Category: Quotes

सरकारका एकजना मन्त्रीले आइतवार एउटा औपचारिक धार्मिक कार्यक्रममा नेपालमा “हिन्दू राष्ट्र र राजतन्त्र” फर्काउने नाममा गरिने गतिविधिमाथि “बन्देज लगाइने” बताएपछि त्यसबारे विभिन्न कोणबाट टिप्पणीहरू भएका छन्।

इसाई धर्मावलम्बीको पर्व इस्टरका अवसरमा राष्ट्रिय ख्रिष्टियन महासङ्घ नेपालको कार्यक्रममा शहरी विकासमन्त्री मोहम्मद इश्तियाक राईले दिएका त्यस्तो अभिव्यक्तिलाई कतिपयले सरकारको सम्भावित नयाँ कदमको आधिकारिक घोषणाका रूपमा अर्थ्याएका छन्।

तर राजतन्त्र र हिन्दू राष्ट्रको पक्षमा वकालत गर्दै विभिन्न राजनीतिक अभियान चलाइरहेको एक दल राष्ट्रिय प्रजातन्त्र पार्टी (राप्रपा) लाई सरकारले वार्तामा बोलाएकै दिन उनले दिएको त्यस्तो अभिव्यक्तिलाई केहीले भने सरकार भित्रै रहेको मत भिन्नताका रूपमा हेरेका छन्।

सरकारका प्रवक्ता र सञ्चार तथा सूचनाप्रविधि मन्त्री गोकुलप्रसाद बाँस्कोटा भने राप्रपाले गर्दै आएका गतिविधिहरू संविधानको मर्म विपरीत भएको भएपनि हाल भने वार्ताको पहल भइरहेकाले ‘बन्देज’बारे सरकारले नसोचेकोमा जोड दिएका छन्।

राईले के भनेका थिए?
आइतवार सत्तापक्ष र प्रतिपक्षका केही नेताहरू समेत सहभागी उक्त कार्यक्रममा मन्त्री राईले नेपालको हालको संविधानले धार्मिक स्वतन्त्रतालाई प्रत्याभूत गरेको बताएका थिए।

उनले राप्रपातर्फ सङ्केत गर्दै “अहिले केही तत्त्वहरू राजतन्त्र र हिन्दू राष्ट्रका नाममा सल्बलाएको” भन्दै त्यसलाई “दिवा स्वप्न”का रूपमा अर्थ्याएका थिए।

उनले भनेका थिए, “नेपाल एउटा गणतान्त्रिक, धर्मनिरपेक्ष, बहुभाषिक, बहुधार्मिक र बहुसांस्कृतिक मुलुक हो। यसमा कसैले केही ‌औँला उठायो भने सरकारले त्यसलाई कुनै पनि माफ गर्नेवाला छैन। हामी त्यस्ता कामलाई, कार्यक्रमहरूलाई पूर्ण रूपमा बन्देज पनि गर्छौँ किनकि संविधानले त्यो कुरालाई चाहिँ स्थान दिएको छैन।”

‘आफ्नो मतमा स्थिर’
सोमवार बीबीसी नेपाली सेवासँगको टेलिफोन कुराकानीमा पनि मन्त्री मोहम्मद इश्तियाक राईले “हिन्दू राष्ट्र र राजतन्त्रको माग राखेर गरिएको गतिविधि संविधान विपरीत रहेकाले” त्यसलाई “बन्देज लगाउन सकिने” धारणामा आफू अडिग रहेको बताए।

उनले भने, “कसैले पनि संविधान विपरीत गतिविधि गर्छ भने सरकार चुप लागेर बस्न सक्दैन भनेको हो।”

हाल राप्रपाले गरिरहेको गतिविधि संविधान विपरीत भएको उनको दाबी छ।

मन्त्री राईले भने, “उहाँहरूले निर्वाचन आयोगमा दर्ता गर्दा बुझाएको विधानमा संविधान मान्छौ भन्नुभएको छ।

राजतन्त्र र हिन्दू राष्ट्र मान्छौँ भन्नुभएको छ र?”

उनले संविधानले व्यक्तिलाई धार्मिक स्वतन्त्रता दिए पनि सङ्गठनले धर्मका नाममा राजनीति गर्न भने नपाउने बताए।

उनले राजतन्त्रको पक्षमा र धर्म निरपेक्षताविरुद्ध गतिविधि गर्नेलाई “छुट नदिने”मा प्रधानमन्त्री पनि सहमत रहेको दाबी गरे।

“प्रधानमन्त्रीले पनि यस्तो दिवासपना नदेख्नु भनिसक्नुभएको छ। ज्योतिषहरूले २०७६ सालमा राजतन्त्र आउँछ भनेर भविष्यवाणी गर्दा उनीहरूलाई पनि चेतावनी दिनुभएको छ,” राईले भने।

‘बन्देज होइन वार्ता’
सरकारका प्रवक्ता एवम् सञ्चार तथा सूचना प्रविधिमन्त्री गोकुलप्रसाद बाँस्कोटाले भने सरकारले अहिले नै “हिन्दू राष्ट्र र राजतन्त्र”को माग गर्दै राप्रपाले गरिरहेका गतिविधिलाई बन्देज लगाउन नखोजिएको बताए।

उनले भने, “अहिले हामीले बन्देज भन्दा पनि वार्ताका लागि पहल गरेका छौँ।”

बाँस्कोटाले सरकारले वार्ताका लागि अधिकतम् लचकता अपनाउने बताए।

सरकारका तर्फबाट आइतवार मात्र कानुन, न्याय तथा संसदीय मामिलामन्त्री भानुभक्त ढकालले राप्रपा अध्यक्ष कमल थापालाई पत्र लेख्दै मङ्गलवार दिउँसो १ बजे वार्ताका लागि बोलाएका छन्।

राप्रपाले उक्त वार्ताका लागि तीन सदस्यीय वार्ता समिति बनाइसकेको जनाएको छ।

उसले वरिष्ठ नेता दीपक बोहोराको संयोजकत्वमा महामन्त्री राजेन्द्र लिङ्देन र अर्का नेता निरञ्जन थापा सदस्य रहेको वार्ता समिति बनाएको राप्रपाले जनाएको हो।

‘बन्देज लगाउन मिल्दैन’
संविधानविद्हरूले भने शहरी विकासमन्त्री राईले भनेजस्तो राप्रपाका गतिविधिमाथि बन्देज लगाउन नसकिने बताएका छन्।

