She has experience of working in various countries in different capacities since 2003 at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office(FCO). Since her appointment as the ambassador in Nepal, she has traveled to various parts of the country touching lives and livelihoods of people. 

The United Kingdom is a special country for Nepal in the sense that it was the first country in the world with which Nepal had established diplomatic relations. Our diplomatic ties extend over 200 years. Our development support has always been anchored in Nepal’s needs, she shares. 

Coinciding with International Women’s Day, Nepal Live Today caught up with Nicola Pollitt  to learn more about her role and vision working in Nepal as an active diplomat and proponent of freedom, rights, justice and equality. Excerpts:

UK aid goes to many development projects in Nepal. How do you evaluate the UK aid to Nepal’s development over the decades?

The UK has been a long-standing partner of Nepal. Our diplomatic ties extend over 200 years. Our development support has always been anchored in Nepal’s needs. We work closely with the government, civil society, and the private sector to do this, always aiming to drive up equality and inclusion. We have worked with the World Bank, Asian Development Bank, and other development partners to help bring gender equality and social inclusion into programs and government plans in areas as varied as climate change, health, education, irrigation, water supply, sanitation, forestry, earthquake resilience, governance, and infrastructure among others.

“I have had the pleasure of meeting many Nepali women leaders and activists and I see huge potential in their ability to usher in change.”

I feel that our development work as well as humanitarian efforts, most notably in the aftermath of Nepal’s 2015 earthquakes, have helped establish stronger UK-Nepal relations. We have always worked in partnership with communities, including now with local governments and this element of ownership helps to make our work more sustainable.

What are the UK government’s priority sectors in Nepal

We are supporting the government of Nepal in a diverse range of sectors, but our top priorities are in providing support: to improve the health of the Nepali people; protect against and adapt to the impacts of climate change; improve Nepal’s capacity for sustainable economic development; strengthen local governance; improve girls’ education levels; and support human rights including through fighting gender-based violence and encouraging women leadership in key decision-making roles.

Today the world is marking International Women’s Day to raise awareness about women’s equality and lobby for accelerated gender parity. Could you share with us how gender issues are incorporated in the projects and assistance provided by the UK government to Nepal?

Gender issues are at the heart of all the work done by the British Embassy. This shouldn’t be a surprise. Globally, sadly including here in Nepal, women face specific challenges, like greater poverty, inequality, and exclusion from education and jobs markets. They are also more vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.

Globally, poverty among women is higher than it is among men, which obviously creates a huge gender inequality. This explains why empowering women and girls is at the heart of our work. In our Women and Girls Gender Equality Strategy, the UK commits to extend its support to empowering women and girls in five broad areas. All UK-funded programs implemented in Nepal must comply with the UK’s Gender Equality Act of 2012, whereby they need to demonstrate how they are reducing gender inequality gaps.

The first is through educating girls. Our Girls Education Challenge (GEC) program has worked with local governments and partners in Nepal to identify girls from the poorest and most excluded communities, who due to life circumstances and rigid social norms have missed out on education. We have supported over 33,000 girls to improve their reading and give them the confidence to enroll back into mainstream schools. The impacts of this are immense including decreasing cases of child marriage. Some have successfully pursued higher education. When COVID-related school closures forced girls to stay home, GEC used a mix of virtual and small in-person meetings to help adolescent girls continue learning and protect their health and mental wellbeing. Once empowered, girls can do amazing things, like Amisha Bhandari from Kailali for example, who told me how she and her friends were challenging harmful menstrual taboos, such as chhaupadi in her area.  

The second area is women’s economic empowerment. The UK’s Skills for Employment Program (SEP) helps train women and find them jobs, including in non-traditional roles. Globally, 75 percent women and nearly a similar number in Nepal, are employed in informal jobs. Women in informal jobs are paid less, are vulnerable to losing their jobs and work in poor conditions. The UK government also supports efforts to make migration safe for women.

Thirdly, we are working on protecting women’s sexual and reproductive health through building critical health infrastructure and health service delivery as well through strengthening health systems. One-stop crisis management centers have been established in almost all district hospitals of Nepal through our Nepal Health Sector Support Program. These support women and girls in cases of gender-based violence, among others.

“Only 22 percent of working age women are in paid employment in Nepal. Our Skills for Employment Programme (SEP) is working with the private sector to address key barriers and expand livelihood enablers for women, including in non-traditional and emerging jobs.”

