MAKE IN NEPAL

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi once again covered world headlines by his “Make in India” program. World leaders and entrepreneurs who carefully listened to what the Indian Prime Minister had to say on his speech on Sept. 25 applauded his idea.

In its editorial, Hindustan Times applauds Modi’s ingenious idea and remarks that the program would be transformational to the country’s growth.

What is Make in India?

Modi first spoke about “Make in India” initiative in a speech that he had given on India’s Independence Day.

Make in India is an initiative where Modi has invited entrepreneurs from both local and foreign companies to invest and make products in India itself. The initiative has number of proposals that are designed to get foreign companies to set up investments in India and turn it into a manufacturing powerhouse.

The initiative emphasizes on 25 sectors with focus on job creation and skill enhancement. These include automobile, chemicals, IT, pharma, textiles, ports, aviation, leather, tourism among others.

Modi has focused on manufacturing for the fact that the world is seeking an alternative to China’s labor market. India has the potential to invite global companies for the fact that the Indian Rupees is flat to USD. At the present, USD 1 is equivalent to 60 INR. As a result, although India might pay less in dollars, the money that gets converted into Indian rupees is more than sufficient to live a good life in the country. 

“‘Make in India’ is about the present and the future,” Mukesh Ambani, Chairman of Reliance Ltd said, adding, that his company “committed to the movement”.

REACTIONS TO MAKE IN INDIA

While the world has welcomed such an innovative move from Modi, the success of ‘Make in India’ still needs to go a long way. A lot of it depends on the policies that Modi’s government brings out or scraps to ease foreign and local investments. The editorial of Hindustan Times expresses that the delay that state governments do to give clearances would be a herculean task. 

Moreover, the world’s biggest democratic country, with a population of 1.2 billion, the initiative is more easier said, than done. India faces from a number of challenges including energy shortages and land problems, tax and labor laws.

Meanwhile, opposition Indian Congress remarked that Modi’s program was only a “repackaging and rebranding” of the earlier initiatives that the Congress government took during its time on power (2004-2014).

REPLICATING THE INGENIOUS

Apart from hydropower and tourism, Nepal should, now, focus on manufacturing and automobile. It needs to invite foreign manufacturing and automobile companies to the country and establish its own lines of manufacturing and automobile lines. The fact that Nepal does not have necessary skills to start these enterprises on its own is known. Therefore, it should hire experts and train local people.

Similarly, in order to promote local products, Nepal needs to levy taxes that it imposes on Nepalese industries. Doing this, I believe, would make the business community of Nepal confident to compete against foreign goods.

Between superpower China and emerging superpower, India lies the underdeveloped Nepal. Regardless of its potentials, Nepal and Nepalese business community has not been able to compete with itself to meet the country’s need. As a result, we are relying heavily in imports. Nepal’s trade deficit, according to Trade and Export Promotion Centre rose to Rs. 289.62 billion in the first half of the current fiscal year.

As Nepal heavily modernizes to equate Western lifestyle, the trade deficits are bound to sore. Both government and the business community share the blame for such failures. I believe that an interconnected business communities and politics is a driving factor for a country’s development. Modi’s speech was also addressed to India’s billionaires. However, we are still stuck at the blame game.

While India is promoting its strength to compete in the world market, both Nepal and India share a similar plight. India suffers as much from power failure as Nepal does; hence the lobbying for India’s GMR Company to build a 900 MW hydro power plant. Similarly, tax laws in both Nepal and India are both ambivalent. Likewise, the failure of the state to quicken the process for foreign or national investment is the same. The delayed Power Trade Agreement that Nepal signed with GMR Company is an example.

Admitted that Nepal has its weaknesses. But to what extent should these problems become a detrimental factor for the country’s growth? Each individual is bestowed with two options—to complain and to act. While India is working to act despite obstacles, Nepal, on the other hand, still is complaining.

I firmly believe that Nepal’s business communities should come up together, propose their business plans and act and commit to develop the nation despite adversaries. Both political leaders and the entrepreneurs should be concerned with the outcome and not the process of an event. Moreover, Nepal should not just promote Nepalese business community. It should also invite by bringing in innovative initiatives and incentives to call upon tenders from the global community. 

