<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.

original

674x448

610x380

500x500

400x266

400x240

400x203

301x200

1250x600

1084x550

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.

<figure><img width="960" height="640" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221109111148/636b86329c7e80680e067839jpeg.jpg" alt=""/><figcaption>All photos: AMIT MACHAMASI</figcaption></figure>An alliance of five political parties and factions opposed to Prime Minister K P Oli’s <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/nepal-sets-elections-in-middle-of-pandemic/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">dissolution of the House and call for early elections </a>have approached the Supreme Court with a writ petition to have the move overturned. The five who went to the Supreme Court on Monday included the Nepali Congress (NC), Maoist Centre (MC), the Yadav-Bhattarai faction of the Janata Samajbadi Party (JSP) and dissidents from Oli’s own UML, as well as the 146 signatories.PM Oli's UML immediately evicted 11 rebel members including Madhav Kumar Nepal, Jhalnath Khanal and Bhim Rawal from the party, and asked 12 others for a clarification within 24 hours. The writ petition asks the Court to rule that since Sher Bahadur Deuba of the NC had <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/2-ex-pms-vie-to-be-nepal-pm/">staked his claim</a> to form the new government with a majority in Parliament, he should be appointed prime minister. It also asks that since the House dissolution was un-constitutional, it should be reinstated. All signatories from the five groups were present at the Court to register the petition, led by Deuba, MC Chair Pushpa Kamal Dahal, UML’s Madhav Kumar Nepal and JSP’s Upendra Yadav, and Durga Poudel of the Janmorcha. However, only 23 of the 26 who were originally with the Nepal faction signed. <img width="960" height="640" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221109111148/636b86359c7e80680e06783ajpeg.jpg" alt="">Meanwhile, the main JSP led by Mahanta Thakur and Rajendra Mahato has decided to join K P Oli’s election government after being assured of seven ministerial portfolios. The party took the decision after the Cabinet got President Bhandari’s seal of approval on an ordinance passing a bill that would grant citizenship by descent to children of Nepali parents — a long-standing demand of the Mahdesi community.Although Oli and his party had vehemently opposed the bill last year, saying that it would allow Indians to marry Nepalis and for their children to be citizens, it appears that he has agreed to it now to save his government. The other JSP demand for the release of MP Resham Chaudhary, who has been detained for the massacre of policemen Tikapur in August 2015, has not yet been met.The latest political crisis in Nepal in the middle of a raging Covid-19 second wave started when President Bidya Devi Bhandari gave parties in Parliament 21 hours on Wednesday to stake their claim to form the next government because Prime Minister Oli said he could not get majority support from MPs.  <img width="720" height="480" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221109111148/636b86389c7e80680e06783bjpeg.jpg" alt=""><img width="640" height="427" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221109111148/636b863a9c7e80680e06783cjpeg.jpg" alt=""><img width="960" height="641" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221109111148/636b863c9c7e80680e06783djpeg.jpg" alt=""><img width="750" height="500" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221109111148/636b86409c7e80680e06783ejpeg.jpg" alt=""><img width="720" height="480" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221109111148/636b86429c7e80680e06783fjpeg.jpg" alt="">However, after the NC, MC and the JSP and UML factions collected 149 signatures, Oli rushed to Shital Niwas to put forward support of all members of his UMl and the JSP, even the ones who had sides with the opposition coalition. This was seen by many as a violation of the constitution.President Bhandari on Saturday 2AM dissolved Parliament and called fresh elections in November, because she said neither side had fulfilled the requirement to form a new government.In the past two days, the prime minister and president have come under blistering attack from not just the opposition, but a cross section of civil society and media commentators. The student wing of the NC has been staging small protests in the capital despite the lockdown, burning Prime Minister Oli and President Bhandari in effigy.  <figure><img width="960" height="637" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221109111148/636b86449c7e80680e067840jpeg.jpg" alt=""><figcaption>A student group trying to burn the prime minister and president in effigy were apprehended by police on Sunday. Photo: Amit Machamasi</figcaption></figure>Nepali Times discussed recent political developments with Nepal’s politicians. <img width="113" height="164" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221109111148/636b86479c7e80680e067841jpeg.jpg" alt=""><h2>"There was no choice but to dissolve parliament" Niru Pal, CPN (UML)</h2> PM Oli was not able to get a vote of confidence per article 76 (4) of the constitution, and as such, Parliament was not able to come up with a solution. The opposition had been setting up constant roadblocks against PM Oli, all the while failing to establish a majority to form a government. Consequently, a government could not be formed as per Article 76 (5) of the Constitution either. We got word that MPs from our party had signed in favour of Sher Bahadur Deuba to become prime minister as if this were an independent political system. However, 11 of them have issued a statement alleging misuse of signatures. Therefore the government had no choice but to dissolve Parliament.I find some absurd and unnecessary criticism of PM Oli. Those critics are also well aware that the President is not an executive, and had no grounds to block the recommendation of the caretaker Prime Minister. The President would have made the same decision even if it were Sher Bahadur Deuba in PM Oli’s position. She has decided based on the spirit of the constitution. <h2>"An Oli-led election will self-destruct" Ganesh Shah, Maoist Centre</h2> PM Oli’s loyalists and his opponents have become polarised. The opposition was unable to take unified and effective action against PM Oli’s unconstitutional move, which is the result of his ambition and arrogance. The first parliament dissolution was a blow to our Constitution, but this dissolution might be its death knell.  <img width="172" height="248" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221109111148/636b86489c7e80680e067842jpeg.jpg" alt="">Civil society and the backers of the Constitution and democracy must fight against this political regression with a unified front. The legal process will not be enough — Parliament must be re-established through political initiative. The chances of an election taking place are slim. Moreover, an election under Oli’s leadership will be self-destructive. Any election at this point must be held only after a re-instated Parliament elects a new Prime Minister. <img width="170" height="246" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221109111148/636b86499c7e80680e067843jpeg.jpg" alt=""><h2>"The PM always wanted to dissolve parliament" Rachana Khadka, CPN (UML)</h2> PM Oli always wanted to dissolve parliaments and he did — twice.  Even after the Supreme Court reinstated the lower House in January, all of his recent political moves showed he was going to do it again. The decision to dissolve a Parliament in which he once held a majority is ironic. It goes against the spirit of the Constitution.Moreover, the legitimacy of the President’s office has also come into question. We have a system of checks and balances to ensure that our political institutions hold one another accountable if mistakes are made. As such, the office of the President does not exist to do the prime minister’s bidding.Hundreds of Nepalis are dying due to Covid-19 every day. The primary focus at this time should have been to save lives. Dissolving the parliament at a time like this is like dancing over the pyres of Nepalis. The state elections in India contributed to the spread of the virus over there. We should have learned our lesson from our neighbours. <h2>"Parliament dissolution is constitutional" Ashok Vyanju, President, Municipal Association</h2> This is the result of the inability of a democratically elected institution to facilitate nation-building, inter-political coordination and balance. The dissolution of Parliament and announcement of elections came after it was not possible to form a government constitutionally. The decision is therefore absolutely constitutional. The election will  make it possible to pursue a fresh mandate after our political problems are resolved. <img width="149" height="215" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221109111148/636b864a9c7e80680e067844jpeg.jpg" alt="">Some have wrongly questioned the possibility of an election during a pandemic. India, South Korea, Japan, and other countries successfully conducted elections in the middle of the pandemic. We must be able to combat the virus and resolve our political problems simultaneously. <img width="176" height="250" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221109111148/636b864b9c7e80680e067845jpeg.jpg" alt=""><h2>"Legal and political measures must be followed" Dila Sangroula, Nepali Congress</h2> The incumbent Prime Minister had to take a vote of confidence within 30 days or resign as per article 76 (3) of the constitution. Even then, the NC, MC, and JSP coalition along with the Nepal faction of the UML had collected 149 signatures to form a new government following the president’s directive.However, the signatures to appoint Sher Bahadur Deuba the Prime Minister were considered illegitimate. The subsequent decision to dissolve parliament at midnight was unconstitutional, undemocratic and reactionary. Legal and political countermeasures must be pursued to undo it.The announcement of mid-term elections during a pandemic, when Nepalis are dying due to a scarcity of oxygen and ventilators, is nothing but a political drama staged by Oli in an attempt to hold on to power.  Why are we enabling this instead of trying to save lives? <h2>"A free and fair election must be ensured" Mohan Shrestha, RPP</h2> The two major Communist parties failed to deliver on the promises made when they were elected into government. NC and RPP are not to blame for their failure. As such, it is better to go to the polls than to continue like this. All of our political parties should establish an understanding as we move forward, and a free and fair election must be ensured. <img width="117" height="168" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221109111148/636b864c9c7e80680e067846jpeg.jpg" alt="">We are in favour of the election, and an official statement from the RPP will come soon. However, we have no involvement in the polarised politics on both sides, and will not participate in any anti-Oil protests. West Bengal and the United States conducted elections during the pandemic. We must follow all safety protocols pertaining to the pandemic and do the same.  <img width="318" height="376" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221109111148/636b864d9c7e80680e067847jpeg.jpg" alt=""><h2>"We must form a new party" Asta Laxmi Shakya, CPN (UML)</h2> After the Supreme Court overturned the NCPO, we came back to UML. But (PM Oli) did not give us any importance. He is still ignoring us. We cannot rely on Oli, we have to forge a new path. We have to form a new party, and not prolong this uncertainty.