संविधानविद् विपिन अधिकारीले भने, “संविधानले दिएको अधिकार अनुसार नेपाली नागरिकले जुनसुकै राजनीतिक प्रणाली र जस्तोसुकै राजनीतिक मुद्दाबारे सार्वजनिक धारणा बनाउन सक्छन्। प्रजातान्त्रिक ढङ्गले ती मुद्दालाई स्थापित गर्न सङ्गठन खोल्न, प्रचारप्रसार गर्न र भोट माग्न कसैले रोकटोक गर्न सक्दैन।”

नेपाल बार एसोसिएशनका भूतपूर्व अध्यक्ष एवम् वरिष्ठ अधिवक्ता विश्वकान्त मैनालीले पनि शान्तिपूर्ण रूपमा भेला भएर कसैले गरेको गतिविधिमा नेपालको अहिलेको संविधानले नरोक्ने बताए।

राष्ट्रिय अखण्डता र स्वाधिनतामा खलल पुग्ने बाहेकका गतिविधिहरू गर्नलाई संविधानले नरोकेकाले राप्रपाले अहिले गरेका गतिविधिमा प्रतिबन्ध लगाउन नसकिने मैनालीको धारणा छ।

के भन्छ राप्रपा?
राप्रपाका प्रचार विभाग प्रमुख मोहन श्रेष्ठले चाँहि मन्त्री राईको धारणाले सरकारभित्रै एकमत छैन कि भन्ने शङ्का उब्जाएको बताए।

राप्रपाले गत गत फागुन ७ गतेदेखि २२ बुँदे माग राखेर विभिन्न अभियानहरू चलाइरहेको थियो।

हाललाई भने एक साताका लागि उक्त अभियान स्थगित गरिएको श्रेष्ठले बताए।

राप्रपाले हिन्दू राष्ट्र स्थापना गर्नुपर्ने, राजा सहितको लोकतन्त्रका लागि सर्वपक्षीय गोलमेच सम्मेलन गर्नुपर्ने, सङ्घीयताका लागि जनमतसङ्ग्रह गर्नुपर्ने, भ्रष्टाचार र मूल्यवृद्धि नियन्त्रण गर्नुपर्ने लगायतका माग राखेर अभियान चलाएको हो।

त्यसक्रमममा राप्रपाले १५ दिने मेची-महाकाली ‘स्वाभिमान यात्रा’, हस्ताक्षर अभियान, प्रशासनिक कार्यालयहरूमा धर्ना, धर्म निरपेक्षताको पोस्टर र ब्यानर जलाउने लगायतका गतिविधि गरेको थियो।

 [pdfjs-viewer url=”https%3A%2F%2Fbipinadhikari.com.np%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2020%2F03%2FAnapekshit-bahirgaman.pdf” viewer_width=100% viewer_height=1360px fullscreen=true download=true print=true]

Nepal Media Society today condemned the government’s move to impose ‘restrictions’ on the issuance of identity cards to members of the press, stating that it violated press freedom guaranteed by the constitution.

Issuing a statement, the umbrella organisation of private publications demanded that the government immediately roll back the decision and cautioned not to repeat such activities in the future.

“Orders and directives that are aimed at controlling the press should be rescinded immediately to avoid any situation of anarchy and conflict in the country,” the society said, citing other government moves, such as imposing unnecessary restrictions on transferring payment to foreign satellite service providers and on the import of newsprint by the print media.

In a circular dated February 1, the Department of Information and Broadcasting, under the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, made it mandatory for journalists and other staff of media organisations to produce their bank statements and bank account numbers to avail facilities, such as issuance of press identity cards. The department also asked media houses to submit a copy of the payroll of all journalists and other staff authenticated by banks for availing services from the department.

The department stated in the circular that the move was aimed at strictly enforcing the minimum wage for journalists set by the government.

But stakeholders say the move is not only against press freedom, but also infringes on journalists’ right to privacy.

Former president of Federation of Nepali Journalists Bishnu Nisthuri said ensuring minimum pay to journalists should be an issue between the government and publishers, not between the government and journalists.

He said if the government really wanted to ensure minimum pay to journalists it could seek a strong evidence of the payment of the salary to journalists from publishers. “Seeking personal details from journalists is an immature and ridiculous move by the government,” said Nisthuri. “This unnecessary hassle certainly demoralises journalists.”

Constitution expert Bhimarjun Acharya said the government’s move also infringed on the right to privacy of journalists. “The government does not have the right to encroach upon privacy of any individual unless that individual has violated the law,” said Acharya. “This move is aimed at curtailing press freedom by creating unnecessary hassles for journalists.”

Experts added that although this particular decision of the government in itself might not seem that harmful, it could be ‘dangerous’ if it was a part of various approaches of the government to control the press.

“The government’s moves in the past suggest that the latest move is a part of that series of approaches that serve the government’s interests,” said another constitution expert Bipin Adhikari, citing provisions in the criminal code, penal code and other laws and bills that are against press freedom.

Adhikari said seeking personal details from anybody without valid reasons could never be made obligatory, except for special circumstances, and it violated the right to privacy. He said making laws, rules and regulations did not mean anything could be imposed as the constitution also talked about ‘valid laws’ and their validity could be tested. “This carte blanche approach is neither acceptable nor sustainable,” said Adhikari. “The court of law can question it.”

A version of this article appears in print on April 05, 2019 of The Himalayan Times.

In March 2016, Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli made an announcement at the Kathmandu University senate that he would work to revise legal provisions, which would make the country’s executive head the ex-officio chancellor of all the universities.

The commitment made at the senate meeting, held on the occasion of the silver jubilee of the university, was recorded in its minutes.

Exactly three years later, the Oli government has now come up with an amendment bill to revise the Acts governing the 13 universities in the country, giving the authority to their chancellor–who is the prime minister at the moment–to start the process to sack the vice-chancellor, rector and registrar if one-fourth of the senate members concerned agree.

The change envisioned through the amendment contradicts Oli’s commitment to appointing academicians as chancellor. It is also against the academic practice worldwide where varsities are considered autonomous entities.

But there is more to this than meets the eye.

Experts and analysts say there seems to be a pattern in the incumbent government’s moves, which ultimately boils down to efforts to centralise power in the prime minister.

Ever since Oli started his second stint as the head of government in February last year, his Cabinet has been taking steps–in quick succession–which, experts said, show his ambition to “centralise” power and that such moves can subvert democracy in practice.

Amendments to the existing university Acts are yet another example in that direction, they said.

