Submit your Article

Five years after the deadly clashes in the Galwan Valley that severely strained ties, India and China now appear to be moving toward normalization of relations.

While the US President Donald Trump’s tariff war may have nudged the two Asian powers closer, the current thaw stems largely from sustained confidence-building measures and dialogue. For Kathmandu, cordial relations between India and China create a more favorable environment to engage constructively with both New Delhi and Beijing.

On both the Doklam and the Galwan clashes, Nepal consistently maintained that disputes should be resolved peacefully. Following the Galwan incident, Nepal stated: “In the context of recent developments in the Galwan Valley area between our friendly neighbors India and China, Nepal is confident that both the neighboring countries will resolve, in the spirit of good neighborliness, their mutual differences through peaceful means in favor of bilateral, regional and world peace and stability.”

Over the past year, multiple rounds of dialogue helped rebuild trust. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi visited India on Aug 18–19, where discussions included the sensitive border question. Earlier, in July, Indian External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar traveled to Beijing.

India has long maintained that relations cannot return to normal unless border issues are addressed. In delegation-level talks, Jaishankar remarked: “Having seen a difficult period in our relationship, our two nations seek to move ahead. This requires a candid and constructive approach from both sides. Overall, it is our expectation that our discussions would contribute to building a stable, cooperative and forward-looking relationship between India and China, one that serves both our interests and addresses our concerns.”

On the global context, he added: “We seek a fair, balanced and multi-polar world order, including a multi-polar Asia. Reformed multilateralism is also the call of the day. In the current environment, there is clearly the imperative of maintaining and enhancing stability in the global economy as well.”

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, for his part, urged both sides to draw lessons from the past, cultivate a correct strategic outlook, and view each other as partners and opportunities rather than rivals or threats. He emphasized confidence-building, expanded cooperation and consolidating positive momentum. Pointing to the US, Wang warned that “unilateral bullying practices are on the rise, while free trade and the international order face severe challenges.”

This thaw in India-China ties comes at a time when New Delhi’s relations with Washington have soured after Trump imposed an additional 25 percent tariff on Indian goods, citing India’s continued imports of Russian oil. Meanwhile, China and the US have been locked in a trade and technology war since 2018.

According to Kathmandu-based geopolitical analyst Chandra Dev Bhatta, shifting global geopolitics has compelled both India and China to temporarily set aside differences. “Both countries now recognize each other as competing powers, not necessarily the binary rivals often portrayed in Western media,” he said. “The backdrop to these developments is important for countries like Nepal. For instance, the Trump administration’s tariff measures against India for its Russian oil imports came despite the fact that most major countries were doing the same, something that actually helped stabilize the global oil market, benefiting even Nepal.”

Bhatta added that India and China have long learned from each other, and countries in between stand to benefit if ties continue to improve. Closer relations could generate alternative ideas for development and global governance.

Still, he cautioned that states prioritize their own interests, especially in times of heightened geopolitics. “We too must focus on our own interests and prepare to navigate accordingly,” he said. “There’s an old saying: whether elephants fight or make love, it’s the grass that suffers. It may be old, but it remains relevant when external factors increasingly shape regional relations.”

Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri has completed his two-day official visit to Nepal, during which he held extensive talks with top leaders of major parties, representatives of fringe parties, government officials, and the army chief.

While in Kathmandu, Misri met with Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, President Ramchandra Paudel and Foreign Minister Arzu Rana Deuba. He also interacted with Nepali Congress President Sher Bahadur Deuba, CPN (Maoist Center) Chair Pushpa Kamal Dahal and other senior leaders. Bilateral talks were also held with his Nepali counterpart Amrit Kumar Rai, though both sides have kept the details undisclosed.

