation. Much of the outmigration can be stemmed if there is easier water supply for agriculture and household use. Across the mid hills, villages are emptying because springs are going dry. Government policy needs to catch up with the reality on the ground, and support solutions that work for people and nature. Every water supply plan should include recharge structures. Every road or building project should consider water flow and erosion. Local governments need more than budgets: they need training, tools, and data.
Ngamindra Dahal is with the Nepal Water Conservation Foundation, Kathmandu. Hemant Ojha collaborated in this piece and is associated with the Australian National University.

Water for Life

<a href="https://nepalitimes.com/multimedia/the-last-of-the-kusunda">The Kusunda</a> are among the last remaining hunter-gatherer communities left in Nepal, and it has only one fluent speaker left of a language that is not related to any other language group in South Asia.&nbsp; The Kusunda call themselves the King of the Forests ((गेम्येहाक़ in Kusunda,वन राजा in Nepali) and used to have a nomadic lifestyle till recently. But decades of exclusion from mainstream society and modernity have forced the Kusunda to assimilate. &nbsp; Today, most Kusunda live across Nepal’s mid-hills and western plains, choosing to identify themselves as Thakuri and adopting names like Sen, Shahi, and Khan to avoid ostracisation. Over time, inter-ethnic marriages between the Kusunda and other communities became increasingly common.&nbsp; However, the assimilation with other communities also meant that almost no one from the Kusunda community can speak their mother tongue – considered by linguists to be a ‘language isolate’ not related to any other language group in the world, and lacking set rules of grammar that are foundational to other languages. There are no words for ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ in Kusunda, nor are there words to signify direction. There are 23 languages with less than 1,000 speakers listed in Nepal's 2021 census, with Kusunda being the language with the least number of speakers. The number of people who identified as Kusunda has decreased with each subsequent census. Only 253 individuals identified themselves as Kusunda in the last National Census of 2021, down from 273 in 2011.&nbsp; <div class="embed-block"><iframe src="https://creators.spotify.com/pod/show/raithane-bhakha/embed/episodes/Kusundas---the-last-of-the-forest-kings-e23ge6p/a-a9peei1" height="102px" width="400px" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe></div> The government’s decision to provide a social security stipend to the community for the past few years has prompted many from the Kusunda community to reclaim their identity and in the process, explore their culture and language. Kamala Sen Kusunda, who lives in Dang, is the only fluent native Kusunda speaker alive, although there are now other Kusunda and non-Kusunda people learning how to speak the language. By the time Kamala Sen Kusunda was born in 1975, her family had settled in a village in Rolpa. Although she did not experience the nomadic life of her forebears, she still roamed the forests freely as a child and many of the values and socio-cultural practices of her community were instilled in her and her siblings.&nbsp; This meant that Kamala grew up speaking Kusunda with her family. But by then, the Kusunda had increasingly begun to interact with people beyond their community, and inter-ethnic marriages had become a norm.&nbsp; Kamala herself married at 18 to a 52-year-old man from the Chhetri community. She would go on to have four children, but they were brought up with her husband’s culture and community rather than her own, and teaching them her mother tongue seemed impractical.  <figure> <img src="https://publisher-publish.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/pb-nepalitimes/swp/asv65r/media/20250628030648_afaa298bf8ea3b7086e2ed086b11eab463ef2b20a82a4aad74df3dd2e922a4c3.jpg" data-media-id="editor_2" data-image-id="20250628030648_afaa298bf8ea3b7086e2ed086b11eab463ef2b20a82a4aad74df3dd2e922a4c3" data-rendition-name="original" width="855" height="641" loading="lazy" alt="Kusunda NT"> <figcaption>Gyani Maiya Kusunda with Kusunda youth in 2015.</figcaption> </figure>  “If I had spoken my language to them when they were children, they would have learned,” she tells us ruefully. “But they were growing up in a different community, so I never pushed, and they never expressed interest.” At the time, she had other things to worry about, such as earning a livelihood and sustaining her family. To find work, Kamala and her family moved to Shimla in India, where she worked at an apple orchard for six years.&nbsp; Over the next years, Kamala and her family moved back and forth between India and Nepal for work, and Kamala was not actively conversing in the language of her people or being able to connect with members of her community now scattered across Nepal.&nbsp; Had she not forgotten her language after all those years? “How could I forget the language of my ancestors?” she replies. “Not speaking it did not mean that it ceased to be a part of me.”