Last week, the government registered a Bill on Work, Responsibility and Rights of the National Security Council in Parliament, authorising the prime minister, as the chairman of the council, to recommend Army deployment in case of a grave emergency in the country, even without calling a meeting of the council.

Clause 6 (3) of the bill states that irrespective of what is mentioned in Sub-clause 2, the chairman [of the security council] can recommend the government deployment of the Army if there is a serious national crisis–or such crisis could happen if the Army is not deployed–in the event that a meeting of the National Security Council is not possible.

Sub-clause 2 of the bill includes the provision which Article 267 of the constitution says–that the President will declare the mobilisation of the Army as per the Cabinet decision on the council’s recommendation.

Article 267 (6) states: “The President shall, on recommendation of the National Security Council and pursuant to a decision of the government of Nepal, Council of Ministers, declare the mobilisation of the Nepal Army in cases where a grave emergency arises with regard to the sovereignty or territorial integrity of Nepal or the security of any part thereof, by war, external aggression, armed rebellion or extreme economic disarray. A declaration of the mobilisation of the Army must be ratified by the House of Representatives within one month after the date of such declaration.”

Bipin Adhikari, a constitutional expert, said though it would be premature to say that present revisions in the laws are aimed at further empowering the prime minister and giving him absolute power, it does give ample room to question the intent.

“Some of moves of the government show Oli is deviating from his earlier commitments after getting a thumping majority from the elections,” he said. “Authorising the prime minister to start process to sack top officials of universities is one of the many moves the government has been making to centralise power. This latest bid is pure nonsense… and cannot be justified on any pretext,” Adhikari told the Post.

The communist-led government’s power centralisation bid started immediately after Oli became the prime minister.

A month after he assumed office, the government decided to bring the National Investigation Department, the Department of Revenue Investigation, and the Department of Money Laundering Investigation, which were under various ministries earlier, under the purview of the Prime Minister’s Office.

The Cabinet in March last year revised different rules to increase the prime minister’s jurisdiction on issues of foreign policy, national security and financial and economic crimes.

Former chief secretary Bimal Koirala said the tendency to centralise power cannot be put in a good light.

“Absolute power always yields negative results,” he told the Post. “Even if Oli is taking initiatives with good motive, chances are there that they could become a burden for himself in the long run,” said Koirala, who served as the government’s chief secretary from September 2002 to August 2005.

विचार निर्मातादेखि सचेत मानिएको नागरिक तप्काको ठूलो हिस्सा समेत आग्रही भइदिंदा समाजलाई दिशानिर्देश गर्ने सार्वजनिक विमर्श क्षतिग्रस्त बन्न पुगेको छ।

३-९ चैत २०७५ | 17-23 March 2019

एउटा चल्तीको अंग्रेजी उक्तिले भन्छ– ‘हरेक कथामा तीन पक्ष हुन्छन्; तिम्रो पक्ष, अरूको पक्ष र सत्य ।’ घटनाका बहुआयाम, विचारको विविधता र त्यसमाथि मन्थनको आवश्यकतालाई यो उक्तिले पुष्टि गर्छ । यिनै तीन वटा पक्षलाई उजागर गर्छ, सार्वजनिक विमर्शले । विविधतापूर्ण समाजमा बहुलवाद र समावेशी लोकतन्त्रलाई बलियो बनाउने नै स्तरीय र खुला सार्वजनिक विमर्शले हो । स्तरीय संवादले सार्वजनिक नीतिको गुणवत्ता पनि सुधार्छ । ज्ञानको उत्पादन र वितरणका लागि उपयुक्त साधन सार्वजनिक वृत्त नै हो जहाँ पूर्ण सूचना र तथ्यका आधारमा खुला विमर्श हुनसकोस् । तर, हाम्रा सार्वजनिक विमर्शहरू कस्ता छन् त ? के तिनले इतर विचारलाई ठाउँ दिन्छन् ? यसको सीधा र सजिलो जवाफ छैन । समाज अध्येताहरू भन्छन्– बहस त भइरहेकै छन् तर, तिम्रो वा मेरो कित्ता समात्नुपर्ने जिकिरले ‘पब्लिक डिस्कोर्स’ भुत्ते बनिरहेको छ । “हामीकहाँ विचारको मन्थनभन्दा बढी आफ्नै धारणा अन्तिम भन्ने टोले–दादा मार्काको बहस धेरै छ”, समाजशास्त्री चैतन्य मिश्र भन्छन् ।

समाजलाई मार्गनिर्देश गर्ने उदार विचारहरूको उत्पादन रोकिंदा वा बहसको दायरा फराकिलो नहुँदा समाजको आलोचनात्मक चेत पनि कमजोर हुन्छ । यसले लोकतन्त्रमा विविध विचारको स्थानलाई पनि खुम्च्याउँछ । संविधानविद् डा.विपिन अधिकारीको मतमा नेपालमा वैकल्पिक विचारलाई ठाउँ दिने अभ्यास कमजोर छ, सार्वजनिक मञ्चहरूमा पनि एउटा पक्षको ढिपी ज्यादा छ । “सार्वजनिक विचारहरू या त आग्रह/पूर्वाग्रहले ग्रस्त छन्, या प्रतिक्रियात्मक” डा.अधिकारी भन्छन्, “विषयवस्तुको वजन बुझेर सही र गलत भन्ने आँट गर्ने मान्छे थोरै छन्, भए पनि सार्वजनिक वृत्तमा देखिंदैनन् ।” बहस कम आग्रह र ढिपी ज्यादा भएपछि समाज तीव्र गतिमा ध्रुवीकृत हुन थाल्छ । अहिले पक्षधर र इतर भनेर त्यस्तै सीमा खडा गरिएको समाजशास्त्री मिश्र बताउँछन् । सार्वजनिक मन्थनलाई समृद्ध बनाउन अवरोध के ले पुर्‍यायो ? यसको प्रष्ट जवाफ हो, राजनीतिक लाभ–हानि बुझेर मात्रै मुख खोल्ने प्रवृत्ति । डा.अधिकारी भन्छन्, “फाइदा नदेख्दासम्म मौन रहने प्रवृत्ति डरलाग्दो गरी झाङ्गिएको छ ।” यसले लोकरिझायाइँलाई बढावा दिइरहेको छ ।

