It’s June 28, 2024, and you’re reading Off the Record.
I’m Pranaya Rana and in this newsletter, we’ll stop, take a deep breath, and dive into one singular issue that defined the past week.
You can read Off the Record for free by visiting this link and subscribing to receive this newsletter in your inbox every Friday. All posts are free but you can pledge a subscription if you like my work. Those in Nepal can use the QR code below:
Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening from Kathmandu.
Before we begin, I have some news for my paid subscribers. I’m having issues with Stripe, the platform that processes payments for Substack, and all my paid subscriptions have currently been paused and will be canceled. This is a disaster for me and threatens to destroy years of hard work. If you are a paid subscriber, please consider resubscribing to the newsletter once I figure out the Stripe issue, hopefully by next week. I know it’s a big pain but please, you’ve supported me so far and I hope you will continue to do so. I apologize for any inconvenience this causes you.
Now, on to our regular programming.
Dismal SEE results
The results for this year’s Secondary Education Examinations (SEE) are out and they are dismal. Less than half of all students — just 47.87 percent of 504,414 — passed the exam with a minimum grade point average (GPA) of 1.60. Most students failed their English, Science, and Mathematics examinations. Those who failed can retake their exams in the coming months and more will likely pass but not enough to constitute a significant number. Just a handful of students passed the exams with grades in the highest percentile — 186 students obtained a 4.0 GPA, the highest grade, while 68,256 obtained GPAs between 3.20 and 3.60.
This happens every year. The SEE results are almost always very poor with students showing little aptitude for subjects like English and Mathematics. The primary reason behind this failing is that there just aren’t enough qualified teachers for these subjects. Most of those who fail come from outside the city centers and from public schools that are already facing an acute shortage of teachers. You can’t really blame the teachers either. Public school teaching pays a pittance with private institutions always ready to provide higher salaries and better benefits. The government is aware of this, as numerous government-sanctioned reports have pointed that Nepal desperately needs to hire more teachers. But the reports have been ignored and public schools remain understaffed.
But there are other reasons too. Every year, the authorities change grading requirements and sometimes even the curriculum. Teachers, administrators, and students are all expected to keep up with these changes, which understandably can get very confusing for all involved. Students might be somewhat to blame but the larger responsibility lies with the education authorities in Nepal and the teachers employed.
The SEE needs to be done away with. It’s about time. Nepali students are tested way too much and subsequently shamed for failing or not getting better grades. There’s the basic education examination (BEE) for grade 8 students, then the secondary education examination (SEE) for grade 10 students, and finally the School Leaving Certificate examination for grade 12 students. When I was in school, we even had one more examination in grade 5. This is too much for kids. One exam at the end of school would suffice.
Nepal-China Diplomatic Consultation Mechanism concludes
The 16th meeting of the Nepal-China Diplomatic Consultation Mechanism was held on Tuesday, June 26, and concluded with nothing much to report. Foreign Secretary Sewa Lamsal led the Nepal side while Vice-minister Sun Weidong led the Chinese delegation. Both sides once again reiterated their commitment to the five principles of peaceful coexistence, also known as Panchasheel in India and Nepal. The five principles, as first articulated by Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai in the 1954 Sino-Indian Agreement, are: mutual respect for each other's territorial integrity and sovereignty; mutual non-aggression; mutual non-interference in each other's internal affairs; equality and cooperation for mutual benefit; and peaceful coexistence. Of course, neither China nor India has lived up to these five principles as the two countries have numerous territorial disputes, often engage in skirmishes along the border, and are increasingly more hostile towards each other.
In Nepal too, China has not refrained from meddling in Nepali internal affairs, with Chinese ambassadors often attempting to influence domestic politics. Nepali political parties have willingly allowed this interference hoping to gain material benefit and political support. But parties across the board pledge allegiance to the ‘One China Policy’, affirmation of which finds its way into every single joint statement released by the two countries. Besides some run-of-the-mill commitments, the two sides, at the consultation meeting, also agreed to celebrate 70 years of diplomatic relations between the two countries with much fanfare in 2025 and the Chinese side even agreed to promote Nepali tourism by declaring 2025 ‘Visit Nepal Year’ in China.
