By Babbler

Prime Minister Balendra Shah has expressed his frustration on social media. On Friday, Shah wrote, “Things may not move smoothly, yet good results may come sooner or later. Sometimes, one has to fight alone.”

Shah was perhaps expressing his dissatisfaction with colleagues who have been criticizing his government. Day by day, Balen appears to be losing popularity. He has been criticized for remaining confined to a small circle of friends whom he has appointed as his aides. The number of such aides is reportedly more than 27, all of whom receive salaries and other benefits from the government treasury.

He appears to have little trust in the civil service. Moreover, he seems to have limited confidence in some ministers appointed under the quota of the party chairman.

It is unfortunate that we are already witnessing signs of political instability even when a single party holds nearly a two-thirds majority in Parliament. In fact, this demonstrates that the system itself may have already failed, yet we continue to push the failed system forward by force.

Now, Prime Minister Shah knows how much the responsibilities of office can pinch.

Taxation Policy Squeezing Citizens

Nepal is already considered one of the countries in South Asia where citizens bear a relatively high tax burden, with the overall tax burden reaching around 30 percent. Now, in the name of widening the tax net, additional taxes are being introduced.

Despite strong public opposition, the government has imposed taxes on electricity consumption. On the one hand, the country is facing shortages of LPG in the market; on the other, the government has imposed taxes on electricity, discouraging domestic electricity consumption.

In principle, Nepal should be encouraging people to switch from imported LPG cooking gas to domestically generated electricity by offering electricity at affordable or subsidized rates. Instead, the government has discouraged the use of locally produced electricity through its taxation policy.

Is this really a sign that Nepal is moving toward self-reliance?

Raju Pandey’s Arrogance

Raju Pandey was a close aide to Balendra Shah and served as chief of the Kathmandu Metropolitan City Police during Shah’s tenure as mayor. Along with Mayor Shah, Pandey also resigned from his position and received a party ticket to contest the March election from a Kathmandu constituency. Fortunately for him, he won the election and became a Member of Parliament.

Now, however, his arrogance appears to have grown. He was reportedly seen humiliating a Nepal Army officer while the officer was responding to him politely.

Some intellectuals have described the incident as an insult to the Nepal Army as an institution. A section of foreign-funded “intellectuals” has been advocating the dismantling of the Nepal Army, arguing that the institution has become a financial burden on the nation. Critics allege that Raju Pandey may be serving the interests of the same group.

Such conduct by elected representatives toward state institutions raises serious questions about political maturity, institutional respect and the responsibilities that come with public office.

QUOTES OF THE WEEK

It would not be an exaggeration to say that the country began to move toward injustice and anarchy from the very day political interference in the appointment of judges to the courts and in the police organization began.

–Yubaraj Lama

There is a popular saying: “Measure twice, then cut.” The same principle applies to the selection and construction of physical infrastructure projects. Once something has been constructed, it cannot easily be relocated, modified or corrected. Therefore, thorough study, adequate preparation and foresight are essential when making such decisions.

Physical structures built without proper thought and preparation are not merely a waste of money; they can also create serious and unforeseen problems of various kinds.

–Surya Raj Acharya

On August 9, 1945, the Second World War was underway, and the United States dropped an atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Nagasaki. Around 60,000 Japanese people were killed instantly, and the death toll continued to rise. Three days earlier, the United States had dropped a bomb on Hiroshima, killing around 70,000 people and turning the city into a mass grave. The death toll there also increased later.

It is said that there are now nine nuclear-armed countries. Yet, so far, no country other than the United States has used nuclear weapons in an attack anywhere.

Even so, the world is not safe. Three countries surrounding Nepal—India, China and Pakistan—possess nuclear weapons. How safe are we Nepalis? How vigilant and aware are we in terms of diplomacy and strategy? Where are internal conflicts and political infighting leading Nepal?

Let us not delay in thinking deeply and reflecting on these questions.

–Dhruba H. Adhikary

Gagan Thapa is said to have told Shashank Koirala, “B.P. may be a father to you, but he is a god to us.”

This statement gives rise to a serious political and philosophical question: Should political leaders be deified, or should their ideas, actions and contributions be evaluated objectively?

When society places a mortal human being on the pedestal of a god, the decline of reason begins. Gods are considered beyond questioning. Therefore, deification kills critical thinking and gives birth to blind devotion. Once the worship of an individual begins to replace the discussion of ideas, the soul of democracy is weakened and the foundation of a cult of personality becomes stronger.

B.P. Koirala was undoubtedly one of the most visionary and eminent political figures in Nepal’s history. But genuine respect for him does not lie in turning him into an idol in a temple; rather, it lies in continuously debating his ideas, political philosophy and contributions against the test of time.

In a democracy, leaders are not gods; they are representatives accountable to the people. Where personality cults begin, democracy ends. Where ideas are debated and examined, society progresses.

–Deepak Raj Joshi

In the present circumstances, it is extremely serious, alarming and concerning that even some public officials and intellectuals have made statements that could adversely affect national security, such as “We do not need an army,” “The size of the army should be reduced,” and statements implying that “the country will be ruined because of the Nepal Army.”

Mutual coordination, cooperation, clarity of responsibilities and mutual respect between the Nepal Army and other security agencies are the strong foundations of national security. This division of responsibilities and coordination makes Nepal’s overall security system effective.

When speaking about sensitive institutions directly connected to national security and national unity, it is essential to be extremely mindful of the possible impact such statements may have on public sentiment, national unity, institutional trust and the morale of the security agencies.