As published in Myrepublica. Is 'development' itself the cause of Nepal's problems?
	DR JEREMY RAPPLEYE   What if ‘development’ was the cause of Nepal’s problems, not the solution? If that is true, then wouldn’t more ‘development aid’ push Nepal toward further social disintegration? Let’s take a brief trip back in history. ‘Development’, by which I mean the system of aid agencies and transfer of funds from the First to the Third World, actually has an exact starting date: US President’s Truman’s Four Point Plan speech in 1949. The US was eager to both (a) increase its influence in countries newly liberated from colonization and (b) fight Communist influence that threatened the global capitalist system. As fate would have it, Nepal threw off the Rana oligarchy at nearly the same moment. The confluence of these two events brought ‘development’ to Nepal: The US eager to hold back swelling Communist influence in the region (recall China ‘fell’ in 1949) and Nepal eager to leave behind the legacy of the Ranas, modernize, and build a ‘nation’ through inclusion, education and democracy. The resulting system seemed to work well throughout the 1950s, but by the 1960s it was clear that these two goals were diverging. The US and other donor representatives cared little about how well ‘development’ served Nepal, but instead making sure they could report favorably back to superiors back ‘home’. Take education for example: The system designed by American experts in the 1950s failed to function well with local managed teachers mere ‘slaves’ to powerful village chiefs, no real provisions for creating a cohesive nation, and the production of graduates who found no jobs except in the aid-driven sectors of the economy and refused to return to the villages. The emergence of problems with the earlier American vision was the reason the government instituted the National Education System Plan (1971) attempting to nationalize teachers, create a cohesive Nepali identity, realign education with the economy, and send students ‘back to the village’ through programs like the National Development Service. It is little wonder then that the US and other donors substantially decreased assistance during this time and also dubbed the plan a mere ‘ploy’ by the palace to solidify the Panchayat system. By the early 1980s, however, the Panchayat system was under attack for other reasons. Students protested, teachers went on strike and the discontent culminated in the People’s Movement (1990). But, as with the earlier fall of the Ranas, Nepal’s own vision of its future – inclusion, democracy, equity – was quickly overtaken by international donor demands. By the late 1990s, Nepal’s own vision had all but been turned almost completely around: An exclusive focus on efficiency, cost-effectiveness and a consumer logic. In fact, from ‘citizen to consumer’ characterize rather well the two decades since Janaandolan. Again, consider education. The National Education Commission (1990-1992) inaugurated in the wake of Janaandolan stated that the goal was to create an educational system “consistent with the human rights enshrined in the constitution and the democratic values and norms as well as social justice.” What happens when loss of faith in ‘development’ occurs? The American anthropologist James Ferguson argues that two responses dominate: Exit or violence. For those who have lost faith in the promise of ‘development’ as they watch their living conditions stagnate or sink, one option is to try to get out; exit to a better space. The second option is to resort to violence. Ten years later, the main themes are decentralization and private schools – the exact same policies we see the donors promoting in every other country of the world. It is little wonder then that it has brought to Nepal the exact same results: A massive spike in inequality, growing exclusion along class lines and the breakdown of democracy. Donors took control of the processes of development in the 1950s and we have seen them do the same in the 1990s. For all but a very small number of elites in Kathmandu who are able to profit from the aid enterprise, ‘development’ has twice passed the Nepali people by. For the vast majority, livelihoods have not increased but decreased. This is an important point: Despite the positive image bikas tends to carry, people are clearly waking up to the realities. Loading-shedding has increased, fuel shortages, garbage piling up in the streets, traffic, pollution, and dance bars offering poor Nepali girls to rich Indian tourists. Considering what Kathmandu looked like 50 years ago, what will it look like 50 years in the future? And this is just Kathmandu, where most people still believe in ‘development’. Venture beyond the rim of the valley and that is where the real future of Nepal