Some reasons why Nepal Research does not consider the crisis in Nepal to be over
even 14 years after the end of the civil war

Today's links on the crisis situation:

15/04/2021: Why Nepal is not on the list of invitees for climate summit called by Joe Biden : The country has failed to demonstrate its actions to mitigate impacts and make concerted efforts to show its vulnerabilities before the world despite bearing the brunt, by Chandan Kumar Mandal and Anil Giri (kp), Mountain blues : The government must invest in  climate change research (kp), Verdict ahead of parliamentary hearing raises multiple questions : Experts say the Supreme Court saying Nahakul Subedi is qualified for the post of justice before a parliamentary hearing threatens the principle of separation of powers, by Binod Ghimire (kp), Armed and unrestrained : Wrangling concessions from a pliant leadership, the army’s professionalism is compromised, by Deepak Thapa (kp), Purse Plays Havoc In The Polls, by Mukti Rijal (rn), Ominous 2078 : As the Oli government battles for its very survival, it has been badly distracted from the growing virus menace (ae), Debt without reforms : Financing debt without adequate policy reforms is a bit like financing the gambler, by Bishal Thapa (ae), Gandaki Province Assembly winter session prorogued (rep) [Practising KP Oli's undemocratic methods to prevent his dismissal!], No-confidence motion filed against Gandaki CM Gurung, NC’s Pokharel proposed as new CM (rep), Opposition parties in Gandaki to call for special session (kh)
see also news programmes of Kantipur TV : morning (English), evening (Nepali)

see more links

Editorial comment

(8 March 2021) Has the Supreme Court thought through its latest decision to the end? The SC's decision to judge the May 2018 form of merger of CPN-UML and CPN-MC into the NCP as illegitimate resolves some of the conflicts that have been simmering for weeks between the two factions of this ruling NCP, but at the same time it creates new problems and contradictions. The SC has to face the accusation that it has allowed the decision on the case filed by Rishi Ram Kattel's NCP, which was already officially registered and licensed under that name in 2018, to stew for more than two and a half years. At the same time, the Election Commission must be aware that it should never have registered the ruling NCP under that name at that time, according to the existing law.

Already on 14 June 2018, there had been a first complaint against the new registration of the ruling party under the name NCP at the SC. However, that case was about the failure to meet the statutory requirement of at least 33 per cent women. Moreover, despite an appeal by the Kattel group, the EC had reaffirmed its decision on the party name on 26 October 2018. Following Kattel's complaint, the SC called on the EC and the ruling party for comments on 11 December 2018. It seems that the ruling party always had the bonus on its side, although the legal position was clearly in favour of Kattel's party.

With its present judgement, the SC has finally done justice, but there are doubts whether the judges were aware of the consequences of their late judgement. The judgement implies that the ruling party is once again considered non-merged, that its original components CPN-UML and CPN-MC have been revived. This, however, has consequences that once again manoeuvre Nepal into an extremely precarious situation.

One problem, for example, is that there is a party led by Gopal Kiranti which has since been registered and admitted to the EC under the name CPN-MC. A lawsuit by this party has already been announced. This is also likely to be a problem from a jurisdictional point of view. Does Kiranti's party now have to give itself a new name, although its current party name was unoccupied when it registered? Or must the original CPN-MC now adopt a new name, thereby losing any historical identification?

There are also problems within the UML, as over the last year the internal split of the ruling NCP into an Oli faction and a Dahal and Nepal-led faction have caused the boundaries between the original UML and the CPN-MC to shift. There are no longer camps within the ruling party that could be so easily transformed back into a CPN-UML and a CPN-MC according to their early 2018 compositions.

PM Oli once again sees himself as the big winner in the whole mess and is already mocking and ridiculing the defecting politicians of his original UML because he believes that they now automatically belong to the CPN-UML again, but that they no longer have a chance to split the party there because they need 40 percent of the party's MPs to do so. However, he fails to realise that his long overdue democratic removal as prime minister by parliament does not require a prior split of the UML. Members of his party may also vote against him in a vote of confidence or a vote of no confidence. This is perfectly normal in a democratic state.

However, the SC's decision has solved one problem abruptly: the Election Commission no longer has to worry about the legality, names and symbols of the two factions of the ruling party. On the other hand, as already indicated, the EC will have to face new problems. The Election Commission itself has contributed decisively to this with its wrong decision in 2018.