Moving Beyond Past

China, Nepal and India share a lot of history. However, the relationships are strained because of increasing mistrust. Can these nations open new chapters of friendship in modern age? And how difficult would the road be?

In between the Dragon and the Elephant country lays Nepal, home to Mt. Everest. The three countries share large parts of their borders. China borders Nepal in the north, whereas the remaining three sides are bordered with India.  While the relationship between the three countries has been written explicitly, some issues continue to exist despite the harmonious relationship these nations share throughout history.

Indo-Nepal ties

Regardless of sharing excellent relationships in all forms, in modern times, Indo-Nepal ties have been affected by the way India continually tries to play as Big Brother. In his article on Hindu, Damakant Jyasi expresses that one of the key reasons why both the nations have fits is for the fact that India continually meddles in Nepal’s internal affairs. While India has repeatedly stressed that it would not interfere in Nepal’s politics, the case is otherwise. In his address to the Nepali parliament on his visit to the Himalayan nation, Indian Prime Minister Mr. Modi expressed the India, in no ways would interfere in Nepal’s polity. He opined that both the nations needed to open a new page in their relationships and then move forward.   

The failure of Nepali leaders to stand on what they speak has been one of the reasons that seem to have strengthened India’s role as “Big Brother”. One of the many incidents was Home Minister’s remarks on Indian interference. Mr. Bam Dev Gautam, Home Minister of Nepal from CPN-UML, is one of the many Nepalese leaders that criticize India’s interests in Nepal and accuses the former for meddling Nepali politics. However, they immediately come up with their modified versions; often stating that “Nepal and India share good relations and it is illogical to think India with negativity”. However, the dual standard continues. 

Moreover, one of the major concerns against India is its border intrusion. India continually has been infiltrating Nepal’s land and claiming it as theirs—just as China is doing to India on its northern side. (China claims that the region of Leh and Arunanchal is part of China). In such light, India’s double standard—whereas it doesn’t want China to intrude in its territory and wants a clear border in the north, it is doing the same to Nepal.

Sino-Nepal ties

During the Panchayat period (1960-1990), Nepal and China remained cordial. Few months before the first People’s Revolution or Jana Andola (1990), the then Chinese PM Li Peng and Mrs. Chulin had arrived in Kathmandu in a three day visit. A day after the arrival of Chinese PM, China granted Nepal Rs 38,25,00,000 for developing the sources of economic development. China’s decision to supply arms to Nepal had, by then, become a subject of great controversy. Dr. Ram Kumar Dahal, professor of Political Science in Tribhuwan University, Kathmandu expressed that the Sino-Nepal ties turned sour after “Nepal failed to strongly defend to India its decision to bring weapons from China.” Moreover, Mr. Dahal expressed that “the emphasis that Nepal put on with its ties to India, including the relationship between Indian leaders and the Nepali Congress leaders adversely affected Nepal-China relations.”

PLEASING THE GIANTS

Throughout its history, Nepal has been trying to please both China and India. As a result, both India and China want to have a strong hold in Nepal. A Chinese stronghold means that it can explicitly monitor India and vice versa. Consequently, both nations want to gain trust of Nepal and bring it closer to one against the other. Nepal does not allow anti-China activities inside the country. Likewise, India has its upper hand with its proposals for the fact that Nepal is landlocked. Everything that comes to Nepal comes via India—through sea (Bay of Bengal) or through road. Hence, rather than finding its own strength to put forward in a dialogue, Nepal, continually pleases the two giants.

THE ROAD AHEAD

Every individual must come out of their past and work for a better present and future. The case of the three nations is no different. The nations must emerge out of their historical relations and differences and develop into strategic business partners of one another for long term development in modern age.

In doing so, each country must identify and exploit its resources to the optimum.