&nbsp; Kamala had been working at a brick kiln in Thimi seven years ago when the National Language Commission tracked her down, offered her a paid position as a Kusunda language consultant and source person for basic language training in Dang.&nbsp; It was there that Kamala met her cousin Gyani Maiya Sen Kusunda, the only other person able to speak Kusunda fluently, who had been working with the Commission to conserve Kusunda language and culture. It was also where Kamala met language researcher and lexicographer Uday Raj Ale. Ale had been in the middle of his research into the Tharu language and community 15 years ago when he met Gyani Maiya Kusunda’s son, who told him that his mother was one of the few people who spoke Kusunda, but that no one had shown an interest in studying and preserving the language and culture. Ale met Gyani Maiya, spending time with her learning and researching Kusunda. By 2017, Ale had collected enough words to put together a Kusunda dictionary. The Kusunda vocabulary currently comprises 2,000 words. His research into the Kusunda language and culture has taken him to every known Kusunda household in Nepal. Although the census puts the number of Kusunda at 253, Ale reckons there are only 158.&nbsp; “Kusunda language is endangered due to its lack of use in everyday life, literature, and religious and socio-cultural practices, as well as the prevalence of inter-ethnic marriages,” explains Ale. In 2019 the Language Commission began its language transfer programs for youth from indigenous communities. Since then, the Commission has completed multiple phases of Kusunda language classes in Dang facilitated by Uday Raj Ale. The classes have 20 students, not just from the Kusunda community, but also interested non-native students.&nbsp;  <figure> <img src="https://publisher-publish.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/pb-nepalitimes/swp/asv65r/media/20250626120632_c6c378bc00af450f2b7f0cf17af1c3b2b6f7b7226927c458c3e01ec389869d33.jpg" data-media-id="editor_3" data-image-id="20250626120632_c6c378bc00af450f2b7f0cf17af1c3b2b6f7b7226927c458c3e01ec389869d33" data-rendition-name="original" width="1485" height="1535" loading="lazy" alt="Kusunda NT"> <figcaption>Students learning Kusunda with instructor Uday Raj Ale (second row, left)</figcaption> </figure>  Khamba Rokaya, who worked as a caretaker for young Kusunda children in Dang, became interested in learning the language as she sat in with the children during their lessons, and for the last few years has been among the few non-native Kusunda language learners in Dang. “I am not from the Kusunda community, but now that I have learned the language, I hope to do my part to carry on the work and share my knowledge with as many people as possible,” she says. “One way to ensure that we preserve this language is to extend its speaker base, both within the Kusunda and non-native communities.” Ale and Kamala have continued to work together since Gyani Maya’s passing in 2020, expanding the Kusunda vocabulary and creating appropriate curricula to fit the needs of the students as their knowledge of Kusunda expands.&nbsp; But without any documentation of Kusunda history, the community’s traditions, stories, values and language were at risk of being lost to time. “The loss of an ethnicity, language or culture in a country is akin to losing a vital organ, and a unique perspective of looking at the world,” says Ale. Which is why Archive Nepal in collaboration with the British Council’s Cultural Protection Fund and the UK’s Department of Culture, Media, and Sport in February launched a book of creative writings in the Kusunda language titled पिन्डा (meaning ‘The First’ in Kusunda): A Compilation of Kusunda Literature. The book is a collection of informative essays about the Kusunda language and culture, short stories that explore themes from nomadic life to universal Nepali experiences of poverty and migration, letters to loved ones, as well as conversational pieces by five Kusunda students ranging from ages 16 to 30. The works in the Kusunda language are also translated into Nepali and English.&nbsp; “Language is an important part of ethnic identity, and our indigenous languages cannot evolve or be conserved unless they are spoken or taught,” said Ale during the launch of the book earlier this year. “But most importantly, language exists as long as there exists literature in that language.” Kamala was in Kathmandu for the launch of the book, and smiled proudly as she looked at the young writers who had contributed to the collection. She said: “I’m glad the young people have chosen to learn and preserve Kusunda. Otherwise, our language would have died with me.” &nbsp;

bidya-devi-bhandari

Reinstate, remove, repeat

Oli's gambit

Interpreting Article 76 (5) of Nepal’s Constitution

Interpreting Article 76 (5) of Nepal’s Constitution

Lumbini Museum exhibition in Burma

Nepal’s electric transport future is here

Kangchenjunga: too sacred to climb?

SLAPPing Democracy

Water for Life

Saving the Kusunda language from extinction