Submit your Article

Mass transit systems are a public sector responsibili­ty. But the current govern­ment thinking seems to be limited to opening up space for competi­tion among private players.Surely opening up the monop­olized space for more private players—by effectively stamping out the notorious transport syn­dicates—will bring about some improvement. But it won’t solve the bigger problem of the lack of common standards, unifor­mity and reliability. And leaving only the private sector to operate transport services will not result in a reliable mass transit system—a hallmark of any great city. Ease of mobility—both daytime and nighttime—is an important factor that determines the quality of life in big cities.

Examples from other great cit­ies show that public transport has to be operated under a public private partnership (PPP) model for it to be reliable and sustain­able. This requires a clear legal framework and a designated pub­lic entity for each city or town to regulate the standards, quality of services, frequency and cost.

We can draw lessons from the experiences of Delhi, Colom­bo or Bangkok for reorganizing Kathmandu’s mass transit system. But London—though not exact­ly a similar context—offers the best template for replication. Transport for London (TfL), a local government body respon­sible for public transport in the greater London area, is both a regulator and an operator. It pro­vides transport services through wholly owned subsidiary compa­nies, private sector franchisees and licensees.

For Nepal, the first step in this direction could be the creation of a high-powered mass transit authority for Kathmandu Valley. This can be replicated in other cities in subsequent phases. This body can serve purely as a regula­tor for issuing licenses and defin­ing routes, schedules and pricing. Or it can also double as a service provider operating its own fleet of buses and other modes of trans­port alongside private operators.

The TfL template can be mod­ified to fit our context. Let’s say that the government creates a Kathmandu Valley transport authority empowering it to work both as a regulator and an oper­ator. Current transport entre­preneurs could then be asked to organize themselves into three or four large companies. It would be ideal if the authority sets up a one-door ticketing and fare collec­tion system for all forms of public transport, excluding taxis.

Private sector operators would work through a tender system—where they bid for set routes and frequency for a five-year peri­od—which would include a pro­vision for adjusting inflation so as to ensure profitability for the private actors. This would allow commuters to buy single rides or daily, weekly or monthly pass­es. The ticketing system would basically be an improvement on (and consolidation of) the system currently implemented by Sajha Yatayat for its fleet.

Once the buses and taxis are reorganized, the transport authority can set its sight on other modes of mass transit.

Bus rapid transit

Bus rapid transits (BRT) have proven to be an easy way to improve mass transit in cities that do not have resources or favor­able conditions for metro rails and trams. They are easy to imple­ment and relatively inexpensive. They have exclusive right of way—through dedicated lanes—similar to that of metros and trams. Now they can be operated by a subsid­iary company run by the trans­port authority or by a new public company involving Sajha, which already has significant investment from local governments.

In the first phase, they could be operated along the Ring Road, Saatdobato-Narayan Gopal chowk and Surya Binayak-Ratnapark routes, as these have wide roads for dedicated lanes. This would require categorizing roads into primary, secondary and tertiary routes and phasing out tempos, micros and minibuses from the primary routes.

The Kathmandu Sustainable Urban Transportation Project, funded by the Asian Development Bank and the Global Environment Facility, had tried to work on some of these reforms. But lack of cooperation from transport syndi­cates and absence of political will stymied the initiative.

Improving public transport is possible only if there is a dedi­cated entity empowered with a clear legal and operational frame­work. Piecemeal approaches may lead to some improvements, but without a major overhaul, they will only bring cosmetic changes that won’t incentivize commuters to leave their private vehicles at home. As a 2012 JICA study shows, only 28 percent of the 3.6 million daily rides in the Valley are made using public transport.

Parajuli is a Kathmandu-based journalist with an interest in public policies

Just how ‘organic’ are organics? Over the past few years a number of organic markets have shot up throughout Kathmandu. So what makes these markets different from other markets around town?The very word ‘organic’ makes us think that these markets are selling everything that is wholesome and fresh. But what does organic really mean? Warning: advertorial coming up! With regard to organic farming, only natural materials are used; no chemical fertilizers or pesticides. This prolongs the longevity of the land (heavy chemicals ultimately reduce its production capacity) and maintains ecological balance. In the past this was the normal way to farm (no chemicals available back then) but now agriculture sans chemicals is known as ‘organic’ farming.

