Submit your Article

With contemporary SUV design proportions, the Harrier sports a roof with bold chrome finisher, flared wheel arches, and dual function LED DRLs accentuating its overall bold pres­ence. The interior is clean, clutter-free, and offers a balance of style and practicality. The use of high-quality materials and color com­binations enhances the experience, lending a premium and luxurious feel.

The H5 is powered by the Kryotec 2.0 Diesel engine, which delivers 138 Bhp of power and 350 Nm of torque with an Advanced Electron­ically Controlled Variable Geometry Turbo­charger (eVGT) for excellent low-end torque and linear power delivery. It is mated to a 6-speed manual transmission. The H5 also gets three Engine Drive Modes (Eco, City, Sport) which is married to the ESP Terrain Response Modes (Normal, Rough, Wet) to ensure smooth han­dling over every kind of terrain, and with the steering tuned for excellent driving dynamics. The front suspension and hydra bush have been carried over from the D8 Platform while the rear twist blade suspension has been specially designed by Lotus Engineering UK.

The major highlights for Suzuki cars at this year’s NADA Auto Show will be the S-Cross Smart Hybrid, Ciaz Smart Hybrid, and the Ertiga Smart Hybrid.

Ciaz Smart Hybrid

The Ciaz smart hybrid boasts of a wide range of changes to the exterior, inte­rior, and engine options. The big­gest upgrade is the new 1.5-liter K15 petrol engine, along with the introduction of a smart hybrid system with a Lithium-ion bat­tery. The Suzuki Ciaz facelift churns out 103 hp at 6,000 rpm, which is up by 13 per­cent and the torque has been improved by 6 percent at 138 Nm at 4400 rpm. Suzuki says the hybrid tech will also help it deliver a better fuel efficiency.

S-Cross Smart Hybrid

While the first S-Cross didn’t exactly fly out of the showrooms, Suzuki hopes to change that with the new S-Cross. Suzuki has now revised the S-Cross’ looks, upgraded the fea­ture-list and plans to only offer the 1.3-litre diesel engine that makes 89bhp and 200Nm of torque, and is coupled to a five-speed manual trans­mission. Suzuki has now incorporated ‘Smart Hybrid’ technology which features idle start-stop system, brake energy regeneration (to assist engine power on acceleration), and a gear shift indicator.

Ertiga Smart Hybrid

The facelifted Ertiga comes with sever­al new features and exterior & interior updates. The diesel version of the new Suzuki Ertiga, additionally, gets SHVS (Smart Hybrid Vehicle by Suzuki) micro-hybrid system that is avail­able on the Ciaz and the S-Cross. With the help of SHVS technology, the new Ertiga diesel is claimed to return an improved mileage of 24.52km/l (up 18 percent).

There is an evolving global debate on the relation between technology and democracy: Have modern technology and its products strengthened democracy or have they weakened it? The jury is still out. Yet the deleterious consequences of the wrong use of technology on democracy can no longer be ignored. At its worst, technology can bitterly divide society and boost undemocratic actors. A good example of the divisive tendency of modern technology is social media. Consider the ongoing legal case of media personality Rabi Lamichhane. His supporters were quick to leap to his defense on Facebook. His critics were as ardent in trying to establish his association with a suicide. The two sides quarreled endlessly. Yet they had one troubling thing in common: neither side trusted state institutions to settle the case fairly.

In the same week, Prime Minister KP Oli conducted a cabinet meeting via a videoconference from Singapore. Nothing wrong with an innovative use of technology in governance. But the videoconference, it turns out, was held over an insecure internet line. A skilled hacker could have listened in to the confidential stuff that were discussed, compromising national interest.

It has now been established that Russian hackers had some (if not a decisive) role in the victory of Donald Trump in the 2016 US presidential election. This shows that even the best of online firewalls can be breached. With more and more of our own electoral records being digitized, there is a legitimate fear that they too could be tampered with. Nepali hackers have already shown their prowess in tampering with the websites of our prominent state institutions. The rise of the deep web—a market for everything from illicit drugs to contract killers—poses another problem. The traffic to the deep web has supposedly increased following the government’s porn ban last year.

There is no going back on technology. But there must also be more education on its right use, perhaps starting with greater awareness on the use of social media. It is about time Nepali schools started relevant courses on online misinformation and hate speech. The state must also invest more in protecting sensitive digital information, be the records of bank clients or taxpayers.