lies. It is here that the vast majority of the ‘twice-passed-by’ people live and they are losing patience. Fast. The genius of bikas is that it promised that inequalities would be lessened over time. This was true both within the country and across the world: Poor people were told by donors and local elites to wait patiently, do the right thing, and they would ‘catch-up’. Being twice-passed-by, however, has created a disbelief in ‘development’. What is left when our faith in ‘development’ falters? The harsh reality of inequality, but this time without the hope of change. Clearly many Nepalis have lost faith in ‘development’ itself along such lines. And what happens when this loss of faith in ‘development’ occurs? The American anthropologist James Ferguson argues that two responses dominate: Exit or violence. For those who have lost faith in the promise of ‘development’ as they watch their living conditions stagnate or sink, one option is to try to get out; exit to a better space. When viewed in this way, present-day Nepal looks like one big ‘race for the exits’: Villagers leaving to go to the Gulf, students leaving by the thousands to study and work abroad, and many more simply walking into India. This is much more than a search for a better salary or job; these movements signal a lack of faith in the promise of ‘development’ to deliver a better tomorrow for Nepal. Further evidence unrelated to economics help prove the point: Different ethnic groups (think Madheshis) are attempting to ‘exit’ the political system. The loss of faith in ‘development’ has advanced to the point where it is creating a lack of faith in ‘democracy’ as well. The second option open to those who have lost faith in ‘development’ is violence. ‘Crashing the gates of the first class, smashing bricked up walls and breaking through, if only temporarily, to the other side of privilege and plenty’ is how Ferguson puts it. Is this not some of the motive behind the rise of the Maoists? That is, despite well-articulated political goals by the Maoist leadership, is it not the case that some of the more raw violence of those in the party is motivated by this loss of faith in ‘development’, even that promised by its own party? If this is the case, then as the Maoists lessen their radical stance to appeal to more moderate voters, they will simultaneously lose those within their own party who have lost faith and are no longer willing to ‘wait their turn’. These groups will break off and mostly likely launch another attempt to ‘crash the gates of the first class’ this time without a political ideology, but this time also fueled by the grievance of being three-times-passed-over. It’s a haunting image. To conclude, let me shift to consider Nepal’s place in the world. The global economy does not need Nepal, nor will it until the vast human sources of China and India have been exhausted. Donors will continue to talk about the ‘opportunities of the global economy’ and elites who mistake the profit they make from ‘development’ aid for the benefits of the ‘global economy’ will agree to more and more development offered by donors. Yet, because these projects are narrowly designed to serve economic goals, they will do nothing to improve social and political tensions. Nevertheless, as economic goals predictably fail to materialize, stagnation and a loss of faith in ‘development’ will continue to grow among the masses. We will see increased exit and violence, not less. So who is to blame and what is the solution? Blame is perhaps the only growth industry in Nepal; finger-pointing advances in lockstep with stagnation. So we must be careful. Nevertheless, donors need to bear some of the blame. Yet, having seen this happen before, Nepali policymakers must also take responsibility. But the biggest finger needs to be pointed right back at many of the current readers, those who continue to believe in the idea of ‘development’ amid the obvious stagnation of the country. Those who try to carve out a ‘first world’ existence through private schools, luxury hotels, satellite television, and curtains on their SUVs to block out the putrefying stagnation of Nepal deserve the most blame because they are the ones educated enough to see things clearly. Here is the beginning of a solution: Viewing not the future ideal but the current reality of bikas in Nepal, coming to terms with the country’s place in the global economy, and recapturing some of the equity, inclusion, and social justice goals that Nepal committed itself to in 1950 and 1990. This may sound radical, but no more radical that what is likely to occur in the very near future if Nepali elites do not voluntary move in that direction. Writer holds a doctorate degree from University of Oxford & is currently researching on Nepal jeremyrappleye@yahoo.com