While Nepal is second richest country in the world in water resources, including running water that is suitable for producing hydroelectricity, it unlikely has been the case. Although Nepal has the potential of producing 83,000 MW of hydroelectricity (40,000 MW is considered technically feasible). , Nepal’s total installed power generation capacity is at mere 750 MW, less than two percent of its potential. The 900 MW hydroelectricity agreement reached with India’s GMR Company on Sept. 19 is seen as an important step to realize Nepal’s untapped resource. Nepal should also invite more foreign investments with investor friendly policies and utilize its waters to the maximum.

Alex Lam JP, Deputy CEO and Executive Director of Securities and Futures, commission of Hong Kong contends that the three nations should work in three different levels to move ahead.

Mrs. JP maintains that “first, the three nations should strengthen political trust and cooperation at the official level”. She believes that doing so would build common grounds to resolve differences. All the three nations have continually fought battles to trust one another for the fact that they have minimum encounters. The Chinese President, Mr. Xi Jinping came to India after six decades whereas, Indian Prime Minister, Mr. Narendra Modi visited Nepal after 17 years. Such encounters builds on to political mistrust that strain friendly relations amongst neighbors.

Secondly, these nations should also promote regional cooperation. Mrs. JP expresses that the countries should “encourage cross border investments, sharing of professionals and experts, opening of regional markets to each other, joint infrastructure construction and resource exploration to ensure that the Himalayan region goes through coordinated development.” 

Thirdly, Mrs. JP feels the need to “deepen civic and cultural exchanges” to better understand and respect ethnic identities, religious beliefs and cultural differences.  An open border between Nepal and India along with long history of family relationships has strengthened person-to-person ties between the two nations. However, both Sino-India and Sino-Nepal ties is minimum. Fifty years ago, all the three nations were on the same level. Yet, now, the picture is otherwise. China has far outpaced the two nations in growth and economy. India, despite being an emerging superpower is fighting its battles to social evils. Nepal, on the other hand, was pushed to a decade long Maoist war that has led to continued political instability till now.

While the road ahead looks bumpy (with all the blame games), a united voice and unified action is still possible. The countries should eventually move ahead with new chapters in friendship and relationships. Any country which attempts to stay in history misses opportunities of development. With every missed opportunity, a nation, instead of becoming stronger, fails and crumbles.

Nepal, poorest of the two nations should be able to find its own path to development and seek assistance of either or both the countries only when necessary. It should not be a battleground where the two Asian giants fight for their dominance and Nepal becomes a mere pawn. 

TO ‘DO’ OR NOT TO ‘DO’? MODI’S CLASSROOM

On September 5, Indian prime minister Mr.  Narendra Modi did something that was applauded as well as viewed with an opportunity of indirect political indoctrination.

Mr. Modi addressed students and teachers across India on the occasion of Teacher’s Day. In the speech, which was broadcast from state run television, Door Darshan and through online streaming, Mr. Modi spoke elegantly about the importance of education, recollected his childhood memories, and urged teachers to be a guiding factor in the lives of their students. Mr. Modi also pleaded teachers not to separate students from technology. He argued that doing so would be a “social crime”. Moreover, Mr. Modi explicitly spoke on girls’ education and expressed his dissatisfaction of high dropout rate of girls between fifth and seventh grade. Mr. Modi scorned the failure of building separate toilets for girls as a detrimental factor for such high dropout rates.

As a person nominated by the citizens, the prime minister has the right to be concerned about issues that plague citizens. The role diminishes the gap between political haves and haves-not, and shrinks its size to find itself in an example of a house. Just as our parents do not want to see ill prey on us, the prime minister, being the guardian of every citizen, too does not want to see the same. In this light, the prime minister, therefore, is seen to be bestowed with the right to select and suggest what is best for his children.

Agreed that a guardian has the right to select and suggest what is best for his children. But to what extent is forcing their children allowed?  The question of freewill versus freedom contradicts with one another. Rousseau, in his famous political book, “The Social Contract” argues, “man is born free, but everywhere he is tied in chains.”  And indeed, while the children who attended Mr Modi’s speech were free, they, however, were tied in chains.

