By Our Reporter
The Rasuwa–Bhotekoshi flood has left Nepal with a question that cannot be answered by looking at the river alone. What is happening higher up, where warming snow, ice, frozen ground and rock can set off a chain of events before anyone downstream knows what is coming?
Much of the debate has focused on whether climate change caused the August 26 disaster. It is an understandable question, but the World Weather Attribution study does not claim to have proved that link. We should be careful with the distinction. A mountain can have geological weaknesses of its own while rising temperatures change the conditions around them. To understand future danger, Nepal needs to study how those forces work together.
One change is already visible in the study’s findings. The altitude at which temperatures reach freezing point has been moving uphill by roughly 100 metres a decade during the monsoon and the months after it. Rain can now fall in places where snow was once more likely. That changes when water runs off the mountain, how long snow and ice remain, and how much water can enter cracks in rock. Frozen ground may also weaken as it warms. None of this proves what triggered one collapse. It tells us why yesterday’s picture of a mountain may no longer be a safe guide to tomorrow’s risk.
The temperatures before the flood make that concern harder to dismiss. Near Langtang Lirung, average daily temperatures on August 24 and 25 were about 5.3 to 5.4 degrees Celsius, nearly double the average for those dates over the previous decade. At an altitude of 5,150 metres, hourly temperatures remained above freezing from August 12 to 26. Prolonged warmth could have melted snow and ice and allowed water into rock fractures. Unusually heavy snowfall the previous October may also have added water to the catchment as it melted, though the study cannot establish that this caused the collapse.
This uncertainty should guide better preparation, not delay it. Nepal’s river flood warnings have saved lives. Yet a rock and ice collapse that quickly turns into a debris flow presents a different problem. People closest to its source may have little time to move. Watching river levels remains essential, but it cannot be the whole plan. Nepal needs sustained observation of unstable slopes and glaciers, clearer routes for alerts to reach settlements, and evacuation plans that people have actually practised.
Rebuilding brings an even tougher choice. In mountain valleys, the safest land may be scarce or far from people’s work. Roads, bridges, hydropower plants and markets often have to sit near rivers. Telling every family to move uphill is easy; finding land, income, schools and services for them is not. Authorities should assess each site before rebuilding, explain the risks openly and avoid putting replacement infrastructure back in the same danger without added protection. Where a place cannot be made reasonably safe, relocation needs money and a workable plan, not an order alone.
The international side of this debate also matters. Nepal has contributed little to global warming, yet it faces growing costs in its mountains. Evidence about changing hazards can support its demand for finance, technology and help with losses that cannot be prevented. To make that case convincingly, Nepal must also show how it will use such support to reduce risk.
The flood has exposed a limit to familiar ways of preparing for disaster. Nepal now has to watch how the mountains themselves are changing, make difficult decisions about where people live and build, and acknowledge that some losses may remain beyond its ability to prevent.
Amendment have yet to explain clearly what must change.
That does not mean every provision works well. Election spending, democracy within parties, constitutional appointments, government stability and the division of powers among the three levels of government all deserve scrutiny. Constituent Assembly member Prakash Jwala calls for a review of how the Constitution has been implemented before deciding what to amend. Has the mixed electoral system failed, for example, or have parties used it to advance their own interests?
Federalism poses a similar question. It was meant to move authority closer to citizens, broaden representation and loosen Kathmandu’s grip on the state. Provinces still struggle with staffing, funding, legislation and coordination with the federal government. Some argue that they cost too much or that their number should be reduced. But weakening them without addressing those implementation problems could undo a central part of the political settlement that produced the Constitution.
Secularism, too, is under renewed debate. The Constitution protects religious and cultural freedom, including longstanding traditions. Political parties should explain any proposed change rather than turn religion into a convenient electoral dispute.
Amendment will require a two-thirds majority in both houses of Parliament. The Shah government therefore cannot settle the matter alone. The parties that helped write the Constitution also have a responsibility to engage. Every proposal needs to answer a practical question: if federalism goes, where will power move? If proportional representation is removed, how will inclusion be protected? If voters elect an executive directly, what will prevent that office from becoming too powerful?
Nepal should correct unclear provisions and repair arrangements that have failed. But it must first distinguish defects in the Constitution from failures to honour it. The charter is a pact between the state and its citizens, not the property of one government or generation. Finding the source of the damage matters before attempting a repair.
Login to add a comment