Meanwhile, the old, thoroughly failed top politicians of the parties represented in parliament are once again lacking any political culture and knowledge of democratic rules of the game. On the one hand, Prime Minister Oli, who is still in office, is trying by all means and flimsy moves to prevent the ordinances he has pushed through Parliament, with the active help of the President, from being discussed and then inevitably withdrawn in Parliament. The leaders of the opposition - and that means all parliamentarians except for the small remaining bunch of Oli - must once again be reproached for their continued inability, or rather unwillingness, to put aside their personal interests and ambitions for power and finally put a deserved end to the Oli-archy. What is the use of the completely justified re-establishment of parliament if it is not used for this purpose at its very first session? Nepal quo vadis with these politicians?

(2 March 2021) State and democracy still in danger despite SB decision!  On 23 February 2021, the Supreme Court finally delivered its long-awaited verdict on the constitutionality of Prime Minister Khadga Prasad Sharma Oli's dissolution of the House of Representatives on 20 December 2020 in cooperation with President Bidya Devi Bhandari. The Supreme Court's upholding of the unconstitutionality was a victory for democracy and confirmed for all time to come that Nepal's prime ministers have no right to dissolve parliament purely to satisfy their personal power needs. This breathed life back into the 2015 Constitution, which was thought to be dead after all. Oli's action can be considered a coup d'état.

A constitutionally and democratically oriented prime minister would have drawn the only possible moral conclusion from this verdict and would have resigned. Oli obviously does not belong to this category of politicians. He clings to his office and declares that he will never resign. After all, he is the best and most successful government Nepal has ever had; only he knows where he sees evidence for this. As he did before the court verdict, he ridicules the breakaway faction of his inner-party rivals Pushpa Kamal Dahal and Madhav Kumar Nepal with the greatest possible scorn because they would never manage to win the majority of votes in parliament necessary for his ouster. At the same time, he surrounds himself with the aura of a potential martyr whose life is endangered by his rivals.

Apart from the clear immorality of Oli's behaviour, the question arises how it is possible that a prime minister whose faction only has about a quarter of the members of the House of Representatives behind him is nevertheless not forced to resign by the remaining representatives of the people. The explanation lies in the equally lacking morality and democratic attitude of the opposition leaders. All top politicians are also primarily concerned with personal power, not with the people and the nation, be they called Dahal, Nepal, Deuba, Paudel or whatever. They are all unwilling to put aside their personal ambitions for power to get Nepal's democracy back on track.

A second factor mentioned in this context is the unclear situation within the NCP. Both factions insult each other with accusations that go beyond any framework of politeness and exclude each other from the party. Yet an official split of the NCP has never been carried out. Both factions are demanding that the Election Commission recognise them as the legitimate NCP under that very name and with the electoral symbol of the sun. Although early parliamentary elections are off the table for the time being thanks to the court ruling, at some point the Election Commission will have to make a decision and the two factions will have to make a clear separation.

However, they both clearly do not want the latter, as they are aware that the split is likely to make a parliamentary majority for the communists impossible in the long run, as was the case after the 2017 elections. Although the Nepali Congress (NC), as the main opposition party, has not been able to gain many points despite the Oli government's numerous advantageous proposals, the party is likely to win significantly more direct mandates again if the NCP splits. Oli's then CPN-UML was also just ahead of the NC in percentage vote share in 2017. Already within the NCP, the Oli group is the smaller faction today. Oli's failures on almost all fronts of governance, his authoritarian and in many cases human rights-suppressing policies, and most recently the utterly senseless waste of taxpayers' money through the unconstitutional dissolution of parliament and the forced preparation of early new elections are likely to cost the Oli faction further votes. In any case, if the NCP were to split, the votes in favour of that party in new elections would be split between two parties. This too would probably play into the hands of the NC.

These considerations have now also reached the top politicians of the Dahal Nepal faction. Since it has become clear that neither of the two opposition parties, the NC and the Rastriya Samajbadi Party Nepal (RSPN), is prepared to support a vote of no confidence against Oli in the reinstated parliament as long as the NCP's internal party relations have not been clarified, there have been tentative considerations to restore the NCP's unity after all. But that would mean accepting all of Oli's misconduct and continuing to accept him as prime minister and party leader. That would indeed be a change of mind that would be difficult to convince rationally and democratically minded people in Nepal of.