Although Mr. Modi spoke from his heart and raised genuine concerns in the field of education, his address from Maniksan Bhawan, New Delhi is pulled on both sides. Rather than forcing all educational institutions to submit a report card of his one and half hour class attendance which commenced from 3 PM till 4:30 PM, Mr. Modi, prime minister of the world’s largest democracy, should have requested, and not made it mandatory for everyone to listen. In this view, Mr. Modi’s address to the students, through state operated media, could be seen as an authoritarian approach.

Mr. Yogesh Dhakal, a journalist from Nepal opines that one cannot force somebody to do something in a democratic country. “You cannot dictate somebody in a democracy.  It was his attempt to indirectly inject indoctrination,” Mr. Dhakal said, adding that the address was a populist move to find his place in next elections. Mr. Dhakal also remarked that Mr. Modi always was choosing his words carefully. “You could see his handpicked words in all the three foreign visits (Bhutan, Nepal and Japan) that Mr. Modi went after becoming the prime minister.” 

However, veteran journalist Prabhat Shunglu sees it the other way round. Mr. Shunglu believes that the address saw no harm at all. “The PM is trying to connect to the youth in his own way and there is nothing wrong with that,” Mr. Shunglu opines, adding, “the youth are builders of new India and the PM can choose to address the youth any day and any time.”

Nevertheless, Mr. Shunglu maintains that the move was “slightly breaking away from the traditional past of the Nehru-Gandhi line.” The Nehru-Gandhi establishment in Indian politics goes a long way through history. The Indian Congress, established in 1885, was the first to fight against the British colonialism which came through the East India Company after the Battle of Palssey in Bengal in 1757 AD. The British, who steadily rose to power consumed the country’s resources and exploited the Indian people for almost 200 years. The Indian Congress, led by Jawahar Lal Nehru and Mahatma Gandhi finally achieved independence on August 15, 1947. The very history of being the first party to make India free from British domination has been a pushing factor for the Nehru-Gandhi family to stay in power—until it suffered a humiliating defeat in the election of lower house four months ago.

In doing so, Mr. Shunglu believes that Mr. Modi is “trying to get the nation out of the mental and political paradigm”.  Years of failed “promised” developments by the Indian Congress infested by escalations in crime and corruption, and justice being a distant dream, the gap between Indian citizens and their representatives widened. As a result, after 50 years in power, the Indian Congress paid its price.

While Mr. Dhakal believes that the step was one of the several stepping stones to ensure Mr. Modi’s victory in future elections, Mr. Shunglu believes that it was too early to say whether the prime minister has next election in mind.

Regardless of the sides, teachers and students did appreciate what Mr. Modi expressed. “No government had ever pondered on the issue as Mr. Modi did. We are grateful to him,” one of the teachers expressed on an interview on television. Was the speech an opportunity to inject PM’s doctrine? Mr. Shunglu says, “likely not. We still are too early to decide on that.” 

SEX! SEX! SEX! LET US TALK ABOUT SEX!

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

YOUNG VOICE

Only overthrowing regimes, I believe isn’t the road to development. (We have thrown a lot of regimes—the Rana, Panchayat and the King was the jackpot!) Development is more, and if we, as citizens and political leaders of Nepal fail to recognize this, we will, once again be doomed. Every day, people increasingly have apathetic as well as skeptical view to the government: Nepalese rely on the government for their basic needs, while being skeptical.

The Nepali Congress overthrew the Rana Regime and marked the dawn of Democracy in 2007 BS. While the change supposedly was a step towards development, histories show otherwise. I firmly believe that democracy came at a time when no individual knew what democracy meant. Our leaders, especially those belonging to the Nepali Congress failed to explain what the values of democracy uphold—maybe because they themselves were fully unaware of what democracy meant themselves, or may be because they were afraid that by explaining the values of democracy to people, the common man would revolt—just like the Nepali Congress revolted against Rana Regime, or maybe because they were trying to figure out what democracy meant themselves. More than that, the dawn of democracy, I believe became more of a calculated misfire than the paths to development. Only after a country meets all the elements of democracy can a country really be democratic.  These elements include education, employment and food for thought.

Democracy is defined as being people centric. It is what we call, “By the people, for the people, to the people”. This simple line is easy to say but hard to keep—as people choose what they want. 