Internet and technology have played a crucial role in democratizing access to information and modern-day comforts. But used the wrong way, they can as easily destroy democratic norms and values.

 Is it at all possible to revive the monarchy? Or the Hindu state? It’s incredible how these questions are being raised less than four years after the promulgation of the post-monarchial constitution of the new federal republic—a constitution that specifically designates Nepal a secular state. Despite all the conspiracy theories doing the rounds, it is hard to see how the monarchy, much reviled in its current avatar, can make a comeback. Besides the adverse public opinion, the political equations are not in its favor either; the parties still pitching for monarchy are miniscule, almost inconsequential forces.

There seems to be a greater constituency in favor of restoring the Hindu state, who are buoyed by the resounding reelection of the Hindu-nationalist BJP in India. Both domestic and international climates are ripe for the restoration of the Hindu state, its advocates say. Whether or not that is the case, there are many other reasons not to go down this perilous path. A modern nation-state is by nature secular, equally respectful of people of all faiths. With over 80 percent of its population comprised of Hindus, Nepal is already a de facto Hindu state. Nothing can change that. Making it a de jure Hindu state will be an exercise in futility, with no plausible benefits.

Why try fixing something that is not broken and invite unforeseeable troubles? Shouldn’t the energies of our political class be rather spent on making the new federal system tick and guiding the country on the path of peace and prosperity? We have already seen the grave consequences of the divisive nationalism based on religion and ethnicity championed by the likes of Trump, Modi and Erdogan. This is turn has resulted in the breakdown of social norms and decency and the steady erosion of democratic freedoms in these societies. The Nepali state taking up the cudgels on behalf of one particular religion will be similarly destabilizing.

Nepal is home to Hindus and Buddhists and Christians and Muslims and people of many other faiths. Except some sporadic troubles, they have mostly lived in harmony since millennia. Why do something that has even a small chance of disturbing that harmony? Having recently drafted a fairly progressive constitution, Nepali political class should be extremely wary of turning the clock back. Not least because it could be a slippery slope to the reversal of all post-2006 gains.

Has the Nepal Communist Party  settled all organization-related disputes?

During the unification, we had pledged to complete organizational tasks within three months. But it has already been 15 months. The incom­plete task affects both the party and the government. But we hope to wrap it up very soon.

But new factions are emerging and there seems to be a lot of dissatisfaction.

In a communist party there should be internal democracy to debate and discuss ideology. However, in our context, factions are formed on the basis of personal interests, which act as a roadblock for the party’s development. So we have to discourage factional politics. But individualism is flourishing in the party, giving rise to new factions and affecting the party’s ideological and policy-based discussions.

Are the new organizational struc­tures in line with the agreement reached between the two parties during the unification process?

There has been some violation of the principle of ‘one man, one post’. The same people occupy multiple positions. On other issues, we are forming certain criteria and taking decisions accordingly.

There are reports that former Maoist leaders and cadres are unhappy with the organizational reshuffle.

These issues should not be viewed through the prisms of former CPN (Maoist) and CPN-UML. Now there are no former groups or parties, only a united NCP. Even the factions are formed on the basis of personal interests and benefits, not along former party lines. In terms of ideol­ogy, we have to kick-start an ideolog­ical debate from a new perspective, not on the basis of past ideologies.

There are reports of increasing friction between Prime Minister KP Sharma and party co-chair Pushpa Kamal Dahal on organi­zational issues.

At the recent Secretariat meet­ing, the situation was just the oppo­site. Both PM Oli and Dahal are in a mood for reconciliation. They are even coming up with new consensus proposals, which was unexpect­ed. They are coming closer. But it remains to be seen whether these developments are ideological and in line with the party’s reformation process. As far as dissatisfaction is concerned, leaders have their own issues. Some may be dissatisfied that they didn’t get certain posts, while other senior leaders may be worried about the party’s ideologi­cal transformation. Similarly, we are worried that steps taken by the cur­rent government are not sufficient to meet people’s expectations and to engineer the kind of social and cultural transformation we seek.

Are you implying senior leaders like Oli and Dahal are prioritizing power and position over ideolog­ical development?

What I am saying is that there are two types of dissatisfaction in the party. First, some leaders are of the view that party and government functioning are not satisfactory. Our end goal is socialism but there has been no debate on how to get there. Second, some leaders were angling for certain position that they didn’t get.

Would it be right to say the new party’s fate depends on the pow­er-sharing agreement between PM Oli and Dahal?