As a child, before big supermarket pre-packaging, I regularly found insects in the vegetables on my din­ner plate. Those were the tiny ones that had escaped my mother’s atten­tion in the rinsing process. How often do you come across an insect in your vegetables here in Nepal? Not very often I bet.

While there have always been people encouraging the use of a traditional, natural approach to farming, it’s not until quite recently that we have seen the label ‘organic’ in the Kathmandu Val­ley. But does that mean every product in the market is certified? There are private organizations providing organic certification in Nepal but as far as I am aware, the government does not have its own system of certification yet. So to my mind, those who are enthusiastic about natural farming or wild-harvesting will maintain standards which will reduce defor­estation and encourage respectful and sustainable agriculture farming systems, thereby protecting the local environment. Unfortunately, currently, there is too much at stake for the average farmer to invest time and effort into an organic farming method which is more labor intensive and which will take longer to achieve the same results. And anyway, who in the local markets is interested in paying more for organic products?

Which brings us back to the ‘organic markets’ in Kathmandu. Go along to any of these markets on the weekend, or now during the week also, and you will see that the vast majority of people who are buying are expats. And when you take a look at the prices being charged, you will understand why. Fruit and vegetables are not the only things that are more expensive here. It is a good place to source cheeses, pumpkin and chai seeds, natural body lotions, breads of all different varieties, home-made and restaurant-made food to eat in or take away, honey, etc. That cannot be denied. But shoppers pay dearly for the convenience and ambiance. And is everything ‘organic’ anyway? Without a thorough background check, how would we know?

But while many go there to shop, just as many go to socialize. It’s certainly a meeting ground for expats and middle class Nepalis alike. Some of the markets have value added events selling artwork, and handicrafts made in Nepal, or have live music to attract custom­ers. The original organic markets seem to have spawned other mar­kets which don’t sell food but art, jewelery, handmade bags and other hand-made or community-made goods. Many of the stalls highlight the fact they work with local women or craftspeople, which makes the buyer feel they are giving back by making their purchases there. Don’t get me wrong, yes, on the whole they seem to be fair trade stalls. But again, how would we know?

One of the first—then we didn’t call it organic—markets was at the Sum­mit Hotel on a Sunday morning. In those days it was mainly vegetables they sold—things like lettuce which were not readily available in the local shops—and bakery products. At that time, they even provided free coffee to the shoppers. Ah for the good old days of free coffee and non-‘organic’ prices!

While the leaders and we—the writers, ana­lysts, scholars and elites or what have you—are obsessed with our relations with neigh­bors (which I too am guilty of), and promoting and institution­alizing democracy in the coun­try (which I am not guilty of), the common citizens of Nepal have different priorities altogeth­er. They rightly believe that both of our neighbors will keep on doing what they are doing and we will be doing whatever we are doing until now, so except for the occasional beer or local brew sessions with friends, for­eign policy is not a priority for most of them. (Once the drinking session is over, the obsession with the foreigners and their activities is also over—well, until the next booze fest). Similarly, when it comes to democracy, most of the country is baffled that the same set of leaders the whole country seems to loathe gets miraculous­ly elected all the time. So much for the argument that the Mao­ist insurgency led to heightened political awareness.Rather, the violent insurgency and the political-criminal nex­us, corruption, nepotism and we-can-do-anything attitude of the leaders have further enfee­bled the country. The people and the elites alike are too meek to ask the questions that really matter. In a way, the rift between the gov­ernment and the public has wid­ened even more. People have no interest in what the leaders have to say, because they know it’s just empty talk. While the leaders live in a different world where everything is provided for, the majority of Nepalis live in a world full of wants. And we, the self-pro­claimed intellectuals, are busy connecting the geopolitical and geostrategic dots and are focused on abstract ideas and ideals.

No wonder, people use all sorts of colorful adjectives to describe and address the leaders and view us, the so called elites, as a weird bunch on some shady foreign agency’s payroll. Many spend Rs 12 to buy a cigarette and Rs 20 for a cup of tea, but are unwill­ing to spend Rs 10 to buy a daily newspaper. The circulation of major national dailies proves it. There are not many readers in our “politically aware” country, and rightly so, because all you get is bombarded with news and views that have hardly anything to do with the real issues and problems.