साँघुरिएको बहस

देश टुक्र्याउने अभियानमा हिंडेका सीके राउतसँग सरकारले गरेको सम्झैता र नेत्रविक्रम चन्द नेतृत्वको ‘नेपाल कम्युनिष्ट पार्टी’ का गतिविधिलाई प्रतिबन्ध लगाउने सरकारको निर्णयका विषयमा समाज अहिले तीव्र रूपमा विभाजित छ । एकथरी राउतसँग सरकारले गरेको सम्झैतामा उल्लिखित ‘असन्तुष्टिहरूलाई जनअभिमतमा आधारित लोकतान्त्रिक विधिबाट समाधान गर्न सहमत’ वाक्यांशलाई सरकारले देश टुक्र्याउने अभियानलाई वैधानिकता दिएको भनेर सरकारको चर्को विरोध गरिरहेका छन् । अर्काथरी, सम्झैताका प्रत्येक शब्द राष्ट्रहित अनुकूल भएको भन्दै प्रशंसा गरिरहेका छन् । सामाजिक चिन्तक डा.पीताम्बर शर्मा यसको अन्तर्य विश्लेषण नगरी पक्षीय वा विपक्षी मानसिकताका आधारमा मात्र विचार प्रस्तुत हुँदा द्विविधा बढेको ठान्छन् । “सम्झैता कुन परिस्थितिमा कसरी भयो ? यसको दीर्घकालीन प्रभाव के हो ? भित्रसम्म पुगेर विचार निर्माण गरिएको छैन”, डा.शर्मा भन्छन् ।

हरेक घटना, सन्दर्भ वा मुद्दाका विविध आयाम हुन्छन् । त्यसैले, पहिलो वा दोस्रो पक्षधरता लिंदा सत्य भेट्टाउने सम्भावना कमजोर बन्छ । संशय जनाउनु एउटा कुरा, सोझै अर्को पक्षको मतलाई खारेज गर्दा बहसले ठाउँ पाउँदैन । सामाजिक चिन्तक डा.शर्मा भन्छन्, “अहिले हरेकजसो सार्वजनिक मुद्दामा गुण दोष केलाउनुको सट्टा पक्षीय वा इतर भनेर विचार निर्माण भइरहेको छ ।” त्यसको, एउटा उदाहरण हो, डा.गोविन्द केसीको अनशन बारेको बहस । डा.केसी चिकित्सा शिक्षामा सुधारको माग राखेर पटक–पटक अनशन बस्दै आएका छन् । डा.शर्माका अनुसार डा.केसीका मागलाई मसिनो ढंगले केलाउने प्रयत्न नै गरिएको छैन । उनी भन्छन्, “माहोल नै कस्तो बनिसकेको छ भने कि त गोविन्द केसीको पक्षमा कि विपक्षमा । यसले वैचारिक मन्थनको गतिलाई रोक्छ ।”

नेपाली समाजमा तर्क–वितर्कको उन्नत अभ्यास यसै पनि बलियो होइन । ‘तोलाको जिब्रो फड्कार्नु भन्दा धार्नीको टाउको हल्लाउनु वेश’ भन्ने लोकोक्तिको अन्तर्य बहस भन्दा विनाप्रश्न सम्मति जनाउनु उचित भन्ने देखिन्छ । निर्वाहमुखी कृषि प्रणाली तथा बाँकी विश्वसँग नजोडिएका कारण लामो समय नेपालको ग्रामीण समाज सानो परिवेशमा बस्यो । त्यसमाथि, विषयलाई छिमलेर प्रस्तुत गर्न, वैचारिक तर्क–वितर्क गर्नका लागि ज्ञानको विस्तार निकै पछि मात्रै भयो । सामाजिक चिन्तक डा.शर्मा बन्द सामाजिक व्यवस्थाका कारण आलोचना, विचार मन्थन, खुला बहस नेपाली समाजमा यसअघि पनि पर्याप्त हुन नपाएको तर्क गर्छन् । “तर, पहिले सार्वजनिक मन्थनका लागि बलिया संस्थागत प्रयत्नका कारण पर्याप्त नभए पनि केही स्तरीय विमर्श हुन्थ्यो”, उनी भन्छन् । समाजशास्त्री मिश्रका अनुसार, पहिले पहिले देशविदेश पुगेका लाहुरेले ल्याउने विचार मात्र ग्रामीण समाजका लागि नयाँ विचार सिञ्चित गर्ने मुख्य उपाय थियो । राणाकालको मुख्य चरित्र नै बन्द समाज भएका कारण विचारहरूको मन्थन, सार्वजनिक विमर्श हुने कुरै भएन । २००७ सालको प्रजातन्त्र र त्यसपछिको खुला परिवेशपछि मात्रै बहसको वास्तविक परिवेश शुरू भएको मिश्र बताउँछन् ।

कतिपय शास्त्रीयतावादीहरू पूर्वीय सभ्यतामा तर्क–वितर्कको मुख्य भूमिका रहेको बताउन ‘वादे–वादे जायते तत्वबोध’ को सन्दर्भ उल्लेख गर्छन् । तर, ‘ठूलासँग मुख लाग्न हुँदैन’ भनिने ‘चेन अफ कमाण्ड’ मा बाँधिएको समाज र आधुनिक ज्ञानमा पहुँच राख्नेहरू पनि निकै कम भएका जमानामा सामाजिक विमर्श कमजोर नै भएको ठम्याउन गाह्रो पर्दैन ।

लाभ–हानिको हिसाबकिताब

‘निर्धक्क विचार राख्ने’ मात्र होइन, ‘अरूका कुरा सुन्ने’ अभ्यासको जरो लोकतन्त्रसँग जोडिन्छ । त्यसैले, वार्ता, संवाद, छलफल, विमर्श सबै लोकतन्त्रले फुकाउने आलोचनात्मक चेतसँग जोडिएको हुन्छ । नेपालमा २०४६ को परिवर्तनपछिको खुलापन र उदार अभ्यासपछि मात्रै सार्वजनिक बहसले फैलिने मौका पाएको हो । तर, सुन्ने र विचार राख्ने यो खुलापन लामो समय टिकेन । २०५२ सालमा शुरू भएको माओवादी हिंसाले गाउँ समाज सबैतिर आलोचनात्मक चेत भएकाहरूको मुख थुनिदियो । कतिपयका विचारमा लडाइँको बाछिटाले संस्थापन विरुद्ध ग्रामीण समाजलाई तरंगित र मुखरित पनि बनाएको थियो । २०६२/६३ को आन्दोलनपछि पनि बहस, आलोचना र प्रश्नको संस्कृतिले भने अपेक्षा अनुसार पंख फिंजाएन । राज्य प्रवद्र्धित मौन संस्कृति मात्र होइन, राजनीतिक आस्था सिर्जित पक्षधरताका कारण पनि स्वतन्त्र विचारहरू खुम्चिन पुगे । अख्तियार दुरुपयोग अनुसन्धान आयोगका तत्कालीन प्रमुख लोकमानसिंह कार्कीको जगजगीले त आलोचनात्मक विचारलाई निषेध नै गर्‍यो ।