Indeed insightful! Precise presentation of the prespective.

excellent! precise! two thumbs up!

I know one idot will come out and lable DR JEREMY as a mandale..

 Another european commie who feels enlighten shedding the tears for "downtrodden". WHY? Development==Equality can be only for commies. Another mere freaking socialist Hippocrates who while enjoys the generous grant and corpulent paycheck from Oxford, while ask people to go back to village instead of getting his/her children to study in good school. I also wonder why he has emphasized on "US" donor. The semi-socialist Scandinavians, and much more hands-on capitalist japan are also largest donors to Nepal. 
From his writing, he is just another who favors samyabad.

Pains of living in Nepal   
  BISHISTA SHRESTHA
http://www.myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=27005
 

This is in reference to the brilliant article “Is ‘development’ itself the cause of Nepal’s problems?” by Dr Jeremy Rappleye. Honestly, as the writer so succinctly puts it, we the ordinary citizens of Nepal have reached a point where the only two options before us are exit or violence.

The situation in the country is so bad that earning a reasonable amount decently has become a huge challenge as opportunities are far and between, thanks to the almost negligible economic growth in the past 15 years—the sole reason that has forced millions of our compatriots to look for greener avenues in India, Malaysia, West Asia, Japan, South Korea, Africa, etc.

And, yes, even Latin American countries like Ecuador! Surprised? Don’t be. Due to “an unusual migratory influx” of Nepalis, the government there had to recently change its “universal citizenship” policy and make it mandatory for Nepali citizens to obtain visa. Nepalis are leaving the country in droves and it is not just because of the lack of economic opportunities. Life here is tough, very tough, even if you have a job and that is what has been acting as the biggest push factor.

The cost of living in Nepal is probably one of the highest in the world if you take into account the fact that what the teeming millions make is one of the lowest. For example, just compare the cost of LPG in Nepal and India. You shell out over NRs 1,325 for a cylinder here while you just have to pay about half the amount there. And paying half the price does not hurt half as much because what you earn there is more than twice as much.

I do not shop, so I do not know much but my folks tell me that one now has to pay almost twice, or even more, for daily essentials like fruits, vegetables, cereals, etc compared to just a couple of years earlier. Add to that the cost of installing and maintaining appliances such as gas heater, gas geaser, inverter, among others, to make up for the treacherous power-cuts. And if I am complaining that life is tough for me, imagine how it must be for the majority who cannot even think of affording such luxuries!

When one struggles to make ends meet, it is almost insane to think of purchasing a plot of land or a house, which almost everyone aspires for at a certain age. Why do we have to endure this fate? When a young Indian or Chinese graduate can afford to purchase and drive around in a car, why should a Nepali be deprived of such a luxury even after slogging for years?

Something surely is terribly wrong in this country. There were huge hopes that things would change after the Maoists joined mainstream politics. But four years down the line, politics is at the lowest ebb ever. The hope that the peace process would conclude and the constitution would be written has withered away after Maoist Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal sided with Vice-Chairman Mohan Baidya and opted to adopt the revolutionary line of revolt and state capture. What will happen after May 28, 2011 is something no one can say with certainty but what has become certain is that difficult days are here to stay.
Under such a grim scenario, there are only two options that young people like me see in front of them: To live here and make the country or, if possible, move abroad and make one’s own life. What would I opt for? Well, I do not think I am capable enough to shoulder the responsibilities of building the country but I know, given an opportunity, I can do well for myself and my family. At the same time, I also know that those who cannot even manage their own life can in no way play a part in making their country. Charity, after all, begins at home.

When I share with die-hard optimists that I am fed up of living in Nepal and if I get a chance, I will take the next flight abroad, they reason that things will change in Nepal in the next 10 to 15 years and that we should stay put here and contribute to nation-building. I know that things will change. With India and China growing at a rapid pace, a country squeezed in between the two giants, cannot avoid growing even if it wants to. But the question is: How long before that starts happening? For a nation, 10-15 years might not be too long but for a mere mortal like me, it means everything. In another 10-15 years, I would have lost the most productive years of my life, and that is something that I simply cannot afford.

Bishista Shrestha
Kathmandu
 

This paragraph by Bishista Shrestha, in replying to Dr JEREMY RAPPLEYE's article appeals to my sentiments:
"When I share with die-hard optimists that I am fed up of living in Nepal and if I get a chance I will take the next flight abroad they reason that things will change in Nepal in the next 10 to 15 years and that we should stay put here and contribute to nation-building. I know that things will change. With India and China growing at a rapid pace a country squeezed in between the two giants cannot avoid growing even if it wants to. But the question is: How long before that starts happening? For a nation 10-15 years might not be too long but for a mere mortal like me it means everything. In another 10-15 years I would have lost the most productive years of my life and that is something that I simply cannot afford."

I agree with what Dr Rappley is saying: "Viewing not the future ideal but the current reality of bikas in Nepal coming to terms with the country’s place in the global economy."

But, does Rappley offer a solution? What can Nepal do to be competitive in a globalized world while being sandwiched between India and China?

The writer seems to be saying that despite money pouring in from developed nations, quality of life has not improved for the Nepali. "It is little wonder then that it has brought to Nepal the exact same results: A massive spike in inequality growing exclusion along class lines and the breakdown of democracy."