That will not happen. The two of them played a vital role in party unification and its significance can­not be underestimated. Similarly, they played vital roles in bringing about political changes and taking the communist movement forward, which are now duly recorded and recognized in history. But our party does not function based on individu­al interests. Again, we respect KP Oli and Prachanda as senior leaders. Yet it would be a tragedy if the party’s fate depended on their personal power-sharing deal.

As per the agreement, Oli will have to hand over party or gov­ernment leadership to Dahal two and half years after the govern­ment was formed, won’t he?

There has been a lot of talk about the agreement between the two leaders. We can speak about these issues when they become part of the official agenda on party platforms and subsequent discussions. What we can say now is that the party and the government should function as per the understanding/agreement reached during the unification. It should become a party agenda. No one benefits from an unstable gov­ernment. Our key priority at this point is to make this government a success. No one benefits if we start counting down its days.

But you are one of the very few leaders who were supposedly privy to the power-sharing deal.

The main thing is whether the agreement will become an official party agenda, whether there would be discussions on it in the party and whether such discussions will be translated into concrete decisions.

Are you suggesting Oli can remain prime minister for five years?

For this there needs to be broad discussions in the party and deci­sions should be reached at the appropriate party platforms. For now the party will move ahead on the basis of the agreement between the two co-chairs.

Can the party revise the ‘gen­tleman’s understanding’ on power-sharing between Oli and Dahal?

The party would take a final call on this. The par­ty is our sovereign plat­form for all decisions. If the party thinks that those agreements are beneficial, it will decide accordingly. If party thinks otherwise, that will be acceptable too.

Again, it can be revised, right?

Whatever happens will happen based on consensus.

In a separate context, you claimed the lead­ership of the party’s School Department but were denied.

I would not say I claimed it, but I was interested. There are a couple of reasons behind my interest. I have been involved in ideological issues for a long time. In the Maoist party, I was leading the Foreign Affairs Department and the School Department. After party unification, I was involved in prepar­ing all the party-related documents, including election manifestos. But it does not mean others are not qualified to lead the School Department. It should not be viewed as someone’s win and someone else’s loss.

Our attention at this point is focused on two broader issues. First, how to unite the party and make it more rev­olutionary and pow­erful. Second, how to make the government a success. So I have easily accepted the decision.

Of the various factions in the par­ty, which one do you belong to?

I do not belong to any faction. I will not join any faction and I will not create any faction. But I have certain agendas and will work to bring the party in line with those agendas.

What about the disputes over the order of precedence in the party? Senior leader Madhav Kumar Nepal has been relegated to fourth position from third. Why this sudden change?

Earlier, Madhav Kumar Nepal was in third position and Jhala Nath Kha­nal in fourth position. Now they have swapped positions. During party unification, there was an understanding that leaders in the new party would occupy the same positions they did in their respective parties pre-unification.

After the UML’s ninth general convention, Khanal was senior to Nepal. But he was absent during the final round of talks on party unifi­cation and Nepal got the third posi­tion. Now Khanal has regained his earlier position.

How do you see the note of dis­sent registered by senior leader Nepal?

In a communist party, registering a note of dissent is not abnormal. It would be better to take decisions in the party through consensus but sometimes we have to decide even amid dissent. There should be dis­cussions about such proposals and they should be forwarded to the party rank and file for discussion in order to help maintain party unity.

What about his demand for one-man-one-post?

The provision of one-man-one-post has been mentioned in the party statute. However, we have not been able to fully implement it now because we are in a tran­sitional phase of party unifica­tion. In the days to come, we can discuss it .

Q. What is one thing that you can’t tolerate in a relationship?

A. I think any form of disrespect is a huge red flag for me.

Q. How would you describe a perfect day?

A. Good sleep, good workout, good company, good food, good movies/ TV shows

Q. What makes up your comfort outfit?

A. V neck tees, sweatpants and trainers.

Q. Modeling or acting?

A. Acting any day.

Q. Your favorite travel destination?

A. Thailand for its islands all the way.

Q. What’s your hidden talent?

A. I can avoid questions. Talent?

Q. If you could travel to either the future or the past, where would you go?

A. I’d love to live in the 80’s.

Q. What is your alternate career choice?

A. This is it for me. No backups.

Q. An unpopular opinion you hold?

A. Game of Thrones is overrated. Sue me.

Q. Your female celebrity crush?

      A. Natalie Portman.

 In the past two decades, why has no Chinese president visited Nepal?