Political ball now in Nepal’s Supreme Court

<figure><img width="960" height="640" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221110131124/636cee429c7e80680e09ae16jpeg.jpg" alt=""/><figcaption>All photos: AMIT MACHAMASI</figcaption></figure>An alliance of five political parties and factions opposed to Prime Minister K P Oli’s <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/nepal-sets-elections-in-middle-of-pandemic/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">dissolution of the House and call for early elections </a>have approached the Supreme Court with a writ petition to have the move overturned. The five who went to the Supreme Court on Monday included the Nepali Congress (NC), Maoist Centre (MC), the Yadav-Bhattarai faction of the Janata Samajbadi Party (JSP) and dissidents from Oli’s own UML, as well as the 146 signatories.PM Oli's UML immediately evicted 11 rebel members including Madhav Kumar Nepal, Jhalnath Khanal and Bhim Rawal from the party, and asked 12 others for a clarification within 24 hours. The writ petition asks the Court to rule that since Sher Bahadur Deuba of the NC had <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/2-ex-pms-vie-to-be-nepal-pm/">staked his claim</a> to form the new government with a majority in Parliament, he should be appointed prime minister. It also asks that since the House dissolution was un-constitutional, it should be reinstated. All signatories from the five groups were present at the Court to register the petition, led by Deuba, MC Chair Pushpa Kamal Dahal, UML’s Madhav Kumar Nepal and JSP’s Upendra Yadav, and Durga Poudel of the Janmorcha. However, only 23 of the 26 who were originally with the Nepal faction signed. <img width="960" height="640" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221110131124/636cee449c7e80680e09ae17jpeg.jpg" alt="">Meanwhile, the main JSP led by Mahanta Thakur and Rajendra Mahato has decided to join K P Oli’s election government after being assured of seven ministerial portfolios. The party took the decision after the Cabinet got President Bhandari’s seal of approval on an ordinance passing a bill that would grant citizenship by descent to children of Nepali parents — a long-standing demand of the Mahdesi community.Although Oli and his party had vehemently opposed the bill last year, saying that it would allow Indians to marry Nepalis and for their children to be citizens, it appears that he has agreed to it now to save his government. The other JSP demand for the release of MP Resham Chaudhary, who has been detained for the massacre of policemen Tikapur in August 2015, has not yet been met.The latest political crisis in Nepal in the middle of a raging Covid-19 second wave started when President Bidya Devi Bhandari gave parties in Parliament 21 hours on Wednesday to stake their claim to form the next government because Prime Minister Oli said he could not get majority support from MPs.  <img width="720" height="480" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221110131124/636cee469c7e80680e09ae18jpeg.jpg" alt=""><img width="640" height="427" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221110131124/636cee489c7e80680e09ae19jpeg.jpg" alt=""><img width="960" height="641" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221110131124/636cee4a9c7e80680e09ae1ajpeg.jpg" alt=""><img width="750" height="500" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221110131124/636cee4c9c7e80680e09ae1bjpeg.jpg" alt=""><img width="720" height="480" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221110131124/636cee4f9c7e80680e09ae1cjpeg.jpg" alt="">However, after the NC, MC and the JSP and UML factions collected 149 signatures, Oli rushed to Shital Niwas to put forward support of all members of his UMl and the JSP, even the ones who had sides with the opposition coalition. This was seen by many as a violation of the constitution.President Bhandari on Saturday 2AM dissolved Parliament and called fresh elections in November, because she said neither side had fulfilled the requirement to form a new government.In the past two days, the prime minister and president have come under blistering attack from not just the opposition, but a cross section of civil society and media commentators. The student wing of the NC has been staging small protests in the capital despite the lockdown, burning Prime Minister Oli and President Bhandari in effigy.  <figure><img width="960" height="637" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221110131128/636cee519c7e80680e09ae1djpeg.jpg" alt=""><figcaption>A student group trying to burn the prime minister and president in effigy were apprehended by police on Sunday. Photo: Amit Machamasi</figcaption></figure>Nepali Times discussed recent political developments with Nepal’s politicians. <img width="113" height="164" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221110131128/636cee549c7e80680e09ae1ejpeg.jpg" alt=""><h2>"There was no choice but to dissolve parliament" Niru Pal, CPN (UML)</h2> PM Oli was not able to get a vote of confidence per article 76 (4) of the constitution, and as such, Parliament was not able to come up with a solution. The opposition had been setting up constant roadblocks against PM Oli, all the while failing to establish a majority to form a government. Consequently, a government could not be formed as per Article 76 (5) of the Constitution either. We got word that MPs from our party had signed in favour of Sher Bahadur Deuba to become prime minister as if this were an independent political system. However, 11 of them have issued a statement alleging misuse of signatures. Therefore the government had no choice but to dissolve Parliament.I find some absurd and unnecessary criticism of PM Oli. Those critics are also well aware that the President is not an executive, and had no grounds to block the recommendation of the caretaker Prime Minister. The President would have made the same decision even if it were Sher Bahadur Deuba in PM Oli’s position. She has decided based on the spirit of the constitution. <h2>"An Oli-led election will self-destruct" Ganesh Shah, Maoist Centre</h2> PM Oli’s loyalists and his opponents have become polarised. The opposition was unable to take unified and effective action against PM Oli’s unconstitutional move, which is the result of his ambition and arrogance. The first parliament dissolution was a blow to our Constitution, but this dissolution might be its death knell.  <img width="172" height="248" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221110131128/636cee559c7e80680e09ae1fjpeg.jpg" alt="">Civil society and the backers of the Constitution and democracy must fight against this political regression with a unified front. The legal process will not be enough — Parliament must be re-established through political initiative. The chances of an election taking place are slim. Moreover, an election under Oli’s leadership will be self-destructive. Any election at this point must be held only after a re-instated Parliament elects a new Prime Minister. <img width="170" height="246" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221110131128/636cee569c7e80680e09ae20jpeg.jpg" alt=""><h2>"The PM always wanted to dissolve parliament" Rachana Khadka, CPN (UML)</h2> PM Oli always wanted to dissolve parliaments and he did — twice.  Even after the Supreme Court reinstated the lower House in January, all of his recent political moves showed he was going to do it again. The decision to dissolve a Parliament in which he once held a majority is ironic. It goes against the spirit of the Constitution.Moreover, the legitimacy of the President’s office has also come into question. We have a system of checks and balances to ensure that our political institutions hold one another accountable if mistakes are made. As such, the office of the President does not exist to do the prime minister’s bidding.Hundreds of Nepalis are dying due to Covid-19 every day. The primary focus at this time should have been to save lives. Dissolving the parliament at a time like this is like dancing over the pyres of Nepalis. The state elections in India contributed to the spread of the virus over there. We should have learned our lesson from our neighbours. <h2>"Parliament dissolution is constitutional" Ashok Vyanju, President, Municipal Association</h2> This is the result of the inability of a democratically elected institution to facilitate nation-building, inter-political coordination and balance. The dissolution of Parliament and announcement of elections came after it was not possible to form a government constitutionally. The decision is therefore absolutely constitutional. The election will  make it possible to pursue a fresh mandate after our political problems are resolved. <img width="149" height="215" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221110131128/636cee579c7e80680e09ae21jpeg.jpg" alt="">Some have wrongly questioned the possibility of an election during a pandemic. India, South Korea, Japan, and other countries successfully conducted elections in the middle of the pandemic. We must be able to combat the virus and resolve our political problems simultaneously. <img width="176" height="250" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221110131128/636cee589c7e80680e09ae22jpeg.jpg" alt=""><h2>"Legal and political measures must be followed" Dila Sangroula, Nepali Congress</h2> The incumbent Prime Minister had to take a vote of confidence within 30 days or resign as per article 76 (3) of the constitution. Even then, the NC, MC, and JSP coalition along with the Nepal faction of the UML had collected 149 signatures to form a new government following the president’s directive.However, the signatures to appoint Sher Bahadur Deuba the Prime Minister were considered illegitimate. The subsequent decision to dissolve parliament at midnight was unconstitutional, undemocratic and reactionary. Legal and political countermeasures must be pursued to undo it.The announcement of mid-term elections during a pandemic, when Nepalis are dying due to a scarcity of oxygen and ventilators, is nothing but a political drama staged by Oli in an attempt to hold on to power.  Why are we enabling this instead of trying to save lives? <h2>"A free and fair election must be ensured" Mohan Shrestha, RPP</h2> The two major Communist parties failed to deliver on the promises made when they were elected into government. NC and RPP are not to blame for their failure. As such, it is better to go to the polls than to continue like this. All of our political parties should establish an understanding as we move forward, and a free and fair election must be ensured. <img width="117" height="168" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221110131128/636cee599c7e80680e09ae23jpeg.jpg" alt="">We are in favour of the election, and an official statement from the RPP will come soon. However, we have no involvement in the polarised politics on both sides, and will not participate in any anti-Oil protests. West Bengal and the United States conducted elections during the pandemic. We must follow all safety protocols pertaining to the pandemic and do the same.  <img width="318" height="376" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221110131128/636cee5a9c7e80680e09ae24jpeg.jpg" alt=""><h2>"We must form a new party" Asta Laxmi Shakya, CPN (UML)</h2> After the Supreme Court overturned the NCPO, we came back to UML. But (PM Oli) did not give us any importance. He is still ignoring us. We cannot rely on Oli, we have to forge a new path. We have to form a new party, and not prolong this uncertainty.

