Off the Record 149: What's behind the Saurya Air crash?
Issue 149 • 26 July 2024
It’s July 26, 2024, and you’re reading Off the Record.
I’m Pranaya Rana and in this newsletter, we’ll stop, take a deep breath, and dive into one singular issue that defined the past week.
You can read Off the Record for free by visiting this link and subscribing to receive this newsletter in your inbox every Friday. All posts are free but you can pledge a subscription if you like my work. Those in Nepal can use the QR code below:
Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening from grief-stricken Kathmandu. Another plane crash has killed 18 people, which we’ll talk more about in the deep dive.
But first, let me quickly give a big shout-out to my newest paid subscribers—Elen Turner, Shivam T, Bidhya Rai, an unknown subscriber on eSewa, and a very generous SS8460 from NYU. Thank you to all of you who continue to place your faith in me and this newsletter. I am very grateful.
Now, the news.
Deputy Speaker Indira Rana Magar in serious trouble for visa letter
Every week, it seems like there is another controversy involving the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP). After the numerous scandals of party chair Rabi Lamichhane, the conflict of interest of party vice-chair Dol Prasad Aryal, and the complaints of former party general secretary Mukul Dhakal, now it is the turn of Indira Rana Magar, Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives. Rana Magar was a Member of Parliament elected through the RSP’s proportional representation list. She was nominated by the party for the post of deputy speaker and won.
Madame Deputy Speaker is currently in the midst of a firestorm involving a letter she had written to the American Embassy in February last year. In the letter, Rana Magar had asked the embassy to expedite the visa interview process for her and five others going to New York to attend the 67th meeting of the NGO Committee on the Status of Women, the civil society arm of the UN’s Commission on the Status of Women. Rana Magar obtained her visa and attended the Forum, while the five others did not have their interview dates expedited and did not receive visas.
About three months ago, these five complained to the RSP that they had paid Rana Magar to take them to the United States with her but that she had not lived up to her end of the deal. The party sought clarification from Rana Magar, who responded that she had issued no such letter. Party secretary Shankar Shrestha told Kantipur that the complainants later said the matter had been resolved. “We assumed the money had been returned, so we let go of the matter,” he said. But when questioned by Kantipur, Rana Magar admitted that she had written the letter upon the advice of Upendra Gautam, one of the five names in the letter. “I know Upendra Gautam. He came to me with a few others. I didn’t know them, and I didn’t find it necessary to know them. Everyone would want a Nepali to attend an event like that. I have a soft heart, so I wrote the letter asking for their interview dates to be moved forward,” she told Kantipur.
The RSP, however, has continued to defend Rana Magar, saying that she did nothing wrong in writing the letter and that many others had done the same in the past. RSP party members allege that the ruling coalition of the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML is attempting a “character assassination” so that Rana Magar can be removed as Deputy Speaker. The Deputy Speaker is one of six members of the Constitutional Council, which recommends to Parliament the Chief Justice, Auditor General, and chiefs of various constitutional bodies like the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority, Election Commission, Public Service Commission, and National Human Rights Commission. The Constitutional Council consists of the prime minister (KP Sharma Oli of the UML), the chief justice (Bishowambhar Prasad Shrestha), Speaker of the House (Devraj Ghimire, UML), Deputy Speaker (Indira Rana Magar, RSP), National Assembly chair (Narayan Prasad Dahal, Maoists), and leader of the primary opposition (Pushpa Kamal Dahal, Maoists). With only two UML members and no one from the Congress, the ruling coalition is in a minority in the Constituional Council. Thus, the RSP’s argument is that the coalition is attempting to remove Rana Magar by tarnishing her image and replacing her with someone of their own choice to gain a majority on the Constitutional Council.
This could be true, given that Rana Magar’s letter surfaced 18 months after it was written. Those who’ve accused Rana Magar of accepting kickbacks in return for writing the letter have also refused to come forward, saying that the matter has been “settled.” Rana Magar is not a career politician. She made her name as a social worker, and she has dedicated her life to working with the children of prisoners. I doubt she would willingly throw away her hard-earned reputation for a few million rupees.