The very misery of Nepali democracy, which is particularly evident in the current crisis, has a lot to do with the lack of democratic structures in the parties. All parties are extremely centrist and oriented towards a few leaders, who in turn usually form factions within the party over time. Whoever makes it to the top level of the party is almost impossible to get out of it, no matter what he is guilty of and how miserably he fails in the fulfilment of his tasks; all prime ministers of the last few years can be cited as examples here. This is also due to the fact that the lower party levels have hardly any influence on the top party levels. The top politicians decide to a large extent on the composition of the two highest party bodies and are careful to ensure that the proportion of their clientele is maintained there. Even in the nomination of candidates for parliamentary and provincial elections, the decision-making power lies largely with the central party leadership. This is the same for all parties. It also contributes to the fact that at least the upper levels of the party are far from reflecting the composition of society: In extremely patriarchal Nepal, men dominate quite predominantly, especially those from the Bahun and Chhetri circles. Given the aforementioned party structures, it is not to be expected that this will change quickly.

Another significant aspect is the inability to realise justice in relation to past crimes or misconduct, or strictly speaking, the denial of such justice. Here, too, all parties are involved. If one takes the massive international call for justice for the victims of the Maoist insurgency alone, it is clear that many of today's top politicians had to bear responsibility at that time, whether as direct participants such as the former Maoist leaders or as state politicians who were responsible for the deployment and conduct of the security forces.

Only two examples should be mentioned here. Pushpa Kamal Dahal declared some time ago that he was responsible for the deaths of around 5,000 people as the then head of the Maoists. But that does not stop him from continuing to aspire to leading state and party offices. It does not even occur to him to take responsibility before a court.

A second example is Sher Bahadur Deuba, the chairman of the NC and four-time prime minister. He paved the way for the Maoist insurgency when, as prime minister in 1995, he militantly yet unsuccessfully tried to suppress the initial organisation of the Maoist party in mid-western Nepal. In early 1996, he refused to even discuss the 40 demands of the Maoists, although most of them were completely rational and many dealt with the state policy guidelines of the then constitution, which the government paid little attention to. In 2001, Deuba then pushed through the mobilisation of the army against the Maoists, which led to a complete escalation of the conflict. The fact that in 2002 he also called on King Gyanendra to dissolve parliament, thus dealing a death blow to the political system of 1990, is also worth mentioning in view of Oli's current misconduct.

Against this background, it is legitimate to ask whether the current party political leaderships are not mainly responsible for the permanent crisis and the constant setbacks of Nepal's democracy. If one answers this question with a yes, one should discuss how Nepal can move towards a better democratic path. However, it should not be enough to replace the old failed leaders with a new generation. This generational change must be accompanied by a complete renewal of the political parties, whereby in the multi-ethnic state of Nepal, adequate social inclusion is finally needed.

(23 February 2021) Democracy is still alive in Nepal! For a good two months, Prime Minister Oli could pretend that he was an absolute ruler, that he was above the Constitution and any legislation. Like Oli, his closest henchmen and his defenders proclaimed in the Supreme Court that the prime minister had every right on his side. Early elections in April and May would be completely out of the question.

Now the Supreme Court has finally delivered its verdict. In the end, it was very quick and unequivocal: the dissolution of parliament and all of Oli's machinations in recent months were unconstitutional. Parliament must be reconstituted and convened within 13 days.

This is the verdict that everyone convinced of democracy and the rule of law had expected from the Supreme Court. Thanks be to the court for putting all this in such a clear form.

What is missing now is the accounting of Oli as a person. In relation to him, the ruling means that Oli's actions cannot be described as anything other than a coup. This must result in the harshest measures against him personally and also against all those who justified his actions with hair-raising justifications in court. The statements maliciously violated better knowledge.

Let us hope that those responsible at the top of the other political parties finally come to their senses and are able to democratically elect a new government into office. It will be their task in the remaining one and a half years to complete the numerous shortcomings of the Oli government with regard to the implementation of the constitution and a socially inclusive and secular federal state.

(3 February 2021)  Even 45 days after the dissolution of parliament by Prime Minister KP Oli and President Bidya Devi Bhandari, the proceedings on the constitutionality of this action continue in the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the submissions of the lawyers of the plaintiff sides have been completed. Since Monday, the lawyers of the government side have had the floor.

It is striking that the latter, in contrast to the lawyers of the plaintiff side, hardly refer to the constitution in their justification of Oli's and Bhandari's action. This is probably due to the fact that the Constitution does not really provide a justification. Thus, the defenders of the Oli government declare that such action is perfectly normal for a parliamentary democracy. Or they claim that Oli's action was necessary to preserve Nepal's sovereignty and nationalism.