<figure><img width="960" height="640" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/2022111011114/636ccd739c7e80680e08bc7ejpeg.jpg" alt=""/><figcaption>Photo: AMIT MACHAMASI</figcaption></figure>Nepal’s Supreme Court on 23 February <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/nepal-supreme-court-restores-house/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">reinstated the House of Representatives</a> and <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/here-now/supreme-court-puts-nepal-politics-back-on-track/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">ordered Parliament to convene</a> within 13 days. The President, on the recommendation of Prime Minister KP Oli, will now decide when and how within the next 10 days Parliament will come into session. In the UK, any government that <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/president-endorses-parliament-dissolution/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">dissolves the House of Representatives </a>becomes a caretaker government, and as such, the prime minister in such a circumstance is deemed  to have resigned. However, the right to dissolve the House of Representatives is no longer constitutional either in the UK or in Nepal. The steps that President Bhandari takes in the upcoming days will depend on whether she considers PM Oli a caretaker prime minister or the preceding prime minister. If it is the former, the president, as per the provisions of Article 76 of the Constitution, must immediately begin the process of forming a new government by appointing a new Prime Minister in consultation with the leaders of all parliamentary parties in the House. During this process, the caretaker Prime Minister, like the leaders of other parliamentary parties, is entitled to form a new government as the leader of their party.If, however, the president considers KP Oli a preceding prime minister, she may direct him to take a vote of confidence in the House of Representatives under Article 100 of the Constitution, which provides that the prime minister may table a motion at any time, if he deems it necessary or appropriate, to make it clear that he has the trust of the House.If the president agrees, the prime minister can continue the government with a vote of confidence in the House. Article 76 will only apply if the prime minister fails to obtain a vote of confidence.If the prime minister chooses not to follow either of those paths, Article 100 (4) of the Constitution allows one-fourth of the members of the House of Representatives who are present in Parliament to table a motion of no-confidence in writing.<a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/calm-before-another-storm-in-nepal/">Calm before another storm in Nepal</a>, Nepali TimesHowever, the process might be politically challenging as the motion must include the name of the next proposed prime minister. If the no-confidence motion is passed by a majority in the House of Representatives, the Prime Minister will be relieved of his post.In this political climate where the ruling NCP is <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/banner/dahal-nepal-hold-anti-oli-rally/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">bitterly divided</a>, the Dahal-Nepal faction is demanding that Oli resign on moral grounds. The Election Commission has also not decided which faction of the NCP is the main party and which is the breakaway faction, while PM Oli maintains that he is the party chairman until the NCP general convention. As such, no party in the House of Representatives is in a position to form a unanimous government, and the next prime minister will have to form a coalition with two or more parties.It remains to be seen how much support Pushpa Kamal Dahal will get from his co-chair Madhav Kumar Nepal or Jhala Nath Khanal in his bid to become prime minister. Even with their support, chances of him forming a coalition government are unlikely if the Nepali Congress (NC), the second-largest majority in the House of Representatives, refuses to participate in the process.If NC President Sher Bahadur Deuba is to take the lead in forming a coalition government, then the Dahal-Nepal faction will need to justify its opposition to Prime Minister Oli on other grounds.The NC itself is in a dilemma over which faction of the NCP it should support. If the NC chooses to support the Oli faction, it could move towards forming a coalition with the current government. And even if it becomes part of a coalition government, the NC might not consider the premiership to be the endgame and choose instead to focus on the election. There are other strategies in which the NC might decide not to join the Oli-led coalition but to support his government from the outside, or choose to form a government led by Sher Bahadur Deuba while seeking support from the Oli faction. The challenge for the NC now is to decide what is constitutionally sound while being in the party’s best interests long-term.At this point, unity within the NCP leadership is unrealistic, and either faction will require a 40% agreement from the Central Committee and the Parliamentary Party should Oli or Dahal choose to register a new party.The only way to avoid a period of political turmoil is the unlikely scenario that ageing leaders in both factions realize that such instability is not in the national interest and hand over the reins to a new generation of young leaders.                   Bipin Adhikari, PhD, is an expert on constitutional law. <img width="82" height="109" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/2022111011114/636ccd769c7e80680e08bc7fjpeg.jpg" alt="">Read also: <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/editorial/house-of-cards/">House of cards</a>, Editorial