Misri’s trip comes ahead of Prime Minister Oli’s planned visit to India, marking the first such high-level exchange in four months. The timing follows a brief but deadly war between India and Pakistan, US President Donald Trump’s tariff measures against India and other shifting regional dynamics. For much of the past year, New Delhi had appeared hesitant to extend an invitation to Oli. However, PM Oli and Modi met on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly last year and on the sidelines of the BIMSTEC meeting this year which means there has been constant communication between two sides.  

The upcoming visit suggests a thaw in what has been a turbulent relationship between Oli and New Delhi over the past decade. His trip is expected to focus on longstanding issues, particularly the implementation of earlier agreements. Among the priorities is the stalled Pancheshwor Multipurpose Project, where efforts are underway to resolve remaining disputes.

From 2015 to 2022, Nepal-India relations were shaped by five major factors: the 2015 blockade, the map row, the still-unimplemented Eminent Persons Group (EPG) report, China’s growing influence and debates over reviving SAARC. A decade later, only the “China factor” remains a prominent feature in bilateral diplomacy; the other issues have largely faded. In the same period, several temporary irritants, mostly border-related, hampered normalization of ties.

 Yet, another quiet trend was taking root: development projects began reaching completion on schedule, India’s overt support to Madhes-based parties waned and economic cooperation advanced despite political mistrust. In recent years, energy cooperation, connectivity projects and regular political and bureaucratic exchanges have helped sustain a more cordial partnership.

Meanwhile, Nepali leaders have softened their positions on the map row and the EPG report. Today, the three major forces—Nepali Congress, CPN (Maoist Center), and Madhes-based parties—have all set aside these contentious agendas. Only CPN-UML raises them, and even then, only half-heartedly. Oli remains consistent, however, in asserting that Lord Ram was born in Nepal, a claim that continues to irritate India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party. On the boundary dispute, both governments appear to share an understanding to address the issue quietly through established bilateral mechanisms rather than public confrontation. As for SAARC, the prospect of revival has receded further since the India-Pakistan clashes in May this year. 

Still, despite the delay in Oli’s visit, Nepal-India engagement has intensified. Cabinet ministers from both sides have been exchanging visits, political delegations between Kathmandu and New Delhi have grown more frequent and meetings of long-dormant bilateral mechanisms have resumed, showing tangible progress. The “China factor” remains central, with India frequently raising concerns about Beijing’s influence in Nepal in the context of its own security interests.

Regional dynamics have also nudged the two countries closer. During the India–Pakistan war of May 7–9, Nepal issued two statements condemning terrorism, implicitly siding with India. Indian Ambassador Naveen Srivastava personally met Prime Minister Oli to convey New Delhi’s appreciation. Since coming to power in 2014, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has prioritized neighboring countries in India’s foreign policy. Though critics argue these efforts have fallen short, the Modi government continues to push forward with economic and development packages as the backbone of its neighborhood engagement.

Defense cooperation, once strained, is also seeing renewed momentum. During Misri’s visit, India handed over light strike vehicles, critical care medical equipment and military animals to the Nepali Army. The Indian readout described this as reflecting “the close relationship between the two armies and our robust defense cooperation.” 

Collaboration between the two armies has grown in recent months, even as India closely monitors Nepal’s growing ties with the US and Chinese militaries.

Institutional mechanisms have also restarted. After a six-year hiatus, the Nepal-India Boundary Working Group met in New Delhi on July 28–29 for its seventh session. While contentious issues remain unresolved, the two sides agreed on updated modalities for inspecting and maintaining boundary pillars, finalized a three-year work plan, and committed to using advanced technologies for boundary management.

Progress has also been noted in legal and development cooperation. Negotiations continue on a revised extradition treaty and a mutual legal assistance agreement in criminal matters. Small-scale development projects under the High Impact Community Development scheme are advancing steadily. Integrated Check Posts (ICPs), first agreed upon in 2005, have also moved forward. Three of the five ICPs were completed and operationalized in 2018, 2020, and 2024, with work underway on the remaining two.