The fourth area is around violence against women and girls. The UK’s Integrated Program for Strengthening Security and Justice has worked closely with the Nepal Police to build 58 police buildings. Fifteen Women and Children Service Centers have been added where women and girls are able to access support for security and justice against gender-based violence. Close to 3.4million people now have access to a police station which is women and disability-friendly, in addition to providing better working conditions and accommodation for 1500 police officers. The UK has also helped train 11,800 police officers of which 1050 are women, in gender sensitive investigation, counseling, crime prevention, citizen-friendly policing and human rights, and local accountability, to help improve policing services.

And finally, women’s political participation, which I think is crucial for better policies and implementation that support women. Women’s contribution to strengthening systems and state-building is only possible when an enabling environment is created for them.

Are there any gender specific projects being run by the British government like UKaid Skills for Employment Program? How do these projects support the efforts to increase women’s leadership in Nepal?

Only 22 percent of working age women are in paid employment in Nepal. Our Skills for Employment Programme (SEP) is working with the private sector to understand the challenges that companies as well as women face to address key barriers and expand livelihood enablers for women, including in non-traditional and emerging jobs.

Through Morang Earth Movers Pvt Ltd (MEPL), the supplier of JCB’s heavy equipment operators for the construction sector, SEP has helped expand job-linked training to underserved regions of Nepal, so that women and members of disadvantaged groups are able to find jobs with better salaries. This includes, for example, recruitment of women as trainer role models, to break down gender stereotypes in a traditionally male-dominated sector.

“Let me encourage you all to #BreakTheBias. Small, seemingly everyday decisions to make your own choices and make your own way, can all bring change.”

Our Skills program has helped the decentralization of carpet manufacturing—taking weaving workshops and jobs to rural Sarlahi in Madhesh Province. In addition to weaving jobs, the program has trained women as master weavers—putting women into leadership roles to attract more women workers. In the ICT sector, through the UK headquartered Genese Solutions, the program has promoted female ‘role models’ and offered financial aid to support women to make their own choices and take the opportunities available to them.

For my own part, I have launched a leadership mentoring program for young Nepali women. I have been joined by seven other women ambassadors and heads of agencies based in Kathmandu and we have selected eight mentees from a list of over 300 applicants. I’m looking forward to a rewarding year supporting my mentee’s career and leadership aspirations, as well as learning from her.

You are also actively watching Nepal’s civil society movement, particularly rights-based activities. Where do you see the situation of Nepali women when it comes to the issue of empowerment, rights, and inclusion?

I have had the pleasure of meeting many Nepali women leaders and activists and I see huge potential in their ability to usher in change. There is a need to create a safe and enabling environment for women to express their views, stand in solidarity with other women and lead the change they want to see.

“The UK has been a long-standing partner of Nepal. Our diplomatic ties extend over 200 years. Our development support has always been anchored in Nepal’s needs.”

To improve women’s status in Nepal, we need to invest in their education, create employment opportunities, provide them with skills that have market value, and link women entrepreneurs and women-led businesses with markets and larger business houses. We also need to ensure that women and the voices of those who are excluded based on their gender, caste, ethnicity and disability, are heard and are backed by people in positions of leadership.

Do you feel that Nepal’s constitutions and other laws are sufficient to protect women’s rights? Do they follow international standards of human rights and individual liberty?

Nepal’s constitution and laws in relation to equality and inclusion are strong. But there is no country in the world where laws alone are enough to protect and promote the rights of underrepresented groups. We need enforcement of those laws, action to spot and develop talent and tackle prejudice and advocacy among other groups. The whole of society benefits from greater equality and inclusion, so the whole of society should play its part in championing this. It’s not up to women and girls alone to champion their own rights: men and boys should play their part, too.

It is believed that women are disproportionately affected due to the pandemic. What is your observation in Nepal’s context?

There’s no question that COVID has had different impacts on men and women; the question is by how much, and in what areas? Globally–and again, Nepal is sadly no exception–there’s been more domestic violence during lockdowns, and that mostly affects women. More girls have dropped out of education than boys, more women have been forced into precarious jobs in the informal sector, or into unpaid work, and other health outcomes, like maternal health, have also deteriorated. These are just some of the reasons why laws alone are not enough and why now is an important moment to act. 

Looking back at your own career, how difficult is it for a woman to become and serve as a diplomat? Have you seen any significant differences regarding treatment and privileges for female diplomats between the developed countries and underdeveloped ones?

In the UK, women were not allowed to be diplomats until 1946. Until 1972, women had to resign from the diplomatic service when they got married. Since then, change has come. By the time I joined the Foreign Office in 2003, there were many women working there, though far less than 50 percent, and only 10 percent of leadership roles were filled by women.