आवश्यक परेको बेला दृढतापूर्वक आफ्नो विचार दिनसक्ने विचार निर्माता र बौद्धिकहरूले समाजलाई दिशानिर्देश गर्छन् । विचारशील समूहबाट समाजले अत्यावश्यक विषयमा बौद्धिक विमर्श मात्र होइन, विचार मार्फत सार्थक हस्तक्षेपसम्मको अपेक्षा राख्छ । यसैले समाजलाई लोकतान्त्रिक र उन्नत बनाउँदै लैजान्छ । समाजका बौद्धिक, विचारक र अगुवाहरूमा जोखिम मोलेर पनि बोल्ने साहस भएन भने मौन संस्कृतिको विकास हुन्छ । पछिल्लो समय व्यक्तिगत लाभका लागि मौनता साध्ने, राजनीतिक आवद्धताका आधारमा विचार राख्ने अभ्यास बढेर गएको संविधानविद् डा.अधिकारी बताउँछन् । “अवस्था कस्तो छ भने, कुनै सार्वजनिक विषयमा बोल्ने व्यक्तिले के भन्छ भनेर शुरूमै अनुमान लगाउन सकिन्छ” उनी भन्छन्, “स्वतन्त्र नागरिक समाज र बौद्धिक तप्का नभएकाले यो हदसम्मको पक्षधरता देखिएको हो ।” उनी गुणवत्ता (मेरिट) का आधारमा भन्दा दलीय संलग्नताका आधारमा व्यक्तित्व मूल्यांकनको अभ्यास झांगिएकाले गुणस्तरीय विमर्श खिइँदै गएको बताउँछन् ।

हुन पनि, सरकार वा राजनीतिक नेतृत्व रिसाउला भनेर आवश्यक परेका बेला पनि मुख नखोल्ने क्रम बढेकै छ । विचार र बहस मार्फत संस्थापनलाई चुनौती दिनुपर्ने विश्वविद्यालयहरूमा पनि त्यो हिम्मत र क्षमता देखिंदैन । समाजशास्त्री मिश्र मिडिया वा लेखनकर्म मार्फत बहसलाई अघि बढाउनुपर्ने प्राध्यापकहरू आफैं राजनीतिक आस्थाका आधारमा विभाजित हुँदा त्यो बहसलाई अघि बढाउने सामथ्र्य नराखेको देख्छन् । उसो भए सामाजिक सञ्जाल र सार्वजनिक वृत्तमा अहिले भइरहेको के हो त ? “कोलाहल, सूचना, क्रिया–प्रतिक्रिया र छलफल सबैको मिसमास हो”, राजनीतिशास्त्री हरि शर्मा भन्छन् । सञ्चारमाध्यमले पनि चाँडो पस्किने नाममा अधकल्चो सूचना दिंदा सही विचारको निर्माण हुनसकेको छैन, अधकल्चो सूचनाकै भरमा हतारमा विचार निर्माण गर्ने प्रवृत्तिले हरेक निर्णय र घटनामा कन्स्पिरेसी थ्यौरी (षड्यन्त्रको सिद्धान्त) निर्माण गरिरहेको छ । शर्मा भन्छन्, “सही सूचना प्रवाहका लागि मुख्य जिम्मेवार सरकार नै सूचनाको विनिमयमा चुकिरहेको छ ।” उनी सूचना विश्लेषणको प्रक्रियामा पनि शंका गर्छन् । भन्छन्, “विषयका विज्ञ भनिनेहरूले सूचनालाई विश्लेषण गर्ने, चर्चा गर्ने क्षमता के हो, तिनका आधार के हुन्, उनीहरूको विषयप्रतिको लगाव के छ भन्ने पनि खोतल्नुपर्छ ।”

सामाजिक–राजनीतिक व्यवस्था बन्द बाट खुलामा प्रवेश गरे पनि सूचनाको विश्लेषण गर्ने, ज्ञान विस्तार गर्ने तथा सार्वजनिक विमर्शलाई अघि बढाउने संस्थाहरूको कमजोर क्षमताले पनि विचार निर्माण तथा विमर्शको संस्कृतिमा असर पारेको छ । ज्ञान उत्पादनको केन्द्र मानिने विश्वविद्यालयहरूले विमर्शको विस्तार र विचार निर्माणमा भूमिका खेल्न सकेका छैनन् । खासगरी, विश्वविद्यालयहरू राजनीतिक चक्रव्यूह एवं कार्यकर्ता भर्तीको थलो बन्दै गएपछि यसको ओज, गरिमासँगै विमर्शलाई अघि बढाउने सामथ्र्य कमजोर भएको जानकारहरूको मत छ । विश्वविद्यालय मात्र होइन, थिंक ट्यांकहरूले समेत त्यस्तो भूमिका निर्वाह गर्न नसकेको आरोप लाग्छ । सरकारलाई नीति निर्माणमा राय दिने, वैकल्पिक विचार प्रस्तुत गर्ने तथा अनुसन्धानलाई अघि बढाउने थिंक ट्यांकहरू थलिंदै गएको विचार राख्नेहरू पनि उत्तिकै छन् । “वैकल्पिक विचारलाई अघि बढाउन, अनुसन्धान र विमर्शलाई गति दिन थिंक ट्यांकहरू बलिया देखिएनन्, नीति निर्माणमा राय दिनुपर्ने थिंक ट्यांकहरूको भूमिका पनि खुम्चिरहेको छ”, समाजशास्त्री मिश्र भन्छन् ।

छिपछिपे बहस

गत पुसमा प्रधानमन्त्री सहभागी भएको डाभोस सम्मेलनमा उनको सहभागिता, त्यसको अर्थ, उनको प्रस्तुति वा लाभका विषयमा भन्दा उनले लगाएको जुत्ताका विषयमा सामाजिक सञ्जालहरूमा बढ्ता बहस भयो । गत महीना पशुपति शर्माको गीतको पक्ष–विपक्षमा पनि तथ्यसंगत बहसभन्दा सरकारपक्षीय र विपक्षी खेमामा बाँडिएर बहस अघि बढ्यो । निर्मला पन्त हत्याकाण्डबारे पनि उसैगरी अधकल्चो सूचनाका आधारमा सार्वजनिक धारणा र विचारहरू बने । यी सबैले हरेक सन्दर्भ वा घटनामा तथ्यपूर्ण र गम्भीर छलफलभन्दा हलुका विषय वा आग्रहपूर्ण विचारका आधारमा व्याख्या गर्ने अभ्यास बढिरहेको देखाउँछन् ।