Many had hoped that this time around, the two sides would also sign an implementation agreement for Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) projects in Nepal but that did not happen. Reportedly, the Nepal side continues to insist on grants for the projects while the Chinese only offer loans. I don’t blame Nepal for at least trying to get grants and maybe the Chinese will relent, given just how long the BRI projects have stalled. But the BRI is not a grant initiative and the Chinese are surely concerned, as writer Amish Mulmi pointed out on Twitter, that if it offers grants to Nepal, every other participant in the BRI will also demand grants as opposed to loans.
And that’s pretty much it.
Buddha Boy guilty of child sexual abuse
In better news, Ram Bahadur Bomjan, once known as the ‘Buddha Boy’, was finally found guilty of child sexual abuse by the Sarlahi District Court. Bomjan was arrested in January from Kathmandu, four years after the court issued an arrest warrant for him over rape charges. Bomjan was accused of raping a 15-year-old girl who had joined his Sarlahi ashram as a nun. The district attorney has sought 12-15 years jail time for Bomjan but the court will make that sentencing decision on July 1. Here’s hoping he gets the book thrown at him.
Bomjan is very clearly a disturbed criminal who is guilty of a lot more. Five other families have accused him of murder, kidnapping, and sexual exploitation. Many others have accused him, credibly, of assault, torture, and rape. However, Bomjan is a powerful individual with access to wealth and political connections. Prime ministers and ministers flocked to his side, international publications wrote glowing profiles, and thousands of people around the world revered him as the second coming of the Buddha. Victims were naturally afraid to file complaints for fear of retaliation, which Bomjan conducted on the few who dared to go to the police.
If you’d like to know more about Bomjan and his history of criminal behavior, read this previous newsletter:
Actors face criticism for casual misogyny and objectification
On Saturday, June 22, the first episode of the new season of the talk show ‘It’s My Show’ aired on Kantipur Television. And yes, I am aware that the show has a terrible name. Almost immediately, it faced a firestorm of criticism. The show was hosted by ‘media personality’ Oshin Sitaula with actors Swastima Khadka and Samragyee RL Shah as guests. On the show, Sitaula asked these two women to participate in a ‘rapid fire’ question-and-answer round where they would have to answer the question asked and if they were unable then they would have to “strip”, as in remove an article of clothing. This by itself was already problematic. Many commentators on social media pointed out how these women were willingly objectifying themselves.
Then, during the rapid fire round itself, Sitaula asked Khadka and Shah discussed the personal love life of other actors, Paul Shah, Anmol KC, and Jassita Gurung, implying that the latter had dated several male actors. This section too was roundly criticized for discussing someone else’s personal life and that too in demeaning, slut-shaming terms.
Jassita Gurung herself took umbrage at what was implied in the segment, saying on social media: “I am deeply saddened by these people after watching this interview. Are we truly against women bringing another woman down [SIC]? … What kind of example are you setting for the community as a woman? What is the reason for defaming and discussing someone’s personal lives in public?”
After all the criticism, Khadka and Shah both apologized to Gurung but the damage was done. Social media was up in arms and many members of the film industry rallied behind Gurung and called out Khadka and Shah for their unprofessional comments regarding a fellow actor. There was also discussion regarding internalized misogyny, which leads women to objectify themselves and tear other women down. Even Suraj Singh Thakuri, the ‘media personality’ who started the show, waded into the controversy saying that his “23 years of dedication, sincerity, and my loyalty to my brand” had been demolished.
What do I think? I don’t really know. I don’t really follow celebrities or talk shows like It’s My Show. I’d rather watch their films and judge them on their acting abilities. Swastima Khadka is a decent actor but Samragyee RL Shah, not so much. As for Oshin Sitaula, she started her career hosting food reviews for M&S Vmag but moved on to bigger but not necessarily better things. She was once even employed by Dekhapadhi Media, a news portal believed to be funded by the CPN-UML, and interviewed then prime minister KP Sharma Oli. The interview is hard to watch, to put it kindly.
I do believe that actors and celebrities can spend their time better by discussing films and their industry, which is mired in problems. Don’t discuss other people, especially people you work with. It looks petty, like something high schoolers would do. That said, this is no excuse to body shame, slut shame, and relentlessly attack these three women. They deserve some criticism but let’s also save some of the outrage for the men who do this regularly.
That’s all for this week. Let’s move on to the deep dive.
