सच्चा राष्ट्रियता गरीबी सकेसम्म चाँडै कसरी मेट्ने भन्ने हो

The flag of Nepal (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In response to a Facebook post by a friend.

(१) नेपाल र भारत को जस्तो नजिक को सम्बन्ध कुनै दुई देशको छैन, अमेरिका र कनाडा को पनि छैन। त्यो जनता लेवल को कुरा। र त्यो तराई का मधेसी को मात्र होइन। नेपालको प्रत्येक समुदाय को कुरा। शाह राणा को पनि "बेटी-रोटी" कै सम्बन्ध हो। हिमाली भेग को कुरा गर्ने हो भने तिब्बती शरणार्थी सबै भारत मै छन। यता दार्चुला, उता धारचूला, मान्छे दुबै तिर उस्तै।

(२) सरकार लेवल को कुरा गर्ने हो भने भारत मा जुन सुकै सरकार आए पनि हाम्रो नेपाल संग जस्तो राम्रो सम्बन्ध अरु कुनै देशको सरकार संग छैन भन्छ।  के भनेको होला?

(३) नेपालका प्रत्येक पार्टी का नेता दिल्ली धाउँछन्, र त्यो भु-राजनीति बुझ्नेले अप्राकृतिक मान्दैन। चन्द्रमा पृथ्वी वरिपरि घुम्छ, पृथ्वी सुर्य वरिपरि घुम्छ। बरु राजनीति र लोकतंत्र बुझ्नेले सोध्छ, भारत ले ठग्छ भन्ने त्यत्रो ठुलो डर छ भने नेपालको संसदले अर्को देश सँग गरिने कुनै पनि संधि सम्झौता नेपालको संसद मा पुर्ण बहसमा लगेर बहुमत ले अनुमोदन गर्न पर्ने प्राबधान किन नराखेको? २०४६ पछि मलाई अलि कति excited पारेका नेपालका प्रधान मंत्री दुईटा छन। कृष्ण प्रसाद भट्टराई र बाबुराम भट्टराई।  बाबुराम ले गरेको BIPPA सम्झौता कति राम्रो। तर उसकै उप प्रधान मंत्री, त्यो पनि उसकै जिल्लाको, त्यो BIPPA को बिरोध गर्दै हिँडेको।  कत्रो नौटंकी। बिरोध हो भने के को बिरोध, त्यो specific रुपमा कहिले भनिएन। कागले कान लग्यो, लग्यो भने पछि लग्यो लग्यो। फेरि बाबुराम भनेको धोती लाउने गजेन्द्र नारायण होइनन् , सप्तरीको मधेसी, भारतको मान्छे यसले भारतकै सोंच्यो भन्ने "ह्रितिक रोशन सिंड्रोम" आरोप लाग्दो हो।  बाबुराम भनेको त १९५० को संधि धांधली भो खारेज गर नत्र भने भन्दै बन्दुक उठाएको मान्छे। माओबादीले बन्दूक उठाएको ४-५ बर्षसम्म मैले उसको बाहेक अरु कुनै माओबादी को नाम सम्म सुन्या थिएन। नेहरू खुदले विश्व स्तरको नेता मानेको BP ले पनि देशै बेचने रै छ, बन्दूक उठाउने SLC Board First बबुरामले पनि देशै बेचने, के रै छ त त्यस्तो?

(४) बाबुराम लाई म अझै BP लेवल को मान्दिन। तर फेरि प्रधान मंत्री बनेर उनी नेपालका नीतिश कुमार बन्छन् भने all bets are off. म आफु बामपंथी होइन (म नेपालको परिप्रेक्छ्य मा कांग्रेसी पनि होइन, anti-Congress हो) तर बामपंथी नै सही फिडेल को education र health सेक्टर का कामहरू गरेर देखाउन सक्नु पर्यो।

(५) लोकतंत्र भनेको जनता ले दिग्गज मान्छे खोज्ने र त्यो दिग्गजले ५ बर्ष एकलौटी शाषण गर्ने भनेको होइन। भारत संग गर्ने समझौता हरु नेपालको संसदले पुर्ण बहसमा लाने र बहुमत ले पास गर्ने ब्यबस्था गर्ने हो।  त्यति गर्दा पनि भारत ले ठग्ने रहेछ भने नेपाल त भारत ले ठग्नु पर्ने देशै रै छ भन्ने हुन्छ। कोही कोही हुन्छ नि पाकेटमार लाई सजिलो पारिदिने बानी भएको मानिस।  त्यस्तो।