“I feel that our development work as well as humanitarian efforts, most notably in the aftermath of Nepal’s 2015 earthquakes, have helped establish stronger UK-Nepal relations.”

Now we’ve reached over 40 percent, and we’re still making progress to reach our target of 50 percent. The support for women with families has also improved hugely in the last decade, though there is more to do. I have had the privilege of working here in Kathmandu with many female ambassadorial colleagues and other women in leading roles across the international community. Just occasionally, someone assumes it’s my husband or male colleague who is the ambassador, but generally as a diplomat we are afforded the same privileges as male counterparts. International treaties ensure that that is the case. That is why as women and leaders with those privileges, it is our role to support Nepal to reach that kind of equality for all Nepali women.

Lastly, what message do you like to convey on the occasion of International Women’s Day? 

Let me encourage you all to #BreakTheBias. Small, seemingly everyday decisions to make your own choices and make your own way, can all bring change. Have the confidence to know you are doing the right thing for yourself.

As Nepali Congress is gearing up for 14th General Convention, the common perception about Nepal’s oldest democratic party is that its democratic commitment is eroding, factionalism is rife within the party, and leaders have sacrificed values and norms for sheer opportunism. What led to this situation?

I largely agree with what you have said but this is not the whole story. We are now focused on leadership selection down from the ward level up to the central committee. During the process, organizational meetings take place at various layers, which actually help to strengthen the organizational structure. The ward-level conventions have given life to the local organizational structure which had become weak in the last five years. This has also proved that local organizational building initiatives are part of a larger organizational strengthening process. At the next level, we will formulate policies and plans and get them endorsed.

You talked about groupism and factionalism. This has become rather endemic within our party. For this, those in the leadership are more responsible than those in the grassroots. But you cannot only see negativity in this. When Congress was a divided house before it got reunited, there was a 40/60 ratio of portfolio distribution. This for long had an impact on the organizational structure of the party. But after the 12th general convention, things have considerably changed. There was a time when you could say so and so leaders are in so and so groups and factions. That situation has changed now. Now the nature of the coalition at the district level is different. Those who are in the same faction in the district are choosing leadership from a different faction. Groupism and factionalism are a reality in a political party but this should not be allowed to be institutionalized.

Our economy has suffered due to conflicts within the communist parties. We have seen that when a communist leads the Ministry of Finance, the economy loses steam and confidence.

Then there is a predilection for populism among some of the leaders at the cost of accountability. Many leaders get themselves into active membership distribution and participate in meetings. But some tend to make unnecessary comments about those very meetings after coming out of them for cheap popularity, either by posting populist status on social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook or by giving populist, clickbaity statements to online media. Some youth leaders tend to present themselves as revolutionary to attract public attention. They want to project themselves as progressive and different. This is not so at the cadres’ level. The cadres are not for appeasing the leaders at the provincial and central levels at the cost of spoiling the party organization. So what you have said is true but that’s not the whole truth.

If so, what actually is the impression that Nepali Congress is trying to project through the upcoming General Convention?

We had not imagined in the last general elections that the Nepal Communist Party would rise as the largest party. Many Congress leaders lost the election. So did I. We lost many seats. But we accepted the defeat.  We thought—’What if we lost? The country has found a stable government of nearly two-thirds majority.’ Our hope back then was that the stable government would revive the economy; the bureaucracy would be dynamic; and there would be policy stability creating favorable situations for traders, private leaders, and citizens alike. All such expectations proved to be wrong. The government of K P Sharma Oli started to serve one after another blow to the constitution. The side effects of that are apparent in the current government led by Nepali Congress as well.

Nepali Congress is not a party dominated by an individual leader or one personality. Congress has always had a collective leadership. 

Thus I can say that Nepali Congress will have a specific vision after the coming general elections. The first thing to do would be to institutionalize the constitution for which we struggled so hard. The second thing to do would be to enhance rule of law and democratic values. Independence of judiciary, human rights, and press freedom shall never be compromised. Most importantly, Congress will be able to give life to the economy. Our economy has suffered due to conflicts within the communist parties. We have seen that when a communist leads the Ministry of Finance, the economy loses steam and confidence.

You say so, but Congress, which is leading the government now, has given the Finance Ministry to a communist leader.