The deep dive: How ambassadors are appointed
Image: Bing Image Creator
Last Friday, June 21, the Pushpa Kamal Dahal administration nominated eight individuals for ambassadorial appointments — Lok Darshan Regmi (India), Chandra Ghimire (United States), Bijan Pant (United Kingdom), Sushil Pyakurel (South Korea), Sumnima Tuladhar (Denmark), Pushpa Raj Rajkarnikar (Spain), Netra Prasad Timilsina (Malaysia), and Abu Sufyan Khan (Saudi Arabia). These nominations were supposed to replace 11 ambassadors recalled in the first week of June, just days before Prime Minister Dahal departed for India to attend the swearing-in ceremony of Narendra Modi.
Almost immediately after the nominations were announced, controversy erupted. Sushil Pyakurel, a well-known human rights activist and former member of the National Human Rights Commission, publicly declined the nomination, saying he had never been consulted and that the government had taken into account the criteria set by law for ambassadorial appointments. Sumnima Tuladhar, Netra Prasad Timilsina, and Bijan Pant are all aid workers who’ve worked for humanitarian non-governmental organizations while Abu Sufjan Khan owns an overseas employment agency. The former three have been criticized for lacking any experience in diplomacy or foreign affairs while the latter is being criticized for being a ‘manpower’ agent nominated for a country that hosts thousands of Nepali workers. The remaining three nominees are relatively unblemished. Chandra Ghimire and Lok Darshan Regmi were both senior bureaucrats and Pushpa Raj Rajkarnikar is an academic.
The criticism of these ambassadorial nominations is very valid and only shows that the public at large will not sit quietly while political parties hand out ambassadorial positions as if they were ‘birta’ given out by the former monarchs. But this has long been established practice, given that nearly 50% of all Nepali ambassadors are reserved for the ‘political quota’ meaning that political parties have free reign to appoint whoever they want to these positions, given that they pass the parliamentary hearing. It doesn’t help that this 50% political share includes the most influential positions of India, China, the United States, and the United Kingdom. Nepal currently has 30 country-specific missions and 3 permanent missions; Foreign Ministry ambassadors lead 19 of these.
A political quota is not necessarily bad as there might be experienced individuals who are right for the job but haven’t been through the Foreign Ministry. This is generally not in practice in advanced democracies except for the US, where presidents appoint non-career diplomats to 30% of all ambassadorial positions. In India, however, the vast majority of ambassadors are from the Indian Foreign Service with just a handful politically appointed. In Nepal, half of all positions — most of the important ones — go to political appointees who are more likely to answer to their political masters than to the country’s stated foreign policy. This is, of course, by design. These appointments give individual political parties much more clout vis-a-vis the foreign country in question. Nepal’s ambassador to India, for instance, can shore up support for their party among Indian politicians and parties. Nepal’s ambassador to the US and UK can negotiate favorable terms on loans and aid for the government of the day or facilitate kickbacks from private companies wishing to enter Nepal.
Besides, ambassadorial appointments can also be a way to reward loyalists. In 2018, Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, who leads the CPN-UML party, nominated Nepali Congress stalwart Nilamber Acharya as ambassador to India as a reward for going against his own party and supporting the Oli government’s policies. Acharya had a decent track record as a politician but it was surprising to see Oli nominate an ambassador from a rival party. Something similar happened a year later in 2019 when Pushpa Kamal Dahal nominated Mahesh Dahal as ambassador to Australia. Mahesh Dahal was a long-time Congress politician but he switched camps to help Pushpa Kamal Dahal win the general elections in 2017. He was thus duly rewarded. At the same time, Dawa Futi Sherpa was also nominated as ambassador to Spain. Sherpa is the niece of the late Ang Tshering Sherpa, who had very close relations with Oli.
All of these appointments contravened the Ambassador Selection Criteria, which was introduced in 2018 by then Foreign Minister Pradeep Gyawali. The criteria state that proposed ambassadors should have ‘diplomatic capacity’, at least a Bachelor’s degree, knowledge and experience of world affairs, command of the English language, and knowledge of the host country. Most individuals nominated through the political quota do not meet these requirements. In the current crop of nominations, Bijan Pant, Sumnima Tuladhar, and Netra Prasad Timilsina have experience in the non-governmental aid world, which does not directly translate to ‘diplomatic capacity’. Even more egregious is Abu Sufyan Khan, a businessman operating an overseas employment agency with no diplomatic experience.