(६) तर मुख्य कुरा अझ त्यो होइन। मुख्य कुरा नेपालका नेताहरूको competence or rather lack of it को हो।  आफ्नो कमी कमजोरी ढाकछोप गर्न जुन कुरा को दोष पनि भारत लाई दिई दिने। Dictatorships thrive on the external enemy, नार्थ कोरिया ले अमेरिका सँग निहुँ खोजिरहने कारण त्यो हो।  तर नेपालका नेता हरुले लोकतंत्र मा पनि त्यही कुराको सहारा लिएका छन। It should not be possible तर भइराखेको छ।  चुनाब ले मात्र लोकतंत्र हुँदैन भन्ने कुराको प्रमाण Russia छ। नेपाल लोकतंत्र भई सकेको छैन भन्ने कुरा बुझ्नु पर्छ।

(७) पुरानो सत्ताका status quoist हरु हर तरहले दमजम का मुद्दा हरुमा पुराणो सोंच कायम राख्न तत्पर छन।  स्टेट restructuring हुन नदिन हर किसिमका हथकंडा अपनाउन लागि राखेका छन।

(८) नेपाललाई सिक्किम बनाउन खोजेको आरोप कति लाई लाग्यो त्यो गनेर साध्य छैन, त्यो राजनीति होइन गाईजात्रा हो। अस्ति मोदी आउनु अगाडि समझौता का जुन फर्स्ट ड्राफ्ट हरु आएका थिए केही knee jerk nationalist हरुले "नेपाललाई भुटान बनाउन खोजेको" आरोप लगाए। म त चकित भएँ। अरे बाबा, भुटान दक्छिण एशिया को सबै भन्दा गरीब देश बाट quite literally रातारात दक्छिण एशिया को सबै भन्दा धनी देश बनेको कहानी हो।  सिंगापुर र स्विट्ज़रलैंड पछि बनाउने पहिला भुटान नै बनाउने कि नेपाललाई?

(९) नेपाल बाट गरीबी सकेसम्म चाँडै कसरी मेट्ने - त्यो भन्दा ठुलो राष्ट्रबाद नेपालको सन्दर्भमा हुन सक्दैन। त्यस मापदंड़ अनुसार अहिले को नेपालको political class खचाखच अराष्ट्रीय तत्व हरुले भरिएको देखि राखेको छु।  मोदीले सही भनेका छन -"Nepal can become developed nation by supplying power to India." बोलीले होइन ब्यबहार ले हो राष्ट्रबाद झल्किने, तर नेपालको पोलिटिकल क्लास लाई चिंता छ, नेपाल developed नेशन भयो भने जनता जागरुक हुन्छन् अनि फेरि हामी लाई कसले वोट दिने? त्यो घोर अराष्ट्रीय तत्व thinking हो।

(१०) मोदीले वास्तव मै नया किसिमको सम्बन्ध चाहेका छन, त्यसको फाइदा न उठाउनु मुर्खता नै हुनेछ।

East West Nepal Railway

Nepal topography. The green/yellow zones hold the Inner Terai valleys. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

There is talk of an East West Nepal Railway. The current talk puts that right next to the Mahendra Rajmarga, the East West Highway. I believe that would be a mistake. The rivers right south of Chure tend to be really wide. You go further south and they narrow down substantially. Bridges are the most expensive part of a road (or rail).

So if the idea is to build an East West Railways at the lowest cost possible, the best part to do it would be in Mid-Terai.

There is widespread feeling among Madhesis that the Mahendra Rajmarga was never built for Madhesis in the first place. It was built for the Pahadis. The highway that would most benefit the Madhesis would be the Postal Highway, or the Hulaki Rajmarga. It goes very close to the Indian border. Because the most dense clusters of the Madhesi population happens to be close to the Indian border.

An East West Railway that runs through the middle of the Terai would benefit the Madhesis a lot. That is true. But that can not be the reason why you not do it. You build it along a route that would be cheapest to build. And you build so as to benefit the largest number of people. That would put the East West Railway along the middle of the Terai.

But you also have to build it for India. India's North-East feels isolated from the rest of India. This East West Railway would connect that North-East to Delhi and mainstream India. The larger South Asian market is what would make this train route indispensable and highly profitable.