“During the various engagements, both sides noted with satisfaction the concrete progress in recent years in diverse areas of bilateral cooperation, including physical connectivity, digital connectivity, defence and security and energy cooperation,” said the press release issued by Indian Embassy in Nepal. 

“Nepal is a priority partner of India under its Neighbourhood First policy. The Foreign Secretary’s visit continued the tradition of regular high-level exchanges between the two countries and helped in advancing our bilateral ties further.”

For a long time, Nepali media took its audience for granted. Little to no research was done on reader profiles, content preferences, audience engagement or even on circulation research and readability research which form the backbone of effective print media.

Similarly, there has been a complete lack of audience ratings research for radio and television. In the absence of such insights, audiences were expected to consume and believe whatever content was disseminated. The result of this one-sided dynamic has been disastrous as traditional media are now struggling to retain its audience. 

In the 20th century, audiences did not have many ways to consume the news. The relationship between media and audiences was largely one-way traffic, and audience engagement was limited to occasional letters to the editor or phone calls.

Radio, television and print were used to influence and control public opinion, often pushing through specific narratives. Audiences were viewed as passive recipients of information, and media houses operated under the assumptions of the “magic bullet theory” introduced by Harold Laswell in the 20th century. This theory assumed that media messages had a direct, powerful effect on a passive audience.

Although audiences may have had grievances, they either did not have a channel to register their feedback or media houses simply ignored their feedback. In contrast, the digital era introduced the “two-step flow theory” which seeks greater audience participation, engagement and feedback. Still, the remnants of the old bullet theory persist in the Nepali media landscape, albeit in subtler forms.

In Nepal, things began to change with the advent and subsequent expansion of the internet. By early 2000, online news platforms began to emerge. Unlike traditional outlets, these platforms introduced comment sections from the outset, giving readers space to express their opinion and to engage with content. 

The internet, and the broader digitization of Nepali society, transformed the country’s media sphere. While audiences in the past had limited access to news, they are now inundated with options. More importantly, they now have direct access to primary sources such as government press releases, official documents and reports. This allows them to compare what media houses report with the original information and identify discrepancies.

Meanwhile, the exponential rise of social media began reshaping how Nepali people consumed news. Traditional media lost its monopoly over the creation and dissemination of information. Ironically, media houses themselves rushed to social platforms to share their contents, often produced with significant investment, without a clear strategy for engagement or monetization. 

At the same time, internet access expanded even to remote areas for Nepal, becoming affordable even for low-income communities. Equipped with smartphones and internet access, audiences began spending more time on platforms like Facebook and X (formerly Twitter). Global studies show that between 2008 and 2018, these platforms led to a fundamental shift in new consumption. Today, however, TikTok has overtaken both as a primary source of information for many users.

When media houses began sharing their content on social media, it eliminated the need for audiences to turn to newspapers, radio and television for news. Despite this, Nepali media was doing relatively well in terms of revenue and audience before the COVID-19 pandemic. However, once nationwide lockdowns were enforced to curb the spread, the media landscape changed dramatically. For the first time in the history of Nepali media, many print publications halted operations for days. Radio and television also reduced news production significantly. A few online platforms, despite health risks, continued delivering news.

As people remained confined to their homes, they turned to smartphones and digital platforms for information. At the same time, government agencies, private businesses and NGOs relied heavily on social media to communicate with the public. This combination of traditional media’s limited presence and the active role of digital platforms meant that audiences were able to fulfill their information needs without newspapers or TV.  In fact, during the COVID era, a significant portion of the audience shifted to social media for news consumption, especially in Nepal. By the time the pandemic subsided, traditional media had lost a last share of its readership and advertising revenue.

Despite these seismic changes, mainstream media in Nepal largely failed to recognize, or respond, to the shifting dynamics of news production, dissemination and consumption. Meanwhile, other platforms like TikTok, Instagram and YouTube, and short-form video formats gained rapid popularity. 