For example, how many edito­rial and op-ed pieces are penned asking the government what it does with the tax money or sug­gesting it to use the tax money on upgrading infrastructure? Where does all that money go because we seem to rely on foreign aid even for ambulances and fire trucks? Again, how many editorials and expert views do you, the readers, get to read on the importance of urgent and concrete action on road and food safety and alarming pollution? Similarly, hardly any­one is suggesting the leaders to act on their election pledges, and to internalize the importance of decriminalizing politics and con­trolling inflation, corruption and misuse of government vehicles.

Contrast these with the num­ber of pieces advising the gov­ernment on what it ought to do with India and China or on the need to institutionalize democ­racy and freedom of expression and human rights. Not that these abstract ideals, which our lead­ers and writers talk ad nauseam about, do not matter, but in our context, effective utilization of tax money, and access to safe roads, food, clean air, healthcare and education are also equally or even more important.

But we seldom write on these issues because they are not sexy enough.

The politicians are in a different tangent and we can only hope that one day we will be blessed with a responsible leadership. But what about us? We too are guilty of being either timid, unconnect­ed or unconcerned with the real issues and problems. We, the mis­guided elites, have knowingly or unknowingly hijacked the real agenda and the shameless politi­cians are having a field day.

Perhaps it’s about time we asked the right questions and made the right noises so that there’s some semblance of morality and accountability in the country—or at least to get people to read what we write.

The process of forming a new govern­ment is almost complete. Prime Minis­ter KP Sharma Oli has come across as someone very thoughtful about selecting his ministers. Newly-appointed ministers like Pradeep Gyawali, Yubaraj Khatiwada, Rabin­dra Adhikari, Lalbabu Pandit and Gokarna Bista are promising entrants to the cabinet. There are many reasons to be hopeful, albeit cautiously, about this government. But we citizens must not forget that it is also our responsibility to ensure that the government keeps moving in the right direction.Reasons for hope

A stable and all-powerful government has been the dream of the last three generations of Nepalis. Now we are as close to that dream as we have ever been. The likely participation of Madhes-based political parties in the Oli government has further fortified the dream of stability. With three quarters of the parliament in support of Oli, he has become the most powerful prime minister in Nepal’s democratic history. This provides Oli and his government an unprecedented opportunity to deliver on past promises.

In many ways, we can say this government is more powerful than the constitution. It can rectify constitutional weaknesses and work towards safeguarding and institutionalizing the statute. While this government has the ability to revise the constitution, this is not necessarily a cause for alarm, just a matter requiring greater vigilance. Rather than dis­mantling the constitution, it could well be the case that this government will work to imple­ment and strengthen it. For the time being, we have to give this government the benefit of the doubt.

Reminder to the left

Nepal’s left alliance has secured the political authority that it could never have achieved violently. The political capital, which was impossible to garner during the decade-long Maoist conflict and the two CA terms, has the potential to be finally unleashed through the alliance of the UML and CPN MC formed in the run up to the general and provincial elections last year. In a sense, it feels like the coun­try wasted many years. If after a decade of violent war and another decade of transition, the Maoists were going to merge with the UML, it makes sense to question the very purpose of the past two decades. But perhaps such a painful process was necessary to get to where we are today. And now both the UML and the Maoists have an opportunity to deliver on their decades-long dreams of prosperity and equity.

Price of impunity

Impunity is becoming institutionalized in Nepal in large part due to the concessions that were made in the name of the transition. The justice system is biased, selective and politically influenced, and little has been done to curb the rot. After the peace process started, the cases of impunity during the pre- and post-conflict eras were also completely sidelined in the fear that addressing them may derail the process. There was a strong argument that raising the issue of impunity will cost the peace process high. Because of the fear of fresh conflict, civil society groups and the international community maintained studied silence on the topic of impunity. In a way, the earlier governments bought peace with impunity. With the official end of the ‘transition’, it is now time for Nepal to get back on the path of due process and the rule of law.

While the benefit of the doubt must be given to this government, there is still the danger that it may push the argument of development in exchange for continued and perhaps great­er impunity than before. This is the greatest challenge facing us now. The Nepali people’s desperation for ‘development’ is at its peak and so the challenge lies in not allowing the development discourse to subvert due pro­cess. And this is why a strong, vibrant, regen­erated and largely new civil space is necessary and must be created.