China decides on high level visits only after maximum preparation. The visits of Chinese leaders are aimed at achieving specific purposes and objectives. They are very sys­tematic. First, we have to be clear that the Chinese President does not go on pleasure trips. Second, we say Nepal-China relation is prob­lem-free. If so, why such a long gap in such high-level visits? Earlier, we used to blame our political instabil­ity for the delay in such visits. But now there is a stable government. In the past six years, President Xi has already travelled to many other South Asian countries. Let’s make a historical comparison. In 1978, Deng Xiaoping had visited Nepal. I think Deng visited no more than five coun­tries in his life and Nepal was one. Nepal was not a powerful country but he still chose to come here. We have to accept that we have failed to prepare well and set the agenda for such visits.

So there is basically no big agenda for President Xi to sign?

You are correct. Without a specific agenda, what would be the utility of such high level visits?

What could be some specific agendas that President Xi could consider?

The visiting country always has some agendas as per their national interests. They do not come here for our sake. A high-level visit means doing something in mutual inter­est. Though the national interests of Nepal and China do not clash, there have been no high-level visits. The key Chinese interest is national unity and we are fully committed to the ‘one-China policy’. No high-level visit even in the time of stability in Nepal means there is a problem.

Are you hinting that there is some problem with project selec­tion on Nepal’s part?

To some extent. The BRI is a funda­mental policy tool of China’s overall foreign policy. The basic document of the BRI was jointly published by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Chinese State Council and the Min­istry of Commerce. This means key institutions are involved in the BRI, not only the foreign ministry. Thus the BRI has a component of promot­ing commercial and business inter­ests as well. During Prime Minister KP Oli’s 2018 China visit, several agreements were signed—all of them under the BRI framework. Even the cultural programs are under the BRI framework because you need funds for them. We are failing to properly respond to the Chinese policy. We are yet to finalize the projects under the BRI. Some people say we have to talk about bilateral issues and not the BRI, which means we should only accept grant and assistance from China.

This suggests that we have poor negotiation skills. Look at Malaysia. After Mahathir Mohamad came to power, there were renegotiations on some projects and now they are exe­cuting them. There could be some mistakes but we have to correct them and move forward. We signed the BRI but we are yet to set up any mechanism to implement our agree­ment with China. There is a mech­anism led by the Foreign Secretary but it has thus far been ineffective. There has been no detailed feasibil­ity study on proposed projects. Let us first assure ourselves what we want to do and only then talk about loans, soft-loans or grants. We have not formed any mechanism in a way that the Chinese side understands. We have to understand how the Chi­nese plan, and how their financing modalities and institutions work.

Recently, the Chinese Ambas­sador to Nepal said there was no hurry to bring Chinese rail to Nepal. Why do you think she said that?

It took 50 years for a rail to arrive in Lhasa due to highly technical rea­sons, as the railway tracks were built above permafrost. They needed certain chemicals to keep the per­mafrost from melting. In our con­text, railway and other issues came in response to the Indian block­ade. The Chinese side expected the Nepali side to do environmental study and other groundwork, to no avail. We have to take owner­ship of all projects we want to take forward. We talk like the Chinese will do everything for us. We lack seriousness. We are just making commitments but not showing hon­esty. It is not about the Chinese side giving us something and us accept­ing it gracefully. There should be a sense of ownership. I do not believe the rail project will be built entirely on Chinese grant; Nepal also needs to pony up what little it can.

There are reports that the Chi­nese President would come here within 2019.

I have seen such reports. There are reports that Xi Jinping will visit India in October and he will make a stopover in Kathmandu. But such stopover visit would not send a pos­itive message to the outside world. Earlier Chinese President Hu Jintao did not come to Nepal even though he had raised the issue of green and sustainable development. He knew many things about Nepal but he did not come here.

There are reports that President Xi would visit if there are agree­ments on some big BRI projects.

The agendas should match the level of the visits. The Chinese side takes this visit as an important development in bilateral relations. We have to prepare sufficiently. Big visits should have big agendas and even the media and other sectors should feel the same. It is not only about railways. It will come sooner or later but at the same time we have to think about other connectivity projects, such as roads.

Will geopolitical rivalries affect the prospect of Xi’s visit to Nepal?

