The 9^th edition of the event, a joint collaboration between the Observer Research Foundation, one of the most prominent foreign policy think tanks in India and the Ministry of External Affairs was held a few weeks ago, from 21-23 February.

Raisina grew in terms of importance and relevance year after year, following the ascent of India among the members of the international community.

The stronger the Indian economy and the more visible its foreign policy became, the more the Raisina Dialogue became prominent.

This is not only a byproduct of Prime Minister Modi’s dynamism on the global stage or because of the effective work of India’s maverick Foreign Affairs Minister, Dr. S. Jaishankar.

It is simply because India does count internationally and it is not only, despite its internal challenges with unemployment and poverty, a major economy but also a major geopolitical power.

As result, the Raisina Dialogue has become one of the most important global forums in the Asia Pacific, still far from matching the significance of the mostly defense focused Shangri-La Dialogue organized by the International Institute for Strategic Studies but certainly getting closer to its Chinese equivalent, the Boao Forum for Asia that will be convened at the end of this month.

Yet I am wondering if its growth and increasing importance would overshadow the potential of organizing other events of the same nature in South Asia.

In short, does the almost irresistible rise of the Raisina Dialogue imply that there is no space for other geopolitics focused forums in the region?

Could, for example, Nepal also be ambitious enough to hold a high-level foreign policy summit or would the inherent weaknesses of the country, especially its political instability, its unambitious foreign policy, preclude such possibility?

Just before the pandemic hit the planet, the Government of Nepal was working to host the first ever Sagarmatha Sambad or Dialogue.

It was supposed to be held in April 2020 and it was ambitious and visionary enough, a real novelty for the country’s foreign policy.

Unfortunately, for some strange and unknown reasons, no one picked up this idea again and this is unfortunate.

In a recent interview for the Annapurna Express, former top diplomat Madhu Raman Acharya revamped the idea of holding the Sagarmatha Sambad.

Apart from this bold and failed attempt, so far the only person that has been visionary enough to try to organize something similar has been the well-known management consultant and author, Sujeev Shakya, the founder of the Nepal Economic Forum.

In the past the Nepal Economic Forum went pretty close to organize something very bold and visionary, the Himalayan Consensus Summit and more recently, it launched the Himalayan Future Forum

The HFF’s mission is “to encourage multi-faceted dialogues on the Himalayas by bringing together stakeholders from different countries and sectors within the region” and it is what is needed at the moment.

Few weeks ago, in February, its first conclave was held in Kathmandu with a small but interesting line-up of international speakers, including the academician Mahendra P. Lama and Shivshankar Menon, author and former diplomat, both prominent figures from India.

Yet, while we should give high credit to and offer some kudos to Sujeev Shakya and his team, I believe that Nepal should aspire more.

It is true, the traditional political shenanigans and gimmicks, by now a traditional feature of Nepal’s image in the region, are not conducive to any major, inspiring thinking.

But at the same time, civil society organizations could work together to come up with a big international foreign policy and international economy summit where private business houses could chip in.

My previous column for Nepal Live Today focused on a different, wider idea for the upcoming Investment Summit.

But I do get that this initiative is really about pitching potential global investors.

My suggestion in the piece was to broaden its focus a little bit to better link the quest for more investments with the big battle of fighting poverty that as we recently saw with the latest release of Nepal Living Standards Survey is still quite worrying.

Basically, keep the frame of equity, inclusion and empowerment, all cornerstones of the Agenda 2030 in the picture while looking for investments.

Probably business as usual will prevail with a narrow-minded focus on big investments, especially the “gold mine” of hydropower development, as highly profitable as destructive of local communities.

But here are some ideas on how to lead the organization of a Nepali’s answer to Raisina Dialogue.

The best option would see the Ministry of Foreign Affairs collaborate with national think tanks, including the Nepal Economic Forum, considering its credibility and past experiences to lead a big conclave.

A network of key stakeholders led, for example by the state affiliated Institute of Foreign Affairs and Policy Research Institute, also an autonomous but government entity, could take the lead and coordinate.

The first objective would be to sketch out a master plan of a possible big event. What would be the focus, what would be the sub-themes to be promoted and discussed?

Considering the essence of interdisciplinary approaches, a cornerstone of modern and effective policy making, the focus on foreign policy should not outshine other key aspects that are now essential pillars of regional integration and geopolitics.

A key area to be analyzed could be revamping the SAARC, one of the most frustrating aspects of regional dynamics in South Asia.

The recently held SAARC Programming Committee could offer a tiny hope that the process of regional integration could move ahead, even if at abysmal slow speed.

National and regional think tanks could provide impetus with ideas and suggestions, finding novel ways to unstick the whole SAARC, especially with a more pragmatic approach that does not depend on the whims of the national heads of government.

Then of course there are the economy and trade aspects that could be analyzed, including the aspects of sub-regional cooperations and then linkages between South Asia and other neighboring regions, especially the Gulf and South East Asia.

Representatives of China could also be invited, especially from the myriad of foreign policy institutes and centers that are now active.

A healthy debate, even amid strategic differences, could emerge, with experts from India and other SAARC nations debating with representatives not only from China but also from the Gulf and ASEAN.

I am aware that this proposition is very ambitious but serious work through partnerships and collaborations could make it work.

Let’s not discount that the field of think tanks is growing in the country.

I talked about the Nepal Economic Forum but there are many others.

The Institute for Integrated Development Studies, Nepal Policy Institute, the Centre for South Asian Studies, The Asian Institute of Diplomacy and International Affairs, just to mention a few, could all take a leading role under the coordination of the Institute of Foreign Affairs and Policy Research Institute.

The Asia Foundation, International IDEA, Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung Nepal and the International Foundation for Electoral Systems could be involved as well. 

Business associations like the Federation of Nepalese Chamber of Commerce & Industries and Nepal Chamber of Commerce together with Frost & Sullivan Nepal could also have an important role.

Even Daayitwa, the most prominent leadership focused organization in the country, should join as well because the essential of effective policy making is leadership.

National newspapers should also have a voice and a role too. The same should be said for an historical journalism platform like Himal Southasian.

The recently organized World Social Forum, hosted for the first time in Nepal in February, potentially offers an interesting method of organizing big events.

While there was a central organizing team led by the NGOs Federation of Nepal, it was highly decentralized with organizations being able to run their own events within the framework of the World Social Forum.

We do not need to have that extremely loose governance that it’s uniquely tailored for this gigantic event that was the Forum.

For example, sponsors and partners could be taking the lead in certain areas of policy making, based on their expertise.

For instance, the United Nations could sponsor some less geopolitical (read political) segments where the focus would be on poverty eradication and the Agenda 2030.

Maybe bringing together all these national players is going to be too daunting a task.

At the same time, what is certain is that a country like Nepal, despite its current challenges, should not refrain from being ambitious and visible on the global scene.

Staging a big international dialogue is something that the country could do, in one way or another.

The minimum is to start a collective brainstorming and envision it by the end 2026.

The idea of the Sagarmatha Sambaad was too good and it would be a huge mistake not to give it a try. It was supposed to be a multi-stakeholders initiative.

Why then not really empower key stakeholders of this nation and give it go?

Simone Galimberti is the co-founder of the Good Leadership and of ENGAGE. Views expressed are personal.

Positively like for the second edition held in 2019, the Federal Government is also trying to fix some holes on how the country can do a much better job at attracting foreign investors, proposing new amendments to a series of policies and legislations that are in place but are not fit for an investors friendly climate.

Yet if the economy remains the top priority and the country is in dare need of portraying itself as a top destination for global businesses, then I am wondering if an equal amount of energy should be also put into organizing an international conclave focused on the Sustainable Development Goals and sustainable development.

After all, this week the capital of the nation has the privilege of hosting the World Social Forum, a great showcase to demonstrate both the advances undertaken by Nepal in the last 15 years of national development.

It is also an important opportunity to discuss the remaining challenges that are still an obstacle to create an inclusive society where no one is by default of her gender, caste or social economy conditions, bound to be left behind and ultimately fail.

So while the government deserves a big endorsement for putting a big effort in preparing the 3^rd Investment Summit, this column should be seen as a gentle nudging for the Feds to also bring the SDGs back at the center of policy making.

As we will see, there are many ways of doing so.

As I write preparations are going on at United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and Pacific (UN-ESCAP) for the upcoming 11th Asia-Pacific Forum on Sustainable Development that will be held in Bangkok between the 20-23 of February.

This is annual premier event regarding the implementation of the SDGs that as we know, are part of the Agenda 2030.

This big event normally is preceded by the launch of the annual Asia and the Pacific SDGs Progress Report 2024 that is schedule for this week, on February 15.

While these events are traditionally held in the Thai capital where UN-ESCAP is headquartered, why could not we imagine the 13th Asia-Pacific Forum on Sustainable Development happening in Kathmandu?

It would be something very intriguing for the UN officials to discuss, the possibility to move away from their regional hub and organize the forum in the capital of an emerging nation like Nepal.

With the right preparation, I do not really think that this idea is logistically nor financially impossible to implement.

It can be a win-win for both the Federal Government and the UN System to showcase that what, and we can say it now, a nation that used to be a least developing country, is now instead ambition and confident enough to host a big event focused on the Agenda 2030.

Moreover, let’s not forget that Agenda 2030 with all interlinkages that cover the whole spectrum of the policy making, includes, by the way, also investments and industrialization and responsible consumption.

These dimensions are often neglected and this is a problem.

Due to a silos approach that still prevails with rigid segmentations it is as if the investments that the country needs so desperately are not supposed to be green, sustainable and respectful of human rights.

Indeed, there is no much discussion on the potential of SDG 8 focused on promoting sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth.

Nor the ongoing drive to develop the hydropower sector in the country is seen through the prisms of SDG 7 that is centered on ensuring access to affordable, reliable, sustainable (italics is mine) modern energy for all.

Even though policy makers and their international financial backers pretend to ignore the problems associated with top-down approaches used to develop new dams and power stations that do not respect the rights of local indigenous inhabitants, we all know that respecting human rights in the business sector is paramount.

The fact that the Government very recently approved its first ever National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights is very important but, as we know, not many are confident on its implementation.

In addition, last August the UN Country System in Nepal and the Government organized what was supposed to be a very important workshop, the SDG Acceleration Visioning workshop, that, unfortunately, went almost completely unnoticed.

As per an article in The Kathmandu Post reporting “the National Vision for SDG Acceleration will be prepared through a consultative process based on the outline coming from this workshop will be presented to the global leaders as Nepal’s commitment at the 2023 SDG Summit being held at the United Nations Headquarters in New York on September 18”.

Personally, I am not aware of any follow up but if there was one, it probably might not have generated the attention it deserved nor was, frankly speaking, very inclusive in terms of enabling a variety of stakeholders to attend.

Moreover, who really knows which are the commitments taken by Nepal during the 2023 SDG Summit?

I am afraid that shortsightedness rather than long term planning was the goal of that August workshop.