You need to assess this situation differently. The government we have today is there not because we wanted it. This is the coalition of compulsion. Sher Bahadur Deuba was reluctant to become the PM but the situation unfolded in such a way after the vertical split in NCP that the responsibility to become the PM landed on Deuba’s shoulders. Deuba was far from willing to become a part of this political wrangling. He was for early elections. But then the situation was such that for the sake of safeguarding the constitution, the main opposition leader (Deuba) had to make a move.

When Congress was in opposition, Deuba was widely criticized for failing to play the role of a proactive opposition. He was actually not in the mood to become the PM. Personally, I was also not in favor of Congress leading the government because this was not our mandate.  People had given the mandate to form the government to the Nepal Communist Party. But the NCP failed to work as per the people’s mandate. It got sharply divided, and the Janata Samajbadi Party also witnessed a split. Somebody had to take the leadership to bring politics back on track. Sher Bahadur Deuba came to fulfill that role.

Let’s talk about the ideological deviation of the Nepali Congress. Congress often talks about the leadership qualities of its founding fathers such as BP Koirala, Krishna Prasad Bhattarai, and Ganeshman Singh. But nobody truly follows the ideological path set by them. Is Nepali Congress not facing a leadership crisis?

There are two sides to this issue. We go to a certain school and after passing out from there we tend to think the school is no more like what it used to be when we were the students there. This analogy somehow applies in the case of leadership as well. We tend to revere the predecessors more than the contemporary leaders. That said, I do admit that Congress at the moment does not have leaders of the same level of exposure, sacrifice, and devotion as our founding fathers were. But then it is equally true that Congress is not sustained only because of those leaders you mentioned. Yes, they have their legacy and they contributed and sacrificed a lot for the party. But those in the leadership today have also done as much as they can. They have contributed to the party and the country in their own ways. Like the past leaders, the current leaders were also elected by the people. Nepali Congress is not a party dominated by an individual leader or one personality. Congress has always had a collective leadership. No political party has a leader of BP’s charisma and his political vision. We don’t always get leaders like BP and Madan Bhandari. As I said, Congress is not an individual leader-dominated party. Congress has been following the democratic socialism policy of its founding fathers as its guiding principle.

Do you suggest that Congress today follows the democratic socialism of BP Koirala?

What is democratic socialism in the first place? Congress was for creating an equal society. The philosophy of democratic socialism of the 1960s has now undergone a change. It has changed in Europe as well. There used to be labor-union-oriented socialist parties; that has changed now. The principles of democratic socialism have changed everywhere. Thus, in today’s economy, if we try to apply the philosophy of BP’s socialism, it might not work. We have made a shift toward an open liberal economy from a controlled economy.

Personally, I was also not in favor of Congress leading the government because this was not our mandate.  People had given the mandate to form the government to the Nepal Communist Party. But the NCP failed to work as per the people’s mandate.

But is it now true that, like other parties, Congress has also fallen into the trap of crony capitalism? Nepotism holds sway over competence. And ‘settings’ and collusion seem to have hijacked the competitive economy.

I don’t dismiss these allegations out of hand. After the democratic change of the 1990s, economists stood for a competitive market economy. During the Panchayat era, you could not imagine doing business without securing patronage and approval from the Durbar (royal palace). You may say even today one cannot do business without protection from a political party. I would say the situation is different. Let me explain from my own experience. We had a handicraft business for which we needed wool. But we needed to have a license even to import wool. It was Congress which changed this situation. Congress established that one does not need to obtain such approval to start a business of one’s own. Whatever little hope we see in the economy today is because of this policy. Nearly all the countries of South Asia adopted an open economy and they were able to reap benefits from it to some extent. But then in every economic model, there are some rotten apples. The ‘setting’ you mentioned somehow thrives. This may have influenced the bidding process as well. But you cannot say that everything is guided by settings and collusions. Yes, some businesses may be favored by NCP and others by Nepali Congress, but you cannot conclude from this that we have allowed crony capitalism to rule the roost.

But there is evidence of businesspeople taking undue advantage of political affiliation. A common party cadre has to struggle for years to rise to leadership while businessmen with political clout rise to the top overnight. Why this privilege for them?

This tendency is rampant in all parties. When K P Oli was leading the government, it was often said certain businesspeople controlled everything. Such a trend is visible in other countries as well. Businesspeople can join politics for sure and they need to be brought onboard too. But they should not be allowed to completely control the leadership and decision-making process. If they want to come into politics, they need to come through open competition, like any normal cadre has to do. We need to favor those who have long been committed to the party. But then this does not mean we need to shut the door to intellectuals, traders and businesspeople. This does not help to bring new faces and new energy to the party. That said, new entrants have to conduct themselves according to the party principles, party statute, norms and values. Some newcomers sometimes exhibit the arrogance of wealth and money. The leadership has to be able to control such arrogance.