That said, Madame Deputy Speaker seems to have displayed a remarkable lapse in judgment. Even if she did not accept money, why did she include these unaffiliated people in her letter asking for a visa interview? They are not involved in any work related to women’s rights or empowerment, and she is on record saying she does not know any of them personally except for one man. Using her official letterhead to plead on behalf of people she claims not to know is, at best, gross incompetence and, at worst, an abuse of authority.
I believe the police and parliament are both carrying out an investigation, so we’ll have to wait and see what happens. Although the RSP has defended Rana Magar, she technically ceased to be a party member when she was elected Deputy Speaker. So the party cannot recall her. The only way to remove her, if guilty, is impeachment. If she’s guilty, she’ll face more than just impeachment, though. She could very easily be jailed, as accepting money to take someone to another country is considered human trafficking.
This entire saga deserves a deep dive of its own, which was my intent but it had to give way to the plane crash. Oh well.
Nepal at the Olympics
As I write this, the 2024 Summer Olympics are set to begin in Paris. Nepal has sent seven athletes to compete—Santoshi Shrestha (women’s marathon), Santoo Shrestha (table tennis), Alexander Shah (men’s 100-meter freestyle swimming), Duana Lama (women’s 200-meter freestyle swimming), Prince Dahal (badminton), Manita Shrestha Pradhan (judo), and Sushmita Nepal (women’s 10-meter air rifle shooting). Santoo Shrestha is the only player who qualified for the Olympics, winning gold in the South Asian Qualification Tournament. All six others represent Nepal as part of quotas given to developing countries.
Nepal is also sending 22 officials for training, coaching, and ‘support.’ This is par the course, though. In the 2020 games in Tokyo (held in 2021 due to Covid), Nepal sent five athletes and 21 officials. I wrote about Nepal’s participation in the last Olympics in the 16th edition of this newsletter. How far we’ve come:
Nepal has participated in every Olympic games since 1964, except for 1968 in Mexico. But Nepal has never won an official medal. It has received two unofficial medals—gold for mountaineer Tejbir Bura for the 1922 expedition to Everest and bronze for martial artist Bidhan Lama in taekwondo at the 1988 Seoul Summer Olympics. The gold was an honorary medal, and the bronze was awarded when taekwondo was still an exhibition sport. Still, Nepali athletes try hard despite their training, infrastructure, and financial constraints. Athletes who do well often have access to training in foreign countries, like swimmer Gaurika Singh, who competed in 2020 and 2016. She lived and trained in London. Or this year’s table tennis representative Santoo Shrestha, who has been trained in Australia.
Will Nepal win a medal at the Paris Olympics? It’s unlikely, but let’s not lose hope. All the best to these athletes!
Krishna Man Pradhan faces a parliamentary hearing
In a previous edition of this newsletter, I wrote about how the Constitutional Council had nominated Krishna Man Pradhan as a commissioner to the Election Commission despite accusations of sexual misconduct. On Wednesday, Pradhan finally faced a parliamentary hearing, and lawmakers grilled him on his past. The 15-member Parliamentary Hearing Committee, which endorses or rejects nominations from the Constitutional Council, questioned Pradhan over the sexual misconduct case after hearing testimony from a woman who alleged that Pradhan had exploited her for five years. Pradhan replied that the case had been settled in court on mutual agreement. Lawmakers said this might have legally absolved Pradhan, but it does not exonerate him morally, as a settlement is not an acquittal.
The Constitution requires that appointees to constitutional bodies be of “high moral character.” While lawmakers can define this phrase specifically, it should be clear that no one accused of sexual misconduct or exploitation can claim high moral character. There is a growing public outcry over Pradhan’s nomination, and even the National Human Rights Commission has issued a statement urging that ‘controversial’ individuals not be appointed to constitutional commissions. Pradhan was nominated by the Constitutional Council chaired by then prime minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal and endorsed by everyone on the council, including then leader of the opposition Sher Bahadur Deuba, House Speaker Devraj Ghimire, House Deputy Speaker Indira Rana Magar, National Assembly chair Narayan Dahal, and Chief Justice Bishowambhar Shrestha.