The lack of a serious, consistent conversation on the Agenda 2030 is another reason why the Federal Government, together with the provincial governments and local municipalities, should talk and act big on the Agenda 2030.

The whole 16^th Periodic Plan that Nepal is still drafting, should be centered around leveraging the SDGs.

The drafting process itself should be really inclusive and participatory and few interactions, here and there, would not make it so.

If the idea of bringing to Kathmandu the UN-ESCAP summit is too complex, then the Nepal could organize its own international event on the SDGs, perhaps focused on localizing the SDGs.

Localizing means enabling local stakeholders, not only to be part of the discussion, but also have a role, a voice in the decision making.

And with local stakeholders, to be crystal clear, I am not referring only to mayors and provincial officials but also to the people that must be have a powerful role to play.

Such international conference could be preceded by an inclusive national conversation on the implementation of the SDGs, basically a follow up to the not so inclusive workshop held last August.

There is another reason why the Federal Government should be interested in forging ahead a sustainable social and economic agenda.

In 2021 the Federation of Nepalese Chambers of Commerce & Industry, FNCCI, had come up with a very ambitious National Economic Transformation Plan 2030, a bold attempt at mainstreaming and harnessing the Agenda 2030 into national economic planning process.

Does anyone know what happened to the implementation of this document?

Is there anyone ready to bet if a discussion about it would be included in the upcoming Investment Summit?

Talking, discussing the SDGs is not just a developmental gimmick, rather the contrary.

A prosperous and inclusive nation can only happen if investments are not just “coldly” seen as big dollars and big assets coming into the country but rather as opportunity to truly transform, equitably, Nepal.

That’s why we should never be tired to discuss the SDGs.

Simone Galimberti writes about development, human rights and youths. Opinions are personal.

I will take the risk and I will give Mr Dahal the benefit of doubt here.

As reported by The Rising Nepal, the PM shared in a speech given to members of his own party, the Maoist Centre, that “people’s intervention is necessary in law making”.

It is not the first time that Mr Dahal comes up with such statements.

Last October, he had stated that “citizen’s direct oversight is essential to strengthen democracy”.

On the occasion of 16th Republic Day, in an interview given to RSS Chief Editor Yek Raj Pathak and Reporter Ramesh Lamsal, the PM said that “only an advanced democracy can be an alternative to democracy”.

Can it be possible that the Mr. Dahal is really into something that goes well beyond empty words?

Could it be possible that the leader of the government wants genuinely to try to promote something different in terms of participation, involvement and engagement of the people in the decision making?

As some of the readers might have realized by now, I am a big fan of deliberative democracy that in essence is about enabling citizens to decide.

It does not necessarily do away with the formal processes embedded with liberal democracy, essentially casting the ballot on periodic basis.

Both forms of democracy could co-live together, each complementing the other.

For me and many other supporters of deliberative democracy, there is no other way around. Democracy, as we know it and as we practice it, is in crisis. This is not any more a breaking news.

The Global State of Democracy 2023, The New Checks and Balances, published in November last year by International Idea, confirmed this trend.

“Across every region of the world, democracy has continued to contract, with declines in at least one indicator of democratic performance in half of the countries covered” explains the press release of the report.

Perhaps it would be instructive to go back to one of the most neglected of the Sustainable Development Goals, SDG 16, a goal that is often overshowed by more urgent and practical priorities like fighting climate change, combating famine, reducing inequalities.

Yet truly and literally implemented this goal can bring about, for better, profound changes in our societies, at least for those lucky enough living in democratic settings.

While SDG 16 is generally perceived as a goal focused on peace and justice and anti-corruption efforts, few zoom in and take note of some its indicators.

For example, let’s have a look at Indicator 16.6:“Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels”.

The following indicators are even more interesting. Indicator 16.7 builds on the previous one and builds on it: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision making at all levels”.

What does it mean to implement these sub-goals? What will it take for a liberal and still emerging democracy like Nepal to follow up on them? We need realism, a pragmatic approach but also a vision, the same vision that, even if driven by rhetoric, PM Dahal has been, I would say, consistently, showing.

As I wrote before on this platform, we do not need, at least for now, to break the existing systems. Ideally embarking on the journey of transforming the country’s liberal democracy into a deliberative one would necessarily imply major changes into the constitutional charter.

But there are no existing examples in places like Europe where deliberative democracy has been pushed forward where you have to get rid of the current systems in order to promote and advance deliberation.

We are still at the infancy of practicing deliberative and more participative forms of deliberation.

What’s happening in those places is the fact that local communities, including local civic groups, often in partnerships with local governments, are trying deliberation on a pilot mode. In some cases, for example in Ireland, the central government also embraces it.

The case I want to make with this piece is that PM Dahal should truly embrace more participatory forms of democracy. He could, in partnership with local municipalities and provincial governments, enable a series of experimentations where citizens are consulted.

Consultations are a first, primordial form of involving people. If they are done in a systematic way, even if they are less empowering because at the end of the day, they are just “consultations”, they could provide impetus to better, more solid forms of decision making by the people.

Federalism was introduced and sold to the nation as a magic wand that would bring people closer to the decision-making process. It happens that this is only partially and, I would say, marginally true.

In a way, yes, people are closer to the decision making but, in reality, what is unfolding is that they might be closer, in a literal sense to those taking decisions but not to the decisions themselves. In short, federalism has not empowered people to have a bigger saying in the ways rules and policy making are forged and decided.

Here enters deliberative democracy that could strengthen federalism at grassroots level by bringing people really closer to the decision making. Let’s try to make it practical. Imagine a citizens’ assembly that works along the elected officials. Meeting on consistent basis and provided with adequate information, citizens could provide feedbacks, opinions, suggestions on the problems and challenges faced by them.

In a way such assemblies or forums could be the real “chamber of experts” that Nepal needs. The International Idea’ report highlights the role of the so called “countervailing institutions”: “The term goes beyond the traditional understanding of ‘checks and balances’ to encompass those governmental and non-governmental institutions, organizations and movements that check the aggrandizement of power and balance the distribution of power to ensure that decision makers regularly integrate popular priorities into policy”.

It continues: “Countervailing institutions include relatively new entities, such as human rights organizations and electoral management bodies, as well as civil society networks, popular movements and investigative journalists, which all play an irreplaceable role in ensuring democracy continues to be of and by the people”.

It does make real sense to strengthen such institutions. It’ paramount and it is essential but it is not going to be enough to save democracy around the world. That’s why we need a real discourse on how we can promote deliberative democracy.

PM Dahal could enable, facilitate such exercise and Nepal could become a trailblazer in the implementation of SDG 16.  What about a national summit on SDG 16, an event that could be central also to improve, enhance federalism in very practical, tangible ways?

Such initiative could prepare the ground for Napal to prepare itself and meaningfully attend the upcoming Global Forum on Modern Direct Democracy that will happen in May in Romania.

PM Dahal is in Uganda for the Non-Aligned Nations Summit.

This could be a place where rather than talking irrelevant geopolitics contortions, the PM could focus on democracy and on the ways his own country, despite the challenges, is striving to implement it.

There will be plenty of people in the audience in the summit, including his host, President Museveni, that should really be remembered about the importance of democracy and the vitality of upholding human rights. On these two aspects, Nepal is a success story, though an imperfect one, and the world needs to know more about it.

Opinion expressed is personal.

Now the formal position has some caveats that actually look more like “save faces”. Binod Ghimire in a an article for The Kathmandu Post, explains that, according to Mukul Dhakal, the party’s general secretary, there are two options. “First scrapping them outright or having a provision of electing one representative who can take charge of the entire province in close coordination with the federal level”, explains Ghimire. “The provinces have turned out to be places to manage dissatisfied leaders and cadres who don’t get opportunity at the federal level”, Dhakal shares in the article. “We neither need provincial assemblies nor the Cabinet”, he is further quoted.

Frankly speaking Dhakal’s proposal is not really clear. Apparently, it is still being discussed and details are still missing. It is also strange that, after months and months of discussions, the RSP does not have a very clear outline of the shape of governance envisioned for Nepal. It almost seems that there is some confusion within the party and the interview given on Monday by Santosh Pariyar for The Kathmandu Post, the Chief Whip of the party, seems confirming so.

Its headline seems to row back on the last week’s announcement. “RSP in favor of functional, economically viable provinces” it reads.  In the interview that is also interesting because Pariyar also addresses the issue of inclusivity of his party, there is an attempt to explain that federalism is not bad in itself. Rather, according to Pariyar, in what resembles to a more nuanced approach to the issue, what is not sustainable is the fact that “provinces are just replicas of central units”.

The same level of corruption and disfunctions that are often found there is reflected at provincial levels.

After reading the interview, what emerge is not an outright condemnation of the provinces but rather a denouncement of the overall political culture that is still prevalent in the country. If this interpretation is correct, then, the RSP should come up with a detailed blueprint. While the general electorate might not be fond of technical aspects, any serious political party and I believe the RSP is one, must master the small nitty gritty of such a complex realm of policy making.

Instead, the political paper presented by Rabi Lamichhane last week and upon which Dhakal’s declaration must be referred to, apparently lacked depth and it was too vague. Then why rushing to adopt it as the new official line of the party?

Why not using the document just as a so-called “non-paper”, an unofficial, working document that would be used to further the debate within the party? Because what Pariyar said in the interview for The Kathmandu Post is quite different from Dhakal’s views. The latter’s proposition is quite radical and for many, including myself, regressive. Instead, Pariyar’s position is a less disruptive, less of a rupture with the current framework. Perhaps the mistake was in the messaging, the way the paper presented by the party founder and uncontested leader, Rabi Lamichhane, should have been explained to the media in a different way, in a much more nuanced fashion. If this were the case, then, the party should have come up with some “talking points” that each of its senior members should have stuck to when addressing the press.

Another reading can also be made and this is more problematic. It is very possible that the hasty announcement was made as vague as possible, simply to capture people’s attention and their overall dissatisfaction with the current status of politics. Was it a mere coincidence, someone might be intrigued to think, that the Lamichhane’s political paper was intentionally released just after few days of a mass rally of people’s discontent with republicanism, secularism and federalism?

Such intention would be seen as a cunny masterstroke by the RSP to ride on the wave of popular discontent, something that, at the same time, would resemble a form of smart populism and demagogy.

Certainly, one could assume that the party is still divided. While, there is unanimity in criticizing the current provinces and their “modus operandi”, at the same time there are different opinions within the RSP.  Pariyar could emerge as the leading figure within a more ‘federalist” faction of the party. Considering that he comes from a minority group that has been discriminated and oppressed for centuries, he might still be attached to the idea of federalism as the only platform to empower the most disenfranchised segments of the populations.

After recently attending the “International Conference on Federalism, Devolution of Power, and Inclusive Democracy in Nepal and Asia” organized by the Kathmandu University School of Law (KUSOL), I came out with two key messages. First: “Long life to the provinces”.  Despite the challenges faced by them, the hurdles encountered in executing their duties and obligations, provinces play and should continue to play a major role in transforming national politics. As explained by a vast number of presenters the main reason why provinces are underperforming is the lack of cooperation and support from the Federal government in Singha Durbar.  Then it is also true that not even a semi progressive constitution like the one adopted by Nepal can change the political culture of those involved in politics.