For far too long, media houses in Nepal took their audiences for granted. They failed to evolve with changing news consumption behaviors and technological trends. Now, they are faced with a three-fold challenge: finding ways to retain the audience, researching reader preferences and developing sustainable revenue models. This has become a do-or-die situation for the media.

But no scientific research has been conducted in Nepal to understand changing media consumption patterns. Neither regional nor international research organizations have included Nepal in their studies. However, it is evident even without formal data that audiences are consuming news via TikTok and other platforms rather than by reading newspapers and watching television stations. 

The Reuters Institute’s Digital News Report, while not focused on Nepal, offers useful insights. The report points out that an accelerating shift toward consumption via social media and video platforms is further diminishing the influence of institutional journalism and fostering a fragmented media ecosystem dominated by podcasters, YouTubers and TikTokers.

The report also states that populist politicians around the world are bypassing traditional journalism, opting instead for friendly partisan outlets and influences. These personalities often gain privileged access, but rarely ask questions. Many of them are involved in spreading disinformation. In many ways, India’s experience mirrors that of Nepal’s, the report says.

According to the Reuters study, Indian audiences show a strong preference for accessing news via smartphones and social media platforms such as YouTube (55 percent), WhatsApp (46 percent), Instagram (37 percent) and Facebook (36 percent), especially among English-speaking users. This trend likely holds true for Nepal as well.

Another global trend that is increasingly evident in Nepal is news fatigue. With decades of political instability, the media has been dominated by repetitive coverage of political wrangling, corruption and the same political figures. On the international front, conflict-heavy news continues to dominate headlines. Audiences are growing tired of this monotony; they no longer want to read or hear the same narratives year after year.

While mainstream media has played an essential role in strengthening democracy, exposing corruption and holding power accountable, it has lagged behind in offering diverse, engaging content. This has contributed to audience fatigue and disinterest.

In conclusion, media houses must rethink their strategy. They need to increase their presence on platforms where audiences are active, especially video-centric platforms like YouTube and TikTok. As gatekeepers of institutional journalism, they still possess the credibility and capacity to serve public interest, but they must listen more to what their audience wants. 

This means developing responsive content strategies, adopting audience research methods and creating sustainable digital revenue models. More importantly, it is time to actively implement Audience Engagement Theory, which emphasizes two-way communication and greater interaction with the public. If mainstream media is to stay relevant, it must stop treating its audience as passive recipients and start seeing them as active participants in the media ecosystem.

The rapid expansion of digital technology is reshaping the media landscape in deep and profound ways. This shift has already compelled the media industry to transform—not only their newsrooms but entire media organizations. It also demands an overhaul of journalism education, if not a complete transformation.

In Nepal, journalism education has remained alarmingly disconnected from the media industry. It is heavily focused on theoretical aspects, paying little to attention to practical skills. There is already a huge gap between classrooms and newsrooms. Universities are often hesitant to engage with media houses, and media houses, in turn, are not particularly welcoming to journalism students.  

As both a media educator and journalist, I have closely observed the dynamics of both environments. The transformation of newsrooms is well underway, albeit often without clear direction. However, there has been little meaningful discussion about transforming journalism education. Any reform must involve a broad range of stakeholders, including the media fraternity. Given the radical changes in the media and digital landscape, it is high time universities offering journalism programs began revising their curricula. Otherwise, classrooms will turn redundant and irrelevant.

Already, multiple factors have put journalism on a downward trajectory. Gone are the days when classrooms were packed with enthusiastic students eager for a future in the media. Today, many colleges have closed media departments, and those still offering media programs are struggling to survive. When I began my career, classrooms were full of students and newsrooms bustling with journalists. Now, my dual profession, teaching journalism in the mornings and practicing it during the day, is at risk .. For the past decade and a half, these two roles have been my main sources of income. 