The parliamentary committee ended the hearing on Wednesday without a decision. But it only has a week to either endorse or reject Pradhan. The Constitutional Council nominated Pradhan on June 16, and the constitution provides 45 days for the Parliamentary Hearing Committee to make a decision. Pradhan's nomination will be automatically endorsed if the committee cannot decide by then. If the committee chooses this route, then it will be a cowardly move. The committee members must act according to their morals and reject the man. There are certainly more upstanding individuals out there.
And now,
On to more tragic matters.
The deep dive: What’s behind the Saurya Air crash?
Captain Manish Shakya is rescued from the wreckage of the crashed Saurya Air jet. He is the only survivor. (Photo: Nepal Police)
Another year, another tragedy.
On Wednesday, July 24, a Saurya Air jet headed to Pokhara from Kathmandu for maintenance crashed just minutes after takeoff, killing 18 of the 19 people on board. Only Captain Manish Shakya survived. The plane was carrying cabin crew, management staff, and technical officers. Seventeen were Nepalis, while one was a Yemeni national. However, there are reports that the plane was also carrying the wife and child of a technician, which was a violation of operating procedures that do not allow maintenance flights to carry passengers.
Videos of the crash have emerged, showing the plane banking sharply to the right after takeoff. In some small measure of fortune, the plane crashed into a clear area within the airport premises. If the plane had banked to the left instead, it could’ve hit the international terminal building at Tribhuvan International Airport or any aircraft parked on the tarmac. Even worse, it could’ve crashed into the densely populated areas surrounding the international airport. It is something of a miracle that Captain Shakya survived, and once he gives his official testimony, things will become more evident on how this tragedy occurred. There is suspicion of engine failure, bird strike, or foreign object damage.
Read this excellent comprehensive report on the crash by The Kathmandu Post’s Sangam Prasain for more details.
That said, it is an utter travesty that planes continue to crash every single year and that Pradeep Adhikari, Director-General of the Civil Aviation Authority of Nepal, has continued to keep his job. At least three airplanes and one helicopter have crashed under Adhikari’s watch, and yet he continues to defy all calls to resign, protected by his political masters through numerous administrations. In fact, Adhikari has time and again opposed legislative measures to split the CAAN into two — a service provider and a regulatory body. This has long been the demand of the European Commission (EC), which, since 2013, has placed “all air carriers certified by the authorities with responsibility for regulatory oversight of Nepal” on its EU Air Safety List, effectively banning all Nepali airlines from flying to the European Union. It is essential to note the wording here, as the EC is not singling out any airlines but all airlines certified by the authorities, placing all responsibility on CAAN.
In 2023, both Director-General Adhikari and then Aviation Minister Sudan Kirati claimed that the blacklisting would be lifted. That never happened. Instead, the EC pointed out continued serious oversights in regulation and maintenance. In September last year, the EC conducted an on-site assessment that again found lapses in regulation and operating procedures, especially with CAAN, Nepal Airlines, and Shree Airlines. Many politicians and bureaucrats, however, claim that the EC’s blacklisting is a ‘political’ move. However, it is not just the EC that has asked Nepal to make regulatory changes. The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), the global UN aviation regulator, has also insisted that Nepal split CAAN into two separate bodies.
So why the reluctance to split CAAN? Currently, CAAN operates as both a regulator and a service provider. CAAN conducts technical and safety audits for airlines and airports, but also provides licenses to airlines and maintains and operates airports across the country, including Tribhuvan International Airport. The EC and ICAO stress that the role of a regulator should be to regulate, not provide services to those entities it is regulating. For instance, a new airline must seek an operating license from CAAN but must also pass technical and safety standards set and monitored by CAAN itself. This allows CAAN to put its financial gains ahead of safety concerns. It also allows the airline to place fat bribes into the director-general’s pockets to get him to look the other way if the airline doesn’t meet certain specifications. If CAAN were split into two, the regulatory body would be independent of the service provider, making it difficult for conflicts of interest to arise and making corruption more cumbersome.