Trying to propose a real, new alternative with a drastic change in the way politics is conducted, a change based on competence and technocracy, these were the key tenants, the raison d’être of why the RSP was created and why people had put trust on it.

Is the party losing out its own mission?

Working out a cooperative framework between the center, the provinces and the municipalities, is one of the most difficult things to achieve.  Lamichhane is correctly cautious in not demanding, not yet, any changes in the Constitution though sooner or later, such changes will be inevitable. What is not inevitable is to turn back the clock and bring Nepal to a form of semi centralized system even though many stakeholders, including the RSP, are correct in pointing out the shortcomings of provinces.

Yet they all got wrong with the diagnosis as many political observers have also shared.

Provinces’ way of working, their governance and mechanisms can be improved and should be changed in future when the conditions will arise and make this process feasible. I take it as an act of responsibility by the RSP not to call for a revision of the constitution now. If such process would be rushed now, then regressive forces might prevail.

Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal is a strong supporter of a model of federalism where provinces would play a central role. He should be encouraged to truly strengthen model as he recently announced that Provinces’ powers will be boosted. Federalism is a complex system, certainly not perfect but it can deliver, with the right conditions. I would expect a party like the RSP not to rush to quick conclusions about it but rather to come up with a comprehensive and detailed proposal on how to make provinces stronger, practically and most importantly, technically capable of reversing their underwhelming performances.

If it is about reducing the number of provincial level’s ministers and have less of them but more powerful and more competent, then, this would be a proposal that would have a lot of merits to be discussed. The bottom line is that there is no federal system around the world that does not foresee the role of an intermediary level of power between the center and the local bodies. It could also make sense talking about reforming federalism to bring clarity on the number of subjects that are currently shared responsibilities and are co-managed by more than two levels of power.

Provinces’ way of working, their governance and mechanisms can be improved and should be changed in future when the conditions will arise.                        

These are technical “stuff” but what Nepal needs now is a strong reaffirmation of the solidity and robustness of the rationale that brought the country to adopt federalism. This was my first take-away from the conference.

The second is related to inclusion and what Pariyar, the Chief Whip of RSP, is trying to bring in his own party. Over the discussions, it was clear that federalism, because it’s replicating the formula of power of the center, has not been a “game changer” for the most deprived minorities, including the Dalits. Achieving an inclusive politics is a responsibility that Nepal should entrust not only to federalism because the implementation of this vision with its ideals, goes well beyond that. On both counts, I wish the best to Pariyar, and to all other Nepali citizens who are not afraid to pursue their dreams of a better Nepal even if these are not so convenient and might cost some of their political capital.

Views are personal.

Let’s start with the former. Throughout the two-day International Conference on Federalism, Devolution of Power and Inclusive Democracy in Nepal and Asia, an event supported by the Australian government, I realized that the love for federalism among Nepali is still intact. I am talking about “love” for a simple reason and it is not an exaggeration.

To embrace a radical change like the one embarked by the country, you really have to love it because federalism is a very complex thing. It is a headache actually but this is what all the great loves can also sometimes be.

While the constitution might be faulty in certain aspects that did not ensure the desired or expected “federal” outcomes many were hoping for, the real problem lies on the top. 

Nepal jumped into a one of the greatest and most daunting experiments ever undertaken by a modern state, turning an autocratic mono-cultural monarchy, an extremely centralized form of government that was stifling people’s aspiration and their quest for recognition into a progressive, modern nation where the power is (at least supposedly) closer to the people.

It was an ambitious, daunting process, I would say, almost a gamble. Yet despite the criticisms, despite the downsides of such transformation, still, from what I learned from the conference, there are still strong feelings supporting federalism. This is a good thing.

Certainly, as we can see from the populist rabble rousers hitting the streets these days, it is undeniable that there is a lot of discontent as well. Federalism ended up being the primary target, the perfect scapegoat to channel all the discontents from the masses.

Nepal is no more an insulated nation after all.

While it is true that the war in Ukraine or what’s going on in Gaza did not particularly hit a nerve here like elsewhere, the national economy, no matter the influx of foreign capital thanks to the arrival of tourists, is in deep trouble.

What is also becoming clearer and this was also confirmed during the conference, is that the real problem is not federalism but rather the political class running the country. While on the one hand, there is a new constitution in place that is attempting, undoubtedly with some difficulties, to turn the nation into a true, solid and functional federal polity, the political leadership did not change, not an inch.

Obviously, this is not breaking news.

The same faces from the same dominant ethnic cultural group are still running the nation across all the tiers of government. This was one of the strongest messages emerging from the conference: while the constitution might be faulty in certain aspects that did not ensure the desired or expected “federal” outcomes many were hoping for, the real problem lies on the top.

“These people leading the three major parties do not want federalism,” the message kept echoing around the room throughout the event. That’s why the love and passion of most of the people towards federalism is not at peril of being jeopardized. Though fragile, the system in place is here to stay and this is the certainty I gained leaving the conference.

Because people understood that if certain improvements into the new system are needed to make it more workable, the real culprit for not making federalism effective is the elite running the nation. From here I have a hope that the overall framework has become resilient enough not to crack even if under pressure and even if some people are unhappy with it and want to revert to the past.

Such resilience cannot be taken for granted but, at the same time, it is one of the biggest achievements coming out of the massive transformations being undertaken by the nation. The political unwillingness of the political class, despite all the pretenses of showing otherwise, as frustrating and alienating as it is, won’t be able to turn back the clock.

Probably, while for some of the political leadership, for example former PM Oli, federalism may be an ideological “thing”, most of those running the country might have a sense of insecurity–the insecurity of really losing the grip on power; the insecurity of enabling others to emerge and govern their lives autonomously.

With this point, now I have to share the mixed feeling. It is about the fact that there is still not enough realization that inclusive democracy can only happen by truly empowering the most vulnerable sections of the society. Inclusive democracy won’t just be realized even if all the technical and political problems surrounding federalism will be solved.

The reality is that also power sharing at local levels is a reflection of the power dynamics at the center. Therefore, federalism per se, even a more complete and perfect form of it, won’t create an equitable and more diverse nation by default. There is no automatism between decentralization of powers even in the most radical forms that we can see in the most advanced federal systems around the world and achieving higher degrees of equity in the form of a real and meaningful access to the decision making.

We will need new electoral laws and a real discussion about the need for more affirmative legislation but these are issues that were not really central in the debate at the conference. Only the last session, which for me was probably the most significant, was focused on this delicate and sensitive aspect of inclusive federalization of the countries.

There were only three presentations focused on this aspect and, quite telling was the fact that out of them, only one was delivered by a citizen of Nepal. As the former Chief Justice of Australian Supreme Court, the key speaker at the Conference, said, no matter the rules and regulations that can make federalism transformative and effective, it is ultimately up to the people to make it work.

At the end of the day, it all goes down to a genuine desire to share power but also to a better realization that a new Nepal still has to find its own way to truly uplift those who have been historically marginalized. This historical mission is difficult and can be fraught but must be tackled even if it risks some alienation from the upper class people who would reject it outright.

On this, I am still not totally confident that there is an understanding (and internalization in the people’s self-consciousnesses) that federalism was, primarily, intended to uplift them and give them a voice. Federalism, in a way, should be a tool for creating inclusive policies around the nation and not just an end to itself.

Without recognizing the problem, more alienation and frustration might occur and, at that point, the foundations upon which federalism now rests, might start cracking. Then is when the love for federalism will be tested. Focusing on fixing the loopholes and technicalities won’t be enough.

Views expressed are personal.

On top of all these crises, the preparation for the APEC summit that is happening these days in San Francisco, including the key meeting between President Biden and President Xi, would not have allowed it.

Still, Secretary Blinken was really close to Kathmandu and once again, the Americans missed an opportunity to keep up with their strategic rival, China, in trying to keep their relationships with Nepal at the highest levels.

He was close because, after the Foreign Affairs G7 held in Tokyo on November 8, Secretary Blinken visited New Delhi, after Japan, its most important ally in the Asia Pacific.

There he was accompanied by his colleague, Secretary of Defense Llyod Austin, for a crucial 2+2 dialogue that saw Indian and American counterparts from Foreign Affairs and Defense ministries coming together.

We know that Nepal’s status in the region cannot be equated with India but still Kathmandu is an important capital after all and for several reasons.

First, the peace process, even not fully completed, is a success story. Second, and most importantly, Nepal has been a staunch “practitioner” of democracy and human rights. If you consider Kathmandu’s standards in these two complementary and mutually linked areas and you compare with what’s going on south of the border, Nepal is truly a success story.

Moreover, the country also made the right decision at the UN Security Council by condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Another important reason why Nepal should not be discounted is the fact that it has been quite adept at balancing its strategic relationships with both China and India.

Many observers might wish that Kathmandu had a stronger voice while dealing with the two superpowers.

Yet, all in all, the national diplomacy has been skillful enough to ensure that both neighboring countries are satisfied with Nepal’s overall strategic decisions at home and in its foreign policy.

Then actually there is another reason that the Americans should appreciate. It is the fact that Nepal was able to stand firm on China’s official position that some of its major undertakings in the country were part of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

Multiple times, the officials in Kathmandu were able to push back on this claim. It was a proof of strength that surely Beijing took note of but both parties, Nepal and China, were able to move on.

The recent visit to Nepal by Wang Junzheng, Tibet secretary of Communist Party of China and also Tibet’s highest official according to the Chinese system, proved that. All these considerations make us wonder if the Americans missed an opportunity here.

In my opinion they did, even if I feel for the gruesome schedules that Secretary Blinken is going through.

After all, Kathmandu is less than two hours flight from Delhi and just a brief visit to the capital of Nepal would have been significant to further cement the relationships between the two countries. Now it is also true that Blinken had recently met Foreign Minister Saud just few weeks ago in Washington, itself an important recognition for Nepal.

But still I guess that D R Thompson, the American’s Ambassador to Nepal, might have been very frustrated by the miss. Probably he and his entourage of diplomats here in Kathmandu and probably even a decent number of diplomats at Foggy Bottom where the State Department is located, really tried hard to include Nepal’s “detour” from the official schedules of Blinken.

Taking these kinds of decisions is always a very calculated process, with, what I imagine, an endless number of meetings and discussions.

Last year the two countries celebrated 75 years of strong diplomatic relationships.

There have been, surely enough, some high-level visits from high-ranking officials, including the joint visit of top senators like Kirsten Gillibrand, Sheldon Whitehouse, Cory Booker, Mark Kelly and Representative Mondaire Jones.

Still many were at least expecting Vice President Harris to visit but such a trip never materialized nor we can really know if it was ever considered. At the same time, no one was really hopeful that President Biden would make a stopover in Nepal after visiting India for the G20 Summit in September.