Geopolitics is a curious word. Ear­lier, China used to call itself an East Asian country. Now, it calls itself a Eurasian country. This happened due to development and technol­ogy. It means politics is dynamic and technology gives it shape. We have to be clear about the purpose of the visit. It is not only about com­ing and shaking hands. We have to think about our national interest, not what others say. We need not worry about what India or America says. They think from their perspec­tive and promote their interests. We have to think what we can do to promote our national interest. We can also take those countries into confidence when we plan something significant with China. We cannot drive our diplomacy on the basis of what other countries say. We have to develop our own self-confidence.

How do you evaluate the foreign policy priorities of the Oli government?

The problem with us is that we call every issue and agenda our pri­ority. When we present so many issues as our priority, we are dilut­ing our key priority. I remember a statement of former Prime Minister Sushil Koirala. He used to say: ‘Our external engagement begins with our neighbors’. It does not mean we are excluding others. This is a correct policy but we lack mecha­nisms to translate it into action. We have to respond to other countries only after we have sufficient knowl­edge about what they are saying. We need an institutional mecha­nism to deal with challenges and opportunities we face in dealing with other countries. For example, China is very serious about form­ing new mechanisms to deal with new situations.

Who is responsible for setting up those mechanisms in Nepal?

It is the responsibility of the prime minister. If sectorial ministers can­not do anything, the blame goes to the PM. The current prime minister has replaced the king. The king had his own mechanism. The current PM also needs mechanisms to imple­ment his plans effectively. Individual initiatives without strong institu­tional mechanisms to support them would not be sustainable.

There is much debate about the Indo-Pacific Strategy and the BRI. Some say they are compet­ing visions, while others say both could go together.

I went through the Indo-Pacif­ic Strategy Report unveiled by the US Department of Defense. The US Ambassador to Nepal said that it is a ‘partnership’. But it was pre­pared and made public by the Pen­tagon. I read the portion of the doc­ument that discusses Nepal and found many issues related to Nepal Army. Peacekeeping has been men­tioned as a fundamental issue of the IPS and there is a role of the Army in peacekeeping. India has also set up an Indo-Pacific division in its foreign ministry. Our for­eign ministry says Nepal consid­ers the Indo-Pacific as a region not a strategy.

We have to focus on our work without complaining about trivial matters. We can tell the American Ambassador that it is not good to have Nepal in the strategy. We have to talk with him in a dignified manner. Not only with the Americans, we can also talk honestly with China if there are issues with the BRI. Global pow­ers introduce such strategies with their own interests in mind, but how they are implemented here is our choice. They cannot impose their strategies against our will. The IPS is prepared from a defense perspec­tive and the BRI from a development perspective.

The Poco F2 is coming. Or so goes the impression. This is what some of the new rumors and leaks are suggesting. Earlier the talk was that Xiaomi will discontinue Poco brand now that it has the Redmi K20 phones—top-end hardware at affordable prices—in the market. But recently Xiaomi India Head of Marketing Anuj Sharma denied that Poco brand is going to be discontinued. In an interview earlier this week Sharma confirmed that the Poco brand would not be discontinued. Sharma didn't confirm the existence of the Poco F2 but this statement itself hinted that the Poco F2 was real.

But yet, there is a lot of confusion around the Poco F2. Rumours of the Poco F2 started as soon as Qualcomm announced its latest flagship processor -- Snapdragon 855 -- back in December last year. Back then, rumours and leaks suggested that the Poco F2 would follow the same strategy as the Poco F1. This means the phone would come with the latest flagship processor aka Snapdragon 855. Amidst all these rumours Xiaomi launched the Redmi K20 Pro with Snapdragon 855 in China. That sort of ended rumours about the Poco F2.

The Redmi K20 Pro was launched in China in May. Soon after that rumors started pouring in that Redmi K20 Pro would come to India as rebranded Poco F2. But that didn't happen. The Redmi K20 Pro retains its name in India.

The Redmi K20 Pro was launched in India on July 17 and days after the launch several research analysts started predicting that the Poco brand would be discontinued in India. Analysts said that after the Redmi K20 Pro the Poco F2 doesn't make sense. This came as a disappointment for the Poco fans and the consumers eagerly waiting for the Poco F2.

Sharma, however, rubbished these reports and said that Poco would continue to make smartphones and will not be discontinued. In the interview, Sharma said, "India Poco has its own team, it's not managed by Xiaomi India. Xiaomi manages Mi & Redmi series Poco was made to remain independent. Poco uses Xiaomi's services like logistics, support etc. Poco has its own product strategy. Right now Poco is too small & their focus is still on Poco F1."

