The present problem is also one of paucity of information about the MCC. In the first place, the draft of the agreement is beyond the understanding of the common man because of its complicated legal language. Its translation in Nepali does not always project the real picture, and at times it even gives erroneous information

After the high decibel hullabaloo about the MCC (Millennium Challenge Corporation) compact, particularly in the last week, it has been finally tabled in the parliament. This parliamentary move has brought a great relief to the country. It was otherwise going through unnecessary disturbance marked by protests and scuffles with the riot police. The representatives of the people will now put their heads together and arrive at an amiable solution.

The MCC deal has unfortunately exposed incredible erosion of bureaucratic and political values in the country as never before. A dispatch of a letter assuring the MCC that a favorable environment would be created for its passing through the parliament, signed by not one but two towering political persons - one the ruling and the other a former prime minister of the country - is a shameful display of bureaucratic bankruptcy.

The letter could have been signed by an appropriate authority of a much lower hierarchy conveying the views of the Prime Minister, as is generally the practice. As if this was not enough, the statement of former Prime Minister Prachanda that he had sent the letter not because he supported the MCC agreement but because it would provide the much needed support for the nascent coalition led by Sher Bahadur Deuba has brought further embarrassment to the country.

The conflicting views of the politicians particularly of the left parties has been quite frequent in the country.

Years back, the signing of the peace treaty on one hand and saying something contrary to its spirit in the barrack of the Maoist fighters by then Prime Minister Prachanda had shaken the whole nation. Even now, one can see the double standards in agreeing to table the MCC agreement in the parliament and mobilising the students' wing in the protests and demonstrations by the CPN-United Socialists.

The Maoists are not far behind in this respect as it was during their coalition with the Nepali Congress when the agreement was signed. Now it is surprising that Prachanda has not the slightest of qualms to say that the agreement cannot be signed in its present form.

The present problem is also one of paucity of information about the MCC. In the first place, the draft of the agreement is beyond the understanding of the common man because of its complicated legal language.

Its translation in Nepali does not always project the real picture, and at times it even gives erroneous information. Some politicians, columnists and academicians have enlightened the public through articles in newspapers and interviews on television.

Unfortunately, a few of them verbally quote but none show the signed documents adding to further confusion.

The most alarming issue for the Nepali public is the stated view that the signing of the MCC will provide a base for the landing of American troops in Nepal.

The other worrying aspect is the likelihood of Nepal being pushed under the umbrella of the Indo-Pacific Strategy. Moreover, it has been suspected that the laws of the MCC will prevail over the constitution of Nepal.

So many countries have entered into an MCC agreement with the United States. But in none of those countries has the American Army landed. In a letter to the Ministry of Finance last September, the MCC had made it clear that the signing of the agreement does not lead Nepal to any of the aforementioned situations and that the laws of the MCC would not displace Nepali laws in any way.

The United States was the first country to help Nepal in its stride towards development.

Nepal should thus believe the United States when it has cleared its doubts in written form.

Nepal can cancel the project as per the provision of the MCC agreement if the written commitments are not observed.

Despite this, some left parties are crying wolf for no rhyme or reason.

The Maoists have declared that the agreement cannot be supported in its present form, and the United Socialists have also decided to vote against itat a meeting held very recently after the MCC was tabled in the parliament.

Is it because of the election phobia, which is drawing near, where these parties, especially the Maoists and the United Socialists, see slim chances of registering a significant victory? Even the UML seems worried about not getting a majority due to division in the party, which it has been airing publicly. But such pre-poll tricks do not always work out. One Indian example will make this point clear.

When the Indo-US Nuclear Treaty was signed by the Indian Congress in 2008, it was opposed by the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Left Front. The Samajwadi Party supported the treaty at the end though it opposed it in the beginning.

The Left Front withdrew its support and tabled the motion of no confidence. The Indian Congress managed to win it with 10 BJP parliamentarians crossing the floor.

In the following election of 2009, the Indian Congress was voted to a majority with 206 seats when it had 145 seats. For the Left Front, the strength of 53 seats in the 2004 general election plummeted to 20 seats. The Bharatiya Janata Party also had to be satisfied with second position after the Congress. Its 138 seats slumped to 116 in the 2009 election. The Samajwadi Party also had lesser seats compared to what it had in the 2004 elections.

It is very heartening to see that the MCC has finally entered the parliament.

Arguments in support and opposition of the MCC will now be presented on the parliament floor by the people's representatives. It will then lead to voting, and the result whatsoever will be acceptable to all the people due to it being a product of a democratic exercise.

Prime Minister Deuba has already said that he will gracefully accept whatever is the outcome.

The other parties should also follow suit without any hesitation.

A version of this article appears in the print on February 24, 2022, of The Himalayan Times.