University curricula must be updated to reflect the realities of a media landscape shaped by information technology. Otherwise, they risk becoming irrelevant. On paper, Nepal’s mass communication and journalism curricula rank among the best in South Asia. From Bachelor’s to MPhil level, they cover a broad range of issues including new media, law, development, history, media studies, political communication, public relations, communications, culture and society, among others. Theoretically, these courses are up to date and relevant. Tribhuvan University’s journalism program, for example, is comprehensive and comparable to top universities of the world. Yet the real problem lies in human resources and practical training.

A lack of quality faculty is one of the most pressing issues. Without specialized teachers, students are receiving only a superficial, or sometimes even inaccurate, understanding of complex subjects. There is a shortage of teachers for core areas such as mass communication theories, intercultural communication, political communication and media research. This is not to say that current teachers are incapable; many are brilliant minds. However, they cannot dedicate time to teaching across multiple institutions. Generation Z students deserve deeper, more relevant media knowledge. While there are competent professionals outside academia, they rarely get opportunities to take classes because universities, which are highly politicized, often prioritize political affiliation over merit.

Another inherent problem is the lack of emphasis on practical training. There are fundamental errors in teaching methods.

Teachers still dominate classrooms with traditional notebooks; at best, some use digital tools like PowerPoint. Although the syllabus includes numerous practical assignments, their actual implementation is minimal. For example, students rarely receive mentorship to develop news stories on current issues, which is an essential skill for immediate employability. While practical assignments exist across courses, they are mostly left unexecuted or are treated as mere formalities.

Universities offer specializations such as radio, television and new media, yet many lack the infrastructure to produce news for these platforms. It was a serious oversight for universities to permit colleges to teach these courses without ensuring the availability of proper technology or requiring them to secure necessary facilities. While university teachers excel at theoretical aspects, they tend to be less engaged with practical training.

Meanwhile, student dissatisfaction with colleges and teachers is growing, though their voices are being suppressed. I have heard from many students that artificial intelligence (AI) tools provide deeper theoretical insights than their classes. Without interactive discussions and practical work, they see little reason to attend classes. They feel attendance, which is linked to final grades, is the only motivation keeping them in class. Such complaints deserve serious consideration, not outright dismissal. 

If colleges and universities lack resources to support practical training, they should collaborate with the media industry to provide students with hands-on experience. However, academia-industry collaboration is confined to signing Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs) with little real cooperation. Neither media houses nor universities engage each other. Despite this, some students independently secure internships and perform well in newsrooms. This is beneficial for media houses facing a shortage of human resources. However, there are issues on the students’ side too. Many university students of journalism show little interest in news reporting and writing. This is not to say Nepal’s media education solely produces journalists, it also opens career paths in advertising, public relation and media research, among others. My point is that the young generation’s enthusiasm for journalism itself is waning.

The purpose of this article is not merely to highlight the existing problems but to spark debate on revamping the media and journalism education in light of the rapidly changing media landscape. Over the past two decades, media courses have focused largely on print, radio and television, covering reporting, writing, editing and publishing. These core skills, but are no longer sufficient. 

The priority now should be on a comprehensive overhaul of journalism curricula to suit today’s media environment. Traditionally, journalism education has centered on news reporting, writing, editing and publishing. These skills are essential, but now must be supplemented. The current media landscape demands new journalistic skills which existing courses fail to address adequately.

The media industry now needs human resources in diverse roles such as social media officers, AI coordinators, video storytellers, revenue strategists, audience engagement specialists and more. Therefore, journalism programs, historically focused on producing reporters and editors, must expand to include these emerging fields created by digital technology. The future of journalism education demands greater innovation, creativity and student-driven learning models instead of the current theory-heavy syllabus. Additionally, AI is poised to revolutionize both newsrooms and classrooms. Given all these challenges, there is an urgent need to revisit and update the existing curriculum. At the same time, there should be debate and discussions on how best to teach journalism in this age of AI which has taken virtually every sector by storm. 