Legal path to new Nepal government

The daily 10-hour curfew at Tribhuvan International Airport from 8 November that will last five months has affected tourism during Nepal’s peak season, with some hotels and trekking agencies here reporting cancellations into spring next year. The reduced hours at Nepal’s main aviation gateway till 31 March means that a third of all flights have been cut. This has also caused ticket prices to surge by up to eight times of normal fares. For example a Kathmandu-Delhi ticket that used to cost Rs12,000 is now listed at Rs50,000, and even then seats are not available.&nbsp; “Especially if they are here to trek, change in flight dates can cause tourists to miss their connections,” says Jagan Timilsina, who runs a trail running and outdoor education business. &nbsp; Pokhara is feeling the brunt as hotels report last-minute cancellations for November because of flight disorders. Some hoteliers also say although there have been some cancelled trips, most itineraries have been rescheduled.&nbsp; Hari Prasad Sharma Gaire of the local chapter of the Hotel Association of Nepal says the Kathmandu airport closure should have been timed for the off-season. He told us: “Starting construction during the peak tourist season was a mistake and will cause the tourism industry to lose a lot of business. The upgrade could have been spread out over a longer time but closed for fewer hours at night so that disruption was minimal.”&nbsp; Nearly a third of the 1.2 million tourists who visit Nepal annually come to Pokhara, which is also the gateway to Mustang, the Annapurna treks and pilgrimage tourism to Muktinath. Located by scenic lakes with a range of adventure sports like hot air ballooning, paragliding, canyoning, bungee and ziplines, Pokhara is also popular among diaspora Nepalis. “Besides its own attractions, Pokhara is really the hub for central Nepal, and we have been trying to get visitors to extend their stay here,” says Timilsina, who started out as a trekking porter and rose up the ranks to be an expedition guide and entrepreneur. &nbsp;  <figure> <img src="https://publisher-publish.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/pb-nepalitimes/swp/asv65r/media/2024111603114_0e071ce63ea9b0a9a7ee76f8c3cea0ff08c6767c41dd09f6bc4413d2db067a60.jpg" data-media-id="editor_0" data-image-id="2024111603114_0e071ce63ea9b0a9a7ee76f8c3cea0ff08c6767c41dd09f6bc4413d2db067a60" data-rendition-name="original" width="3500" height="2333" loading="lazy" alt="Pokhara's tourism woes NT"> <figcaption>Tourist arrivals in Pokhara have slumped since the disruptions at Kathmandu airport due to upgrading work. Photo: KRISHNA MANI BARAL/NEPALI TIMES ARCHIVE</figcaption> </figure>  Even without the Kathmandu airport closure affecting tourist arrivals, Pokhara was already suffering from a decline due to many factors like the poor state of the Prithvi Highway, the shortage of luxury accommodation for high-end tourists, and the reluctance of international airlines to start direct flights to Pokhara despite an expensive new airport that was inaugurated two years ago.&nbsp; “There was a lot of initial excitement on the construction of the international airport,” says Timilsina, “but it hasn’t delivered as expected due to politics. People have invested in nearby businesses, and have faced losses.” India has blocked direct flights from its cities to Pokhara because the facility was built by a Chinese company. Although tourists and pilgrims from India hit record levels this year, the poor state of the highways and the Indian bus accident on the highway to Kathmandu in July that killed 27 pilgrims from Maharashtra state dampened arrival figures. Gaire says, “While tourist arrivals to Pokhara are now approaching pre-Covid levels, we haven’t seen the improvement we were expecting. We need a better marketing strategy. What are our embassies abroad doing?”&nbsp; Indeed, Pokhara used to be a favourite destination for Chinese tourists. There was a boom in arrivals from China before Covid, especially after a popular Chinese tv serial was shot on location here. But arrivals from China have not really recovered since the pandemic because of the economic slowdown there. Promoting Pokhara airport to handle direct flights from Chengdu or Kunming could revive Chinese arrivals.&nbsp; Nepal’s Civil Aviation Authority (CAAN) has used the Kathmandu airport closure as an excuse to arm-twist international airlines to start flying to Bhairawa, which has barely been in operation for two years since it was inaugurated. So far, Fly Dubai, Thai AirAsia, Jazeera and Qatar are flying to Bhairawa, but most use it as a hop before flying on to Kathmandu, which does not reduce congestion at Kathmandu.&nbsp; An ideal situation could have been to get Pokhara to run to full capacity while Kathmandu is partially out of action. Pokhara entrepreneurs are puzzled why the CAAN and the national government have not taken more interest in promoting Pokhara as an alternative to reduce the congestion in Kathmandu. Nepal’s football team that was flying to Dushanbe this week couldn’t get tickets via Delhi, and took a domestic flight to Bhadrapur, crossed over to Bagdogra and flew on to Delhi to catch their flight to Tajikistan.