It will be easier, much easier, to find investors for the project if you draw in the larger picture. Not only is there a larger South Asian picture, there is also a larger Asian picture. China has plans to connect with India through Sikkim. That rail route could be connected to the Nepal East West Railway. Next thing you know a whole bunch of Indians are traveling through Nepal to get to China.

Such large scale thinking would make it possible to raise large sums of money with which to build something cutting edge. Like bullet trains, for example.

Related articles

• Madhesi parties for both PTA‚ PDA deals with India; have a long shopping list
• Two Geographical States In The Terai
• The Meaning Of 12 Lakh Votes
• Modi returns to New Delhi
• A new template for India-Nepal ties
• PM Koirala looks forth to Modi visit as 'opportunity'
• The Madhes and the Future of Nepal
• A new beginning with Nepal
• The Only Alliance The Madhesi Parties Need
• China inaugurates new Tibet rail link close to Sikkim

33-33-34

A tech startup shares its ownership widely as it grows and matures. I think 33-33-34 is a healthy ratio, although many permutations and combinations are possible: 33 to the founders, 33 to the investors in various rounds, and 34 to the team.

Some venture capitalists think their share ought be 40 per cent. Some of them collude with the founders to leave very little for the team. Some of them gobble up even more than 40. I know of one case where the founders had been watered down to around one per cent. That company died soon after.

Round 1 investment is also known as the seed round, or friends and family round. Usually people who have known you a few years put in some money. Venture capitalists are people too. There are all kinds. That includes the bad apples. Vulture capitalists are venture capitalists with bad character. Often times the vulture capitalists have a tendency to water down the early stage investors, and this is with successful companies.

If you are going to give away 33 per cent of the company to investors in various rounds, a good figure for round 1 might be 5. So say you raise 100K in round 1 to give away 5 per cent of the company. It is a good idea to add an anti-dilution clause in there so this 5 per cent stays 5 per cent in all future rounds.

But the anti-dilution clause not used right can backfire. Say you gave away 20 per cent of the company for 50K in round 1 and added an anti-dilution clause to the agreement. You just made it super hard to raise future rounds of money, to attract co-founders. If you gave away 50 per cent for 50K, and added an anti-dilution clause to it, the company is pretty much dead. The person who put in 50K just lost 50K.

I believe Mark Zuckerberg made this mistake starting out. He gave away a huge chunk of his company to his Harvard roommate who put in the first 100K. VCs who came in later had to incorporate a whole new company to dilute away that first guy who made no contribution beyond that first monetary investment. He was an angel investor, not a Co-Founder. Much of the drama in the Facebook movie resulted from this first misstep.

The anti-dilution clause is not the norm right now. Most first round investors might start out with some good sounding number like 20 or even 30. But in future rounds they get diluted to the point they might not make any money.

Another key concept is vesting. If you have a 5% equity, and it is scheduled to vest over five years, and you leave the team after one year, you only walk away with 1% equity. The other 4% goes back to the company. This vesting schedule is for team members, not the investors.

Launching a tech startup is kind of like launching a rocket. The first 100 meters are probably the hardest. Various rounds of fundraising can be compared to various stages of a rocket’s ascent.

A tech startup is a high risk venture. No risk, no gain. You could fail. If you do not raise round 1 money, you will have failed already. You could raise round 1 money and still fail. You could raise round 1 money, do the work, successfully raise round 2 money, and still fail. You could raise round 1, round 2 money, do the work, and still fail. You could raise rounds 1, 2 and 3 and fail. You could do very well for two years, even three years, get a lot of good press, get featured in the New York Times and TechCrunch, and The Kathmandu Post and Vishwa Sandesh and still fail.

My point being fundraising is important, press and hype are important, but ultimately it is about the business fundamentals. Unless you give it the very best shot you can, you will fail, guaranteed. A hundred million dollars is no joke. Heck, a million dollars is no joke. Less than five per cent of the people in America make more than 100K a year.

Fundraising can feel challenging. But once you have money in the bank, team building can be hard. Because ultimately how good you do depends on how good your team is.

There are such huge swathes of the economy that are waiting to be digitized that it still feels like the wild, wild west in the software industry. Big money is waiting to be made.There is a lot of wealth creation in the future. Understanding the ins and outs of equity is necessary to doing well with your startup. Most of the most treasured members of your team will join you for the equity you might give them. It is not salary. Chances are you will pay them below market rate salaries.