समाजशास्त्री मिश्र मूल मुद्दा वा विषयभन्दा पर पुगेर छेडखानी, आग्रह/पूर्वाग्रह प्रेरित कटु विचारको जगजगी भएको देख्छन् । उनी भन्छन्, “तथ्य/तथ्यांकमा आधारित भन्दा प्रतिक्रियात्मक छेडखानीमा रमाउने प्रवृत्ति बढ्यो ।” नवीन विचार, सैद्धान्तिक दृष्टिकोणको मन्थन हुनुपर्ने राजनीतिक दलहरू भित्र पनि नेतृत्वको अनिच्छाका कारण बहस खुम्चिएको छ । परम्परागत नेतृत्वले दलभित्रैबाट आएका नयाँ र असहमतिका स्वरहरू सुन्नै नचाहँदा पनि चुनौतीपूर्ण बहसले ठाउँ पाएको छैन । नीति निर्माताहरू पनि आफ्नो सीमित ज्ञानको कोठाबाट बाहिर निस्कनै नखोज्दा विचारको उथलपुथल भइरहेको छैन ।

त्यसो त, पछिल्ला वर्षहरूमा चर्चामा रहेका मुख्य मुद्दाहरूको गहिरो बौद्धिक बहस नै हुन सकेन । संविधानमा उल्लिखित ‘समाजवाद उन्मुख’ नीतिबारे पर्याप्त छलफल भएन । विकासको दृष्टिकोण, रेल वा पानीजहाजको आवश्यकता र औचित्यबारे पनि गम्भीर बहसहरू हुनै सकेनन् । राजनीतिशास्त्री हरि शर्मा संघीयताको अभ्यास तथा यसलाई आवश्यक संरचनाका बारेमा पनि गतिलो बहस नभएको बरु यसको पक्ष र विपक्षमा मात्र मत प्रकट भइरहेको बताउँछन् । उनी सैद्धान्तिक आधारहरू खुट्याएर सरकारले अघि सारेको समृद्धिबारेकै बहस पनि फितलो भएको देख्छन् । “पहिले भनिने गरेको विकास र अहिले भनिएको समृद्धिमा के फरक हो, यो कसरी आउँछ, त्यहाँ सामाजिक न्याय कसरी अटाउँछ, असमानताको प्रश्न कसरी सम्बोधन हुन्छ भन्ने त बहसमै छैन” शर्मा भन्छन्, “संसदले धमाधम कानून निर्माण गरिरहेको बेला पनि पर्याप्त छलफल भएको छैन ।” प्रतिनिधिसभाका सदस्यहरू नै कानूनको मस्यौदा बनाउँदा पर्याप्त छलफल नभएकोमा असन्तुष्ट देखिन्छन् । २८ फागुनमा संसदको अर्थ समितिको बैठकमा बोल्दै सांसद गगनकुमार थापाले सरकारले संसदमा पेश गरेको ‘सार्वजनिक निजी साझेदारी तथा लगानी सम्बन्धमा व्यवस्था गर्न बनेको विधेयक’ मा पर्याप्त छलफल नभएको गुनासो गरे । विषय विज्ञ तथा मन्त्रालयका अधिकारीहरूसँग समेत पर्याप्त छलफल नगरी हचुवामा विधेयक प्रस्तुत गरिएको उनको भनाइ थियो।

अहिले मुख्य मुद्दा वा विषयलाई पनि प्रधानमन्त्री केपी शर्मा ओलीको व्यक्तित्वले थिचिरहेको र त्यसले बहसलाई पनि छिपछिपे पारिरहेको प्रष्टै देखिन्छ । त्यसैले, प्रधानमन्त्रीको विचारमाथिको प्रतिक्रिया मात्रै सामाजिक चर्चाको केन्द्रमा छ । प्रधानमन्त्री र सरकारमाथिकै आलोचना पनि तथ्यमा आधारित नभई आग्रह÷पूर्वाग्रह प्रेरित हुने गरेको आरोप लाग्छ । विषयलाई मिहिन ढंगले केलाएर गुण–दोषका आधारमा विरोध वा समर्थन हुनुपर्नेमा त्यसको ठाउँ स्तुति र निन्दाले लिइरहेको संविधानविद् डा.अधिकारी बताउँछन् । स्वस्थ सार्वजनिक विमर्शको खडेरीका बेला प्रतिपक्ष पनि बहस र विमर्शलाई अघि बढाउन असफल देखिएको छ । “ऊसँग पनि सरकारका निर्णयमाथिको वैकल्पिक दृष्टिकोण छैन”, डा.अधिकारी भन्छन् ।

सामाजिक सञ्जालहरूमा पनि सबैले आ–आफ्ना स्वार्थका विचारलाई मात्र प्रवद्र्धन गर्ने र फरक मतलाई ठाउँ नदिने अभ्यास झांगिएको धेरैको बुझाइ छ । सामाजिक सञ्जालमा नेपालीको उपस्थिति पछिल्ला वर्षहरूमा अपत्यारिलो ढंगले बढेर गएको छ । यसका अनगिन्ती लाभसँगै सीमितता पनि उत्तिकै छन् । सबैभन्दा ठूलो सीमितता भनेको बहसको अनुदार चरित्र नै हो । समाजशास्त्री मिश्र सामाजिक सञ्जालमा हुने बहसलाई असहमतिका स्वर सुन्दै नसुनिने ‘इको च्याम्बर’ जस्तो भन्छन् । “आफ्नै धारणामा सहमत हुनेहरूबीच मात्र संवाद हुने र वैकल्पिक धारणा नसुन्ने किबोर्ड वारियर जस्तो अवस्था छ”, मिश्र भन्छन् । सामाजिक सञ्जालका बहसमा आफ्नो तर्कमा ढिपी गर्ने र त्यसैलाई स्थापित गर्न थप अडानहरू अघि सार्दै जाने अभ्यासले तथ्यपरक बहसलाई रोक्छ । समाजशास्त्री मिश्र यस्तो प्रवृत्तिले जात जस्तै नयाँ सीमा निर्माण हुने जोखिम देख्छन् ।