Pokhara’s tourism woes

An excerpt of a conversation between an anthropologist and linguist Mark Turin, PhD and Lava Deo Awasthi, PhD, the first Chairperson of the Language Commission of Nepal. Nepali Times: What is the role of Nepal’s Language Commission and when was it formed? Lava Deo Awasthi: The Constitution of Nepal (2015) created a Language Commission (LC) with the following four core mandates: (a) to develop eligibility criteria for gaining status as an official language and offer recommendations to the Government of Nepal about the official language(s) in each province; (b) to offer recommendations to the Government about measures to be taken for the conservation, promotion, and development of languages; (c) to suggest possible ways of using mother tongues in education by assessing their stage of development; and, (d) to conduct studies, carry out research and perform monitoring functions about the response to the constitutional provisions for the federalisation of languages in Nepal. The Commission was founded in 2016 and I was appointed as the Chairperson of the Commission in September of the same year by the Cabinet of Ministers. What in your own professional and educational background helped to prepare you for the role? I have worked with the Government of Nepal for about 30 years, alongside holding teaching appointments at universities in Nepal. Prior to assuming the role of the Chairperson of the Commission, I served as permanent Secretary to the Government of Nepal and worked as the Chief Administrator of the Central Development Region. I was appointed as Director General of the Department of Education and completed my assignments as Joint Secretary at the Planning, Monitoring and Educational Administration Divisions of the Ministry of Education.&nbsp; In addition, I have taught courses as a visiting professor at Tribhuvan University and Kathmandu University for more than three decades. Later, I also started supervising MPhil and PhD students at the Far Western University in Mahendranagar, Kanchanpur. My PhD project from the Danish University of Education was dedicated to making sense of Nepal’s social construct and commitment to multilingualism, exploring the persistence of monolingual school practices in the face of constitutional promises and state commitments to multilingualism. I conducted a survey of Nepal’s languages and carried out a qualitative study of the Tharu language in the district of Bardia. I analysed language policy statements and explored classroom pedagogies in schools. I documented how teachers showed a tendency to resist change and maintain the status quo because they were not consulted when new educational language policies were introduced. Teachers also exhibited a deeply-held adherence to the Gurukul education system which appears to have been harnessed as a way to resist newer pedagogical ideologies imported from the West. Recognising how engrained these rich traditions of knowledge transmission are, I wanted to know how students’ engagement in the learning process appeared to have dwindled, creating a gap between children’s home languages and the language(s) of the school. Whilst statutory provisions for education in the mother tongue were oriented towards promotion, classroom pedagogies remained resolutely monolingual and exclusionary. The result was that multilingual education policies that had been introduced in Nepal did not result in meaningful changes in classroom practices. My research was also a reflection of childhood traumas I had experienced at the earliest stage of formal education. My home language, Baitadeli, has a strong oral tradition and no written literature. English is my fifth language in terms of exposure and competence, and my home district of Baitadi is well-known for its loyalty to the local language. I had to drop out of school after completing my sixth grade. Staying at home, I received much attention from my family and had much greater exposure to my native language, culture and environment. My overall impression is that dropping out of school had a surprisingly positive impact on my life. The opportunity offered a surprising dividend for me as I gained mastery in my mother tongue and received extensive exposure to folk literature and Indigenous knowledge and survival skills, cultivating my interest in language, culture, literature and local cosmologies.&nbsp; Now that I reflect on it, I appreciate how language has always played a key role in my life. I grew up in a multilingual environment: brought up with Baitadeli, Hindi, Sanskrit, Nepali and English. Language played a major part in my decision to leave school and my later success is closely linked to my competence in several languages. It was rewarding to be at home with my family as I deepened my understanding of native language and culture, which in turn helped me to harness and refine my art of living. Languages matter so much to me because they are both software and hardware. Later, when I was in secondary school, I realised that my command of my home language contributed significantly to enhancing my Nepali and English. I used my mother tongue as a form of linguistic capital to strengthen my competence in both English and Nepali.&nbsp;  <figure> <img src="https://publisher-publish.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/pb-nepalitimes/swp/asv65r/media/2024111811110_5400ba54792bf9e4854e1c1effde8bf09804e99647f23513700b450cc49adc4a.jpg" data-media-id="editor_0" data-image-id="2024111811110_5400ba54792bf9e4854e1c1effde8bf09804e99647f23513700b450cc49adc4a" data-rendition-name="original" width="1000" height="1500" loading="lazy" alt="Dr Lava Deo Awasthi"> </figure>  In your term as the Commission’s first Chairperson, what were your strategic goals and objectives? My first strategic goal was to create an environment conducive to implementing the provisions of the Constitution of Nepal in relation to language. My priority was to prepare a detailed action plan for my six-year tenure in consultation with language stakeholders, including language experts, professionals, activists, Indigenous community members and representatives of relevant national and local-level institutions. The Commission formed a body of high-level advisors to ensure that the Chairperson’s work was well-informed and credible. The advisors to the committee had highly visible professional and social reputations in Nepal and had much experience in the field of language conservation, promotion, research and development. Another strategy we adopted was to establish close institutional linkages with federal, provincial, and local level governments for collecting opinions and disseminating information widely.&nbsp; What critical issues did you have to consider while discharging your duty? When Nepal’s new Constitution was drafted, a number of concerns could not be adequately addressed. These related to the conservation of languages, the recognition of official languages at the provincial level, and the use of mother tongues at federal, provincial, and local levels. These unresolved issues and matters pertaining to the federalizsation of Nepal’s languages were passed on to the Language Commission to address and resolve.&nbsp; Regarding the recommendations for official languages, a five-year timeline had been set by the Constitution. With great effort, we succeeded in having all provinces agree to recognise their official languages as per the recommendations of the Commission.