Much like the diplomatic code of conduct, these criteria have consistently been ignored and undermined by the very parties that introduced them. In fact, in 2021, the Oli government amended the criteria only to require a high school diploma, not a Bachelor’s degree, to suit just one nominee — Yuvraj Karki as ambassador to Bahrain; Mr Karki did not have a Bachelor’s degree.
When such criteria are ignored and party loyalists are appointed as ambassadors, controversies are bound to arise. This is not to say that all political appointees are incapable. Recently recalled ambassador to India Shankar Sharma was by all measures a good ambassador who worked diligently for the national interest. Dawa Futi Sherpa, despite how she was appointed, turned out to be a decent ambassador to Spain who marshaled support during the COVID-19 pandemic and discharged her duties well. But political appointees have also been involved in all kinds of undiplomatic and even outright illegal actions. In 2013, Maya Kumari Sharma, appointed ambassador to Qatar by the Maoist party, was recalled after she called Qatar an ‘open jail’ on a television program. The Qataris naturally protested and Sharma came home in ignominy. What she said might have been true but as a diplomat, you have to learn to maintain diplomatic decorum and not insult your host country on public television. Then, in 2018, Ambassador to Australia Lucky Sherpa was accused by her driver of human trafficking. The driver alleged that he had collected millions of rupees from Nepalis who had been promised passage to Australia by the ambassador. Although these allegations were never substantiated, Sherpa resigned as ambassador after the Foreign Ministry sought official clarification from her.
At the heart of this whole issue is the fact that Nepal’s foreign policy, supposed to be outward-facing, is always looking inward. Despite repeated assurances from party chiefs, prime ministers, and foreign ministers that Nepal’s foreign policy stays constant, that is clearly not true. Foreign policy is held hostage by domestic concerns. If they weren’t, ambassadors who were doing their jobs well wouldn’t have been recalled so unceremoniously as they were earlier in June. And ambassadors wouldn’t be subject to political quotas. This practice sends a poor message to host nations. Why would foreign politicians and government officials want to negotiate seriously with a diplomatic neophyte who donated their way into office? Furthermore, why even waste time negotiating when the envoy you were talking to can be recalled at any moment?
There is a reason why diplomats need qualifications while politicians do not. Politics is an open field to all. Anyone who can command votes, regardless of educational attainment, is eligible to hold political office. But diplomacy is a different game altogether. Diplomats are sensitive individuals who represent their entire country in a foreign land. They have privileges like diplomatic immunity and special passports. The host country trusts that diplomats will not abuse their privileges and will act in a manner befitting a national representative. When untrained individuals with no background in world affairs, diplomacy, or foreign policy are selected, there is a danger that they will commit diplomatic faux pas. And unfortunately for other career foreign service employees at the embassy in question, they will have to shoulder most of the burden.
So what is to be done? For one, political appointments should not make up 50% of all ambassadorial appointments; perhaps 30% like in the US would be a better number. Second, all ‘important’ missions — India, China, the US & UK for foreign policy reasons, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Malaysia & South Korea for migrant labor reasons — should not all be subject to political appointments. Career diplomats should be allowed to take charge of the majority of these portfolios. Third, governments need to abide by the criteria that they themselves have set. In the past, foreign ministers — Pradeep Gyawali, Narayan Khadka, Narayan Kaji Shrestha — have attempted to bring more stability to Nepal’s foreign policy but they are ignored by their party bosses and heads of government. Party chiefs and prime ministers need to listen to their foreign ministers and ensure that the people they’re appointing to represent Nepal meet the bare minimum standard.
All of this doesn’t seem very hard to do but the parties are unwilling. They don’t want to give up positions they could hand out as largesse to donors, well-wishers, and supporters. Ambassadors are lucrative positions and come with stipends as well as social capital. Significant donors want to be seen as ambassadors to foreign lands. But this is a cynical exercise. It sacrifices the larger interests of the country at the altar of loyalty to a specific party or a specific politician.
Nepal doesn’t have many interests in foreign countries but the few that it does have to be handled with maturity and sensitivity. We cannot have diplomats running their mouths like politicians do back home. We cannot have diplomats engaging in criminal behavior and seeking favors in foreign lands. But more so, Nepal needs to have faith in its foreign service and trust its career diplomats.
That’s all for this week. I will be back next Friday, in your emails, for the next edition of Off the Record.
If you enjoyed today’s newsletter, please consider sharing it with others who might enjoy weekly updates from Nepal or consider becoming a paid subscriber.
Thanks for reading Off the Record! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
Off the Record is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.