KATHMANDU: Minister Deepak Khadka, entrusted with the critical Ministry of Energy, Water Resources, and Irrigation, has increasingly become a controversial figure. His actions toward subordinates, especially his apparent vendetta against Nepal Electricity Authority (NEA) Executive Director Kulman Ghising, highlight a troubling dynamic. Khadka’s conduct reflects a pattern of using state power to assert dominance, often at the expense of institutional harmony and progress in Nepal’s energy sector.
From the outset, Minister Khadka’s leadership style has raised concerns. His apparent fixation on subordinates’ compliance suggests a tendency to prioritize personal authority over collaborative governance. This issue has been brought into sharp focus in his dealings with Kulman Ghising, one of Nepal’s most celebrated public officials due to his pivotal role in ending prolonged power outages. Ghising’s achievements have not only elevated the NEA’s reputation but also garnered public support, making him a symbol of institutional efficiency. Yet, this same popularity seems to have made him a target for Khadka.
The ongoing tension between Khadka and Ghising appears to have deeper political and personal undertones. It is well-documented that Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli’s government has had a fraught relationship with Ghising, dating back to disputes over unpaid electricity dues and Ghising’s refusal to follow certain directives. The current conflict, now involving Khadka, reflects broader issues of governance, political interference, and institutional autonomy.
Recent incidents underscore Khadka’s approach to asserting control. During Ghising’s site visit to the Upper Tamakoshi Hydropower Project, Khadka orchestrated the overnight creation of a new office at NEA headquarters. While Khadka defended the move as a necessity due to the lack of proper briefing spaces, the timing and urgency of the setup raise questions. Why, after four months in office, was this initiative pursued so suddenly and in Ghising’s absence? Observers speculate that the move was symbolic, aimed at asserting Khadka’s dominance over the NEA.
Khadka’s broader strategy appears to involve undermining Ghising’s authority by leveraging state power. Reports from the ministry suggest that Khadka has targeted Ghising on multiple fronts, from personnel transfers to contract awards. These actions not only disrupt institutional operations but also erode trust between the ministry and the NEA. The alleged involvement of ministry officials in encouraging Khadka’s retaliatory actions further complicates the situation, suggesting internal divisions that undermine the ministry’s effectiveness.
The most visible flashpoint in this conflict has been the debate over dedicated and trunk line tariffs. While Khadka has publicly framed the dispute as a matter of policy, insiders argue that it is merely a pretext. The real issue lies in Khadka’s attempts to influence NEA operations, from staff movements to procurement processes. Ghising’s resistance to these interventions has likely deepened the rift, resulting in the current standoff.
The implications of this power struggle extend beyond the individuals involved. The NEA plays a central role in Nepal’s energy infrastructure, and disruptions at the executive level can have far-reaching consequences. The Upper Tamakoshi project, for instance, has faced significant challenges following the October 11 landslide that damaged its facilities. With winter approaching, the project’s timely restoration is critical to avoiding power shortages. However, instead of focusing on collaborative solutions, Khadka and Ghising remain embroiled in their conflict, diverting attention and resources from urgent priorities.
Prime Minister Oli’s role in this saga is equally significant. Oli’s past conflicts with Ghising, including public accusations and directives to restore power to industries with unpaid dues, have set the stage for the current tensions. Ghising’s reappointment as NEA chief after public pressure, despite Oli’s preference for another candidate, appears to have turned into a personal battle. Khadka’s actions, then, can be seen as an extension of Oli’s broader strategy to assert control over the NEA.
The political dimension of this conflict cannot be ignored. Ghising’s successes, particularly in eliminating power cuts, have been a major public relations asset for the Maoist-led government that initially appointed him. This has created friction with Oli’s UML-led administration, which perceives Ghising’s popularity as a threat. The reappointment of Ghising, despite UML’s initial opposition, further highlights the tensions between public opinion and political priorities.
The public perception of this conflict is also worth examining. Ghising’s popularity stems from his results-driven approach and his ability to deliver tangible improvements in Nepal’s energy sector. His efforts to rebuild the Upper Tamakoshi project following the landslide exemplify his commitment to overcoming challenges. In contrast, Khadka’s actions, particularly his focus on asserting control over the NEA, have been criticized as counterproductive and self-serving.
Moreover, Khadka’s alleged bypassing of the Electricity Regulatory Commission to form a separate committee addressing unpaid tariffs raises questions about transparency and accountability. This move not only undermines the commission’s authority but also sets a concerning precedent for ministerial overreach. Such actions risk eroding public trust in Nepal’s energy governance and could deter future investments in the sector.
The stakes in this conflict are high, not only for the individuals involved but also for Nepal’s energy future. The NEA’s ability to operate effectively and independently is critical to addressing the country’s energy needs. Political interference, as exemplified by Khadka’s actions, threatens to undermine this independence, with potential long-term consequences for energy security and economic development.
Looking ahead, it is essential for all stakeholders, including Prime Minister Oli, Minister Khadka, and Executive Director Ghising, to prioritize institutional interests over personal and political agendas. The public expects leadership that fosters collaboration, transparency, and accountability, especially in sectors as vital as energy. The ongoing conflict between Khadka and Ghising serves as a cautionary tale of the dangers of politicizing critical institutions.
Khadka’s conduct as head of the Ministry of Energy, Water Resources, and Irrigation reflects a troubling approach to governance. His actions toward Kulman Ghising, while framed as policy disputes, appear to be driven by personal and political motives. This conflict not only disrupts NEA operations but also jeopardizes Nepal’s energy security. As the country grapples with the challenges of rebuilding its energy infrastructure, it is imperative for leaders to set aside their differences and work towards the common good. Failure to do so risks undermining public trust and delaying progress in a sector critical to Nepal’s development.