&nbsp; What were your greatest achievements during your term? One of the greatest achievements was that we succeeded in setting a language agenda at all levels. Nepal’s language communities and other stakeholders expressed the view that this was the first time their languages were recognised and their voices heard by the state. People participated in debates and discussed issues relating to language that in all likelihood had never before happened in their lifetimes, at least not in ways that were supported by the state. We encouraged people to speak in their own language(s) and provided translators during plenary sessions and group discussions. Another major achievement was developing criteria for the status planning of languages at federal, provincial, and local levels, and to recommend 11 province-level official languages, in addition to the Nepali language. Similarly, a notable achievement was recognising Indigenous languages spoken by smaller communities, all of whom faced ongoing marginalisation and high levels of endangerment. The Commission identified 9 new languages that had not been reported in the 2011 census, and provided a framework for recognising official languages within a municipality. The commission emphasised the need for documentation and digitisation of languages for developing corpora and archives at national and sub-national levels.&nbsp; Languages of historical importance as well as classical languages were given recognition for their protection, growth, and development. Recommendations were made for the conservation, promotion and development of Nepal’s marginalised languages that are threatened by majority languages and for those languages that hold particular power at local and global levels. Recommendations were also made for how best to safeguard Nepal’s languages from the ever-growing spread of English and other powerful, globalising languages.&nbsp; A further important aspect of the Commission’s work was to emphasise mother tongue medium instruction in schools across the nation. Recognising the role of language in children’s cognitive, socio-emotional and academic development, the Commission suggested strategies for linking schools with ward-level language clusters for use in the classroom. The importance of nurturing and respecting a child’s first language was reiterated in the Commission’s recommendations for children’s learning and all-round development. By the end of my term, a remarkable change could be observed in terms of building trust within and across Nepal’s diverse language communities. A network of language groups and stakeholders across the country proved to be a powerful way of bringing all language communities under one roof for a collective review of and response to the process of federalising language policy. The many language stakeholders across Nepal appreciated the opportunity to work within a coordinated framework, and—feeling empowered by this—seemed genuinely enthusiastic about the initiatives taken by the Commission.&nbsp;  <figure> <img src="https://publisher-publish.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/pb-nepalitimes/swp/asv65r/media/2024111811114_b45297fdd2fedf17bdb6313e495a1062c0d87f1a19fa5349f871f220b75f93ab.jpg" data-media-id="editor_1" data-image-id="2024111811114_b45297fdd2fedf17bdb6313e495a1062c0d87f1a19fa5349f871f220b75f93ab" data-rendition-name="original" width="1500" height="1000" loading="lazy" alt="Dr Lava Deo Awasthi NT"> </figure>  What were the most significant challenges for you as Chairperson? One of the major challenges was winning people’s trust in advocating for the mission of the Language Commission. I faced considerable resistance as I sought to emphasise the use of native languages in families and communities. While the Commission advocated for multilingualism and promoted linguistic diversity, the prevailing policy circles and central level institutions had been deeply influenced by a one-language discourse and ideology of Nepali only. The spread of English also poses a huge threat to Nepal’s languages. However, people in power do not seem to see this as a problem. They tend to abandon their own languages in preference for English. The way that Nepal’s municipalities are increasingly introducing English as a medium of instruction at the earliest stage of a child’s school-based education has proven to be detrimental to their cognitive development, socio-emotional wellbeing and academic success. Most of Nepal’s elites have been heavily influenced by the spread of English and remain unaware about its impact on their home languages as well as on the inter-generational transmission of Indigenous languages in the country. I wish that we could have produced more compelling evidence to show the consequences of making poor policy choices for our children’s education. Demystification calls for a collective response. To make change happen across this entire, complex and federalising country was daunting work and left like a race against time. I feel that I could have done more to offer concrete examples in favour of using the mother tongue as a medium of children’s education at the earliest stages of a child’s education. What do you see the Language Commission achieving in the next 5-10 years? The Language Commission will have to ensure that all of its key recommendations are implemented at all levels of government. In 10 years’ time, all seven of Nepal’s provinces will have their official languages in place. These languages will also be recognised as languages of federal business, alongside Nepali. I anticipate that all official languages in the federal and provincial systems will have a national portal for inter-language corpora using machine translation to fulfil their federal, provincial and local level language functions, and that all languages spoken in Nepal will be represented through a digital database in the national archive. The Office of Statistics will monitor the status of Nepal’s languages over time. By the end of the next decade, each municipality in the country will have recognised one or two official languages at the local level, based on speech populations. Other local languages will have received community-level legal recognition and official status to fulfil their functional roles. Languages that are highly endangered or at risk will be entitled to receive state grants for enhancing local level capabilities to encourage families and young learners to speak the language. Incentive schemes will be introduced in municipalities that promote language within the family and at home. Inter-generational transmission of languages will have received welcome and timely attention across Nepal. It is my hope that all schools—public and private—will have introduced mother tongue medium instruction at the earliest stage of school education, at least up to class five. Nepali, English and other national as well as classical and foreign languages will be taught as subjects. The existing policy of English medium education at the early stage of education will be abolished. The Government of Nepal will be held accountable if the number of speakers of any language decreases or if local communities face language loss and greater endangerment. Under the aegis of the Language Commission, a Centre for Language Research and Innovation will be created with world-class facilities for language documentation and archiving in collaboration with Tribhuvan University’s Central Department of Linguistics and other relevant institutions. Harnessing the vastness of Nepal’s linguistic diversity, the Language Commission will morph into a centre of excellence for national and international communities to engage in collaborative language research, to share experiences and document best practices at in service of global linguistic diversity and Nepal’s many Indigenous languages.