Four years ago, Madhav Kumar Nepal and his team left the CPN-UML, citing the lack of intra-party democracy and Party Chairperson KP Sharma Oli’s monopoly over the party and government. They also opposed the dissolution of Parliament, siding instead with Sher Bahadur Deuba and Pushpa Kamal Dahal.

Ironically, Nepal, now leading the CPN (Unified Socialist), faces similar accusations from his own senior leaders. Although the Special Court has filed corruption cases against him, he has refused to step down as party chair. In 2008, Nepal had resigned from the UML chairpersonship, taking responsibility for the party’s poor performance in the first Constituent Assembly elections. Today, his party is already weak, and growing internal rifts threaten to worsen its position ahead of upcoming local and national elections. Many leaders and cadres are preparing to return to the UML, seeing no future in the CPN (US). Meanwhile, the UML is actively working to lure them back.

Inside the party, a two-line struggle has emerged between Nepal and senior leader Jhala Nath Khanal. A few weeks ago, Khanal publicly admitted that the party split could not be justified, a sentiment echoed by several leaders. This angered Nepal, who suggested Khanal leave the party, claiming he had no political or moral grounds to remain. Khanal, in turn, has hardened his stance, calling on Nepal to step down due to the corruption case and proposing the appointment of an acting chair. Dissatisfaction has spread within the party over Nepal’s refusal to relinquish leadership.

A new twist emerged when former senior UML leader Bam Dev Gautam, who had maintained an independent position since the 2021 split, joined the CPN (US). Initially, Gautam wanted to rejoin the UML, but Oli did not welcome him. Now in the CPN (US), Gautam says he has requested the role of organizational head, but the leadership has yet to take a call on his request. He has since aligned with Khanal in pressuring Nepal, and the two have held multiple rounds of talks.

Nepal remains firm that splitting from the UML was the right choice. “We took the right steps as we stood against those who breached the constitution. We came to the streets, and we knocked on the court’s door. The decision to split the party is justified,” he said. In response to the mounting pressure, he has postponed key party meetings. Meanwhile, talks between the CPN (US) and the
CPN (Maoist Centre) are ongoing. The Maoists have formally proposed party unification, though the CPN (US) has yet to decide.

This week, Narayan Kaji Shrestha and Ghana Shyam Bhushal held lengthy discussions, although Shrestha is not officially authorized to negotiate unification. However, Maoist Chair Dahal has told his party that talks with Nepal are progressing positively. The CPN (US), despite having 10 seats in the national parliament, has yet to gain national party status. On Saturday, Nepal and Khanal met for over an hour to resolve their differences, but made no progress. The widening rift within the CPN (US) is likely to benefit the CPN-UML, which continues working to draw away its leaders and cadres.

The main opposition, CPN (Maoist Center), concluded its Standing Committee meeting, which witnessed an intense exchange of words between Party Chairperson Pushpa Kamal Dahal, his supporters, and Janardhan Sharma, who is attempting to position himself as a potential successor to Dahal. However, Sharma’s colleagues within the party sided with Dahal, preventing him from consolidating influence. As a result, Dahal has emerged even stronger and is likely to retain his grip on the party for at least the next 10 years.

The internal rift within the Rastriya Prajatantra Party has escalated, with a rival faction led by Dhawal Shumsher Rana launching parallel activities. Rana, who plans to contest the party presidency, has been actively consolidating support by highlighting the weaknesses of the incumbent president, Rajendra Lingden, who is seeking re-election. The long-standing internal feud has deepened due to differences over the royalist movement that gained traction during the winter and spring but has since lost momentum.

The CPN-UML is preparing for its upcoming statute convention. Former President Bidya Devi Bhandari is reportedly seeking involvement in the convention, but party leaders maintain that her chapter is effectively closed. Bhandari and her close associates are said to be planning a future political strategy after her party membership was revoked. Her supporters are also reportedly working to raise the issue at the convention and are organizing separate activities within the party.