A country of sheep will select sheep as their leaders. They cannot choose a Lion because they are only a flock of sheep and they only have a sheep to choose. Even if they select a Lion, they cannot look up to a Lion for a few reasons. Firstly, they feel threatened and insecure that while the Lion gives them necessary needs, they feel that the Lion can pounce and eat them anytime. Secondly, the Lion itself becomes too powerful that he could use his powers otherwise, and eat the sheep whenever he wants. And finally, while both depend on the other, neither the sheep nor the Lion trusts one another because one is too weak before the Lion, and the Lion is always too powerful. 

Hence, we choose leaders according to what we are. Nepal is no different. We are a country of sheep selecting sheep. We fail to bring in more powerful leader because we ourselves cannot act according to the Lion’s strength, or work hard to become close to the Lion’s strength.

The values of Democracy relies primarily on education, employment and free speech. A citizen must be educated enough to know what democracy means along with upholding its ideals. (After 50 years of democracy, a vast majority of Nepali citizens cannot say what it means. Many pronounce it just because the word has stuck with them throughout their lives.  Nepal is a democratic country, a line in Social Studies

book in early school years say.)

Nepal hasn’t gotten far with employment after five scores of years. Nepal used export rice grains to India and other countries because of self sufficiency. There is a “Dhan Adda” in Maitighar, if anybody seems to recall. Now, we import rice. Nepal’s government prides in its citizens migrating towards the Gulf for employment; which should be the last thing on a country’s mind. Throughout all these years, never once has it occurred as a national agenda to look back at why people are migrating and what the country could do. No wonder, we are a country supported by remittance, a remittance economy.

Another crucial power of democracy is free speech. Free speech comes with education.  Free speech isn’t just about talking freely. It is about talking sense freely. Free speech is not defamation, neither it is about creating rifts between the citizens of Nepal. It is about uniting people to work for national goals. It is about maintaining checks and balance, creating accountability between both the people and the government.

Nepal wasn’t ready for a democratic government when the country rose to democracy. Neither it now is ready for a federal system. This would be an appalling remark from a youth who stands as the future of the country—I am a youth in dilemma. I am the future of Nepal, but before being called one, my future depends on what the country can give and what I can give to the country without leg pulling people. My future depends whether I’ll be able to find or establish sufficient wage income to feed and support my family in the country. If I can, I will stay in Nepal. If I cannot, I will have to think of other options. I’ll be one more to the migrants list and a citizen cut from the country’s population of youth residing in the country. Now, when we multiply this across the 2.7 million population, what is the result? After a decade, Nepal will be a country of aging population , and the vast majority of my friends hold this view as well. Now, the important question arises. Why hasn’t the government been able to stop, check and bring back the youths towards their Motherland?  The answer lies on the country’s failure to promote employment that is self sustaining along with basic infrastructures of development—education, food, shelter, health, transportation and communication.  

When we answer these questions, we come back to the same cycle that our leaders have repeatedly said all these years, and the same answers that we’ve always made us believe. The leaders know that Nepal is a country of fools, and we are more the fools to accept their beliefs. We protest when there’s petrol shortage. But have we ever protested when the results of TU gets delayed? Have we protested against people who do not use the overhead bridge? Never. We pride in our ability to cross a busy street from the middle rather than walking for two minutes. We pride ourselves in crossing the road successfully while abusing the driver for not stopping when they see us crossing the road. We are fools and we will always be—as long as we develop the decency and morality of a good citizen through sound education and awareness—right from the scratch.

This existing system is beyond repair and the only way youths like me can see a different Nepal, a New Nepal as political leaders advocate is when we remove these very lines of dreamers and the system they have and build one from the scratch.

Every day, youths are losing their beliefs on the system. I almost have an apathetic stance towards the government. Not long ago we went through a decade long Civil War that cost the country billions of rupees and further pushed back development. Now, I see a spillover of the Arab Spring—a Nepal Spring. This time, it will not uphold to the principles of democracy. It rather will uphold the spirit of youth—“BY THE YOUTH, FOR THE YOUTH, TO THE YOUTH”.