Nepal is like a little brother with two charismatic and influential big brothers: China and India. China is an example of an economy where there is development but little democracy. India is an example of an economy with more democracy than development. And Nepal? Nepal is confused.
Under Panchayat (and more so under Mahendra's rule) the push was more for development than democracy. Now we have more democracy than development. For all the talk of westerners saying that Nepalese don't have enough democracy, the fact is that Nepalese have lots of 'freedom': they have a lot of the things that are free; it is the things that require money that we cannot afford.

If Nepal had enough money, it could have both development and democracy. All the philosophizing in the world doesn't change the fact that the root of our problems comes from having a small budget and a lot of mouths to feed. You can slice the pie with all the mathematics in the world, but it doesn't change the fact that it is still the small size of the pie that is the problem.

But I do agree with this sentence in the article: "Blame is perhaps the only growth industry in Nepal; finger-pointing advances in lockstep with stagnation." 
As much as it hurts to say it, what else can you expect on a sinking ship? Didn't you watch the movie: The Titanic? All there was in the end was violence that came from the desperation of self-survival and lots of exiting. Perhaps the best thing that those of us who can "swim" can do is leave the sinking ship. Perhaps the less weight it has to carry will make it sink slower. Maybe, if enough people swim away, it will actually start to float again.

A very strange writing from Dr Rappleye.
Not many westerners advocates development over democracy.  The democracy in our country is not a democratic model ever tested else where. We have communist as the major political power with majority, but they do not run the government. There is another communist party who is only fourth largest  party and they head the government with a "double looser". The country is in a passage but has seen so many thing that many large democracy are yet to see.

Personally, I have no problem whoever or what ever system of government is in the country. Worst comes worst there would be army coup, but if they deliver the needs of the population, I will be more than happy to accept it. I believe no one in the country will say no if someone promise to deliver.

Jay Nepal

Gyanguru,

This is the irony for us Nepalese. We got rid of the Monarchy because we thought we weren't developing fast enough. We thought that having a democracy would make us develop faster. Now we have more chaos, and we are ready to compromise the freedom of our democracy so that we can get...get what? Forget development. Right now I think most Nepalese would settle for stability and sanity. And we are so desperate to get that stability and sanity...we are ready to even have a military dictatorship. But...isn't that really what the Monarchy was in the first place?

Homey Ji,
I would not consider the recent past of Nepalese monachry as dictatorship at any point. Neither I am a monarchist.
If we talk about stability, there was more stability during Panchayat rule, but did that gained anything. I consider that 30 years under Panchayat rule as lost generation. We gained nothing during that.
Fast forward 20 years, what have we got. We got rid of monarchy, which will count as a major achievement, which was not done by any political party but was done by ordinary citizen like you and me. The country has gone backward in this 20 years. The population and corruption is over the roof.
I have not asked for army coup in particular, instead I said anything that could deliver the need of the oridnary citizen would be acceptable. Was that not the reason behind supporting the Maoist in the last general election ?

Gyanguru,

I agree with what you're saying.

In moving towards the solution, I think this is the problem:
As Rappleye says: "To conclude let me shift to consider Nepal’s place in the world. The global economy does not need Nepal nor will it until the vast human sources of China and India have been exhausted. "

The root of Nepal's problems is an economic one. The symptoms of that economic problem manifest politically and socially. But the problem is an economic one. More specifically, the problem is a 'real estate' problem: location, location, location. What can Nepal do to be competitive in a globalized world while being sandwiched between India and China?

Nepal is like a small tin roof chyaa pasal that a baaje runs. And it's location is between Walmart (China) and Sears (India). Well, who is going to come and do business with this chyaa pasal, when they can instead go to Walmart and Sears.
Pretty much anything of economic significance in Nepal (apart from tourism) is offered by India and China at a cheaper rate. Thus, we are an economy and nation that is artificially propped up by foreign countries.

Focussing on the solution: What do you think that Nepal can do to overcome it's geographical limitations?

You know, the funny thing is that though Rappleye writes this:
"Those who try to carve out a ‘first world’ existence through private schools luxury hotels satellite television and curtains on their SUVs to block out the putrefying stagnation of Nepal deserve the most blame because they are the ones educated enough to see things clearly."