Nepali Congress is often accused of following the agenda of Communist parties, especially after the 2007 political change. How do you explain this ‘communistization’ of Congress?

I don’t believe in this allegation. K P Oli government tried to control the press. Maoists were intolerant to dissent and they even went to the extent of killing the followers of opposing ideologies. But Congress has always been open to press, public criticism and opposing ideologies and views. Unlike what the Oli government did, we have never ever tried to curtail press freedom and civil liberties by bringing the bills. We have always maintained that the National Human Rights Commission should remain an independent constitutional body free from political influence. When the attempt was made to bring NHRC under the office of the Attorney General, Congress vehemently opposed it. We believe in a fair, independent judiciary. We have always opposed the tendency of appointing judges in the courts based on political affiliation. Oli’s government tried to make the Constitutional Council toothless by reducing the number of members from seven to three. Congress will never go to that extent. There is a clear distinction between the conduct of communist parties and that of the Nepali Congress.

But Sher Bahadur Deuba, who was the main opposition leader back then, seemed to keep silent when the Oli government tried to unconstitutionally change the structure of the Constitutional Council. He didn’t protest when party-affiliated people were appointed to the constitutional bodies.

That’s not true. As a matter of fact, Oli had already nominated some candidates for appointment before Deuba participated in the Constitutional Council meeting. No government should be allowed to appoint members in the constitutional bodies arbitrarily. When this happens, the constitutional bodies no longer remain independent. This is precisely why there is a provision for the Speaker of the House and the main opposition leader to remain as the members of the Constitutional Council. We cannot allow a PM to do whatever he wants in appointments in constitutional bodies. When members are appointed in constitutional bodies based on the preference of the PM, it does not do good to the system of check and balance and democracy. Congress has always stood for creating the Constitutional Council as envisaged by the Constitution. For us, it is about safeguarding the constitutional spirit and provisions. It is about upholding the dignity of the constitutional bodies.

Some businesses may be favored by NCP and others by Nepali Congress, but you cannot conclude from this that we have allowed crony capitalism to rule the roost.

You served as the state minister of Finance in 2017. In a democracy, institutions have to be built and strengthened to deliver services and justice to the people. But our institutions seem to be eroding day by day. Or are we yet to build the institutions?

I would say both are the case. Take the judiciary. According to the media commentaries, the judiciary has not been able to deliver the quality services that people deserve. It is an open secret that corruption is rife in the judiciary. Thus, men of integrity have to be appointed in this institution, even if that means appointing someone close to a certain ideology or party. If you ask about bureaucracy, I don’t say it has completely eroded. But then it is true that bureaucracy is no longer an attractive institution. Our bureaucracy does not command the same level of recognition and respect that the bureaucracy of, say, India, the UK, or even Bhutan does. Bureaucracy should have been strengthened and institutionalized way back during the Panchayat era. This did not happen. Compared to other institutions, Nepal Army is still stronger and more professional. We need to make our bureaucracy stronger and more capable. Vision, leadership, and meritocracy are essential to build institutions.

What about parliament? Parliament is a sovereign institution to raise the problems and concerns of the common people. But our parliament has almost stopped discussing the national issues and agendas. Is our parliament also suffering an erosion?

I agree with you that parliament has lost its charm. You don’t see the discussions on major national issues taking place in that sovereign institution. Thus it can be said that parliament has not been able to function as per the expectation of the people. Parliament has often been held hostage by the party with the majority.

There was a time when major issues were discussed in parliament. There is a lot of literature on this happening in our historical documents. There used to be a vibrant debate even in the first parliament. Even during the Panchayat era, parliament was a place of vibrant debate. Parliament commanded respect during the time Daman Nath Dhungana was the Speaker. It is no more so at the moment.

The quality, dynamism and dignity of parliament have to be upheld. Actually, it has to be restored. For this, not only the political parties but also the people have to play a constructive role.

The quality, dynamism and dignity of parliament have to be upheld. Actually, it has to be restored. For this, not only the political parties but also the people have to play a constructive role. From the people’s level, they have to select the right persons to represent them in the parliament. Let’s choose those who are averse to corruption and who love this country. But the situation in Nepal is rather opposite. People tend to elect those very leaders whom they have long been accusing of being corrupt, dishonest and fraudulent. People have a big role to play to restore the dignity and quality of parliament.