Languages are both software and hardware

Earlier this month, Nepal received Rs1.6 billion from the World Bank as part of its <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/news/will-nepal-ever-be-paid-for-saving-trees">Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF)</a>, rewarding the country for increasing its carbon sink capacity. Nepal is the first in South Asia to benefit from this facility, and it is specifically to recompense the country for increasing forest cover in 13 Tarai districts between 2018-2024. “We are also trying to get another Rs13 billion from the facility while also preparing for free market-based carbon trading in the international market,” says Nabaraj Pudasaini of the REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries) Implementation Centre. Big emitters of greenhouse gases are under pressure to reduce their carbon emissions, and many have signed agreements to do so by investing in decarbonisation projects in developing countries. Countries that emit more than a specified amount of carbon would be able to buy emission rights from countries that emit less. Nepal is internationally known for its community forestry program which has been largely credited for <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/banner/tree-mendous">increasing tree cover to over 45%</a> in less than three decades. But this achievement had not been adequately recognised or rewarded internationally before. Forests, especially in the tropics, absorb and store large amounts of carbon while releasing oxygen in a process known as photosynthesis. <a href="https://www.fao.org/forest-resources-assessment/en/">Preventing deforestation</a> and increasing canopy cover is considered a much more achievable goal than reducing emission in the scale necessary to limit global average temperature to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. COP11 in Montreal in 2005 first proposed reducing carbon emissions by improving forest quality by halting degradation. By 2015, a new mechanism of financial assistance was created to help less developed countries with sustainable management of forests <a href="https://www.un-redd.org/">(called REDD+)</a>. Under this new mechanism, countries receive aid based on their efforts to prevent forest degradation and increase carbon sink, and in 2021 the World Bank was entrusted with implementing it. Nepal’s FCPF receipt this month was calculated on the basis of 2.4 million tons of carbon stored at a rate of $5 per ton. In the second phase, Nepal will receive more than Rs4 billion within the next year for storing an additional 7 million tons of carbon. Eighty per cent of this amount obtained from carbon trading needs to be spent on local beneficiaries and indigenous communities.&nbsp; But carbon trading is not easy, Nepal needs to prove that protected forests will not be destroyed in future.  <figure> <img src="https://publisher-publish.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/pb-nepalitimes/swp/asv65r/media/20241121091132_c8a381c9a95aa86fec558951650d97bb87914741f01766982ba2b086af001f16.jpg" data-media-id="editor_4" data-image-id="20241121091132_c8a381c9a95aa86fec558951650d97bb87914741f01766982ba2b086af001f16" data-rendition-name="original" width="1500" height="999" loading="lazy" alt="Greenbacks for greenery NT "> <figcaption>Photo: KUNDA DIXIT</figcaption> </figure>  Explains carbon trading expert Yugan Manandhar. “Forests should be handed over to the community and shown that they are managed sustainably. Proving this will be particularly challenging; forest encroachment and degradation is rife in the Tarai.” <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/multimedia/nepal-is-going-up-in-smoke">Deliberate forest fires</a> have also added to the challenge because they increase carbon emissions and reduce the sink capacity of forests. The basis for the amount that Nepal received was set five years ago by calculating the carbon reserves of forests in the 13 Tarai districts. In the meantime, sustainable forest management, tree plantation, forest destruction and erosion control were prioritised to increase carbon reserves in those forests. Nepal is signing another carbon trading agreement during the ongoing Baku climate conference. The <a href="https://www.leafcoalition.org/">Lowering Emissions by Accelerating Forest finance (LEAF Coalition) </a>proposes to sell the carbon stored in the forests of Bagmati, Gandaki and Lumbini provinces. For this, Nepal signed the letter of intent three years ago at COP26 in Glasgow. The target is to store 70 million tons of carbon in 32 million hectares of forest in the three provinces per which Nepal will receive Rs13 billion in four years at $10 per ton with provisions to increase the rate if various conditions are met. However, the agreement in itself doesn’t guarantee the amount. According to the targets set by Nepal, forest degradation should be stopped and carbon reserves increased by protecting tree cover. Preparations are also underway for clean air carbon trade because it has offset fossil fuel use by introducing 30,000 electric vehicles. Nepal has been selected for the first round to receive $40 million within one and a half years through the Clean Air System of the World Bank. Given that most of Nepal’s energy mix is from biomass, replacing them with electric stoves can significantly improve health by reducing indoor pollution as well as strengthen the country’s capacity for carbon trade. “Nepal's goal now is to sell carbon in the free market where carbon credits are bought and sold based on supply and demand in an open and transparent manner,” adds Pudasaini of the REDD Implementation Centre. “Nepal can now set its own price and bargain with interested buyer countries and organisations.” Lately, India has been discussing setting up a carbon market. Nepal has exported Rs12.72 billion worth of electricity to India so far this fiscal year, which can be traded under Nepal’s carbon market. “Carbon trading can create significant economic benefits for Nepal, which will help reinvest in development and environmental protection projects,” says Manandhar. “But we must prioritise sustainable management of forests, cutting older trees and allowing regrowth as well as promoting electric stoves and electric vehicles.”