As a citizen of Nepal, I can foresee Nepal Spring. Such uprising, while every young individual sees as a necessity (because youths believe that they’ve long been made fools of the ever existing system of “endless youth” –the old always feel they are young!) will, undoubtedly hit hard on the country’s economy and development.

Social media and its implications on Governance

Media as we know today has been revolutionized by technology in the passage of time.

The history of media started with the invention of the Gutenberg printing press by Johannes Gutenberg in 1450 AD. Initially, the press was used to print Bibles. In the ensuing years and to present, media and its forms have developed and continue to develop intensively as well as extensively.

The invention of Radio by Marconi followed by that of television had greatly increased information dissemination when the Internet came into the late 20^th century. The birth of internet, or rather, the commercialization of the internet in the later part of the 20^th century, I argue has become a landmark to revolutionize existing media along with paving future media entrepreneurships.

On personal level, we all have realized the capabilities of internet at reducing distances and bridging communication and bringing our loved ones closer to our daily lives. The internet has turned the world into a global village where everything, so disparate is still reachable in the World Wide Web. Skype, for instance has become a favorite application in our lives to reach out to our relatives and friends who are far. Or, say Viber or WhatsApp, the two famous mobile applications to send in free voice and text messages over the mobile internet. All this points out to one thing--our every day internet usage has become such a crucial part of our lives that the only time we can realize our dependency with the internet is when it is not there. 

The notion of traditional media in the 21^st century has changed. Earlier, traditional media would generally comprise the print and radio and exclude television. However, now, even televisions fall into traditional media, and the ever developing internet, until now is the only new media.

Aren’t new media generally considered on the merits of its timeliness and interactivity, and doesn’t television abide by such criteria? While I agree to the former, I weigh it against the latter to push it back to traditional media. Indeed television does have interactivity in terms of votes and public polls. However, with the surge of internet and its social media platform, interactivity has come more close to be defined as seamless feedback rather than those that are filtered in print, television or radio broadcast.

Interactivity is a crucial element of the internet that makes it stand out of other traditional media. The internet is a global platform that allows opinions to come from across the world, despite the distance a reader holds. Therefore, the internet refines interactivity by its ability to incorporate global voices and global perspectives to both national and international issues.

With unlimited space, the internet is a platform where a user can find everything he needs and all the things that he doesn’t in an instance. This beautiful feature is an element that the traditional media lacks.

Moreover, its ability to incorporate all forms of media into one web based content platform also heightens its potentials and abilities. Internet incorporates all forms of media content-audio, video and text. This convergence, in the 21^st century I believe, is the prerequisite for media convergence in the present age. Media convergence is a concept where all forms of global media content infuses into one common platform easing the readers to reach such contents which, otherwise, would have been inaccessible.

THE ARAB SPRING AND THE RISE OF SOCIAL MEDIA

A popular term that is gaining momentum in the virtual world of Web is the social media. Social media are networking sites which were conceptualized to connect with friends and families who are residing across the world or the country. Facebook and Twitter are famous social media platforms in the world. The power of social media was seldom realized and was generally limited to the narrow definitions of staying connected to friends and families until Arab Spring. While there were many protests like the Arab Spring before too, there had been no impact, Philip Howard, communication professor at University of Washington argues, adding that the Arab Spring movements “involved a networked public of generally younger folks” which was “structurally different” than prior movements which were headed by a charismatic leader. The “networked public” as Howard says refers to chains of people connected to social groups in social media.

In 2011, Mohamed Bouazzi, a Tunisian fruit vendor who set himself on ablaze to protest police corruption literally became the spark of the Arab Spring movement which quickly spread throughout the Middle East. (Syria’s similar movement has pushed the nation into a state of civil war with more than two million child refugees and millions of others seeking refuge.) Bouazzi achieved his personal, yet, a public death because many who had cell phones recorded his protest and was uploaded to social media, especially Facebook. Egypt’s uprising is also called Facebook revolution.  The video ignited series of suppressed anger and people took into streets. These unexpected masses took all governments and international community by surprise.