सामाजिक चिन्तक डा.शर्मा चाहिं व्यक्तिगत आवेगलाई प्रस्तुत गर्ने प्रवृत्ति बढिरहेको देख्छन् । उनी भन्छन्, “हतार–हतारमा मैले पनि विचार राखिहाल्नुपर्छ, बोलिहाल्नुपर्छ भनेर छिपछिपे विचार राख्ने प्रवृत्ति छ ।”

मूलधारका समाचारमाध्यमले पनि सामाजिक सञ्जालमा जस्तै छिपछिपे बहस मात्र पेश गरिरहेकोमा समाजशास्त्री मिश्र असन्तुष्ट छन् । उनी भन्छन्, “बहसहरू ज्ञान विस्तार गर्ने, सैद्धान्तिक छलफल गराउने, व्याख्या र वैकल्पिक दृष्टिकोण प्रस्तुत गर्ने भन्दा पनि रोष प्रकट गर्ने, घोच्ने र आगो बाल्नेतर्फ उन्मुख छन् ।”

Bipin Adhikari, the founding dean of Kathmandu University School of Law, has resigned from his position, with effect from next month, expressing reservation about the working style of the university’s Vice Chancellor Ram Kantha Makaju Shrestha.

This is the second high profile resignation at the university in the last few months.

Bhola Thapa, registrar at the university, had resigned in September last year, accusing Shrestha of running the varsity unilaterally. He had also blamed the vice-chancellor for flouting the existing rules mainly in handling the financial activities.

Adhikari, who is a noted constitutional expert, was appointed in 2013 to establish School of Law at Dhulikhel as the seventh school at the university. Sources at the university say he resorted to resignation as Shrestha did not improve his working style.

The university executive council, which has representation of the office-bearers, some deans and the faculty members, is the authentic body to take the decision related to the varsity.

However, Shrestha had been imposing his own decision, according to the sources. “The VC has a tendency to work the way he likes without listening others,” said a senior official at the university, seeking anonymity as disclosing identity fearing retribution from the university administration.

He claimed that the terms of two former deans Mahesh Banskota at School of Arts and Subash KC at School of Management too were not extended as they often raised question over Shrestha’s working style. “He is trying to centralise the power by removing those who raise voice against him,” he said.

The officials close to Shrestha, however, deny the claim. Deepak Dahal, manager at School of Medicine at the university who is a close aide to the vice-chancellor, said Adhikari resigned as he was busy with other ‘stuffs’ outside the university. “The claim that VC sir works unilaterally is not true. Some people are just trying to defame him,” Dahal told the Post.

The statement issued by Thapa after the resignation, said Shrestha, allowed other officials to run the account of the university though the KU regulation restricts the authority to the VC and registrar.

Similarly he blamed the VC for putting the resources only to the School of Medicine, where he had been a dean for years, and neglecting other faculties. “Decisions are not made, they are imposed in the university,” reads one of the point in his statement.

KATHMANDU, Nepal—It’s not very often that the United States and China, countries locked in a bitter trade spat, engage in a war of words concerning a small South Asian country.

But that’s exactly what happened between Joe Falter, the U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for South and Southeast Asia, and Chinese Ambassador to Nepal Hou Yanqi in the Nepalese capital Kathmandu late last month.

Speaking to reporters after arriving in Kathmandu on a three-day trip on Feb. 26, Felter urged Nepal to exercise caution before welcoming Chinese money.

“[S]ome of its activities do not appear to be necessarily in the best interest of the countries involved, such as increasing debt burden that we have seen,” The Kathmandu Post quoted Felter as saying. Hou, the Chinese ambassador, quickly dismissed his comment as “very ridiculous.”

The American diplomat was among the latest to raise questions about Chinese investment in the country, where wariness about debt burden from China-funded projects has grown in recent years.

For decades, China largely viewed its small but strategically important neighbor south of the Himalayas through the lens of security. Nepal not only borders its sensitive Tibetan region, but is also home to an estimated 20,000 Tibetan refugees, the second-largest population outside India.

In the run-up to the Beijing Olympics in 2008, Tibetan refugees intensified their anti-China protest in Kathmandu, prompting Nepal to crack down on them.

Around this time, China began to support Nepal’s Armed Police Force (APF) to stem the flow of Tibetans into Nepal.

Several years later, China rewarded the 25,000 strong paramilitary force with a training academy on the western outskirts of Kathmandu. Handed over to the APF in 2017, the $350 million academy spans 16.17 hectares, with over a dozen red brick buildings, an auditorium, football ground, basketball court, helipad, swimming pool, and shooting range.

Following the launch of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) in 2013, which has defined its foreign policy ever since, Beijing has brought its investments in Nepal under the framework, according to Ajaya Bhadra Khanal, research director at Centre for Social Inclusion and Federalism, a think tank based in Kathmandu.

“China has to seek new markets both for its products and investment to maintain its economic growth. So it has expanded and invested across the world,” he told The Epoch Times.

“But in a country like Nepal, big infrastructure projects receive green signal for political reasons. Whether these projects are commercially viable … these aspects are rarely taken into account while agreeing for the funding,” Khanal said.

Chinese Money Funding Big Projects
During Nepalese Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli’s visit to China in June 2018, Nepal and China agreed to enhance connectivity through a Trans-Himalayan Multi Dimensional Connectivity Network by building ports, roads, railways, and communications.

Though Nepal had signed on to the BRI in May 2017, Kathmandu, which earlier had proposed 35 projects under China’s flagship initiative, cut it down to nine earlier this year.

China is building a regional airport in the tourist town of Pokhara as well as hydropower projects and roads across the country. From agriculture to tourism to manufacturing, its investment portfolio has multiplied over the years.
On March 2, Nepalese and Chinese officials laid the foundation stone for the construction of a cement factory worth $140 million in Dhading district in central Nepal, the second cement factory under Chinese investment in the country.

A proposed 72-kilometer (45-mile) railway linking the Tibetan region with the capital Kathmandu has been projected as a defining feature of evolving Nepal–China relations, though work on the $2.2 billion project has been slow in recent months. Nevertheless, it has already prompted China’s regional rival India to build similar rail links on its open border with Nepal.

Khanal, also a former editor for an English daily newspaper in Nepal, claimed that Chinese had diverted money allocated to the airport in Pokhara to offshore accounts.