Greenbacks for greenery

Nearly 750,000 Nepalis went abroad for employment in the past year, and more than 100,000 left on student visas. Most of them were young Nepali men and women, and the number has been increasing every year. As with other sections of society, Nepal’s security agencies also face a recruitment crisis. Nepal Police opened recruitment for 64 inspectors in September, and received 2,239 applications, compared to 2,718 candidates last year. Police also invited candidates for 256 assistant sub-inspectors this year for which it received 17,756 applications – down from 19,932 last year. It is the same story in the Nepal Army, the number of applicants for the post of Officer Cadet (Second Lieutenant) went down from 6,144 for 400 open seats in 2019 to 4,390 in 2020. Meanwhile, applicants in the paramilitary Armed Police Force went down from 857 applications for 75 posts in 2021 to 536 applicants for 99 posts last year. While the number of applicants appears higher than the demand, the data shows a significant decrease in applications for vacancies in Nepal’s law enforcement agencies. Security personnel are recruited on the basis of rank and age in Nepal, and the age cutoff for entry into Nepal’s security agencies is typically 25 years. Sociologist and migration expert Ganesh Gurung says that the demographic of young, physically fit Nepalis emigrating abroad in search of better opportunities has impacted recruitment into law enforcement and the military here at home. “The returns from working in Nepal’s police and army are minimal, whereas overseas job opportunities are more attractive,” Gurung says. “The work may be physically demanding abroad, but the pay is a lot higher.”  <figure><img src="https://publisher-publish.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/pb-nepalitimes/swp/asv65r/media/20241116041148_a7e477e0ee2f56acf16c2559fdb24d8f0377f7bc1f9e56138bc40108fc4fa33f.jpg" data-media-id="editor_0" data-image-id="20241116041148_a7e477e0ee2f56acf16c2559fdb24d8f0377f7bc1f9e56138bc40108fc4fa33f" data-rendition-name="original" width="800" height="534" loading="lazy" alt="Nepal Police"><figcaption>Nepal Police</figcaption></figure>  Nepal Police spokesperson DIG Dan Bahadur Karki agrees that the physical and mental demands of a law enforcement job is incomparable to the income that security personnel earn. “A young Nepali who works in Dubai earns enough to build a home in the village within four years, while a Nepali with the same qualifications and physical ability in a security agency here barely makes enough to survive,” says Karki. “Obviously the youth prefer foreign employment.” Security agencies are now worried about the quality of inducted manpower. “There is a difference in work ethic between an applicant chosen from a competitive pool of 50 candidates versus one chosen from a pool of three candidates,” explains Gurung. “Unmotivated employees hamper the overall performance of the state apparatus.” Nepal Army spokesperson Brigadier General Gaurab Kumar KC says recruitment has not been hampered by outmigration: “We have still been getting more than three times the applicants than there are open posts, so we are not yet worried.” Even so, the passing rates of aspirants have gone down for security forces after the Public Service Commission began examinations for military recruitment in 2015. In fact, the Nepal Army complained about the Commission’s involvement in recruitment. Still, the number of vacant military posts tends to exceed the number of passing candidates. Nepal Army’s KC says that the military will not compromise on intake criteria even if there are fewer passing applicants. “Unqualified persons will not be admitted even if there are less-than-required passing candidates. We will re-advertise if that is the case.” But Nepal’s security forces now also have to worry about retention of existing personnel. About 900 Nepal Army, 600 Nepal Police, and 300 Armed police personnel resign every year before the completion of their tenure.  <figure><img src="https://publisher-publish.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/pb-nepalitimes/swp/asv65r/media/20241116041148_b8cd62f70eea3aac7d3d3778615a5b70b1e20550c9bd76321f051f9c766fd2a9.jpg" data-media-id="editor_1" data-image-id="20241116041148_b8cd62f70eea3aac7d3d3778615a5b70b1e20550c9bd76321f051f9c766fd2a9" data-rendition-name="original" width="750" height="378" loading="lazy" alt="Armed police forces"><figcaption>Armed Police Force</figcaption></figure>  In 2020, Home Minister Ram Bahadur Thapa recalled almost 1,000 police personnel who had been deployed for the security of VIPs after long-standing criticism that security forces were being misused to cater to political and bureaucratic leadership. However, security personnel have continued to be assigned to high-ranking officials as glorified housekeepers. In December 2022, Rabi Lamichhane’s Home Ministry had instructed its offices to recall unauthorised security personnel assigned to high-ranking officials, following which 500 officers from Nepal Police and Armed Police Force were withdrawn from their details. But the Nepal Army does not have to follow such rules, and the practice of army personnel serving high-ranking active-duty and retired military personnel remains. Conditions here are dire enough that many active duty officers in Nepal’s military and police forces have chosen to leave their jobs to serve in the Russian Army to fight in the Ukraine war. The hierarchical culture and chain of command of politics, bureaucracy, law enforcement and military has also meant that abuse and mistreatment of subordinates is rife in Nepal’s security forces. “Feudalism is alive and well within our security institutions,” says Gurung. “When soldiers and security forces who swore to protect and serve the nation are made to be at the beck and call of politicians and bureaucrats, it is easy to understand why they are disillusioned with their jobs and why they choose to quit and find jobs abroad.”

parliament-dissolution

Interpreting Article 76 (5) of Nepal’s Constitution

Interpreting Article 76 (5) of Nepal’s Constitution

Political ball now in Nepal’s Supreme Court

Political ball now in Nepal’s Supreme Court

Legal path to new Nepal government

Pokhara’s tourism woes

Languages are both software and hardware

Greenbacks for greenery

Job insecurity in security forces