The Arab Spring helped the virtual world of internet realize its capabilities and implied an important lesson to governments and the world—the public, now, cannot be suppressed to oppressions and can strike unexpectedly. Andrew Lam, author and editor of New America Media says “(that) through the digital world, people can attain real power to speak beyond their own biological and geographical constrain.”

A 2012 study concluded that tweets and Facebook posts did a lot to spread information outside the affected countries. The burst of information could have led to “a boomerang effect that brought international pressure to bear on autocratic regimes.”

FACEBOOK

In their study published in the Journal of Communication, Zeynep Tufekci of the University of North Carolina and Christopher Wilson of the United Nations Development Program argue that “Social media in general, and Facebook in particular, provided new sources of information the regime could not easily control and were crucial in shaping how citizens have made individual decisions about participating in protests, the logistics of protest, and the likelihood of success.”

The 2012 study said the tweets and Facebook posts probably did more to spread information outside the affected countries and could have led to "a boomerang effect that brought international pressure to bear on autocratic regimes."

SOCIAL MEDIA, GOVERNANCE, AND ITS ROLES IN LOCAL BODIES

Etymologically, social media is a social networking platform which is used to connect to friends and families and social groups. The government and its citizen are networks, both influencing the other for desired change. On this parallelism, the government too can use social media. It is crucial for a democratic country to stay in touch with its people and vice-versa. Good governance is all about getting in touch with, and interacting with people from different strata and regions through all possible means and modes of communication.

Nepal is a country blessed and cursed by its geography. While the hills create as much awe as it can, overcoming it for development is a challenge. Because of geography, it is difficult to commute. People living on the Himalayan belts need to charter helicopters to reach the nearest hospitals because there are no public transports.

Travelling costs as well as wastes time. Governments’ using the social media, then, is the key to save time, money and increased interactivity in an instant. By relying on social media, governments could channel the money spent on travelling to areas of development. All that the government needs to do is post its plans or programs or decisions on social networking site, and then, it is rippled across the world in an instant causing praise, criticism, feedback or awe amongst people involved. No governments of the past had this beautiful way to connect and get reactions of its people in an instant than the internet in the present age. For this reason, it would be a folly on the government’s side to reject technology, its capabilities and to use it to its maximum potentials.

The internet based social media is a platform where global contents and perspectives can be found. By reaching out such contents, governments and local bodies could get better understanding of various ways to effectively function, know how other countries and states operate and so forth. It also can become a platform where government officials too can connect in groups, share their thoughts, get feedback and perspectives and improve themselves. For this reason, governments using social media would be as much as a place for gaining global perspectives as much as a place for retrospection.

On the macro level, governments could use social networking sites to know national feelings and opinions of the people. On the micro level, Village Development Committees and District Development Committees could use it to know local feelings. By doing so, the people would find the quickest way to reach the government and have their voices heard. Likewise, governments, both on the micro and the macro level could also reach its people in an instant. This connectivity, I believe is crucial for a few things in democracy. Firstly, the people would feel close to their state and look up to it for expected behavior. Secondly, the government would be responsible of its response that it gives to the people.

I remember a childhood joke that now has become a cliché in Nepalese politics. “Duita kaan cha…euta kaan bata sunnu, arko kaan bata udaunu” (there are two ears. Listen from one and let it go from the other). Without a doubt or qualm, I can say that every leader in Nepal tends to fall into this category. With such way, a state tends to falter. Regardless of its presence on social media or to traditional door-to-door method to get feedback from its citizens, governments need to act and justify its decisions and plans. The social media, could also be used to monitor progress and express dissatisfaction from both governments and public.

SUMMING UP

To sum up, I believe that social media can play a crucial role in reaching out to people. Relatively a new concept and still under infancy, Nepal government could yet use it and become one of the first nations to channel the social media to reach its citizens and reduce the ever increasing distance between state and its people. The Arab Spring movement showed social media possesses power to topple regimes by bringing in people together. Implicitly, social media then means that it can also strengthen governments by listening to its people and acting accordingly.