From here where the relationships between the US and Nepal will go? There is no doubt that they will remain strong and solid for years to come. The development assistance provided through USAID, the important work of the Peace Corps and the bilateral exchange programs and people-to-people diplomacy are remarkable and truly appreciated.

Kathmandu is less than two hours flight from Delhi and just a brief visit to the capital of Nepal would have been significant to further cement the relationships between the two countries.

Yet the US also needs to understand the symbolism and the importance the high-level visit would add to the relations between the two countries. In one sense, as one of the two global powers in the world and as a key representative of the democratic world, America should do more to recognize the role of a country like Nepal. At the same time, only stability and effective governance in the country would encourage more global leaders to come to Kathmandu.

If you think about it, the country is still at the margins of global international relations and it is punching well below its weight. Nepal can do much better and it should not allow its delicate balancing with India, China and the US to constrain its foreign policy.

After all, there are many other countries dancing on a similar tune, appeasing both Washington and Beijing while maximizing their own interests.

Look at Indonesia whose president just visited the White House or read the speech of Prime Minister Anwar of Malaysia given in San Francisco on the sidelines of the APEC Summit, to understand that Nepal is in a truly unique geographical position. Yet at the same time, many of its challenges in dealing with the two superpowers are shared by other nations as well.

More work, tons of it, needs to be done on both American and Nepali sides, to truly elevate their partnerships. It will probably take time to see a sitting Secretary of State or an American President coming to Nepal but, eventually, it will happen.

If Nepal is able to project itself differently on the global arena and become an indispensable partner, rather than just a recipient of America’s generosity, then those trips will come faster and much more easily.

Opinions expressed are personal.

Why not, then, leveraging on his international repute and know-how and put them at use for the higher interests of the nation? Considering the vast power that regional Directors hold within the complex bureaucracy of the WHO, his candidacy was ambitious but also, considering his experience, very doable.

He should have “brought it home” and he would have made it if the competition had been truly fair. The reality is that, from the outset, insiders knew the risks of running against a formidable candidate like Saima Wazed of Bangladesh. Saima Wazed was not formidable because of her expertise but because of the fact that she is the daughter of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina.

The government of Nepal should have done more to ensure the victory of Dr Acharya, no doubt about it. But it is time to move forward. That’s why Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal should make a bold call and appoint him as the Minister of Health and Population.

Certainly, for someone like Dr Acharya returning to Nepal would entail several considerable risks. Not only in terms of losing his perks as high-level UN officer, including a nice life on the Genève lake. I am also referring to him taking a huge gamble in terms of putting his international stature and the credibility he achieved along the years, at jeopardy.

That’s why PM Dahal should not only propose him as Minister of Health and Population that, as per now, is, unfortunately, of secondary nature within the cabinet. The Prime Minister should appoint him also as Deputy Prime Minister in charge of overseeing the whole spectrum of portfolios related to human development and human prosperity.  This would also entail a strong involvement across all domains of policy making. The idea, basically, is to make Dr Acharya, the key focal point, within the government, for the SDGs, someone who can greatly help bring to life the ambitious Agenda 2030. Who better than someone with decades of experience within the UN System can help drive Nepal towards a more equal, equitable, sustainable future?

It is granted that the health and population portfolio will require a lot of “intensive care” work on the part of Dr Acharya. Nepal still needs to develop a proper National Health System, creating a strong network of public hospitals and clinics around the country. This will be possible only if an equitable and sustainable cooperative framework between the federal government and the provinces is established, a juggernaut task itself. Then, there is the scale up of the National Health Insurance that is still a chimera. Moreover, let’s not forget that future pandemic preparedness is also an area that will also demand a lot of effort.

On top of all these hard tasks, another priority would be to bring on board the private sector in complementing the creation of a strong public private system. Ethical practices, quality care, funding and reimbursements, the latter especially related to the National Health Insurance, are only some of the key central points to be agreed upon with private hospitals. In short, a “would be” Dr Acharya as next Health Minister would have a lot on his plate.

Perhaps Dr Achairya should not be in such a rush to prepare his luggage to return to Geneva. Perhaps it is time for him to extend his special leave.

Still there is no doubt that someone like him can also contribute across the board. That’s why having him appointed as the “Agenda 2030 Czar” makes total sense. From education to social inclusion to zero net transition, Nepal needs to do whatever it takes to realize the ambitious SDGs.  Otherwise the risk is for Nepal to become a lower middle-income country whose success story will be very limited.

A nation that despite the apparent achievements, will remain stubbornly “broken” on many fronts, a nation, in short, unable to fulfill the rights and the hidden potential of millions of its citizens. Dr Acharya can help avoid this scenario.

Moreover, the position of Deputy Prime Minister would also be not only very fitting but also very deserving for him. It would represent the culmination of his career, potentially much more significant and life-saving than what the role he was vying for at the WHO would have offered. Mohan Bahadur Basnet, the current Health Minister, could be repositioned within the government in a different role, possibly allowing him to work closely with Dr Acharya. I am sure he will be happy to have Dr Acharya taking over his ministry.

Now a final element of uncertainty and a possible solution to it. Why should someone like Dr Acharya accept this double appointment considering the chronic instability of governments in the country? No one, after all, really knows how long this current administration will last. One issue is the government might collapse even though the Dahal-Deuba entente appears so solid. One way to brush aside this concern is the involvement of the main opposition parties. KP Oli, chairman of the UML and Rabi Lamichhane, the chair of RSP, should be brought into the discussions in a way to have their formal commitment to retain Dr Acharya in his role even if there would be a government change in the days ahead.

This would mean assuring the people of this nation that they will have a very competent policymaker with a high level of integrity in a position to do some good things. 

Perhaps Dr Acharya should not be in such a rush to prepare his luggage to return to Geneva. Perhaps it is time for him to extend his special leave.

Simone Galimberti is the pro-bono co-founder of ENGAGE and The Good Leadership. Views are personal.

After an initial postponement due to the start of the crisis in Gaza, a tragic development still unfolding, António Guterres made his second visit to Nepal though it is the first as the head of the United Nations.

What should we expect from this visit and what will be the key messages that will be offered by the Secretary General?  Will he be able to convey to his counterparts within the Government of Nepal the urgency to take bold reforms to ensure the implementation of the Agenda 2030?

Let’s remind ourselves that Guterres has initiated a major reform of the United Nations, a process only ambitious but also, to some extent, radical in the sense of its attempts at making the UN fit for the challenges of this century.

Our Common Agenda, is the name of the strategy or better “Plan of plans” that has been designed by the Secretary General.  It covers a vast array of policy areas, from digital divide to a new type of bottom-up policy making that is particularly tailored to enable youths to get involved and participate in creating equitable job markets that empower girls and women.

Among the other key domains of reform, we should not forget the strong focus on sustainability and climate action, including major proposals to drastically increase climate financing.

As we know, this is a century, as we are witnessing, being overwhelmed by challenges: the triple planetary crisis of climate change, pollution and biodiversity loss; increasing levels of inequalities; the ensuing conflicts and geopolitical tensions; the grave concerns posed by an unregulated Artificial Intelligence; major inequalities within and between nations.

According to the Secretary General, there is a real need of re-booting the relationships between the state and the citizenry and in order to do so, he has been proposing the creation of a New Social Compact.  Considering the ambition of this concept and the pushback by the member states, jealous of their exclusive prerogatives, not much has been happening around this idea.

Yet it would be a profound mistake if Guterres drops the ball and gives up on this idea because it basically aims at redesigning the way governance works.

And here his travel to Nepal enters into the picture. With the country going through the difficult challenges of making federalism effective and functional, there is a lot of scope to talk about relationships between the State and the citizenry.

That’s why the Secretary General of the United Nations in his visit to Nepal should really offer his vision of what a New Social Contract could mean for the citizens of the country.  Here are some of the challenges being found while the nation is trying to build a federal system.

These are issues and concerns that, let’s not forget, if answered effectively, could change people’s lives for better.  Guterres could offer some of his insights to these conundrums, that so far local and national politicians were unable to respond to.

First of all, how can the citizens be really empowered and have a say, a real voice besides and beyond casting their vote at the ballet box? Second, how can local government institutions be really made accountable and responsive to the people? Third and connected to the previous two, is how to embed policy making across all levels of governance, with moral and ethical leadership?

It is not that the Secretary General has a magic wand and will be able to provide quick, instant answers to these major conundrums.

It will be ultimately up to the people of the country to find their own way and it will be up to all politicians to rise to the challenges and come up with a better system of governance.

The goal would not be radically altering the existing constitutional framework approved in 2015 but rather finding novel ways to complement it with bottom up, genuine and real, rather than tokenistic people’s participation.

The interesting fact is that Mr. Guterres realized that in order to bring about a new and better multilateral system, the overarching goal of his vision expressed through Our Common Agenda, the UN System also needs a reboot.

Indeed, the UN at country levels started a major reform of the ways that the UN Resident Coordinators work.

Now, at least on paper, the coordinators, the highest UN functionaries at national levels, are really in the position of playing a much stronger role. They can bring coherence in the work of the UN, ensuring less fragmentation and competition and overlapping among the myriad of agencies and programs in place in the countries around the world.

There is also a major need of making the UN System at local level much closer to the people.

This is a need that perhaps Guterres has not grasped yet well, considering his current role and his previous positions as High Commissioner for Refugees and Prime Minister of Portugal.

Can the UN in Nepal double and triple its efforts to explain to the people, especially the students about its work?

Can events like “town hall” meetings be organized where representatives of the various agencies, foreigners but also Nepali, can meet students and anyone else interested to know what the UN is doing?

Can discussions programs and lectures on the biggest challenges faced by the country be held in partnership with institutions like the National Planning Commission?

\There is also a major need of making the UN System at the local level much closer to the people. This is something that Guterres perhaps has not grasped well, considering his current role and his previous positions as High Commissioner for Refugees and Prime Minister of Portugal.

How to try to organize all these initiatives in a very effective way, maybe in local colleges and schools or maybe in venues offered by the state rather than in fancy (and expensive) venues?

Moreover, the Secretary General might make some announcements about new funding initiatives to help Nepal achieve the ambitious goals and targets of the Agenda 2030.

Perhaps, there will be some news in relation to the Joint SDG Fund, a sort of innovative financing that the UN is pushing its attempts to scale up resources for the sustainable goals. If this will be the case, my hope is that innovative, transparent and bottom-up partnerships will be proposed to roll out new initiatives that Nepal desperately needs to make principles like “Leave No One Behind” a reality.

Mr Secretary General, there is plenty to discuss with you on how to ensure Nepal becomes a thriving and expanding economy that is fair and just to all its citizens.

Simone Galimberti is the Co-Founder of ENGAGE and The Good Leadership. Opinion expressed is personal.

It is a problem of leadership and system and a nation like Nepal with such big aspirations must do better. In a recent conversation with some friends, all Nepali and all sports lovers, there was an overwhelming feeling of frustration and disillusionment with the system. To them the whole sports sector in the country should be radically transformed and changed.