In this particular Saurya Airlines crash, CAAN’s conflict of interest becomes even more apparent. Saurya Airlines has long been in financial trouble. It has been bleeding money for years now, leading it to lay off dozens of employees and slash routes down to just two. Airlines with financial issues are usually not allowed to operate, as financial troubles can easily translate to safety issues. Cutbacks on maintenance, oversight, technical staff, and cabin crew can all impact safety. However, Saurya Airlines was allowed to operate, reportedly due to pressure on CAAN from a senior politician from the Nepali Congress party. If there were two separate bodies responsible for regulation and for handing out licenses, it might not have been so easy for politicians to lobby in favor of their chosen businessmen.
Of course, splitting CAAN into two will not end all crashes. Nepal is an inherently tricky place to fly. The terrain is inhospitable, and the weather capricious. Some crashes are unavoidable due to these very factors. However, the number of crashes can be limited. A crash every single year does not bode well for the aviation industry or the tourism industry. Neither does the fact that recent crashes have not been in dangerous conditions. The Saurya Air crash happened minutes after take off. Last year, a Yeti Airlines plane crashed while attempting to land at Pokhara International Airport. This points to a severe regulatory issue that can be mitigated with proper oversight and the strict enforcement of safety standards. Airlines cannot be allowed to take risks and flout safety standards in the hopes of making a quick buck.
Nepal’s domestic airline industry has boomed in the last decade or two. With flights becoming cheaper, more Nepalis are choosing to fly instead of taking days-long bus rides that are often more dangerous. Road accidents claim thousands of Nepali lives every year, but they don’t make international headlines. Just a few weeks ago, two buses en route to Kathmandu were swept into the Trishuli River by landslides, killing 65 people. According to Nepali Times, nearly 24,000 people have died on Nepal’s roads in the last ten years. The paper stated: “In comparison, 17,000 people were killed in the 10 years of the Maoist armed conflict. Covid killed about 12,000 Nepalis. Nepal’s highways are deadlier than war or pestilence.”
But, air crashes invite the attention of the international media and send the message that Nepal’s skies are unsafe. Nepalis will continue to fly regardless of the danger because airlines have become more critical than roads and buses. But tourists will no doubt hesitate. For a country that relies so heavily on tourism, the constant international headlines of fatal crashes cannot bode well. Tourists don’t have the luxury of traveling for days on a bus, which might be equally dangerous. It is easier for them to choose not to come. And who can blame them?
It is appalling how frequent air crashes are getting in Nepal, and no one seems to want to take responsibility. Government officials, CAAN, and the airline in question all pass the buck, often blaming the deceased pilot. In this rare instance, the pilot is alive, and the crash cannot simply be blamed on ‘pilot error’ as he will have his own story to tell. As of writing, Saurya Airlines has not even issued a statement. Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli visited the crash site and ordered that the flag be flown at half mast in honor of the dead, two purely superficial moves. Decisive action is necessary. The bills to split CAAN into two are currently in Parliament and need to be passed immediately. But even before that, Director-General Pradeep Adhikari needs to step down. If he had any inkling of integrity, he would’ve resigned after the first crash under his watch. But clearly, he doesn’t. He has instead gone on to defend himself, lash out at his critics, and openly challenge ministers who dared to question him. If the current government is at all serious about ensuring safety standards, it must force out Adhikari.
That’s all for this week. I will be back next Friday, in your emails, for the next edition of Off the Record.
If you enjoyed today’s newsletter, please consider sharing it with others who might enjoy weekly updates from Nepal or consider becoming a paid subscriber.
Thanks for reading Off the Record! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
Off the Record is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.