The sad truth of the matter may be that, most of those that are driving in luxury vehicles in Nepal *want* to, in some ways, see the misery around them. It gives the wealth that they enjoy a whole other meaning when they see that people around them don't even have the basic necessity. I know it's perverse. But I know quite a few people in Kathmandu with that mentallity.

I am flabbergasted with the reaction I am seeing with this article.

Its nothing but socialist crap string with some chosen data and facts. I don't think its not deliberate to put US as an "example" for the "donation" that are not working.
Just another commie piece, where the writer himself enjoys generous grant and corpulent paycheck of Capitalist system but wants other people to go back to villages. No more different than 'Laldhoj' closing the 'bourgeois' school yet putting his daughter at school in India.

I am also fed up with people clamoring for socialist/commie crap and always wanting/asking other to do something for them or in this case, the others.

Mav

NGOism, people following thier ideology, vested interest  and their prescribed method to achieve what these people defined as " development".

Moving forward is very diffiicult purely because we have dismantled 1.our socio-cultural value system, 2.our securty and law enforcement mehanism is humiliated, made currupt, 4. we are made to believe old political system is unproductive, outdated, undemocratic so on and so forth. (monarchy become mere escape goat), 5. Political leaders nor have energy nor they have conviciton that they can really pull somehting out of these chaos, let alone the development.

More than that, we are too biased, we lost the capacity to rise above from political ideology. We blame for past for our failaure at present but we never learnt from past. 

Gyanguru, I do not know how old you were, but I lived enough in panchayat era. On 1990, I went on the street, pelted stone to policeman,  I can still feel the pain and swell of batton charge, I thank god for not getting any bullet. But  very soon after that, dream of  democracy became the worst nightmare. But now thatnks to those nfrastructure projects, industries  that were established in panchayt area, nepal still surviving. I do not think we lost everything in during panchayat, yes leaders did lose a lot, but common man did not.

Things happend during panchayat-
1. Nepal got UN membership-else Indira Gandhi was ready to make Nepal another Sikkim, Sikkim was not UN/Independent country then.
2. Major highways including east west highway which connected nepal east to west.
3. Balju Industrialized Area- and Patan Industrain Area- was planned effort to industrialize the nation.
4. First formal Plannig started that time, King Mahendra and Pashupati Shumsher (then CEDA professor) contribution to that now we forgot.
5. Janakpur Cigrette Factory, Bansbari Chala Jutta, Bhrikuti Paper Mills, Birgunj Sugar Factory, Himal Cement, Hetaunda Cement, Salt Trading, National Trading, Saja Yatayat, RNAC  (one used to have more than dozen boeing), Nepal Dursanchar Sansthan, Radio Nepal, Nepal Telivsion, National Computer Center (now gone) and many others happened during panchayat.
6. akthiyar was a strong force-curruption control was much mofe efficeint than that of now, not to mention DB Lama, Bhart Gurung were jailed later realsed thanks to democracy.

6. During panchayat how many hydropower projects were completed and after that how many you compare.

Now someone will say, after democracy our 1.media is developed-but does that anything to do with people who live in remote area. 2. We have more universities now-but can poor guy can afford KU or other private university
3. we have medical college now-yes but if you do not have money can you really take advantage of that.
4. we have hell lot of private banks now-but are they providing loans to poor farmer? NO. during panchayat they used to have " sana kisan bikash pariyojana"-which would give cheap loans to farmers. Now gone are those days.
5. Only good thing happened during this time is that " onced despised/deprived people woken up".

Movingfoward will be ok if we   bring back good things happened in the past and avoid bad things that happens in the past-but are we ready? at present no one political force has ability to take country to next levels- maoists, NC, UML and King (still is a force) need to cometogether on one table then only we will survive. otherwise , one day sood will  kick your ass and other day one chinese guy..!

 I'd say we forgot our priorities.

I don't think, getting a slice from global economy is the main priority now.

 Nothing can flourish until there is law and order; then only we'll be able to climb the ladder.

Generally, people are losing morality. 

1) Making people ill with dabur juice (Nepali ambassador to India)
2) preying on dead people's money (Nepali ambassador to Saudi A.)
3) protecting rapists (suntala dhami case, current home minister)
4) being impotent (Makune)
5) promoting the corrupted officials (Ramesh kharel case, makune government)
6) Kujata is a disgrace to Nepal.
7) No need to mention anything about maos, everyone knows who they are.
8) protecting every kind of criminal (most politicians)
9) protecting the child-abuser and rapist (so-called human right activist Daman nath dhungana)
10) playing with human life (sending nepali police to war with the gun without bullets, Krishna Prasad Sitaula and the gang)

Finally, we failed to see what is wrong and right, and instead, keep on promoting own selfish agendas, like some people above.