One has to think several times about what lies behind these arguments. According to the constitution, Nepal's sovereignty lies with the people. The representatives legitimately and democratically elected by the people are the members of the House of Representatives. They therefore represent the sovereign people in Nepal's parliamentary system.

Dependent on this House of Representatives is the executive power. The representatives of the people elect a Prime Minister, who then forms a Council of Ministers to carry out and coordinate the official business of the country. To be elected, the prime minister needs the approval of a majority of the MPs within the House of Representatives. If a party has a clear majority in the House of Representatives, that party's top candidate is usually confirmed as prime minister, as provided by Article 76 (1) of the Constitution. If no party has an absolute majority, the candidate additionally needs the votes of one or more other parties, according to Article 76 (2).

When KP Oli was elected Prime Minister in February 2018, his CPN-UML did not have an absolute majority in the House of Representatives. Oli was therefore elected under Article 76 (2) as he was also still elected by CPN-MC MPs who had already formed an alliance with CPN-UML in the elections. Therefore, as required under Article 76 (4), Oli faced a vote of confidence in the House of Representatives within 30 days, in which he received almost 75 per cent of the votes. This whopping majority was further consolidated two months later when the two parties merged to form the NCP.
Now, in a parliamentary democracy, it can happen that over time the approval a prime minister receives from parliament or even within his own party changes. This is a perfectly normal democratic process. The reason may be, for example, that the prime minister has pursued bad policies and has not fulfilled his duties in the necessary manner. It can also be that inner-party rivals have their own claims to power and therefore question the office of prime minister. These are all processes that occur in every democracy.

In such a case, it is the task of a prime minister to prove that he or she still has the confidence of the representatives of the sovereign people. In accordance with the basic principles of a democracy, this is done by the prime minister asking the House of Representatives for a vote of confidence. If he wins this, he automatically remains in office and his opponents have failed. If he loses the vote, he is automatically voted out and another candidate must seek the majority of MPs. In addition, his political opponents can also bring a vote of no confidence in parliament on their part. If a prime minister sees no chance of winning the vote of confidence in parliament from the outset, he can of course resign right away. These would have been the only options for the hard-pressed Prime Minister Oli in December 2020 at the latest. In fact, he should have faced these democratic options much earlier in order to avert greater damage to Nepal's state and society, especially in times of pandemic.

But Oli seems to understand and interpret the constitution and democracy differently. He probably sees parliament as representing the sovereign people only until they have elected the prime minister. After that, sovereignty passes to the latter. This is evidenced by Oli's dealings with parliament over the past three years. When parliament was active, important laws were often simply not passed. Time and again, Oli bypassed parliament by issuing ordinances in close cooperation with the president when parliament was not in session. This was easier for him, because then he was not bound by any votes and could push through what he liked.

The amendment to the Constitutional Council's decision-making procedure on 20 December was tantamount to a constitutional amendment by ordinance. The dissolution of the House of Representatives just five days later was a stab in the back for Nepal's fledgling democracy. It turned the constitution's provisions on sovereignty upside down. The Prime Minister, dependent on Parliament and accountable to it in every respect, dissolved the elected body of representatives of the sovereign people to preserve his personal power and impose policies that marginalised his political opponents. The argument of Oli's lawyers now before the Supreme Court that he had no other choice to preserve sovereignty, which is actually that of the people, is probably understood only by himself and his most adamant supporters. And the argument of preserving nationalism bodes ill. For months, Oli has presented himself as a Hindu fundamentalist. That would be the last thing Nepal needs now.

Oli and Bhandari undoubtedly bear the main responsibility for the escalation of the political and constitutional situation. But one should not absolve Oli's inner-party opponents, as well as the top politicians of opposition parties, from a more or less large share of the blame. In particular, in the context of the disputes on the streets and in the media, no real separation is discernible on all sides between the question of the legitimacy of Oli's steps and their own respective ambitions for power.

(10 January 2021)  The unresolved legal situation continues unchanged, while PM Khaga Prasad Sharma Oli continues to intensify his campaign for the new elections he has called for the House of Representatives.  He accuses the four former chief justices, who had clearly declared themselves on the unconstitutionality of the dissolution of parliament, of interfering in an ongoing court case and attempting to influence the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, he himself continues to claim every right to call his action constitutional; that the House of Representatives will not be reinstated under any circumstances and that the elections will be held as announced. But such words from the mouth of the Prime Minister, of course, have nothing to do with influencing the decision of the judiciary.