To start with, how does it feel to be in Kathmandu when people as well as the political parties are intensely discussing the MCC?

I am excited to be back in Nepal, and, more importantly, to be able to speak directly to you about how the MCC-Nepal Compact will benefit the people of Nepal. We have a great opportunity to advance our conversation on this important matter with the letter MCC received from the Ministry of Finance on behalf of members of Parliament, community leaders, and the Nepali people. It is so important to hear from you, the people who will benefit the most from an MCC grant. It is important for every Nepali to understand the purpose of MCC as a US foreign assistance agency, why we provide grants that don’t add to a nation’s debt, and how and why your government and MCC partnered to design the $500 million MCC-Nepal Compact.  

Hopefully through these answers, I can provide clarity on the MCC grant and how it will positively impact nearly 23 million Nepalis. 

While at MCC, and previously with the Department of State and the US Senate, I have long championed development, democracy, and sovereignty for the countries of South Asia and beyond.  I have also had the good fortune to work alongside the people of Nepal since 2015, having visited your country many times to hear and learn from you while the MCC-Nepal Compact was being developed.

What was your impression of those earlier visits?   

In my previous visits, I was overwhelmed by the request for, and positive support of, an MCC partnership from business and community leaders to members from every political party. Unfortunately, since my last visit, there has also been an increase of false and misleading statements about MCC. I hope through this interview and other discussions, I can provide information that is helpful to the Nepali people and dispel some of the misunderstandings that have developed. I thank each of you for continuing the open and transparent dialog that has been the foundation of MCC’s partnership with Nepal.

Let’s get back to the main issue then. The MCC has been a matter of debate in Nepal for the last few years. Can you explain what MCC is and what it is not? 

MCC is an independent US government agency created to fight global poverty through economic growth. Our model is unique in that we only select countries that demonstrate commitment to good governance, economic freedom, and investing in their citizens.  

A cornerstone of MCC’s model is country-led grant programs, meaning the partner country is responsible for design and implementation. Here in Nepal, this means the Millennium Challenge Account-Nepal which is responsible for implementing the projects under the grant.  These grants do not come with any additional obligations. Partner countries, however, are expected to meet MCC’s high standards using innovative, transparent, and objective policies. 

For almost 70 years, the United States and Nepal have built a friendship on shared values and respect. That  friendship will continue regardless of MCC’s compact.   

That is what MCC is. Rather that is all we do. MCC provides grants that do not add to a country’s debt and support a partner country’s efforts to reduce poverty and foster economic growth.   

I have read that some believe MCC is a military alliance or that the Compact has a military component.  Nothing can be further from the truth.  MCC has no hidden agenda, and in fact, it is against US law for MCC funding to be used for any kind of military purpose. We have partnered with 39 countries around the world, including in South Asia, and the military has never been related to any of our programs.  

In Nepal, MCC is also talked about in terms of America’s strategic interests.  What could be the US interests on MCC, if at all?  

Partnering with like-minded countries working to reduce poverty is part of the United States’ strategic interests. Reducing global poverty is not only morally just, but also the key to a more secure and prosperous global community. We are proud to be part of these efforts. As an independent US foreign assistance agency, MCC was founded in 2004 with a unique and singular purpose: reduce poverty in partner countries through economic growth. That is what we have done for nearly twenty years across 39 countries, and the MCC-Nepal Compact will do the same. It will build a stronger, vibrant, more economically independent Nepal. 

MCC provides grants that do not add to a country’s debt and support a partner country’s efforts to reduce poverty and foster economic growth.   

Common perception in Nepal is that the US is consistently pressuring the government of Nepal to get it ratified by parliament? Is it true? 

It’s not true. This is one of the most important aspects of the MCC-Nepal Compact. It is the people of Nepal’s choice to accept the grant.  Even though MCC and other development organizations helped throughout the three-year development process, it was the government of Nepal who ultimately identified and designed the infrastructure programs that will provide the most benefit to you.  

When negotiating the final terms of the Compact in 2017, MCC and your government agreed the grant program would require parliamentary ratification. MCC will honor those terms, and the wishes of your elected representatives. But we are excited to move this process forward and begin implementation. We are excited because we know what a profound impact it will have on so many of you.  

We are hopeful that the exchange of official letters between MCC and the Ministry of Finance allows ratification to happen during the remainder of this parliamentary session.