He said he found that afterward, the cost of the airport, which is scheduled to be completed in June 2021, was raised from $216 million to $305 million.

“There is a hidden aspect of corruption on projects under Chinese funds. Nepal is set to become a conduit for such corruption,” he said.

The airport in Pokhara, which requires 30 daily international flights for the operation to be commercially viable, was likely to fail, he added.

“Nepal suffers from lack of good governance. Big decisions are driven by personal political interest rather than national interest,” he said. “Nepal doesn’t have capacity to handle huge infrastructure projects. Neither is it able to control corruption.”

Bipin Adhikari (no relation to the reporter), a leading political commentator, said the Nepal government must ensure that projects are awarded after competitive bidding, the public is consulted adequately, and transparency is maintained.

“We should not turn a blind eye to the issue of debt trap. [Debt] shouldn’t be rejected, but we must agree to projects that are sustainable,” he said. Projects such as the trans-Himalayan railway also served a strategic purpose and were crucial for the country seeking greater connectivity with its northern neighbor, he added.

US Countering China
China’s growing footprint in Nepal has also prompted its arch rival the United States to jump into the fray.

In September 2017, the U.S. Millennium Corporation Challenge issued a $500 million grant, its largest-ever infrastructure grant in Nepal, to build transmission lines and upgrade and repair roads across the country.

The United States has also placed Nepal under the Indo-Pacific strategy, the Trump administration’s geostrategic initiative to counter the rise of China.

After a meeting between Nepalese foreign minister Pradeep Gyawali and his U.S. counterpart Mike Pompeo in Washington, D.C., in December last year, the U.S. Department of State issued a statement noting Nepal’s “central role in a free, open, and prosperous Indo-Pacific; and global issues, including North Korea.”

Wedged between India and China, Nepal will continue to be a focus for rival powers to gain influence in the small country.

Dean Dr Bipin Adhikari of the Kathmandu University School of Law (KUSL) has submitted his resignation to the University’s Vice Chancellor, Dr Ram Kantha Makaju Shrestha, on Wednesday in a somewhat unexpected move.

Adhikari, the latest Kathmandu University faculty to be resigning, will officially step down from his position as the dean from April 13, 2019, ten months before his term expires.

A noted constitutional expert and the seniormost dean at Kathmandu University, Adhikari was appointed to establish the School of Law as the seventh school of the University in Dhulikhel in December, 2013.

Adhikari taught Constitutional Law and Federalism, Legal Reasoning and Research Methodology. He is also implementing the Masters by Research Programme in the area of Corporate Law, International Trade Law, International Investment Law, Intellectual Property Law and Energy and Infrastructure Law.

The School that he led offers interdisciplinary law degrees in the undergraduate and Masters levels and has established its reputation very quickly.

Adhikari was crucial in mobilizing the top-notch lawyers, judges and academicians to join the faculty when establishing the leading law school in the country and garnering essential financial support for its infrastructural development.

It is not clear what the reason has been for Adhikari’s sudden resignation. He was not available to comment on the telephone.

A senior professor of the University, when contacted, said that the School will suffer in his absence, because he has been the brain behind all its program and activities.

On Tuesday, it used the term ‘ban’. Two days later, it says it is ‘taking action’ against the group

Mar 15, 2019 - The government has contradicted its own decision in a span of two days on imposing a ban on the activities of the Communist Party of Nepal, led by Netra Bikram Chand.

On Tuesday, following a Cabinet meeting, some ministers leaked the decision to the media—as they spoke on condition of anonymity—that the government had imposed a ban on the activities of the Chand-led outfit, as they were more criminal than political. Almost all the media outlets, including the Post, carried reports generously using the term “ban”.

But “ban” was nowhere in a statement that the Ministry of Information and Communications released on Thursday to make the Cabinet decision public. It instead calls for “taking action” against the outfit in accordance with the law.

Observers and experts on legal and constitutional issues said the government “softened” its decision and took out “ban” following a huge public backlash over the two days, as well as criticism from a section of leaders within the ruling party.

Bipin Adhikari, an expert on constitutional affairs, said the government can impose a ban on an outfit which is not registered with the Election Commission as a political party.

“But the way the Cabinet decision was changed, it looks like the government has softened its position after a public backlash,” Adhikari told the Post. “It appears that the government was, first, clueless about what decision it should take, and second, there was a lack of preparations on the part of the government while taking the decision.”

A senior leader of the ruling party said the change was bound to happen as there was a huge backlash. “There is a lot of difference between ‘imposing a ban’, or ‘taking action’ or ‘taking control’,” the leader told the Post on condition of anonymity citing the sensitivity of the matter.

The ministry’s statement released on Thursday reads: “Those people, organisations or groups who lend direct and indirect support to a group identified as the Communist Party of Nepal–also known as the Biplav group–will be branded as criminal and violent organisations and action will be taken as per the law.” Biplav is the nom de guerre of Chand.

But others said the change in the wording in the Cabinet decision–from Tuesday to Thursday–was a result of the Oli administration’s intent to control information.

“There is a lack of transparency. We do not know what decision the Cabinet is taking and what is being told to the media and people,” said Taranath Dahal, chairman of Freedom Forum, which works for freedom of expression. “In the last nine months, we have been receiving ‘selective’ information from the government. There is a tendency in this administration to cover up or distort information.”

Adding to the confusion, although the ministry’s statement does not use the word “ban”, Minister for Information and Communications Gokul Baskota, during a weekly regular press briefing on Thursday, said that “a ban was imposed on the Chand outfit after it carried out criminal activities”.

“The government has given 35 days to the outfit to surrender its weapons,” Baskota told journalists. “The government, however, is ready to hold dialogue with the outfit.”

The Cabinet on Tuesday had taken the decision as per the proposal forwarded by the Home Ministry.

When asked, Home Ministry Spokesperson Ram Krishna Subedi said he could not speak about the Cabinet decision.

“Ask the government why the decision was changed. I do not know why the decision was changed,” Subedi said, before hanging up the phone.

KATHMANDU, March 15: Bipin Adhikari, founding dean of the Kathmandu University’s School of Law (KUSL), has resigned the post with effect from April 13.

The resignation presented to the vice-chancellor has yet to be accepted, according to university sources. Adhikari, a noted constitutional expert and the seniormost academic at Kathmandu University, was appointed to establish the School of Law at Dhulikhel in December 2013 as the seventh school of the University.

Although the reason behind the resignation is not known, a source at the university said that he had some reservations with the management with regard to the decision making process at the university.