At the same time, Oli is trying to keep the state apparatus under his unrestricted control. Thus, in order to preserve the appearance of democracy, the winter session of the remaining parliamentary chamber, the National Assembly, was convened on 2 January, but on 10 January Oli had the session ended again after only four meetings. The fact that he spat on the floor of the National Assembly on this occasion makes it clear what he thinks of this democratic institution. Also, why does Oli need a legislature at all when Nepal has such an able and powerful PM? This way, Oli can pass laws, as he wants them, by ordinance and have them signed by his president. He has repeatedly used this as an ideal way in the past almost three years of his tenure.

Meanwhile, demonstrations against Oli's unconstitutional actions (here called so with no hidden agenda of influencing the court out of full conviction) are taking place in all corners of the country. Meanwhile, Oli also likes to have such demonstrators arrested by the police. At his own election rallies, the wearing of black masks is strictly forbidden, as this could be a symbol of protest. Even black breathing masks have to be removed. What does Oli care about protective measures against the spread of the pandemic? Any other kind of demonstration is also prevented at such events. In Dhangadhi, for example, a group of young people were arrested because they wore appropriate shirt inscriptions to remind people of the continuing lack of investigation into the rape and murder of Nirmala Pant and demanded justice. Since the crime, there have been accusations that the highest political circles are deliberately preventing the investigation.

Finally, the camp of the advocates of a return to monarchy and the Hindu state must unfortunately also be addressed. The anniversary of Prithvinarayan Shah's birth is a welcome occasion to remember the founder and military unifier of modern Nepal. While it is true that Nepal owes it to this Shah king that it still exists today as an independent state and has not been absorbed into the Indian Union, it must also be remembered that the policies of Prithvinarayan Shah and his successors are responsible for the system of patriarchy, inequality, exclusion and discrimination that makes it so difficult today to transform Nepal into a modern democratic state.

Significantly, ex-king Gyanendra once again spoke out today, pretending that his main concern was the preservation of the country. What is meant by this was made clear by Kamal Thapa, the chairman of the RPP, when he once again called for a return to monarchy and the Hindu state. Criticism of today's supposedly democratic politicians is made easy for the monarchists these days. Oli and the other so-called top politicians are well on their way to destroying the country. But they are only completing what the monarchy could not complete before. Only a younger charismatic generation of politicians from among Nepali citizens with a commitment to inclusion, democracy and secularism and an aversion to theocracy and overrated political ideologies can save the country!

(8 January 2021) How similar things are: When the US president incites his most diehard supporters to initiate a coup from above against the state and democracy for the purpose of retaining power, statesmen all over the world condemn his action.  Not so PM Khadga Prasad Sharma Oli and his government in Nepal. Why should they, Oli has behaved similarly to Trump after he could no longer hold on to power through democratic means. Trump has the American parliament stormed, which was about to confirm his ouster, Oli dissolves the Nepalese parliament so that the democratically elected representatives of the sovereign people there cannot deprive him of executive power.The latter, by the way, is a legitimate democratic right of parliament. Yet Trump in the US and Oli in Nepal have, in four respectively three years of failed politics, provided ample grounds for voting out or removing from executive power.

What is missing in Nepal is a binding decision by the Supreme Court. Despite numerous shortcomings, the Nepali constitution speaks clearly about Oli's actions. Numerous constitutional experts and leading jurists have taken a clear stand. Objections and justifications have already been explained. Why does the Supreme Court not come to a judgement immediately? Every day seems valuable in this case.

Democracy and the nascent federal state are in danger of collapsing if the constitutional issue is not resolved quickly. The political parties are already in an election mode, so to speak. Although they continue to protest pro forma against Oli's actions, this seems more like a means to an end. Ultimately, the leaders of the different party-political camps are concerned with personal power. They have always been willing to use any means to achieve this.

Thus, Oli travels the country and declares to his remaining supporters at mass meetings (What does he care about the pandemic?) that everything he has done has been done on the basis of the constitution; the new elections are coming as he ordered; this cannot be reversed at all. Thus, Oli also decides on the rule of law of his actions. He does not need a Supreme Court for this. His current journey through the country is already pure election campaigning. Let us hope that he will at least pay for the costs of the trips and the events; they have nothing to do with his PM office.