With ratification now more than two years past the agreed-upon timeline, there is no better time to act than now. It is in your hands. The Government of Nepal must decide whether to move forward or not. For almost 70 years, the United States and Nepal have built a friendship on shared values and respect. That  friendship  will continue regardless of MCC’s compact.   

What if the Compact is not endorsed by parliament? 

Prior to signing the compact, both the Governments of Nepal and the United States agreed to parliamentary ratification as a critical action for the success of the compact. Ratification is required for the compact to have the status of an international agreement.   

All MCC compacts with partner countries are international agreements. During compact development, MCC asks each partner government what their country’s domestic law requires in order for the Compact to have the status of an international agreement, which helps ensure it will avoid any specific conflicts with domestic law. For Nepal, the government, through Nepal’s Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, concluded that, under Nepali law, parliamentary ratification is required for the compact to be such an international agreement. 

Quite simply, parliamentary ratification is the next step for the Compact to move forward.  We know that the Government of Nepal has asked us some questions requiring clarifications on this process, and we have provided answers. We are hopeful that this exchange of official letters allows ratification to happen during the remainder of this parliamentary session. 

MCC discontinued the proposed grant to Sri Lanka due to lack of partner country engagement. MCC has experienced something very different with our Nepali partners.  

Is there a chance for extending the deadline for MCC implementation in Nepal? 

Truthfully, we are already more than two years past the ratification timeline negotiated between MCC and the Government of Nepal. Now is the time to act. The delay is more than just administrative, it is a delay in the benefits to the Nepali people. This is why it is important for Parliament to move forward now or decide that Nepalis no longer need an MCC grant to foster economic growth. 

Sri Lanka is often cited as the example of the country rejecting the MCC.  What actually happened in Sri Lanka? 

MCC discontinued the proposed grant to Sri Lanka due to a lack of partner country engagement. Partner countries are expected to provide focused involvement in grant development, launch, and implementation to ensure successful results. Country ownership, transparency and accountability are fundamental to MCC’s development model. MCC has experienced something very different with our Nepali partners.  

Since 2012, the Government of Nepal and MCC have worked together to develop, negotiate, and sign a compact program that its officials publicly support, including during my visit this week. This was not the case in Sri Lanka. However, the end of the Sri Lanka Compact did not mean the end of our partnership. We remain friends and the United States will continue to work alongside Sri Lanka both in response to Covid-19 and to recuperate its economy. 

Finally, in what way is the MCC grant different from the past development assistance provided by the US to Nepal?

As part of the many ways the United States provides foreign assistance, MCC’s model is unique among development agencies.  As I mentioned previously, our sole mission is to reduce poverty through economic growth. We do so through compacts with select partner countries that are 100 percent grant-funded.  Meaning, MCC grants are not loans and do not require repayment. 

Our sole mission is to reduce poverty through economic growth. We do so through compacts with select partner countries that are 100 percent grant funded.  

Notably, MCC’s model has a principle of country ownership. This means partner countries, including Nepal, exercise ownership over compact investments, lead project teams, and are accountable to domestic stakeholders for making decisions and achieving results.  More specifically, this means that in Nepal the projects in the compact are projects that the Government of Nepal identified and prioritized.  The Electricity Transmission Project in the compact, for example, comes directly from the Nepal Electricity Authority’s Transmission System Master Plan and has been designated a Project of National Pride.

Finally, MCC has a strong focus on data, transparency, and results. MCC employs technically rigorous, systematic, and transparent methods of projecting, tracking, and evaluating the impacts of its programs. This is our value to countries we partner with. For 17 years across 39 partner programs, MCC has remained committed to objectively evaluating our projects and learning from those evaluations. We also seek out independent organizations to assess our grant programs, sharing both what has worked and what has not worked so our efforts may improve the global development community.  

Dear Prime Minister,

I am writing this letter to you at a time when thousands of people across the country are suffering from the deadly second wave of COVID-19. Many are struggling to get ventilators and are losing hopes of their lives. Family members of Covid patients are running pillar to post to get ICU beds in hospitals. Patients in dire need of medical care and essentials like oxygen treatment are choking because hospitals have none of these essentials or have run out of stock. All the hospitals and medical personnel are overwhelmed. As the number of Covid cases is stubbornly rising each passing day, hundreds of people are losing their lives due to lack of essential care.

Dear Prime Minister, if you remember, you led a chorus of naysayers in downplaying the risks of this pandemic in our society by joking about the severity of the deadly virus. Until recently, you were spreading misinformation about the deadly disease. You were deliberately disregarding the Covid protocol that was supposed to be enforced by your government. You clearly looked obsessed with crowds and gatherings, with your own larger-than-life portrait in the background.