Some very realistic comments with good insight of political history of Nepal.

We all believe that Nepal is in tranistion phase towards prosperity and development but are we really? Our economy is largely based upon foreign donation and remittance.

As a positive thinker I would like to see peace established and a setteled government for atleast 5 years. I think that is the immediate need of the country. The country cannot be run by interims or the purposed relay government, all we want now is a long term government and restoration of peace.

Gyanguru,

You know, in economics they say that 'demand' is a combination of both desire AND what a person can afford to pay.
So in that way, in Nepal, we all desire peace and prosperity, but since we cannot afford it, it doesn't translate to 'demand.'

In a nation like ours, how much power does a politician with a position really have? Let us say that there is a leader who is close to being a saint. How much power do you think he can exercise in making things better before all the other elements to power will undermine him?

I was talking to a friend of mine, and he was saying that what we need to do in Nepal is to have a good assessment of reality. I think I agree with him.

We can have all these wonderful goals. But they need to pertain with reality. So from that angle. In the next five years, what are reasonable goals that are strivable from the Nepali context?

SMART Objectives anyone ?

 Do you want Development or Democracy?

C'mon, make up your mind... fast.

Why do they have to be mutually exclusive, you ask?  In ideal world, they don't need to.  Like in the US or most of the developed nations, they go hand in hand.  But you and I know, in Nepal's context, that ain't true.  

So, if you are like me and say Development is what we need, then enough of this Democracy crap.

We've been playing this game of Democracy for last 20 years and look what it got us.  Big goose egg.  Heck, egg would've been nice, but we don't even got an egg.  Last 20 years has pushed us back 40 years.

Outside of Africa, Nepal is the least developed and most corrupt nation.

What we need now is Dictatorship.  Yeah, you heard me.

We need someone, hopefully benevolent but with iron fist and butt-load of brains, to have absolute power.  Only that person, like Lee Kwan Yew of Singapore, can turn the country around.

Fast forward 20 years: China will be the #1 superpower in the world with the highest GDP surpassing the USA.  India will be in G7 (most likely bumping Italy off).  With the way things are, Nepal will still be the sewer drain in the middle with rats and maggots fighting for supremacy in the wretched filth.

So, yes, something needs to be done to get Nepal out of quagmire.  It ain't gonna happen with Democracy as you can see, just look around.  Heck, forget about development, Democratic Nepal can't even pull itself together to choose a Prime Minister.  

So, do you still have faith in Democracy?  Seriously, do you?

Many people think "Dictatorship" would stop further downgrading the situation in Nepal and lift up it putting into a right track of development. This is wrong. No dictators would be successful in Nepal. If a dictator would be successful, PN Shah would have made Nepal heaven. If a dictator would be successful, Bhimsen Thapa would have made Nepal most developed. If a dictator would be successful, Rana regime would have made golden age of Nepal. If a dictator would be successful, Mahendra and Birendra Shah have left Japan/korea behind Nepal. What stopped them doing any good for the country?

Development is the result of a trustworthy system, efficient management, honesty of decision makers and public faith on leaders. Nepal's misfortune is that Nepalese people do not believe the leaders as they have enough seen dishonest decisions made by the leaders. The management is converted to inefficient network for good-doers and efficient for corrupts. The system is not trustworthy. Those who relies on system would face the faith of "Master Hari Prasaad" as shown in the Santosh Pant's serial.

To make a true change, we need to empower local bodies, cut the power of central government and make the politics free from the hands of few top leaders. People once kicked out by public (like Madhav Nepal, KP Oli, Pradip Nepal, Bidhya Bhandari) should never get a chance to lead unless they get elected again. People once alleged to criminal activity (like prachanda, baburam, khumbahadur, govinda raj, gachchedar) should never get a chance to lead unless they get cleared by court. Cease all property of corrupt people by local bodies and let them investigate without fearing the central or top-level influence, then we will see U-turn of our country. But I don't believe Nepal's current batch of leaders will ever allow such system to establish, because they know that would sweep them away. So, they just keep doing the drama to fulfill their self interest.