But even before the Great Earthquake Nepali politics had been steeped in uncertainty. Eight years after the first CA polls in 2008, the new constitution remains elusive as ever. Recent events are sure to push it back ever further. The risk is that the political class, and particularly the ruling alliance, could use the recent tragedy to justify another long delay in the constitutional process.It is now certain that the country will be on an emergency mode for at least another couple of years. The immediate challenge is the monsoon which is only a few weeks away. The vital task of resettlement of villages at high risk of landslides—the risk heightened by loosening of top soil by continued tremors—has not even started. With the skies in and around Kathmandu ominously rumbling, we may soon have another crisis in our hands.
The political class, at the start, chose to do nothing, even though all of our major parties have vast networks across the country that could have been leveraged in immediate rescue and relief. Only when public criticism of their inaction started mounting did they stir and started mobilizing their cadres in quake-affected regions. Clearly, both the ruling and opposition parties were hoping somebody else would do the dirty work.
Not everything is okay with the ruling coalition as well. The Ministry of Home (under UML) and the Ministry of Local Development (under Congress) have been at odds over relief distribution. The former wants to immediately start distributing relief aid; the latter holds that it would be unwise to do so unless there is reliable verification of quake victims. At its heart, the dispute, as always, is over which of the two parties will reap maximum benefits from the aid bonanza. As cynical as this interpretation may sound, it's otherwise hard to understand why the two partners would quarrel when their solidarity is what the country so desperately needs.
But there is a way out. That would be a broad political agreement to take up reconstruction works and constitution making in tandem. Only then will the much-talked government of 'national unity' make sense. If not, such an arrangement will be a free-for-all with political parties shamelessly competing for bigger share of the reconstruction pie.
Yet the constitution is clearly not happening anytime soon. The only reason Madheshi parties are quiet now is because the federal agenda, which is at the heart of the controversy over new constitution, has been shelved for time being. The moment constitution is up for negotiation again, old resentments will be rekindled, with the ruling and opposition parties digging themselves deeper into their respective corners.
So both the ruling and opposition forces might for now find it convenient to talk only about rebuilding the devastated country with the futile hope that the constitutional disputes will, somehow, be settled in the future. But that strategy is fraught with danger.
Nepal is yet to define its foreign policy priorities after the overthrow of monarchy. But to do so the country will first need a constitution. As we wrestle with this chicken and egg problem, the jockeying of big international powers for influence on its soil continues to intensify. The not-so-subtle clash of egos between India and China on immediate earthquake relief showed that there are no sacred cows in international diplomacy. Like it or not, post-earthquake international aid to Nepal are sure to come with many strings attached.
Nor are India and China the only powers battling it out for greater influence in post-quake Nepal. The Europeans, who have in recent past supported political agendas in Nepal, continue to grumble about their inability to pump their earthquake aid as and when they see fit. American helicopters in rescue and relief operations in Nepal were seen flying over Tibet borders, much to the chagrin of the Chinese. It's an open secret that the Americans have been using Nepal as a base to keep a close eye on India and China, something that has been true since the CIA-sponsored Khampa Uprising in the 1950s. As the Indians and the Chinese make greater inroads, American presence in Nepal will only increase.
Haiti, which suffered a calamitous earthquake in 2010 killing at least 100,000 people, offers a cautionary tale of overreliance on international donors at times of crisis. In their essay on the failure of international aid in the Caribbean country of 10 million with 10,000 NGOs—aptly titled The NGO Republic of Haiti—Kathie Klarreich and Linda Poleman write: "One of the final insults experienced by almost any NGO Republic is that its donors decide not only where and how the money will be spent but also when it is no longer needed." Half of the pledged international help for Haiti never materialized.
But why would the supposedly well-meaning donors look to exploit a humanitarian crisis? Because, to paraphrase Lord Palmerston, in modern diplomacy, nations don't have friends, only interests. The humanitarian help flows only so long as it is seen as serving the national interests of donors as identified by their military and spy agencies. This primacy of national interests is so widely accepted these days that international aid organizations have started to openly advertise their strategic goals. "We work on the same problems as our military using a different set of tools," USAID unabashedly claims.
There will be no knights in shining armors coming to our rescue. We will have to get the country back on its feet on our own. But that is not possible unless leaderships of at least the three main parties are ready for a decisive break from politics as usual. Among the first signs of a failing state is its loss of control over what's happening in its territories. This is the danger we now face.
@biswasktm
Related story
The Trump reversal
