Nepali Times

Last month, Nepal’s Supreme Court stayed the appointment of tainted former bureaucrat Lok Man Singh Karki to the head of anti-graft body, the CIAA.

On Wednesday, Karki was sworn in. The court had cleared the way for his appointment by stating that in the absence of any formal recommendation, it didn’t need to intervene or further inquire into the matter. But it instructed the government to make the appointment to constitutional bodies as per existing laws. Within a week, the Constitutional Council had formally recommended Karki’s name for the post.

The following day, two bureaucrat ministers who took an unwilling part in the decision went to Shital Niwas and told the president that they wanted to resign. The ministers seemed to be reeling under more than political pressure. Everything in this case points to the dark end of Nepali politics about which not much is said, less asked.

After Karki’s recommendation, the mainstream has limited itself to anonymous quotes of leaders blaming India for exerting pressure on their party. However, there has been little analysis about why appointment to an anti-corruption body holds such cross-border significance.

New Delhi watchers in Kathmandu believe that the fluidity of Nepali politics and inevitable power realignment in the near future are prompting India to consolidate its position, from where it can negotiate its stakes. It is not just about what the head of an anti-graft watchdog can do, but also about what he has power not to that has generated so much interest in this appointment. There is a realisation that the CIAA has a potential not just to investigate upon individuals in power, but also to discipline them and effectively control their behaviour.

The Indian influence in the Karki affair may not be as direct as the political tabloids suggest, but it is clear that New Delhi is repeating the mistake it made in 2009. Preoccupied with its role in Afghanistan and upcoming elections at home, the Indian establishment left Nepal in the hands of desk officers and intelligence handlers, who have little regard for the transition to either democracy or pluralism in the neighbourhood. India’s growing military and economic might has bolstered its image as a superpower, but the country is yet to behave with the magnanimity and nuanced understanding of one. It has expanded its diplomatic influence beyond South Asia, but closer to home it commands neither credibility nor respect.

Even after 65 years of independence, the New Delhi establishment refuses to unlearn the crude diplomacy inherited from its colonial masters. Its policy of controlling the neighbourhood rather than taking the neighbours into confidence has destabilised South Asia and lowered its own image internationally.

“The Indians have leverage in all major political parties because all top leaders have, at some point, used their Indian connections to fulfil their own political ambition,” one NC leader admitted to me this week. But Nepali politics is not just driven by the burden of favours anymore. In these times of uncertainty, it is the fear of the unknown that shapes behaviour of political actors more than anything.

But more than India, the Karki appointment has thoroughly exposed Nepal’s own feckless political leadership and its hypocrisy. It has laid bare our compromised sovereignty and ability of outsiders to dictate even the appointment of commissioners. But it also presents us with an opportunity to say enough is enough and break away from the past.

For the first time after the People’s Movement, Nepal’s civil society and media seem galvanised around an issue. Parties are under pressure from young idealist leaders, who are calling on the leadership to take principled position on the issue. The country is still in transition, the elections are uncertain, and the parties will have plenty to disagree upon. But they must learn to fight their own battles, make their own mistakes, and learn from them rather than look north or south for approval.