On top of that, you were the one who denied science by prescribing unproven cures for Covid-19. Instead of encouraging people to follow safety protocols and take the disease seriously, you asked people to gargle with guava-leaf water. Your prescription last year: Take turmeric water and Gurjo, sneeze and corona will go away.

While you were making a joke of the disease, you yourself seemed to fear Covid-19 more than all else in the country. Your Manch, the stage, would be at a reasonable distance from the crowd, whom you would address from meters away. Anybody who came to meet you at your office had to wear masks and foot covers.

Now none of your drivel remedies are going to save the lives of people. People are dying.

You conducted most meetings in your official residence because of the risk to your health from Covid-19. You know the dangers. You know safety protocols have to be followed. You have spared no effort to ensure your own safety. But did you go beyond that and paid attention to the elderly people of your age, or around your age, who stood in front of you to listen to whatever you had to say, without masks?  

It is shameful that you recommend scientifically unproven remedies to the general public, putting their lives at risk, while you ensure all resources and the best health services for yourself, following scientifically proven cures and protocols.

The saddest part is the existence of propaganda machines around you, which must have raked huge benefits by taking your side, who always defended every lie you spoke and every baseless ‘prescription’ you gave. You must know, better than us, that there are Bhaktas, devotees, of power. Your Bhaktas supported and spread misinformation that Gurjo, turmeric powder and guava leaves are effective cures of Covid-19. Those Bhaktas, when they caught Covid, however, went to Kathmandu’s posh hospitals.

Now none of your drivel remedies are going to save the lives of people. People are dying.

It may be too late to do anything about it, the damage has already been done, but I still would like to request you to take back your scientifically unproven Covid cure claims. Those false prescriptions were disseminated by many media outlets. People have been fooled. You lead the party with the strongest base, with cadres who applaud you even when you lie, and spread the slander as truths.

I know the people who trust in your ‘prescription’ of turmeric powder, Gurjo and guava leaves given your own health conditions. They think that a person who survived two kidney transplants and regained his health must have spoken out of his own experience. Dear Prime Minister, apologize to the people for spreading the misinformation which was completely unscientific and unproven, and start acting like the Prime Minister, not a propagandist leader.

People are not against the development. But development must be aligned and prioritized accordingly, signifying peoples’ needs. That’s what a good leader does.

People pay taxes for their safety and security, not to ensure your and other leaders’ luxury. Is accountability too much to ask for? People have hundreds of questions for you at this moment: Where is the commitment of your government to construct isolation centers and quarantine facilities? Where is the commitment to enhance facilities at hospitals? Where is the commitment of your government to add ventilators and other equipment?

Why did you feel it was necessary to assemble huge crowds in various inauguration events, while there was a clear indication of the second wave? You talk so excitedly about building Ram Mandir in Madi, why could not you instruct the authorities to build hospitals and isolation centers at provincial and local levels?

Effective and strong health system is the need of the hour. Please stop delivering populist and unscientific statements!

People are not against the development. But development must be aligned and prioritized accordingly, signifying peoples’ needs. That’s what a good leader does.

Dear Prime Minister, you have to answer all these questions.

People have a lot of questions for you but they hesitate to ask because they know the cost of questioning the man in power, telling the truth to authority. Those who have benefitted from you, directly or indirectly, will come forward to defend you. But the rising death tolls, the panic, lack of oxygen supplies and ICU beds in hospitals, this is the evidence of your inefficiency and incapability. Please make it known to your team that lies cannot hide failure and incompetency.

People have a lot of questions for you but they hesitate to ask because they know the cost of questioning the man in power, telling the truth to
authority.

Dear Prime Minister, it is no time to continue joking about the disease. It is no time to be surrounded by the people who praise you even when you’re evidently on the wrong track. Wake up! Look outside! You will see the frail faces of thousands of sick people waiting in queues at hospitals. Patients are gasping for breath but the hospitals have no ICU beds and ventilators. Feel their pain. Give a message that you care as much about the poor and underprivileged as about the rich and affluent. Rich or poor, life is dear to all.

It is great that the PM cares about his health. But you have no right to spread rumours and put peoples’ health and life at risk. If nothing else, you should fear how the future will judge you, if thousands of people die under your watch. The second wave was predicted immediately after the first wave of infection abated. You had the whole year at your hand, and all the resources at your disposal to ensure preparedness for managing the crisis unfolding at present. History will judge you harshly if you fail to save the lives of people now.