When will Poco F2 launch

All we know for now is that the Poco F2 is real. It will likely come but the launch timeline is a mystery. Last year the Poco F1 was launched in the month of August and before the launch of Redmi K20 Pro it was expected that this year too a new Poco phone would come in August. But that's not happening any more. As Sharma notes in the interview, Poco is currently concentrating on Poco F1 and improving it as a product. This means the Poco F2 may take a while before it comes into the market. There are chances that Xiaomi may launch the Poco F2 later in the year or postpone the launch to next year.

What we know about Poco F2

The Poco F2 is expected to be an upgraded version of the Poco F1. Obviously. Some rumors suggest that the Poco F2 will be powered by Snapdragon 855. But now that the Redmi K20 Pro comes with the same flagship processor it is highly unlikely that the Poco F2 will come with Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 SoC. So the latest rumors are that the Poco F2 will come with the latest Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 Plus. Some other rumors and leaks suggest that Poco F2 will come with AMOLED panel, waterdrop notch and higher screen-to-body-ratio than the Poco F1.

(India Today)

Bhuwan Chand—the first officially recognized Nepali feature film actress—dons the producer’s hat this time to bring Saino into the Nepali film industry. Although it takes its name from the classic Bhuwan KC-Danny Denzongpa-Tripti Nadkar starrer Nepali movie from 1987, this Saino has an independently created plot, and is nowhere close to becoming a ‘super hit’ like the former one.

Chand’s Saino, a social drama based in a hilly village near Kathmandu, revolves around a young couple Raj (Raj Kumar) and Anu (Miruna Magar). The two are in love with each other and want to get married, but the girl’s father and her cousin Maite (Roydeep Shrestha) oppose the union. In fact, Maite wants to marry Anu; both are from the Lama culture, where a guy has the right to court the daughter of his maternal uncle. So Maite tries to woo Anu, but because she snubs his advances, he plans to kidnap and marry her forcefully—another privilege his culture entitles him to. (Interestingly, the custom in which a man can kidnap and marry his cousin is still prevalent in some parts of Nepal and a few elected representatives from those areas spoke this week in the parliament about banning it.)

What follows is a long ordeal of escaping and hiding for both the lead characters. The film’s story is pivoted in such a way that it does not stick to the predictable nature of stereotypical Kollywood plots where a young couple elopes together when their union is not accepted by their families and society. The film has its own twists and turns and also tries to touch the issue of human trafficking. But this is where the film falls flat. In what is probably an effort to make a movie carrying a strong social message, the filmmakers have only managed to address the issues superficially, while there is no notable lesson the audience can take home. With a runtime of 1 hr 54 mins, the film becomes tedious to watch.

A legend in her own right, Chand also appears in a supporting role as Raj’s widowed mother. Most of the young characters in the film are newcomers, except for Radha (Nita Dhungana), who adds another love triangle to the story as she pursues Raj romantically. Performance wise, Raj Kumar’s debut as Raj is rather forgettable. He looks quite uncomfortable on screen at times and is not at all convincing as a passionate lover. Miruna, on the other hand, plays a village girl with considerable ease and her NRN status (she was born in Hong Kong) doesn’t affect her character at all. She plays Anu quite convincingly, more so than many actresses born and bred in Kathmandu who fail to enact the ‘rural’ character when needed.

Nita, with all her previous experiences in Kollywood, doesn’t add a strong work experience to her resume with this film. She does attempt to fit into her character as a dance instructor and Raj’s old friend who is head-over-heels for him. But besides showing off her dancing skills, she doesn’t do much to make the audience like her. The film would have been unbearable if these central characters were forced on the screen throughout its entire length, but the filmmakers have smartly given some screen time to a number of supporting characters to avoid the disaster.

Comic relief in Saino is minimal but clean (non-sleazy), and the comeback of legendary actors Madan Das Shrestha and Basundhara Bhusal elevates the film’s status as a whole. The veteran actors play a landlord couple and provide a much-needed break from the film’s mediocrity with their mature acting.

Who should watch it:

Saino is a below par production in terms of storytelling and acting. The plot, which again could have been its strength, becomes its weakness as the filmmakers attempt desperately to appeal to the audience’s sense of sympathy. But the movie is not entirely unwatchable. The supporting actors make it more bearable than it may sound in the review. And since there were no new releases this weekend, a Nepali film lover might want to watch this to support the industry.

Rating: 2 stars

Run time: 1 hr 54 mins

Cast: Nita Dhungana, Miruna Magar, Raj Kumar

Director: Ramesh Thapa

Genre: Drama