The Dahal-Nepal faction of the NCP continues to pretend that its primary concern is the withdrawal of the dissolution of parliament. In keeping with the media, its leaders position themselves in a strictly hierarchical order at the forefront of the sit-ins on the streets. However, since it became clear that the other parties are not willing to join them in protest actions, the focus for Dahal and Nepal has also shifted more towards new elections. The visible sign at the moment is the effort to be recognised by the Election Commission as the legitimate NCP with a view to the future.

Although the main opposition party NC continues to protest against the dissolution of parliament independently of the Dahal-Nepal group, its leader Sher Bahadur Deuba has already repeatedly expressed that he is hopeful of becoming prime minister for a fifth time through possible new elections, after all he has only failed miserably four times. Meanwhile, Oli as well as Dahal and Nepal are courting Deuba, as new majorities are needed to form a government in the event of a restoration of parliament.

One party whose votes could also play a role in this is the Janata Samajbadi Party - Nepal (JSPN), as the third strongest faction in parliament so far. This party is also protesting against Oli's actions, but is also shying away from joint action with the other demonstrating parties.

Of the other parties, the RPP should be mentioned here, although this party seems completely insignificant in view of the election results of 2017. The problem is that this party of die-hards is trying to use the chaos caused by Oli and the NCP to promote a return to monarchy and the Hindu state through mass demonstrations.  Their leaders are proving that they have clearly not understood the history and society of Nepal. The demand for such a step backwards is unlikely to be successful, but it further exacerbates the current chaos. (Tsak Sherpa)

(6 January 2021) The political crisis continues. Today, the Supreme Court began hearing the 13 constitutional petitions that followed the dissolution of parliament by Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli and President Bidya Devi Bhandari. Of the 5 judges of the Constitutional Bench, Hari Krishna Karki has retired. He had been accused of bias as he had served as Attorney General during the first Oli government. The trial is scheduled to resume on 13 January 2021.

Meanwhile, both infighting between the two factions of the NCP at all levels of the federal system and protests by other parties continue unabated. Both NCP groups are showering accusations on each other and trying to damage the other group and push it out of power. For a long time now, this dispute has been endangering the very foundations of the entire state, especially since the leaders of the two factions seem to be mainly interested in their personal ambitions for power.

PM Oli is continually escalating into a defence of the legality of his actions. In the meantime, he is even claiming that this was a purely political measure on which the Supreme Court is not even entitled to judge.

One can only hope that the Supreme Court will reach a verdict on the constitutionality of the dissolution of parliament as soon as possible. In a democratic state, a prime minister has only two options if his government loses its majority: resignation or at least a vote of confidence in parliament. The elected representatives of the sovereign people sit in parliament. Oli owes his office only to the election by this Parliament, which alone has the right to deprive the PM of legitimacy. The dissolution of the House of Representatives, avowedly for Oli's personal retention of power, is therefore tantamount to a coup d'état.

But even if the Supreme Court reverses the dissolution of parliament, there remain legitimate doubts that this parliament will last much longer. The top politicians of the two factions have already destroyed Nepal's democratic system too much. There will be no stable governing majorities either at the central level or in the provinces after a possible restoration of parliament. In any case, the question of legitimacy remains. At the top of all the major parties are ageing leaders, some of whom have already failed several times or whose legitimacy to exercise power is at least questionable because of their political past. As a logical consequence, even if the House of Representatives is reinstated, there will probably be early elections sooner or later. However, with the current, largely over-aged party leaders, even these could be forgotten. Given the large parliamentary majority, the Oli government would have had a unique opportunity to stabilise Nepal politically and advance the country's development. Oli has miserably squandered this opportunity.

Meanwhile, the Corona pandemic continues to affect all aspects of life. But that does not seem to interest the politicians of all parties at all. The daily announced case numbers may seem low compared to western industrialised countries, but the value of the numbers mentioned is doubtful in view of the extremely low number of daily tests. While in most countries of the world the numbers of infections and deaths are steadily increasing or at least have remained at a high level for weeks, the numbers in Nepal continue to fall unabated. And this despite the fact that the Oli government continues to do absolutely nothing to control the spread of the pandemic.

Economically, too, there is hardly anything that can be glossed over. So the comments on the revival of the all-important tourism sector seem like a nice dream. Reports on the death of hotels speak a clearer language. In view of the current world situation, Nepal should rather assume that 2021 will remain another lost year for international tourism. (Tsak Sherpa)

Dictionaries:

Links: