Submit your Article

Perhaps we are really entering an era of disruptions driven by trade wars and more and more accentuated geopolitical rivalries even among core allies. The new Trump administration has started over the weekend a trade war with its most important economic partners, Canada and Mexico with whom it is legally bound by a free trade agreement, the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA). Tariffs, even of lesser magnitude, have also been imposed on China’s products and it is now certain that the European Union is going to be the next one to be hit.

The future of USAID is in jeopardy, hundreds of its senior staff are on forced leave, its website is offline.  Instead of talking peace, Trump is using the same authoritarian playbook and the same logic of the Russian president, Putin, to insinuate possible territorial takeovers of allied countries.  Amid this upheaval, it is easy to reach an easy conclusion. 

There are even concerns of a possible breakdown of the liberal order, with the United States of America entering a new tumultuous era driven by “America First” policies. How could a nation like Nepal make sense of this rapidly evolving and disruptive situation? Is it the end of an era of cooperation among nations, a period that, notwithstanding its imperfections, offered some stability and predictability even among competing and rival nations? For once, at least apparently, Nepal seems to be on the safe side of this nascent chaos. 

Yes, even a possible closure of USAID won’t constitute a devastating blow for Nepal. After all, its geography has granted Nepal with what I call a “Double Safety Net”, often taunted as a double constraint but, in this unfolding time, a guarantee for stability and, if the quality of national governance would help, national prosperity. This “Double Safety Net” is called India and China. 

If Nepal keeps playing its cards well in balancing the interests of these two giant neighbors (and so far, it has done a pretty decent job at it), then the country will be in a relatively safe space. Yet, as we know, there have been endless talks and opinion essays on how the country should avoid dependency, especially from the angle of underwriting unsustainable infrastructure and economic projects.

It might be worthwhile for Kathmandu to see the current developments in the international arena as an opportunity to go beyond India and China and dare to play a much bigger role internationally. What the world sees as an era of increased geopolitical and economic frictions and much pronounced tensions among nations could become a golden era for Nepal’s enhanced cooperation with the wider world. 

Such a new approach could envision multiple initiatives that could be categorized in two distinct but interconnected folds. On one hand, Nepal could expand its diplomatic horizons by fostering stronger relationships with other developed and emerging nations around the world. On the other hand, instead, the country could set the benchmark for ambitious and innovative national policies that could make Nepal a harbinger and trailblazer for sustainable development and climate policies.

This essay will, to begin with, focus on the former, an outward foreign policy which could unleash Nepal to gain a new image of itself internationally. Let’s start from the neighborhood. Singhadurbar could play a much proactive role in reinforcing ties with its South Asian peers, especially countries like Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. With Dhaka, it is almost inconceivable that there has not been any major interactions with the new interim government under Muhammad Yunus, the de facto Prime Minister of Bangladesh. It might be that New Delhi, considering its closeness with the former regime led by Sheikh Hasina, is putting some obstacles.

Yet Kathmandu should really go unleashed in strengthening its relationships with Dhaka and other capitals, including Thimphu. It is granted that energy-focused diplomacy could help reinforce existing ties, especially with Bangladesh. Such effort at bilateral level should be complemented by a new approach to resuscitate the SAARC, a moribund organization. Kathmandu could inject some vitality in this important body no matter what PM Modi of India thinks of it.Unleashing Nepal’s foreign policy in the region means projecting self-confidence and assertiveness whenever national interests demand and regardless of what others say.

As much as a new, tangible emphasis on South Asia would be much welcomed, unleashing Nepal’s foreign policy would also signify a new focus on boosting vital diplomatic relationships already in force. Think of the European Union, Japan, South Korea and Australia, for example. The relationships between Nepal and these powers are already consolidated but they could reach a new height. This would be possible if Kathmandu manages to swap the existing perceptions and underlying narrative of its relationship with them from the angle of being a country in need of developing aid to a nation that can become a trade and economic partner. 

But Nepal could do much more and be even more ambitious in the international arena. 

Here the country could dare to reach out to other lower-middle income economies and middle powers in the wider Asia-Pacific region but also in Africa and South America. Let’s think, first of all, about Southeast Asia, an area whose regional architecture, the ASEAN, is way ahead than the SAARC, in terms of cooperation among its members. The ASEAN bloc will soon roll out a new strategy, the so-called Vision 2045. We should wonder if the officials at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Kathmandu are doing their homework to understand how Nepal could better harness its ties with the region once the new strategy is in place.

But Singhadurbar could even go beyond South East Asia at least in terms of mapping out potential synergies within the African and South American continents. There is a need to engage other peer nations in these vast areas with high potential of economic growth. It might be unimaginable to prospect the possibility of a Prime Minister of Nepal undertaking an international tour of East and Southern Africa nations or visiting the capitals of Argentina, Brazil and Peru and Chile. Yet an ambitious foreign policy, while prioritizing what is more doable and feasible in the short term, should not shy away from bolder steps.

In any given year, there are very few occasions to talk about volunteerism, about the “duty to serve”. These are topics that should be truly embedded in our lives and should be seen as one of the main focuses of our daily conversations.

Considering the staggering and mounting problems societies around the world are facing, it is not an exaggeration to imagine citizens to be driven by their own lives’ goals but also engaged in the pursuit of the common good.

As idyllic as it might sound, it should not be unthinkable to foster a sense of community belonging in which volunteering and serving others become a natural thing to do, a sort of duty that is not a burden but a personal relief that gives people joy and satisfaction.

Instead, there is a dearth of celebrations for a “holistic giving culture”, barring a few exceptions like the International Volunteer Day (Dec 5) and the Nelson Mandela International Day (July 18).

July 18 is another call for action to remember the contributions of Mandela, the father of modern, free and democratic South Africa often referred to as Madiba—his clan name.

There is another special occasion that is normally celebrated only in the USA on the third Monday of each January: Martin Luther King Day or MLK Day. Martin Luther King Jr was the quintessential icon of the civil rights movement, who fought against segregation and a racial system that basically was a form of apartheid. Both Madiba and Martin Luther King Jr picked tough battles against political systems at a very high personal cost.

These were against apparently insurmountable roadblocks, structures of power which, by design, were alienating and discriminating against large parts of populations living in their respective nations that, in both cases, happened to be people of color.

Madiba initially had chosen to take a violent path against the white supremacist regime of South Africa but years and years of detention made him understand that the only way forward was peace obtained through dialogue and reconciliation.

Martin Luther King Jr instead was crystal clear from the outset about the changes he and with him, many others, were envisioning for a different, more just and truly united America, could materialize only through nonviolent civil disobedience. Driven by his Christian faith, King Jr said, on 19 Aug 1967, in Atlanta, “power at its best is love implementing the demands of justice, and justice at its best is power correcting everything that stands against love.”

In one of his most important public addresses titled ‘Remaining Awake Through a Great Revolution’, delivered at Morehouse College Commencement, on 31 March 1968, King Jr shared: “It is no longer a choice, my friends, between violence and nonviolence. It is either nonviolence or nonexistence”.

“Nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral questions of our time; the need for mankind to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to oppression and violence. Mankind must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love,” he said during his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance address on 10 Dec 1964, in Oslo.

King Jr knew deeply that nonviolence and peaceful resistance were the only methods which could have resulted in a better, more human nation.

Violence would have brought only more blood and with it, an unending cycle of revenges and retribution. King Jr invested in building a real organized movement because creating a more equal society was not just his job. Rather, it was a collective effort of a myriad of citizens, including numerous white Americans, who stood for justice and against bigotism, racism and hatred.

King Jr and many others, who even laid their lives for the societal changes they were envisioning, had realized that those changes could only materialize with a dedication at building people’s skills, starting with principles and values-based leadership.

There are many definitions of leadership but to me what counts the most is that leadership starts with personal endeavors, with a personal commitment at trying to be better not just for self-improvement but also for the enhancement of the society.

One of the most famous quotes of King Jr that has been one of the central messages of MLK Day since its initial nationwide observance in 1986 was: Everybody can be great because everybody can serve.

To serve others, you need to be driven by unassailable and universal principles and values and by doing something for others, you will always end up learning something, enhancing your leadership capabilities.

“You don’t have to have a college degree to serve. You don’t have to make your subject and your verb agree to serve. You only need a heart full of grace, a soul generated by love,” is another nugget of wisdom from King Jr.

It is indeed paramount to think about embedding our society with a culture of service, a culture of helping each other.

The concept of “duty to serve” could be imagined as a call for action in which people are neither compelled nor obligated to help others but make a personal choice to dedicate some of their time, skills and energies to the society.

State agencies in Nepal and elsewhere should facilitate and make it possible for citizens from all walks of lives to be involved and be engaged in public lives, driven not by a spirit of self-interest but by altruistic aims. Volunteerism, unfortunately, is too often discounted and neglected. Nepal is also a striking example and itself a contradiction.

The country has high social capital but state agencies are not doing enough to capitalize on it. By the way, what happened to the draft National Volunteering Policy that was supposed to be endorsed years ago?

With or without such a policy, it is never late to talk about volunteerism and service and it is never a lost cause to talk about ways to promote them.

MLK Day is a federal holiday in the USA; it should be embraced universally.

And let’s not forget that we cannot avoid talking about key and inalienable rights when we talk about volunteerism.

Certainly, you can also volunteer in authoritarian regimes and many of these nations do promote volunteering and yet, theirs is just a very convenient and disingenuous approach.

Because what’s the point of genuinely serving others if you do not have freedoms and your rights are not respected?

That’s what King Jr fought for, let’s not forget it.

This piece is an exercise at connecting the dots and at making some assumptions of situations that have recently occurred that, though apparently unrelated, could be linked to the same thread. I am also, quite boldly, attempting to formulate some theories of Let’s start with the most banal, perhaps frivolous of all these facts. It is about the recent qualification game for the AFC Challenge League played by the Bhutanese side Paro FC against the Nepal’s Martyrs Memorial A-Division League champions Church Boys. 

Just a day before the game, the Japanese football star, now semi-retired, Keisuke Honda, playing for the Bhutanese’s side, lamented, ironically, about the miserable conditions of the football pitch assigned to his team for one of the pre-game training sessions. 

It so happened that, while the team reached the Bhadrakali football ground, workers were still mowing the grass. It is rumored that Honda, used to the highest standards of football after a strong career with some of the most renown European clubs, had said “Is this a joke?”, expecting that such preparatory work like cutting the grass would be done well in advance. 

A day later, I was with a group of youths I have been working with, all smart young students committed to doing good in the society. They are all nice and serious about their work and together we are working in a new dimension of human rights. One of them, mentioning the embarrassing moment, said, ironically, something like the following: “Another track record for Nepal!”. 

In the end, the pitiful conditions of the main pitch of the Dasharath stadium also brought humiliation for the whole country.

The following day we had scheduled an important meeting with a key stakeholder, something we had been trying to schedule for almost two months. It was decided by the group to meet one hour before the meeting to discuss and finalize a few points in the agenda to be discussed. I was running twenty minutes late and I tried my best to inform everyone. 

All the team arrived much later than me and the person who had made the comment on Honda’s amazement about the country’s preparedness to host an international game was the last to arrive and I had to wait outside the office for him even if our official meeting had already started. To me this was also a small embarrassment.
Tragic accidents take place all too often on the country’s roads. 

For example, it is a catastrophic occurrence that buses fall down ravines or, just over a month ago, two buses were hit by landslide on the Mugling-Narayangadh section of the highway during a night trip through a road that should have been precautionary closed. 

When these incidents happen, we hear the usual blames like lack of rules or non-compliance with existing regulations, be they in terms of allowing old vehicles on the road or the lack of common sense on the part of those who drive recklessly. But I am wondering if instead, on the top of an utter disregard for these fundamental laws of the road, the problem is wider and much more systemic than what we might think. The assumption I am daring to make in this column is that many of the challenges affecting the country are due to factors related to the sphere of personal behavior.

Yes, while there is often a lack of appreciation for regulations and laws, such disregard is more a symptom rather than the cause of all these problems.

As we know, putting all these situations together does not only affect the image of the country but also hits the confidence that the people have in their own country. Even we could say that the whole performance as a society is negatively affected. 

What I am talking about instead is that at the bottom, there is a combination of factors that do affect people’s performances and as consequence have a serious impact at societal level. It is not just about small embarrassments per se like the one related to a football pitch’s conditions, these are things that could be easily shrugged off. But, starting from small things, literally speaking minutiae to much more serious affairs, gigantic impacts at system level might come as a result. 

My theory is this: The lack of attention to details combined with a tendency to downplay our own responsibilities while blaming others can bring appalling effects. If you think about road accidents, it is almost a miracle that the country’s roads do not see more lethal accidents. 

On a recent journey to Jorpati, I saw the nonchalant attitude at not observing the undivided line that separates the two senses of direction. To be clear, I am also not immune to some responsibilities as I often ignore some of the most basic traffic rules while I drive like a crazy bicyclist. 

In short, small matters do matter a lot and, taken together, we get the country about which so many people complain about. This is also related to the general (mine included) attitudes related to punctuality. Most of the people, obviously not all, do not bother much about arriving on time. In a scenario where everybody has the same approach, well, there is no big impact as a meeting simply will start later but what if the same tardiness is also applied for other, much more important issues or tasks? 

It is also about personal accountability because people might tend not to care as much as they should in situations where their actions can make a difference, even a small one, if implemented. And to me personal accountability is a big deal because without it, we will hardly have the tons of personal leadership that an ambitious but still developing nation requires to advance and progress. There is a clear link between the two and the former is a sort of precondition to the latter without which nothing can happen. It might be that one of the problems is that leadership in a cultural setting like the one existing in the whole of South Asia and perhaps beyond is always understood in terms of authority. 

This is a misconception because equating leadership to power and personal authority is one of the best ways of disempowering and disenfranchising people from assuming their responsibilities. The end results can vary: it can bring to being late in a meeting or being late at mowing a pitch. But it could also bring to delaying till last minute important tasks and, by the way, it can also lead to a lack of competitive performances at the highest levels of the sports.

Such an approach, tragically, could also lead to preventable deaths on the road. That’s why it is important to work at a behavioral level when we try to fix the most common problems, either the small or big ones. Without such effort, even the stringiest regulations might fail to have an impact and we all know the consequences. 

Finally, do not forget that details matter a lot!

Views are personal

Over the last three weeks, I have been trying to follow as closely as possible the dramatic situation unfolding in Bangladesh.

As I write this, Sheikh Hasina is no more the Prime Minister of the South Asian country.

The violent protests were triggered by the decision of a High Court in Bangladesh to reinstate extremely generous public jobs quota for the descendants of the martyrs and veterans, who had fought the independence war against Pakistan.

Disenfranchised students, alienated from a system that is corrupted and rife with governance malpractices, protested to assert their rights at getting the jobs available.

Initially peaceful, the protests soon turned into a violent and bloody mayhem with the state machine showing total brutality.

Indeed, the state’s reaction was harsh, vicious, ruthless and cruel.

Law enforcement agents and members of the students’ wing of the Awami League, the thuggish BCL, showed no mercy, no containment.

As a consequence, extreme violence was unleashed. And then, finally, the regime fell.

Abu Sayed, an unarmed student standing with his arms stretched in defiance, was savagely shot dead.

Student leaders were taken away from their homes in the middle of the night and even those recovering in hospitals were forcibly removed from their beds despite the pleas from doctors and family members.

The result was hundreds of students killed and thousands jailed. The picture is complex due to the fact that Bangladesh could be defined as a semi-authoritarian regime governed by the same person, Prime Minister Hasina and her party, the Awami League, for 15 years.

Indeed, there have not been competitive elections since 2011 and the Awami League has become an overtly dominant party.

Geoffrey Macdonald, a Senior Advisor for the International Republican Institute and a Visiting Scholar with the US Peace Institute wrote, just a few months ago, an analysis on the current political situation in Bangladesh.

It was fittingly entitled “A Perilous Moment for Bangladesh’s Democracy” as the author describes the features of a polity that de facto could soon increasingly become close to resembling a single party system.

The opposition parties, especially the Bangladesh National Party and the Islamist Jaamat, have been at the receiving end of the government’s crackdowns over the last decade, and are now unable to operate freely, allegedly joined in the protests.

For the government, they were the main culprits, the cause for the violence that ushered in.

According to an official narrative that the former ruling party was spinning, they were even plotting to take over the official residence of PM Hasina.

In the end, the mass movement driven by students but filled by common people did the job.

Law enforcement officers also paid a high price as some of them even got killed and wounded.

The situation has been even more chaotic and difficult to understand with the government officially banning the internet for over 150 hours.

While it is hard to put all the pieces together, what is certain is that too many students paid with their lives and this should have never happened.

The internet ban is something I experienced firsthand. Over the last two weeks, I tried to access local news outlets from Bangladesh multiple times, to no avail. 

Then I contacted a promising academician from Dhaka, someone I had met in the course of an international conference. A brilliant scholar, he refused to comment on the developments, even anonymously.

He felt ashamed about what was unfolding in his country but it was too sensitive, too risky to comment.

His refusal was an indicator that it is indeed a dangerous time for democracy and liberties in the country.

At the end, last week, I got in touch with Jahed Salim, a senior reporter with Massranga Television, who was willing to share his views.

During our interaction, the situation was getting much better and no one was forecasting the fall of the Awami League.

“After the imposition of curfew, normalcy seems to be returning to the whole country, including the capital Dhaka. With the easing of curfew, offices, courts and business establishments have reopened. Till now we have not received any reports of disturbances in the whole country” he shared via email.

I asked Jahed if there would be some sort of accountability and justice for what happened.

“A judicial inquiry has been arranged into the early riots, especially the killings by the police on July 17. In this case, I think action will be taken according to the inquiry report. But the violence also took place with the brutal killing of members of law enforcement agencies. I feel that the government is very strict on this matter”.

Indeed, despite the limited freedom of expressions, newspapers like the Daily Star have been unequivocally adamant at demanding accountability.

Hasina, after further escalating the tensions by calling the students “traitors”, had exercised restraint, with a promise to deliver justice. She also paid a visit to some of the youths wounded in the violence.

It was all too late.

Yet, apparently many in Bangladesh harbor doubts on bringing to justice those who disproportionately used force, especially against unarmed students.

“The issue of BCL, the former ruling party youth organization, will probably be seen “politically”. I don't think anyone will be brought to justice,” Jahed had explained me.

The latest developments indicate that there will be accountability and the members of the BLC will pay a heavy price, but hopefully their punishment will follow the rule of law rather than the chaos and hatred of revenge.

The involvement of opposition parties in the protests is now almost an indisputable fact. They saw an opportunity and exploited it by causing destruction.

“Although it is called a students’ movement, the main opposition parties got involved. This has been observed in the past few movements. Since they cannot go on the streets due to the sternness of the government, they infiltrate various movements and try to achieve their interests,” Jahed explained.

“There was a real possibility that external forces comprising members of some of the opposition parties would carry out such brutality if given the opportunity. Because they have been conducting activities underground for a long time. However, the students’ movement had no idea that it would become like this. It is very painful.”

I asked him if there was any possibility that the protest focused on employment quotas, would turn into something with a far more broadened and radical agenda, the overthrow of the ruling party.

He had rejected that possibility but what happened is the opposite.

People in Bangladesh have started expressing a strong antipathy and dissatisfaction against PM Hasina and her party.

Those who dared to oppose the government in the past were at risk of facing serious consequences.

Let’s not forget that in January Nobel Laureate and Grameen Bank founder Professor Muhammad Yunus was convicted to a six-month jail term due to some bogus charges of money-laundering, tax evasion and corruption in some.

Now Prof Yunus is going to play a key role in the interim government.

In this case, my interlocutor proved wrong but many were thinking the same. Over the weekend, there was a turning point with people expressly demanding the PM’s resignation, something that was not seen as a possibility just a few days ago.

“It seems that the students will not go for any attempts at pulling down Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina from power. However, those who are on the opposition that are trying to use the opportunity. They have already called on everyone to unite in a one-sided demand for the downfall of the government”.

Yet what happened in Bangladesh showed how protests can quickly turn into something much bigger.

In the case of Bangladesh, a peaceful mass movement by students turned into a bloody crackdown by the authorities and then it turned into a real revolution.

If, after the initial violence, there was a different reaction, a real remorse, the Awami League could have introspected and saved itself

In the last days before her fall, Sheikh Hasina tried to make amends with the students, inviting them to the palace but the lid was already open, years of ruthless governing could not be undone with a belated request of dialogue.

What is happening in Bangladesh is extremely concerning.

What unfolded in Bangladesh has been brutal and traumatic, a black chapter for the whole of South Asia.

This is unfortunate because democracy is way too important, not only for the young citizens of Bangladesh but also for all the citizens of South Asia.

Nepalis should take note of what is happening not that far from home.

They should re-assert their commitment to upholding one of their most precious, though sometimes often undervalued assets: Democracy and rule of law based on justice and fairness.

Now a new chapter is opening for Bangladesh and hopefully the high-stake confrontations among parties, nepotism and violence of the past will be undone and democracy now will have a real chance to flourish.

Views are personal

What a gulf exists between the Federal Government’s aims to promote Nepal as an international hub for information technology and the existing state of play of regulating Artificial Intelligence in the country. Regardless of official declarations, policies and budget speeches focused on harnessing the IT sector, the country’s quest to, first, make sense, then regulate and finally leverage the unfolding AI revolution is still in its infancy.

Amid this scenario, the very first official policy document on AI, technically a concept paper coming from the Federal Government, might offer the much-needed blueprint upon which new policies and legislations can be drafted. If Nepal really wants to attract investors in the field of IT, then it needs to really get it right the way it is going to regulate artificial intelligence. The fact that the country is already a late comer in understanding how to regulate the former could be seen as an advantage if the government acts swiftly.

It needs to leap, jumping with decisiveness by quickly taking advantage of and internalizing the learning and experiences from those trailblazing nations that, in the last few years, have been breaking ground in terms of AI regulations. To do so, it is equally indispensable to work in partnership with experts from the civil society and the international community.

To review the latest developments and take stock of what is happening in this complex but fascinating area of policy making, I got in touch with two persons involved in the discussions around AI, Santosh Sigdel and Aakriti Kharel, executive director at Digital Rights Nepal and digital media specialist at UNESCO Nepal Office, respectively.

“The adoption of the Concept Paper on the Application and Practice of Artificial Intelligence by the government of Nepal is a welcome development. Key aspects of this paper include the prioritization of developing AI laws and policies, such as the AI Policy Framework, National AI Strategy, Data Protection Framework, AI Governance Structure, AI standardization, and the promotion of AI literacy” shares Sigdel to me via e-mail.

Indeed, a very comprehensive framework is what is required. Let’s not forget that AI could offer humanity some of the best ways to leverage progress for the common good but, we know very well, that the opposite is also very realistically possible. Unchecked and unregulated, AI can become a devastatingly effective tool against humanity.

Sigdel is crystal clear on the downsides of the AI revolution and we should not live under the illusion that a still developing nation like Nepal will be immune from them. “As AI technologies become more integrated into daily life, it is crucial for citizens to understand these technologies to benefit from their advantages and mitigate potential risks. AI intersects with human rights in significant ways, impacting not only digital rights but also other fundamental rights. AI systems can collect and analyze vast amounts of personal data, raising privacy concerns,” he shared.

Think about discrimination and inequalities, two elements that are still very much embedded in society. “AI has the potential to either mitigate or exacerbate existing inequalities and biases. If not carefully designed and implemented, AI systems can perpetuate and even amplify biases present in training data, leading to discriminatory outcomes in critical areas such as law enforcement and access to public services,” Sigdel adds.

The risks are so high that the United Nations has been at the forefront, pressing for a global discussion around the ethics of AI. The Secretary-General of the UN, Antonio Guterres, even established an AI Advisory Board in October last year and the upcoming Summit of the Future in September, probably Guterres’ most ambitious undertaking since taking the helm of the UN since 2017, will try to hammer out an agreement on a Global Digital Compact that also will include aspects related to AI governance.

Within the UN system, UNESCO has been at the forefront of the conversation. “Nepal recognizes the significant impact of AI and is actively working on its ethical development” Kharel shares with me. “The UNESCO Recommendation on AI Ethics, adopted globally in 2021, serves as a vital guide for Nepal. This framework emphasizes human rights, transparency, fairness and human oversight in AI systems—values that align with Nepal’s focus on data privacy and ethical practices” she adds.

Positively, the Concept Note that was recently launched in a major event in Kathmandu is detailed enough to potentially pave the way for the Federal Government and the Parliament to take real and tangible actions.

According to the note, Nepal might have its own specialized AI agency. “The consideration of establishing a dedicated and specialized nodal agency to promote the use, application, regulation and governance of AI, as well as the encouragement of self-regulation, is positive,” Sigdel explains in his response. Will such a recommendation be acted upon?

We also need to ensure that any future policy making process related to AI is open and inclusive approach. These are two essential features for AI’s development. Sigdel strongly supports this view. “The process of AI policy-making should be open, transparent, consultative and participatory. The government should ensure the participation of all major stakeholders, including civil society, in the AI policy-making process.” “Civil society organizations should also be vigilant of the policy-making processes to ensure that diverse perspectives, including those of marginalized and vulnerable groups, are considered. This helps in addressing potential biases and ensuring inclusive AI practices,” he explains.

Kharel also guided me through what UNESCO has been doing to help the complex policy making cycle as much open as possible. “In Nov 2023, UNESCO and the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology (MoCIT) together with the Kathmandu University and Digital Rights Nepal organized the Multistakeholder Dialogue on AI Governance.” “The event brought together government officials, civil society, academia, and tech leaders to discuss AI policy. While Nepal’s specific AI regulations are still in progress, discussions highlight an application-based approach that prioritizes data privacy, responsible development and protection for vulnerable populations,” she adds.

While there is an urgency for Nepal to follow through the policy-related recommendations of the Concept Note, we cannot ignore the basics, among other concerns: Digital and media literacy.

“One key recommendation on AI Ethics is for member-states to invest in and promote digital and media literacy to strengthen critical thinking and understanding of AI systems, thereby countering misinformation and hate speech. UNESCO recognizes the risk of AI spreading misinformation, especially in Nepal,” the UNESCO expert tells me.

So, at the end of the day, it should not only be about regulations of the AI sector in order to generate incomes for the country. No doubt that a strong policy framework based on the best policies available, starting from the EU AI Act and then adjusted to local context, is going to be instrumental to truly make Nepal an IT hub. But the implications of AI’s use and spread are much broader and certainly cross-cutting along the whole spectrum of policy-making.  

“UNESCO has been at the forefront conducting awareness-raising dialogues on information integrity, engaging with youth and civil society on media and information literacy, enhancing capacity of female journalists on digital safety, collaborated with local governments to integrate media literacy in school curricula, trained judges on international standards of human rights and freedom of expression in AI contexts”. The private sector has a self-interest in helping Nepal come up with a strong AI policy framework with clear guardrails. 

Kharel explained that UNESCO also encourages tech companies to adopt ethical AI guidelines to prevent hate speech and misinformation.

Can Nepal win the AI challenge? The stakes are very high. This is something that a resolute and determined Prime Minister like KP Oli can tackle head-on if he wants. Yet Oli also needs to thread through it carefully. The broader society must be engaged and involved. Oli would be dead wrong if he acted too fast and too furious.

Amid a myriad of problems, will AI become one of the PM’s priorities? Will he bother to listen to relevant experts? Will he embrace a fast-paced yet balanced approach to regulate and harness its positive potential for the development of Nepal, while minimizing the risks associated with it?

There is almost no day without some alarmistic and potentially catastrophic news about the impact of climate change and biodiversity loss.

The latest was the discovery of a new tipping point for ice sheets in Antarctica, meaning that there is very substantial evidence that future sea level rise can be much higher than what scientists are anticipating so far.

As we know, Nepal is also one of the epicenters of climate vulnerabilities.

The risks of huge and devastating disasters and other calamities related to climate warming are becoming a real possibility with unimaginable consequences.

Just a few days of incessant rains around the country have already caused the loss of 13 lives and we are only at the beginning of the monsoon.

The state, at its all levels, federal, provincial and local, must lead but we know that alone, these public entities entrusted by the people with governing and vital decision-making powers, are unable to do whatever it takes to tackle climate change head on.

I strongly believe that it is paramount to create new and innovative pathways of citizens’ participation to discuss bold measures to avoid the unthinkable. Youths should be leading this effort and we need to create spaces for debating and discussion.

Recently, on the occasion of World Environment Day (June 5), a big gathering was held to discuss recycling and climate action.

Organized by a consortium of private and public entities, including the Confederation of Nepalese Industries (CNI), National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), the Waste Management and Climate Change conference brought together more than 700 people.

Mansingh Aidee, a public health professional, president of Gopka Youth Club and a member of the 2023 cohort of the US Embassy Youth Council, had the opportunity to attend.

I met him as part of involvement with The Good Leadership, a new initiative that tries to enable students and young professionals to excel in some key policy making.

Mansingh is part of The Good Leadership’s Community of Practitioners on Climate Action, a platform that has been turned by him and his team mates into the “Planet Pulse Campaign” whose focus is on promoting and creating momentum on One Health, SDGs and Climate Science.

I asked him to elaborate on the conference and according to Mansingh, the event was a rich experience, full of insights.

He generously shared for this column some of the key quotes from the participants.

Some of them are stark warnings while some others are calls for action. All shared a common understanding that we are really dealing with complex challenges.

For example, Minister for Forest and Environment, Nawal Kishor Sah Sudi, shared: "I encourage mayors of all metropolises and municipalities to come together to find a common solution for waste management. It’s time we all ‘walked the talk'."

National Assembly Chairperson Narayan Dahal focused instead on the essentiality of multi-stakeholders’ partnerships.

“It is inadequate for a district, a province or a country alone to prevent climate change, so the whole community must make a joint commitment. Nepal must adopt environment-friendly development processes. This is the responsibility of the government as well as all concerned stakeholders”.

Member of Parliament Uday Rana came up with a stark statement instead: “By 2050, our GDP will lose 2.2 percent annually if we are not careful about climate change”.

Chiribabu Maharjan, Mayor, Lalitpur Metropolitan City, highlighted issues related to bureaucratic red tapes and lack of collaboration.

“We wanted to start our own alternate landfill in a no-man’s land to manage Lalitpur’s waste instead of sending waste to Banchere Dada and had allocated funds to do so. But the Civil Aviation Authority of Nepal stopped us from doing so. Also, the mayors of Kathmandu Valley have not reached a consensus on an integrated waste management solution. Now the ball is in the Prime Minister’s court as the mayors have briefed him about the problem”, he said.

These quotes do offer a view of the challenges facing Nepal’s elected officials, real conundrums, really hard situations to deal with but then how to turn words into deeds?

Moreover, hearing the challenges from the politicians is not enough. What do young professionals like Mansingh think?

What is his own view about what should be done, according to him, to change the status quo?

“Fixing local governments and the way they operate is paramount,” he shared with me, adding: “As a young public health professional and a climate change advocate, I am hopeful about the role of local governments in combating climate change and preserving biodiversity. Local governments are positioned and have full authority to implement tailored solutions that directly address the environmental needs of their communities independently. By leveraging local knowledge and resources, they can create impactful, sustainable initiatives at their levels”.

However, he himself recognizes how hard it is to get things done in the public sector.

“The challenge lies in implementing existing policies effectively,” he explains.

Then Mansingh elaborated a multifaceted approach. These are generic principles but they are at the foundations of effective multi partnership solutions

Strong leadership: “Local leaders must prioritize climate action and biodiversity preservation, integrating them into their core agenda. This involves setting strategic and achievable targets, allocating adequate resources, and ensuring transparency and accountability,” Mansingh highlighted.

Youth at the forefront: “Engaging the community and youth is crucial. Public participation in policy-making processes ensures that initiatives are relevant and supported. Education campaigns can raise awareness on the benefits of climate action and biodiversity conservation, fostering a culture of environmental stewardship,” he further explained to me.

Collaboration and People, Public, and Private Partnerships: “Finally”, he added, “we need collaboration between government, private sectors, non-profits and academic institutions that can drive innovation and resource-sharing. Such partnerships can lead to the development of effective strategies and the pooling of resources needed for large-scale projects”.

Mansingh really believes that youths can play a huge role in holding governments of different levels accountable. Here is his blueprint for action that builds on the above principles.

1)      Education and awareness: Capacity enhancement sessions to youths about climate policies and their importance so that they can lead awareness campaigns and inclusion in educational curricula and amplify the advocacy to empower young people to become informed advocates.

2)      Grassroots movements: Youth-led organizations and movements can mobilize communities and create pressure for political action. Social media and digital platforms are powerful tools for organizing and amplifying voices.

3)      Partnerships with NGOs/CSOs and other partners: Collaborating with established environmental and public health NGOs can provide youths with resources, mentorship and a platform to influence policy.

“By fostering an engaged, informed and active youth population, we hope to have a resilient movement that holds all levels of government accountable and drives meaningful climate action and biodiversity preservation” was Mansingh’s last key message in our conversation.

Indeed, finding innovative and meaningful (rather than tokenistic) opportunities to engage youths on a consistent basis should be an imperative for policy makers.

Actually, engagement should just be the beginning of a new spectrum of policy making that is centered on youths.

The final end of this framework must elevate young citizens of the country in a position to take real decisions. In short, this means that youths should have some power.

And the focus should be on all youths, also those from vulnerable backgrounds and this is a huge challenge itself that we need to solve.

And by the way, we do not need to wait for the next World Environment Day to bring stakeholders together. As important as the Waste Management and Climate Change conference was, more value for money, effective ways can be found to bring people together.

Can an academician from South America, who just retired this month after 30 years of teaching at Yale, be useful in proposing an alternative view of federalism in Nepal? 

Walter Mignolo, for 30 years a professor at Yale, is one of the most foremost theorists on decoloniality, a concept much broader than decolonization. At its foundations, decoloniality is about getting rid of the structure of powers that are still shaped and controlled by the same hegemonic forces that were the drivers of colonization. 

As we know, over the last few years, there has been a lot of noise about amending the constitution that Nepal adapted in 2015. The regressive forces are asking for a return of a centralized state under the emblem of the monarchy and return of Hinduism as the official state religion. 

The forces obstructing the enforcement of federalism are driven by an attitude or mindset that rows against devolution of powers to local levels. Pushing back, there are those who have, essentially, embraced federalism but want to twist it, making it more effective. 

There are also forces like the Rastriya Swatantra Party that want to dramatically reshape the federal structure by curtailing the power of provinces. The most common-sense position is one centered on implementing the current provisions as they stand. Amid this complex and sensitive debate, we often forget to hear the voices of indigenous nationalities of the country. It is here that Mignolo’s ideas come to the fore. 

I asked RK Tamang, an indigenous rights activist and a strong follower of Mignolo’s ideas, how the concept of “decoloniality” can be turned around in the context of Nepal. His answer: “Making Nepal a plurinational state”.

“This constitution failed to address the aspirations of indigenous nationalities, which have been fighting for a plurinational state for long”, he explained to me. Indigenous people represent the largest part of the population and because of the unequal power relations that still prevail in the country, most of their voices and concerns remain disregarded. A large, though not the whole section of indigenous people of Nepal, consider themselves as members of different indigenous nationalities.

The National Foundation for Development of Indigenous Nationalities (NFDIN) Act defines “indigenous nationalities (Adivasi Janajati) as distinct communities having their own mother tongues, traditional cultures, written and unwritten histories, traditional homeland and geographical areas, plus egalitarian social structures. One of the major confusions about empowering indigenous nationalities is related to the often-misunderstood concept of ethnic federalism that is perceived as a dangerous tool that could disintegrate the nation.

Yet at the core of the aspirations of indigenous nationalities is the concept of a plurinational state. There is still a lot of theoretical and conceptual work that must be addressed and there are still several open questions on how indigenous nationalities can be shaped up and organized and guaranteed their statehood. According to Tamang, indigenous nationalities have been facing internal colonization for centuries and are stateless nations and despite the abrogation of monarchy and the creation of a more inclusive federal polity, the structure of power has not changed. “The state-bearing nations promulgated the new constitution in 2015, surpassing the stateless indigenous nations, which legitimized the coloniality in the federal democratic republic of Nepal”, he told me in an interview.  

First his perspective, those indigenous activists calling for a recognition of their nationalities do so within the framework of a present Nepal. None of them is calling for a breakup of Nepal as a state. It means that the concept of indigenous nationalities, while recognizing their traditions and practices belonging to different ethnic groups, is not exclusive in nature but inclusive, rather. “All groups, including those who have been historically on the top of Hindu hierarchy, have an equal role to play” Tamang explains to me. In short, no one is excluded.

All citizens are equal, so even citizens not belonging to indigenous natalities, like Chettri, Madhesis and Brahmin will have full rights like anyone else. This is a major key point: No one is calling for a dissolution of Nepal as a state but rather there is a call for restructuring the present Hindu hierarchy into social engineering based on national sovereignty. “Within a plurinational state, nations will exercise their power according to a new constitution based on the concept of shared sovereignty,” he added. Importantly and essentially, both in theory and practice. 

The plurinational state will guarantee two aspects of stateless nations: First self-governance and second self-determination of their future. Let’s not forget that self-determination is already a key cornerstone of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People of which Nepal is a signatory. Importantly, we cannot simplify and generalize self-determination with independence. State-bearing nations have to revendate the state in order to end colonialism, given Mignolo’s maxim that coloniality is “not over but it’s all over”. 

Plurinational democracy will revendate the democracy to the stateless nations, and based on it, the plurinational state will revendicate the state as the decolonial state. “If the Nepali state-bearing nation fails to satisfy both past grievances of the Indigenous nationalities and future aspirations for greater self-determination, the political flux will prolong, and Nepal will fail to develop in the 21st century as well” Tamang believes. In short, Tamang proposes for Nepal to allow political autonomy that reflects the historical and cultural presence of the main ethnic groups living in the area. There is still a lot to discuss about what this means in practice. One of the key points being proposed is the fact that traditional rules and forms of governance belonging to Indigenous nationalities should be, somehow, in place. 

Again, it is important to clarify that such embracement of Indigenous governance system does not create a new hierarchy of power where those belonging to indigenous groups or as Tamang prefers to refer to them as nations, have equal powers and privileges as the state-bearing nations have today. Another theoretical framework at the base of the concept of plurinational is provided by Professor Michael Keating who wrote a magistral book in 2000 titled “Plurinational Democracy: Stateless Nations in a post-sovereignty era”.

At the core of its work, there is the idea that there is no just one concept of sovereignty that is self-perpetuating and imposed upon the people. “I have used the term ‘post-sovereignty’ not to indicate a world without any principles of authority and legitimacy, but to indicate that sovereignty in its traditional sense, in which it is identified exclusively with the independent state, is no more. Rather there are multiple sites of ‘sovereign’, in the sense of original authority”, Prof Keating writes. 

One major caveat is that the book mostly refers to western settings, specifically efforts to transform central states into plurinational entities. The focus is, for example, on Canada, Belgium, Spain and Italy. So, transferring the ideas of plurinational states in a diverse country like Nepal is another level of challenge, especially where ethnic and cultural groups are vastly intermingled. 

Imagine an area where indigenous populations have a clear and undeniable historic presence. There, some customary laws could be adopted if they are aligned with key foundational values and principles of human rights. 

Some indigenous forms of governance could also be implemented as long as they are respectful of the rights of those not belonging to the indigenous group, who is, numerically speaking, more predominant. Such a system could hardly do away with the existing model of liberal democracy based on political parties even though deliberative democracy could offer an answer to accommodating different groups and perspectives. The same deliberative democracy model could be used in urban settings where it is almost impossible to even conceptualize the indigenous nationality model. Yet, for example, in the case of the Kathmandu Valley, where Newari culture has been for centuries the only one on the ground, some accommodations of traditional and customary laws could be imagined.

I have severe doubts and reservations on the modality of reshaping Nepal based on indigenous nationalities. Yet it is important to understand a point of view that has been neglected for so long. Ultimately, listening to the concerns and demands of indigenous activists willing to reshape the governance of Nepal without dismantling it is a worthy thing. The journey toward creating a functional model of local governance co-existing with modern legislations that also include human rights is not going to be easy. 

All in all, I believe that it is essential to make an effort and try to answer the following question: Can Nepal imagine re-building its core structure from an indigenous perspective?

A research recently published by Christopher K Colley for the Stimson Center, an American think tank, nudged me to contemplate doing something I have never done before: Write a piece on foreign policy centered on Nepal from the perspective of Beijing. 

The paper, The Emerging Great Game Chinese, Indian and American Engagement in South Asia, is interesting, though not much in terms of its quite narrow and limited recommendations on how the USA can better counter the existing regional dynamics over the region. 

Instead, it is of great value for its fairly balanced analysis of what China, India and the USA have been doing (or not doing) in order to assert their positions in Kathmandu and Dhaka. 

Colley, an assistant professor of International Security Studies at the United States Air War College, highlights how ably China has been capable of outpowering its two big rivals in Nepal.

At the same time, the author, quite correctly, underscores that it has not been entirely all smooth sailing for Beijing. 

China has been overtly perceived to favor the leftist parties, which recently formed a new coalition, a tactic that can often backfire.

Indeed, the political instability in Kathmandu and the overall volatility of national politics is at least partially induced by the same game that Beijing learned so ably from other foreign powers jockeying for influence in Nepal. 

And it is a sort of chain reaction: As China steps up its game, more push backs and initiatives are put in place by its rivals to offset its increasingly more vocal foreign policy in Nepal. 

But connectivity and infrastructure are the elements that have been so central to Beijing’s approach to both Nepal and Bangladesh (and by extension to the entire world) and that have been distinguishing it from other big players. 

We need to give credit to Beijing that the Belt and Road Initiative is certainly very ambitious, perhaps even too much. 

Symbolically speaking, the BRI has been extremely important because it offered a clear vision of a future based on connectivity and with it comes a very clear and eye-catching narrative. 

No matter the confusion attached to the BRI, what really counts is that the Chinese were able to portray it as a game-changer initiative that is still unmatched by other geopolitical rivals. 

At the same time, though, concrete results and benefits on this front, as Colley explains, are mostly still to be seen on the ground in both nations. 

In this regard, it is still remarkable that Kathmandu and Beijing have not signed the implementation framework of the BRI as yet.  

India has been trying with its Look East Policy but, beyond the fact that it has never been focused on Nepal, the initiative is more like a strategy rather than a concrete, tangible initiative like the BRI.

The EU Global Gateway Initiative not only was designed very lately and it is still in its infancy, it’s still very far from being relevant and certainly did not make a mark in Nepal 

The USA does not have any infrastructure programs in the region. Unless we consider the highly complex and possibly impractical India-Middle East-Europe-Economic Corridor (IMEC) signed last year during the India G20, it is a joint venture with the European Union and seven other countries. 

Considering the unrivaled level of connectivity projects China aims to build in Nepal, Beijing should do a much better job in terms of outreach. 

Students, civil society and think tanks in Nepal should be engaged to better explain not only the BRI but also the more recently launched Global Civilization Initiative that still remains a mystery for many observers. 

This public outreach will probably be met with similar attempts by the USA and India while I am not entirely confident that the EU can be up to playing this game. 

China could also get out of its comfort zone and explain its human rights approach.

It knows, in advance, that the primacy of economic rights, a cornerstone of China’s official policies, can be relatively well received here but with some caveats. 

On the one hand, the Chinese model of top-down governance centered on effectiveness of policies and quick delivery of results can easily find admirers in Nepal, a country plagued by ineffective governance. 

On the other hand, in a nation that fought tooth and tooth for its freedoms in its decades-long quest for democracy, not once but multiple times, the same argument of the primacy of economic rights over political and civil liberties won’t go very far nor persuade the majority. 

Even a much more proactive PR and public engagement with the citizenry of the country won’t be enough. 

Such activities should also be matched by what really matters: A change in substance in China’s overall approach to Nepal and by extension, in the way it traditionally deals with developing nations around the world. 

It is now crystal clear that the Nepali side has been quite skillful at pushing back in terms of terms and conditions that Beijing has been offering for the BRI projects.

A country like Nepal, often portrayed as a weak nation, has been doing a masterful job at asserting its own strategic interest in its relationships with China.

So, if China really wants a breakthrough with Kathmandu, it has to show a much higher level of flexibility on how the BRI can be rolled out. 

It needs to accept the key terms, quite reasonable if you think about it, that Nepal is demanding: Grants and very nominal interest rates on the loans that it needs to take. 

Beijing should be much more effective and persuasive at explaining how it can really be transformative for Nepal to have a direct railways connection with its southern borders.  

Considering the staggering sums involved and the sheer complexity of the undertaking, it is obvious that Kathmandu does not want to incur huge debts.

Could Nepal offer China a new template on how to deal with the world, a much less rigid one and more attuned to the needs of the recipient nations? 

The Dragon Boat race on the occasion of the Chinese New Year was a big boost for the image of China in the country.

Yet it is not nearly enough to dispel some of the concerns that many harbor toward Beijing. 

It would not be surprising if an increasing number of people in Nepal start showing some annoyance toward China using the same heavy-handed approach that New Delhi has been, for so long, accused of. 

For sure, Nepal does not need neither big brothers nor big sisters. 

It needs reliable partners that, while overtly and covertly pursuing their strategic interests, also allow Nepal to play the same game by maximizing its own national priorities.

This means to be okay with the fact that Kathmandu might also and, very respectfully, say “no” to them as they do not align with its core interests . 

Accepting this new reality means that Nepal is growing and moving steadfastly toward becoming a developed nation, a country that is not afraid of exerting its own sovereign interests. 

It will also imply that its core partners have been effective at fulfilling what should be their primary mission in Nepal: Helping the nation to stand more confidently and more ambitiously on its own feet. 

The author writes about politics, human rights and development in Nepal and the Asia-Pacific