According to them, most of those in charge of the Nepal Olympic Committee and National Sports Council and other underperforming federations should simply do one thing. Resign!

It is hard not to find this argument quite convincing actually. In an op-ed for The Rising Nepal, Professor P Kharel, reflecting on the underwhelmingly scarce performance of Team Nepal, strongly asked for accountability. His arguments totally resonate with me and many others. At least the so-called sports leadership of the country should come forward and offer some explanations.

While mismanagement and lack of plans could be some of the main reasons for the overall trend, we also have to admit that it is difficult for a country like Nepal to channel more resources to the sports sector. With a myriad of priorities and with the overall national economy also declining, it is extremely challenging to allocate enough budget for it.

Yet there are several questions that must be fully answered: Are the scarce resources devoted for sports being used in the best way possible? What have been the plans and targets that were set for the Asian Games just concluded in Hangzhou, China? What were the expectations in terms of new national records and medals? Most importantly what should Nepal aim for the next big event, the Olympic Games in Paris next year and even most importantly what about Los Angeles 2028 and Brisbane 2032? Lastly, what should be changed in order to have better chances to win more medals in the next big competition?

First of all, I would love to ask these questions to Arika Gurung, the winner of the silver medal in the women’s karate 68 kg competition. What were the elements that made her reach the podium? Besides her talents, hard work and sacrifice, a presumably excellent coaching staff, what were the key factors that enable her to win silver medal? The same questions should be addressed by national Kabbadi female team that co-won the bronze and by any other present and past medals winners of this country.

Maybe the athletes should really take the lead and come up with an analysis and then also with a “way forward”. Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal should also get into action and make this possible. There is no doubt that he should expect clear answers from those leading the sports sector about what just happened and about future plans.

Then, in what could become a fully holistic accountability process, the Prime Minister could set up a review commission led by some retired champions who, in the past, made the country proud at international levels. For example, Deepak Bista, the former karate champion, could be a candidate to co-lead this commission together with a female former athlete. I confess that I am struggling to find a name for the female position and this, unfortunately, reflects the discrepancies in the power gaps and imbalances between male and female in the sports sector.

What about Mira Rai, even though she is not retired? Maybe we could make the whole exercise fully transparent and inclusive. For example, the Office of Prime Minister and Council of Ministers could announce a Call for Expressions of Interests where former athletes could apply to become members of the body that should have a fixed term and an expire date. What about giving it a life span of one year?

The Terms of Reference of such temporary and voluntary body should be focused on reviewing the existing system from all the sides and points: management, leadership, resources made available, coaching system, competitions. Moreover, why and how certain federations are better run than others and, therefore able to achieve better results?

What about the overall sector of sports education? When will the country have a sports university? What about the effectiveness of the curriculum of the recently established degrees in sports related subjects? What about the whole governance system? How can the Nepal Olympic Committee, the National Sports Council and the Ministry of Youth and Sports coordinate and work together better? How can Nepal have a strong coaching system?  How can the country do a better job at forming new cadres of coaches at all levels? Importantly, what’s the role of the provincial governments and how can they support the overall national plans for the sector? What about the private sector, including private colleges who have been investing resources for their sports teams?

The Commission could create formal working groups involving past and current athletes, each of these focusing on some of the aspects of the sports industry. But reviewing the past and present should only be one part of the main responsibility of this Commission. I am saying so because it is extremely important to also think about the future, about what it is going to take to change the current system.

Now it is also paramount to make the proposed commission not only fully gender balanced but also inclusive of athletes with disabilities because adaptive sports in Nepal is strong despite the many challenges. Athletes living with disabilities should be, therefore, fully represented in the Commission. We could have one chair and two vice-chairs, of which one should represent adaptive sports and should be a person with disability.  It might be possible that the existing leadership of the sports sector did everything in their power and capacities to prepare Team Nepal to the best of its potential and capacities. But like for politics, people who love sports are fed up with those running the show.

Again, these feelings are fully understandable but let’s also give a chance and hear from those now in a position of power about their work and their plans for the future. The Parliament can also start some formal inquiries and ask for accountability. But meanwhile, let the athletes come up with their analysis and review. Yet, most importantly, let’s create the conditions for the real champions of the nation to work independently and with the adequate resources to map out a blue print for the future of sports in Nepal.

One more thing: if it is too complex to have a “sanctioned’ commission, then all the athletes should find all the strengths, including moral and psychological, to organize themselves and show the nation the way.

Views are personal.

Nepal is set to become a major producer and exporter of hydro power generated electricity. This is a process that involves attracting gigantic amounts of foreign investments, some in the forms of loans, some grants. There is almost no day that goes without an announcement about a new hydropower project.  

As inconvenient as it is, it is paramount that while attracting new investments, the government of Nepal also is able to ensure the rights of local populations affected by these major developments. Because behind any new announcement, there will be lives that will be affected, families that will be dislocated, local ecosystems completely disrupted. This should not be taken as an afterthought, something that, somehow, can be brushed away. 

At stake is not only the reputation of the Nepal government but also the emerging developing electricity market that the country is trying to establish. The name and image of the major bilateral and multilateral organizations investing in the sector is also under watch.

Yet even more importantly there is something else at stake: the protection and safeguard of the rights of thousands of citizens that have been and will be affected by the construction of dams, substations and transmissions lines. Specifically, I am talking about the rights of indigenous peoples that are, often, at the receiving hands of this hydro power frenzy.  Often, locals, deprived of key vital information, are pressured, in many cases even coerced and intimidated, to agree to give up their lands so that dams, substations, and power towers can be built. A particular case in point is construction of a substation of Lapsifedi, a key infrastructure that is part of the 220/400 kv Upper Tamakoshi Hydro Power Project. The infrastructure is, without any doubt, vital for the whole nation and is going to be instrumental to achieve the goal of Nepal becoming a major electricity exporter. Also the substation will be the central node that will provide power, southbound to the ADB funded transmission line towards Changu Narayan while, westbound, it will run electricity to the towers’ line that the Millennium Challenge Corporation Nepal is planning to finance.

To better understand the current status of the play, I met with RK Tamang, a representative of the Struggle Against Marginalization of Nationalities-Nepal [Saman–Nepal] that is working with local people to assert and defend their rights. “Indigenous peoples have deep relationships with land, territories, and resources, so it’s not about compensation or corporate social responsibility (CSR) but rather about the respect of Indigenous People’s rights that the state has ratified internationally and judicially. It’s about making the state responsible and doing ethical business,” he told me.  

As strategic as this project is, what really counts is that the construction of the substation and the related transmission lines are carried out by following the highest standards, including fully following and implementing the mandatory human rights due diligence or MHRDD. MHRDD is also at the core of the UN Principles of Business and Human Rights, that, though voluntary, are universally accepted as the highest standards in terms of businesses’ conduct and behaviors.

Every major operator and donor, including those involved in the infrastructure sector, has the moral mandate to strictly implement the Principles. The principles are based on a rather simple “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework. It means that the States must protect, respect and offer remedy in any alleged grievances, abuses and disrespect of human rights by economic, commercial and state owned business operators.

Did the government of Nepal, Nepal Electricity Authority (NEA), the bilateral and multilateral donors and their contractor follow and respect this framework? A way that could help start answering this question is from the perspective of local people affected by the projects.

Let’s remind ourselves that Nepal is a party to the ILO Convention No.169 that, among other things, recognizes Indigenous Peoples’ right to self-determination within a nation-state. In addition, Nepal is also a signatory to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).   What does it mean in practice? In simple terms, infrastructure like the Lapsifedi requires the full respect of the “Free, Prior and Informed Consent” or FPIC.

“How do Indigenous and locals feel ownership over a project that is going to be implemented in their own native places, where threat and intimidation are used? Tamang wondered. He further said: “NEA has never consulted, obtained FPIC, or involved Indigenous Peoples and locals in decision-making; instead, it seized the land forcefully”

Let’s try to break down the whole issue.

First locals were not informed that their whole land got frozen in order to pave way to the substation. They only came to know about it when, in the aftermath of the big earthquakes that hit Nepal in 2015, they wanted to relocate and build their homes. They had decided to rebuild in the exact place that, unknown to them, the substation station was planned to be built.

Fast forward, in 2019 the MCA Nepal organized a public hearing where locals vehemently protested. Then on 12 March 2021, over 300 security personnel were deployed to conduct the land survey by the authority. “The public demonstrated against such forceful acts by the state,” shared Tamang. With locals setting up barricades, local authorities, including the Chief District Officer, representatives of NEA stepped in and tried to persuade the locals.

“Even the NEA Managing Director and the local member of the parliament tried to convince them that the project would begin forcefully even if the people continued rejecting the development,” Tamang informed me. Then, after a long gap, also due to the pandemic, on January 1 2023, NEA deployed more than 150 armed police in order to start the work.  Again, people vigorously protested.

“The protest continued for 13 days, and the electric authority surveyed with the protection of heavy forces. They did survey even the individual’s land for the tower pad without their prior consent”, Tamang explained to me. At the end, more than two dozen indigenous human rights defenders were injured including Mr RK Tamang whose finger bones fractured, and 11 were arrested during this time. 

After the resistance, the electricity authority has stopped the work but protest against the oppression is continuing. The National Human Rights Commission and Nepal Indigenous Commission have visited the area and expressed their concerns but no report has been issued so far. Indigenous peoples, mainly Tamang and other locals, not only felt insulted by the deployment of the police  but also threatened.  That’s why they have decided to organize themselves in a struggle committee against the substation.

“Instead of deploying forces, the state has to consult with indigenous people and obtain a fair FPIC before executing their businesses respecting human rights,” he said.

Perhaps something is changing.

Since then, the Ministry of Energy, Water Resources and Irrigation, stepped in at the highest levels with both the Minister Shakti Bahadur Basnet and Secretary Dinesh Kumar Ghimire taking the lead in the consultation. This is commendable as throughout this year, three meetings were held.Yet what should change is the approach that drives these discussions. The people of Lapsifedi should not be convinced or persuaded to accept the compensation that has been proposed to them because otherwise the whole process becomes an imposition. It must be admitted that the entire process has been remarkably flawed and was completely in disregard of the rights of the persons living there. One wonders how the right of way and the tenders process were initiated without having on board the locals.

The past omissions must be fully acknowledged by all the parties involved, including the ADB who have its own indigenous safeguard policy and MCC. So far, the ADB Nepal Office has officially stated that it is against the use of any force, a policy that, without any doubt also MCC Nepal Office shares.

But violence did happen.

According to. RK Tamang, the Initial Environmental Examination prepared by NEA does not match with the ground reality. First written in April 2016, the document was updated in 2019. The problem is that it does not meet any legal threshold nor follows the international standards and therefore it should be considered null. “Our concern is that it should have to be done on the field/ location and has to be published with the public hearing but nothing as such has been done by NEA,” he told me. NEA Managing Director, in public, recognized that they need to do an environmental impact assessment (EIA) and conduct cumulative impact assessment (CIA) at Lapsephedi, he added.

The Cumulative Impact Assessment (CIA) must be done when there is more than one project at the same location as it is the case of Lapsifedi’s substation. In addition, among the most staggering mistakes is that the exact location of the substation is wrong. The electric transmission license issued by the Electric Development Department of the Ministry of Energy, Water Resources and Irrigation has clearly mentioned the location at Lapsifedi of Shankarapur Deupur village development committee in Kavrepalanchok District. Instead, the Lapsifedi is located in Kathmandu District. Interestingly the Initial Environmental Examination, in section 4.8, recognizes that Nepal is a party to ILO no.169.  The ongoing visit to Nepal of Alice Albright, the Chief Executive of the MCC could offer the opportunity to reset the whole process of engagement and involvement of local people. Albright should not only assure politicians that the MCC is not part of any American-led geopolitical game or focus her visit to try to fix the issue of high price bidding. Probably tackling the latter problem will require an extraordinary effort in terms of higher transparency and accountability in the whole bidding process and following procurement phases. But accountability, real accountability also goes much beyond high administrative standards. 

At its core, accountability is centered on human rights. Both the ADB and MCC profess to operate according to the highest standards and they have an obligation to ensure that the voice of Indigenous Peoples and locals whose lands are grabbed and are at risk of being grabbed, must be fully expressed and heard. At the same time the government of Nepal and NEA are unquestionably under pressure. An article published in The Kathmandu Post mentioned the frustration of the NEA CEO in dealing with donors and creditors involved in financing hydropower projects.

The piece, written by Prithvi Man Shrestha, shared that on June 18 during a press meeting, Kul Man Ghising, the Managing Director of NEA, shared, referring to the donors “they threaten us to stop funding for another project if we do not settle a dispute regarding land acquisition with locals in the under-construction projects”.

RK Tamang is clear on the way forward. “What is needed is to start from scratch”.  This is the big reset I am referring to. “Let’s begin the free, prior, informed consent process whether to build in the same place or in different places”, he shared. “If Indigenous people and locals agree, why not have the substation built there?” “Locals,” he said, “want to feel respected.” “They do not want to be seen as an inconvenience or hindrance to the development of the nation. But, at the same time, they also do not want to be victims of development aggression.” According to him, if  locals give their consent, the project can move ahead.

I find this pretty pragmatic. This can be a “win-win situation” for all but first things first. This means the following: A formal apology, the start of a new formal process of engagement with locals that must be transparent, unbiased and neutral. Spending some time on getting the foundations right will save money and further inconveniences that might otherwise happen if locals are not listened to. Donors behind hydropower and other major projects do complain about the red tapes, the slow execution of these undertakings by the government of Nepal. But such projects do negatively affect people and the government cannot bulldoze the constitutional and international rights of indigenous peoples and other locals. 

At the end of the day, first things first mean starting with the respect and protection of human rights. I would like to believe Albright and the representatives of ADB in Nepal know this better than me.

Views are personal.

The citizens of the country should thank the recently concluded UN General Assembly in New York because it compelled the federal government of Nepal to at least show some commitment, even symbolic ones. The SDG Summit, a global gathering aimed at reviewing the status of implementation of the SDGs and the Climate Ambition Summit, are both crucial events that saw the participation of Nepal’s Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal. Earlier to that on September 15, Dahal convened the National Council on Environment Protection and Climate Change Management.  But who really knows about this body? The Council is paralyzed, mostly inactive.

Its members were appointed by then Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba a year ago, in September 2022, probably also just to show to the international community that Nepal is serious about climate change.

The meeting of the Council was held a second time by Dahal. It brings together not only key experts but also the Chief Ministers from the seven provinces without which no action can be seriously envisioned in the fight against climate change.

Clearly it is a policy failure and when we think about the lack of good governance in the country, we tend to end up blaming corruption. While there is no doubt that this is a systemic issue, a cancer that has metastasized across the whole functioning of the government, there are also other issues that impede a well and functioning governance.

Talking about governance is not only one of the most boring things but one of the less engaging and more difficult to understand issues.  Yet it is crucial.

Young people (not all unfortunately) are thrilled at putting up a fight for climate change. Yet we cannot tackle climate change and remaining SDGs (let’s not forget that climate action is debated as a wholly self-standing issue but there is also an SDG about it and it is SDG 13) without good governance.  That’s why the convening of the National Council on Environment Protection and Climate Change Management is a matter of national interest, especially the youths should care about it.

How can we revitalize the so-called field of “good governance” not only for climate action but also for the whole spectrum of key policy issues related to human development (the so-called Agenda 2030 and its SDGs) that affect each of us living in Nepal? I have already written in this column about the importance of re-thinking the way policy making functions and is delivered.

Mine is a part of a broader global debate about rebooting democracy, turning it more effective by making it more participative, more deliberative and much less top down. Yer for the sake of the argument I am making in this piece, let’s limit the reflection on more practical and less ambitious modalities to reboot policy making. Let’s involve more people.

For example, the now repealed Climate Change Policy 2011 established the Multi-stakeholder Climate Change Initiatives Coordination Committee (MCCICC). There is a very high degree of probability that this committee never got activated but it was a really good idea, in principle, to have a platform to engage and involve not only experts but also normal people, in theory at least.  

Now the latest national climate policy, formulated in 2019, does away with such a council.

A clarification now: The recent meeting of the National Council on Environment Protection and Climate Change Management was convened under a different policy framework–the Environmental Protection Act (2019). Now if we can deal with climate change under this Act, perhaps a loophole could be used to come up with a mechanism that involves people in the decision making related to climate change.

If it is true that the latest National Climate Change Policy (2019) does away with a stakeholder engagement mechanism, the policy, concerning Institutional Framework, envisions the establishment of the following: “A Council will be formed to maintain policy coordination on the matters of climate change at the national level and functional coordination will be made by the Ministry of Forests and Environment.”

Why not frame such a mechanism as a true policy innovation, a platform to meet, discuss and debate with academia, experts but also with citizens, including the youths? Finding novel ways to involve stakeholders is also at the core of implementing the Agenda 2030–that means the whole SDGs framework, from poverty alleviation to quality inclusive education and health care, to gender inclusion to inclusive and sustainable industrialization to climate change and rule of law.

Let’s limit the reflection on more practical and less ambitious modalities to reboot policy making. Let’s involve more people.

Probably to incentivize the federal government to show some action during the official gatherings in New York, the UN Office in Nepal co-organized with the National Planning Commission, the SDG Acceleration Visioning workshop. The focus was on discussing new ways not only to scale up the SDGs but also to internalize them across the policy spectrum which cannot happen without involvement of people. The key word is “localizing” the SDGs and it is nothing new because, in simple terms, it acknowledges the centrality of involving local governments in the gigantic tasks of achieving the SDGs.

Yet this whole idea is not gaining traction and officials and policy makers, all over the world, pay just lip service to it. This is problematic and also irresponsible.

In New York, it was reported that Dahal met with the Secretary General Antonio Guterres. One of the outcomes (if we make an effort and really try hard to imagine a tangible result from this type of formal and by nature very brief meetings), was the commitment by the UN to further support Nepal.  What will this mean in practice?

It is up to policy makers, experts in Nepal, UN officials in the country and lawmakers–from federal to provincial level–to come up with concrete actions. An unsolicited advice: As additional funding is important, let’s not just talk about them. Instead, let’s focus on groundbreaking innovative ways to create bottom-up mechanisms to involve and engage the people in matters of the Agenda 2030.

This will make the difference but let’s be honest it is not going to be easy. While it is relatively simple to convince a youth to come to a rally or a march, it is much more difficult to get her attention for training and policy related “stuff”. Yes, these are not so attractive but they are essential tasks.

We need to “sell” them to the young generations as indispensable and paramount to really be able to imagine a better world, something that, as we are tragically realizing day by day, is getting harder and harder to do. The PM could simply delegate to his advisors, ministers or members of the National Planning Commission to move the overall policy agenda forward through important, even though, less formal meetings.

Simone Galimberti is the co-founder of ENGAGE and of Good Leadership. Views are personal.

“We call on all states to uphold the principles of international law including territorial integrity and sovereignty, international humanitarian law, and the multilateral system that safeguards peace and stability” reads the official statement.

As we all know, including the Indian government, we are not just talking about a simple conflict but of the most destructive war happening in the old continent since the second world war, the war that happened because Russia decided to invade a much smaller and weaker country.  It was a big change in comparison to the statement included last November in the Bali G20 Declaration under last year’s Indonesian chairmanship of the group.

Then it was indeed a positive surprise what President Jokowi of Indonesia and his entourage of diplomats managed to come up with the strongest possible declaration that the international community could have ever imagined at the end of 2022: The G 20 Summit in Bali “deplores in the strongest terms the aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine and demands its complete and unconditional withdrawal from the territory of Ukraine. deplores in the strongest terms the aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine and demands its complete and unconditional withdrawal from the territory of Ukraine”.

There was more.

“Most members strongly condemned the war in Ukraine and stressed it is causing immense human suffering and exacerbating existing fragilities in the global economy–constraining growth, increasing inflation, disrupting supply chains, heightening energy and food insecurity, and elevating financial stability risks.”

What a shocking difference between the two declarations.

Patrick Wintour, the diplomatic editor of The Guardian, is right when he wrote that “Mr Jaishankar, did not seem too bothered to justify the outcome”. I wish I could ask Jaishankar what difference emerged from last year and this year and how the situation has changed.

Surely the Minister would retort with one of his sharp and abrasive (and arrogant) responses as he is a master in giving such highly charged rhetoric comments. Yet for me, in trying to come up with some justifications to the greatly watered-down text, Jaishankar came really short, he could not offer his best.

Think well about it: “Bali was Bali. New Delhi is Delhi”. For me, it does sound like a joke but one that does not provoke any funny reaction but just outrage. Yet at the end of the day, Minister Jaishankar and PM Modi did what they were supposed to do–finding a compromise and not fully and wholly condemning Russia.

Thanks to Brazil and South Africa, respectively the next chairs of the G20 and thanks to the fact that the so-called West bloc is a minority within this group of nations, India pulled off the job this time. Mission accomplished, for Mr Modi and Mr Jaishankar!

And how ironic to read that both American National Security Advisor Jack Sullivan and Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov declared the statement as a “milestone”.  Certainly, it was for Russia but how audacious was it for one of the closest advisors to President Biden to frame the declaration in such a way? All the representatives of the G7 that were in Delhi came up with declarations similar to Sullivan’s.

For instance, both French President Macron and British Prime Minister Sunak echoed the official American position. “This G20 confirms once again the isolation of Russia. Today, an overwhelming majority of G20 members condemn the war in Ukraine and its impact “shared President Macron.

Prime Minister Sunak instead said that the language against Russia was “very strong”.

What bothered me is not that the West (Australia, the UK, the EU as a bloc and as Team Europe made up by its members sitting at G20, Canada, the USA together with Japan and South Korea) is not anymore the predominant voice in such a symbolically important forum. This can be, all in all, a good thing and that’s the raison d’être, the whole idea of why the G20 came about in the aftermath of the 2007-2008 economic crisis.

It is important to have the voices of the so-called Global South take center stage and be heard vocally around the world. The problem is that supporting Ukraine is still perceived as a Western liberal democracy “crusade” against the rest of the world. I am not talking about expecting other nations to step up their military aid to Kiev the way the West has been doing so far. This can be or can be seen controversial even in the same nations that are the staunchest allies of Ukraine.  I am talking here about at least diplomatically stepping up and defending the principles of the UN Charter and holding Russia accountable, showing full solidarity to Ukraine.

Now the West looks more isolated. It is not that the G20 was wholly negative for these nations.

A potential alternative to the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) of China was launched and a new global biofuel alliance was launched with many Western nations leading it together with countries like India, Brazil and Argentina. Yet fully embracing the cause of Ukraine is seen as corrosive and too compromising for many nations in the South.

I do not need to spend time explaining how much India is indispensable to the USA and the whole G7 group in terms of geopolitics. A lot has already been written about it from a multitude of analysts.

The bottom line is the following:

First the Indian establishment is united in its official position in relation to the war.  Those like me that believed that a Congress-led government in Delhi would have turned around New Delhi’s official position towards the conflict were left bitter in hearing, both former Prime Minister of India Manmohan Singh and Congress Leader Rahul Gandhi during an official visit to Brussels, that they share the same position of the Modi’s government.

There is no way that New Delhi, after the triumph of the G20 Declaration, is going to change its stances towards Russia. Its ambiguity and self-interest like the ones pursued by the West not only for decades and decades but for centuries and centuries, will continue and no one will any more bother to press the issue against them.

Second, the Global South is in charge of its own understanding and narrative of world affairs even if at the cost of compromising key principles and values. President Lula of Brazil, a democracy icon and an inspirational progressive leader, already announced that President Putin of Russia will be welcome at the next G20 Summit in Rio de Janeiro to be held on 18–19 November 2024.

Many other countries, while not fully condoning Russia, won’t also be ready to change their positions and fully and unequivocally condemn Russia. This is for me a real conundrum for the West that has become incapable of persuading allies and partners in what is a just cause against a powerful aggressor.

It is the West that is losing its influence and sway. Is it perhaps that its double standards are one of the reasons for such diminished role? Will these countries be humble enough to introspect their behaviors? While trying to answer these questions, I will point out the third and final point that is actually a further elaboration of the previous two. The West needs to step up.

The West has become incapable of persuading allies and partners in what is a just cause against a powerful aggressor. The West is losing its influence and sway. 

The global aid support provided by the West, while paramount and essential for many developing nations despite the criticisms, is no more enough for them to steer and hold steady the balance of moral and ethical principles.  While undertaking such a process of self-analysis, the West should not give up, as they did in Delhi, on their principles just out of convenience and expediency.

They just have to do a better job at listening to the rest of the world and have a real conversation on the most intricate issues affecting our humanity. When they promise to the Global South billions of dollars to fight climate change and they are not delivering, emerging and developing nations do resent in the same way they did resent when the Covid vaccines were not equally distributed with the rest of the world.  There is indeed a lot of catch up the West needs to do, including advancing a bold reform of the global financing institutions.

Countering China won’t depend only on economic and military prowess that the G7 nations are trying to shore up to resist the rise of Beijing. It will also depend on a completely different postering and attitudes on global levels and bold decisions to share the global power as they are doing at G20.

Such change would also help the West build a new narrative less centered on its indispensability and righteousness, a narrative that slowly could become accepted by the rest. Yet sharing power, holding less brash and commandeering positions on the global scene, does not mean that West should cave in when instead it should hold its own principled and values based stance.

The Declaration at G20 in Delhi should not have been agreed by the West. It was a strategic mistake because the world does not need new emerging powers, rising nations like India, Brazil or South Africa that can finally push for their own version of hegemonic power while disregarding the basic tenets of the global order. It is true, there are many other conflicts and Russia’s aggression in Ukraine is not the only tragedy affecting humanity these days. Yet we cannot afford to give it a pass and allow India and the new giants of the South of the world, driven by pure self-interest, to thrive in ambiguity, without taking sides and risks.  Perhaps Jaishankar is right, even unintentionally and inadvertently.  After all, it is true. Bali was Bali and New Delhi is Delhi.

The situation is indeed different and now is much worse for the people of Ukraine while Russia is showing its weaknesses day by day.  While there are a multitude of issues where the West should cave in, this time in Delhi, the capitals of the so-called “Free World” made indeed the wrong call.

Views are personal.

This is the conundrum faced by Nepal, a nation that, despite being marred by a decade of Maoist insurrection followed by a difficult but successful peace process, made considerable strides in its economic development. At the center of this debate is the potential of hydropower energy from which Nepal can generate millions and millions of dollars and its disruptive impacts on the lives of millions of indigenous communities that accounts for at least 36 percent of the total population according to the Census 2011.

According to projections from the Asian Development Bank, the electric power sector could raise the national GDB by 87 percent by 2030.

Unsurprisingly, since the end of civil conflict, a considerable number of hydropower projects have been approved, many of which have already started operating while others are under construction and many more are under the pipeline.

Political stability since the end of war has been elusive but developing hydro powers has been one thing that received the utmost priority by those in power. Despite the shifting coalition, there is a determination across the political spectrum in the corridors of powers of Kathmandu to strike as many hydro power deals as possible.

How it affects indigenous people

The problem with all major hydropower projects is that they require major alterations to nature, forcing changes in local landscape that are adversely affecting local populations, many of which are indigenous.

On September 3, The Rising Nepal reported that locals had blocked the main road to the construction of the Arun III Hydropower Project, a 900 MW project being constructed in Sankhuwasabha district. The main reason was that locals did not receive due compensation as promised by the developer of the project. Take another example, the Upper Trishuli 1 hydro project, one of the many projects attracting financing from the international community or the construction of the transmission line carrying the electricity generated by the hydropower project Lamjung district. Such undertakings, while considered a priority for the development of the country, are proving to be highly problematic.

In both cases, local communities, mostly from indigenous communities, have been complaining about lack of implementations in key provisions supposedly aimed at safeguarding their rights.

The leading financiers behind them, the International Finance Corporation, part of the World Bank Group in Upper Trishuli 1 and the European Investment Bank, the international financing arm of the European Union for the Lamjung transmission power, are coming short of ensuring that borrowers fulfill their duties in protecting and respecting the rights of local population.

Both projects, for instance, started without adhering to the foundational human rights principle of free, prior and informed consent or FPIC, according to Tahal Thami, an indigenous rights lawyer and Director of the Lawyers’ Association for Human Rights of Nepal Indigenous Peoples, LAHURNIP.

“Starting a multi million dollar hydro project without FPIC leads to conflicts and negatively affects the sustainability of the whole endeavor,” Tahal said. “It is in the best interest of the investors to ensure that FPIC is wholly followed.”

LAHURNIP is a pioneering association that has been assisting not only local indigenous but also other members of local communities affected by hydro power projects. Its work has been instrumental in many cases where redress to locals was ultimately provided. Yet, the challenges related to hydropower can only be partially explained by a lack of enforcement of the rights of indigenous peoples. And it is here where the issue becomes thornier and highly sensitive and where even the mighty funding agencies cannot do much about.

It is not just about complying with complex procedures before the start of the constructions, including key environmental assessments that are often neglected as it’s not uncommon to see the machines breaking ground before such fundamental steps are even completed as I learned from Thami.

It is not even the almost total disregard of the principle of free, prior and informed consent, a cornerstone of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, of which Nepal is a party.  It is the fact that power in Nepal is still mostly concentrated in the hands of Khas Aryas, a term that describes the groups traditionally at the helm of the Hindu hierarchy. This despite the fact that giant steps have been made in terms of safeguarding and protecting the rights of the many ethnically indigenous groups since the end of the civil war.

The country endorsed a new constitution of 2015, regarded by the same elite as a very progressive charter that guarantees the rights of minorities and the creation of a federal system. The federalization, still very much a work in progress, was at least on paper designed to empower local communities by decentralizing power from the elite in Kathmandu. Yet, the power remains still largely distributed unequally and the reality on the ground provides a different contrasting reading on what’s going on in the wider society.

As a consequence, the unbalanced power relations surrounding hydropower projects simply reflect that stark gap between words and deeds when we talk about social inclusion in Nepal. “The lack of protection of the rights of indigenous populations dealing with contractors and their international financiers is not just an issue of compliance in the field of business and human rights,” said Thami referring to an area of human rights practice aimed at keeping the corporates accountable.

“If we need to keep contractors and their financial backers accountable, we also need to ensure that the state and its agencies do what they are due to do to respect the rights of indigenous peoples.”

So tackling abuses against indigenous populations by the biggest players from the hydropower industry is part of a much bigger challenge for Nepal. Practical, short-term solutions together with longer and more difficult ones that go in the depth of the power relations existing in the society are urgently needed.

On the one hand, we need to ensure that contractors and operators of hydropower projects get serious about the most basic rights of local populations. Equally important is that their international backers, the multilateral and bilateral finance institutions also do a much more serious job at overseeing the whole process, from impact evaluation to tender to preparation and implementation of any compensatory agreement or local development plan agreed with locals. Most importantly they must ensure the fulfillment of the principle of free, prior and informed consent.

This is not just a vague concept but it is a right backed up by international law and enforceable in Nepal since the country not only ratified the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples but also it is a party to ILO convention 169 known as the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention.

“Both are disregarded in practice and no action plans so far have been implemented to put in practice the principles and duties enshrined in these two internationally legally binding instruments,” said Thami.

On the other hand, the state agencies must step up as well. This will happen only after the country’s elite will undertake a journey of self-introspection. They must come to terms with the reality that the way power is shared is itself the major impediment to the fulfillment of the rights of the most marginalized communities living in the country.

Tackling power inequalities

Tackling power inequalities is the only way to ensure long term solutions not only in the field of business and human rights but also towards the comprehensive implementation of the rights of indigenous peoples and other marginalized groups, including those of other economically weak sections of the society. The rights of these citizens must be safeguarded and the duties and responsibilities by the state and of those holding positions of influence towards them have to be fully enforced.

Therefore, it is imperative for the elite in power to seriously commit in the formulation and implementation of action plans to enforce on the ground the legally binding obligations that Nepal is party of.

However, these alone, even if paramount, won’t be enough. It is equally important  to amend numerous legislations like the Environment Protection Act and its Regulations that ignore the rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Also essential is to ensure that any policies being formulated to enforce the Convention on Biodiversity and its latest implementing framework, the Kunming Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework  are also fully adhered to and in compliance with the international human rights standards protecting and preserving indigenous knowledge and traditions. The same can be said for the execution of the 2^nd Nationally Determined Contributions that Nepal presented in 2020.

This is an indispensable but also highly ambitious tool to fight climate change whose implementation would require massive investments from the international community. Such investments must carry special guarantees upholding the rights of indigenous communities. 

An opportunity might arise with the preparations of the 16^th National Development Plan, the development master plan that will set the development trajectory of the country up to 2030. It is a very strategic plan that will be instrumental in enabling the conditions through which Nepal can come as close as possible to achieve the Agenda 2030 and its Sustainable Development Goals.

A positive note comes from the drafting process of the first ever Business and Human Rights Action Plan. Such a tool that would help ensure that peoples’ rights are protected by abiding to the UN Guiding Principles of Business and Human Rights, voluntary standards compelling governments to protect, respect and offer remedy against corporates’ abuses.

Positively, Indigenous Civil Society organizations were actively involved in its preparation process, an important step that should not be taken for granted, Thani said. So far the latest draft recognizes the importance of taking into account the perspective and the inalienable rights of indigenous population. Even if approved in its current form, something that should be considered as a very positive development for indigenous communities of Nepal, there is also the high risk that it would become one more, among many, meaningless official documents. That’s why only changing the mindsets and attitudes of the ruling elite can unfold a new era for the country. An era truly focused on social inclusion and redress of power imbalances affecting not only indigenous peoples but also members of the Dalits community, against whom the system has been discriminating for centuries.

Enforcing rules to protect and safeguard the rights of indigenous communities in the hydro power sector must be seen within the broader aim to radically change the way power is distributed in Nepal.

Enforcing rules to protect and safeguard the rights of indigenous communities in the hydro power sector must be seen within the broader aim to radically change the way power is distributed in Nepal.

Respecting and implementing the rights of indigenous peoples and other marginalized communities throughout the society will require an honest and difficult conversation in the country. Otherwise, what’s going on these days in Sankhuwasabha, with locals angered about unfulfilled promises, could become a normalized reaction that would imperil the prospects of the country to become a middle income country in the next ten years.

Stakeholders have to do whatever it takes to redress the grievances of local indigenous communities.

Simone Galimberti writes on democracy, social inclusion, youth development, regional integration, SDGs and human rights in the context of Asia Pacific.

Shailee Chaudhary, hailing from Madhesh province, is an ardent activist who has dedicated the past decade to advocating for the rights of marginalized communities. Involved in various initiatives and organizations, Chaudhary’s passion knows no bounds. With a sincere commitment to the cause of Dalit Lives Matter, she has orchestrated impactful events like TEDxBirgunj to amplify unheard voices and fostered inclusive spaces in her pursuit of a more equitable world. Embracing a Queer Feminist identity, Chaudhary has tirelessly worked towards equal rights and inclusivity, traversing various intersections, and undertaking numerous initiatives. To delve into Chaudhary’s unique perspective, explore her thought-provoking writings on medium.

In my personal quest to better understand the dynamics surrounding the fight for justice that has been carried out by members of the Dalit community in Nepal, I recently visited the Dalit Lives Matter Global Alliance.

Inspired by the Black Lives Matter movement in the USA that erupted following the murder of George Floyd in the street of Minneapolis in May 2020, the Alliance wants to build a global movement focused on the rights, dreams and aspirations of Dalits citizens, not only in Nepal but also in South Asia and throughout the world.

At the Alliance I met its founder Pradip Pariyar, an old acquaintance of mine and also Shailee Chaudhary who plays the vital role of organizer and campaigner there. 

Conversation with Pradip Pariyar

The conversation spanned the whole spectrum of the ongoing work being carried by them, from the current situation faced by Dalit to policy making and activism, two dimensions that are intrinsically related to each other like two sides of the same coin. 

But let’s start with the sparkle or better the anger that prompted Pradip to come up with the idea of the Alliance. It was June 2020 and the protests against the atrocious killing of six young Dalits in Rukum West were going on. The turnout at the manifestations was not as high as expected. Youths showed up but then something was missing. 

As explained by activists and human rights expert Tek Tamrakar at the time for The Himalayan Times, non-Dalit activists and senior members of the so-called civil society did not show up.

While in the USA the killing of George Floyd also brought millions of white Americans to reconsider many of their assumptions about privilege and the impact of racism in the society, the same did not materialize in Nepal. This is what brought Pradip to start barnstorming about a global movement focused on the rights of Dalits citizens, in Nepal but also outside the country.

This overall goal is as straightforward as daunting:  Ensuring rights of Dalit citizens.

So far the Alliance has been working to prepare the ground for actions on the field even if one of its most visible undertakings was the wall painting in Patan depicting the portraits of the Rukum West’s victims. This, Pradip explains to me, can be achieved through the implementation of three distinct strategies.

“First, instituting a comprehensive reform of state mechanisms guided by the principle of proportionate inclusivity. This entails ensuring that the state fulfills its constitutional responsibilities and is held answerable for any lapses,” Pradip told me. ‘Then,” he continued, “by nurturing a new generation of leaders who champion rights-based advocacy, address multifold discrimination arising from the intersections of caste, geopolitics, socioeconomics, and gender and sexuality questions, and lead grassroots movements. These emerging leaders will be instrumental in driving the agenda of equitable treatment and social justice”.

“Finally,” he explained, “by broadening the scope of discussions surrounding caste-related issues by fostering a global dialogue. This approach aims to raise awareness and encourage collaboration on addressing caste-based discrimination both within Nepal and internationally.”

What impressed me over the conversation with him and Shailee was two things: First the importance attached to leadership development; second the focus on inclusiveness, the realization that, in order to achieve the rights of Dalit citizens, there is a need of creating an inclusive alliance. In practice, this means bringing in people from different walks of life, including citizens from the so-called traditionally privileged groups. Leadership and personal ownership are essential tools to promote action, awareness and change at local levels.

That’s why the Alliance is working to establish independent and autonomous affiliates in each of the 77 districts of the country. In a way promoting youth leadership is a way to promote agency but also it is the best way to equip citizens, especially youths, to have the tools to fight discrimination and injustice. This, Pradip explains, must be done inclusively. 

That’s why the teams of young people that will lead the local associations will also be open to non-Dalit youths as well, especially members of the marginalized communities, youths from the LGBTQ communities, youths with disabilities and indigenous youths. They will work and this is the plan, as mobilizers but also as watchdog, supporting citizens who have been discriminated against.

The focus is certainly on providing redress to injustices committed against Dalits but at the same time, the participation of non-Dalits will also allow a broader advocacy work against patriarchism and discrimination. 

At the same time Pradip believes that achieving a truly inclusive society requires engaging the so-called upper caste. “We are not excluding anyone and we also try at the Alliance to lead the conversation and the change on the ground by example,” he said. “Our staff is made up of colleagues from different communities, including from Brahmin and indigenous groups”.

The fight is indeed against all forms of discrimination and Pradip is crystal clear that social justice is not only about ensuring the rights of Dalit citizens. “My overarching goal is to eliminate all manifestations of discrimination within Nepal, including members of indigenous communities, persons with disability and others.” While I knew Pradip’s tenacity and lifelong commitment for social justice, I was impressed by Shailee’ passionate resolve to the cause.

Views of Shailee Chaudhary

Shailee has a very unique view on the issue, something stemming from her own identity as a queer woman. “As an individual who does not belong to the Dalit community, I am not immune to the pervasive impact of the caste system. Its influence permeates various facets of my life, including social, economic, political, and cultural dimensions,” she said.

She further emphasized: “It is crucial to recognize that caste exerts an effect on all individuals; the differentiating factor lies in the degree of discrimination faced. For instance, in my case, marrying someone outside the Marwadi community might result in familial restrictions or potential estrangement.”

 “Conversely, when a Dalit individual seeks to make a similar choice, the consequences are far more severe, often resulting in targeted violence and even fatalities perpetrated by families and caste-dominant groups,” she said.

The question of proportionality and different degree of propensity of levels of discrimination is a key and it is something that requires further analysis and reflections. Untangling it could provide venues to get the overall society on board in the fight against discrimination.

It is something that we might discount but it is true that the whole society has been rigidly divided along castes and different treatments, a nice word for discriminatory behaviors, were at the foundations of it. Everyone was, and to some extent, is still influenced by these long-established behaviors and mindsets but some are paying a much higher price.

“This motivates me” Shailee further elaborates “to gain a comprehensive understanding of the historical and contemporary challenges linked to the caste system. It impels me to recognize my privilege and critically evaluate my standing within this hierarchical framework.” “It drives me to scrutinize and actively contest biases and unfair treatment stemming from caste. It compels me to initiate thought-provoking discourse, demonstrate solidarity, foster connections, and be an ally in the journey of Dalit and marginalized communities attaining dignified lives” she shared with the conviction of someone deeply involved in the issues.

Afterthoughts

It is noteworthy to say that the Alliance, as the name itself explains, has global ambitions.

Pradip was recently at the United Nations Headquarters in New York on the occasion of the High-Level Political Forum, the global SDGs focused mechanism. He was there to advocate the Dalits’ rights worldwide because, as we know, it is occurring that the same discriminatory dynamics, either conscious or unconscious at play in the societies throughout South Asia, are reverberating also in North America. There have been several cases of alleged discrimination against Dalits by other members of the Hindu community living there.

The Alliance is also a key constituent of the Global Forum of Communities Discriminated on Work and Descent (GFoD) that works to uplift the “most excluded, segregated, and marginalized groups at the global and local level within their social, economic, political, and cultural systems.”

Working for social justice requires grit, determination and commitment to dialogue. It also requires a strong resolve to use all the venues provided by the law to punish the perpetrators of caste-based discrimination.

Working for social justice requires grit, determination and commitment to dialogue. It also requires a strong resolve to use all the venues provided by the law to punish the perpetrators of caste-based discrimination.

I am looking forward to hearing from Shailee and Pradip about the work at local levels, a real process of empowerment that the Alliance is focusing on. The overarching aim, for Pradip and Shailee and the team at the Alliance, is to create a much-needed movement at grassroots level.

The work of the local associations that they are trying to enable is going to be challenging because it takes endurance, commitment, dedication, expertise and knowledge to fight prejudices and discriminatory behaviors punishable by law. And training the new batch of young advocates is paramount. They will act as “informal” junior paralegal dialogue practitioners because we need tons of dialogue to change the status quo.

Wrapping up, I hope the members of the civil society that were missing in action during the protests in June 2022 will still reach out to the Alliance and brainstorm with them about venues for collaborations. Hopefully also members of indigenous and disability communities will try to build bridges with the Dalit movement. I see the potential for a network of networks, something agile and focused on a holistic fight for social inclusion. I also hope that more powerful wall paintings will show up around the towns of the country. I wish I was there in June 2022 but I wasn’t and I regret it.

Simone Galimberti is the pro-bono co-founder of ENGAGE and The Good Leadership. He writes about social issues, politics and youth empowerment. Views are personal.