CPN (Maoist Center) Chairperson Dahal has continued his longstanding effort to unify fringe communist parties. He is currently in talks with Netra Bikram Chand, who leads a breakaway Maoist faction. However, the CPN (Unified Socialist), led by Madhav Kumar Nepal, has rejected Dahal’s unification proposal. This is in line with Dahal’s traditional approach of reaching out to smaller parties when he finds himself out of power.

Within the Nepali Congress, dissatisfaction over the performance of the NC–CPN-UML coalition government has become routine. Senior NC leaders continue to voice criticism. Meanwhile, the Rastriya Swatantra Party and Rastriya Prajatantra Party have been obstructing Parliament sessions, demanding the formation of a parliamentary committee to investigate the visa scam. In every session, lawmakers from both parties walk in only to walk out in protest. Despite this, the ruling parties have shown little interest in addressing their demands.

The upcoming by-election in Rupandehi-3 for a seat in the House of Representatives has become a prestige battle for both traditional and emerging political parties. The NC and UML are keen to win to reaffirm public trust, while newer parties like the Rastriya Swatantra Party are eager to claim the seat as proof of growing momentum in their favor. Some independents and minor parties are in quiet negotiations to form an alliance against mainstream candidates. The Rastriya Prajatantra Party is also striving to retain its presence. All parties are currently focused on finalizing their candidates.

Bagmati Province, long marked by instability, appointed a new chief minister this week. NC leader Indra Bahadur Baniya replaced Bahadur Singh Lama, who is also from the NC. Although this shift has triggered some discontent within the party, it is unlikely to have a major impact on national politics or broader NC dynamics. Except for Bagmati, most provinces have seen relative stability after the NC and UML formed a coalition government.

Preparations are underway for Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli’s visit to New Delhi, though dates have not yet been confirmed. According to media reports, Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri is expected to visit Nepal next week to formally extend the invitation. Misri has been engaging with a broad range of government officials and political leaders. With two cross-party delegations recently visiting New Delhi, bilateral engagement has noticeably intensified.

Prime Minister Oli also addressed the third UN Conference on Landlocked Developing Countries (LDCs) in Turkmenistan this week. In his remarks, he outlined the major challenges these countries face, including lack of direct sea access, high transit costs, weak infrastructure, long and uncertain transit routes, limited market access, overdependence on a narrow range of exports, and vulnerability to global shocks and climate change-induced disasters.

He emphasized that the trade and transit rights of landlocked developing countries are a moral responsibility of the global community. He called for greater solidarity, enhanced financial and technological support, and fairer trade terms and transit regimes.

Nepal and China celebrated the 70th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between the two countries this week. At a commemorative event, Prime Minister Oli reaffirmed Nepal’s commitment to the one-China policy and highlighted the countries’ “time-tested” friendship. Over seven decades, he said, Nepal-China ties have deepened, rooted in mutual trust and guided by shared values. He added that China has consistently respected Nepal’s sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence.

The special investigation committee tasked with probing the controversial amendment of the Federal Civil Service Bill, particularly the “cooling-off period” clause, has submitted its report to House Speaker Devraj Ghimire. The report names two key individuals responsible for the tampering.

Meanwhile, Ram Hari Khatiwada, Chair of the State Affairs and Good Governance Committee, is under pressure to resign over his alleged role in the controversy. The Rastriya Swatantra Party has demanded his resignation, but the Nepali Congress has not taken a public position. In a related development, the government’s failure to advance the Education Bill is expected to provoke renewed protests from teachers. Significant disagreements persist between the NC and UML over the bill's contents.

The Election Commission is working on a new regulation that would give sweeping oversight powers to the bureaucracy for monitoring and evaluating political parties. Most parties have condemned the move as unconstitutional and an attempt to control party activity. Given the widespread criticism, the proposal is likely to be revised.

Lastly, the National Examination Board (NEB) published the results of the Grade 12 examinations today. Of the 396,347 students in the regular category, 61.17 percent passed, while 36.49 percent of partial examinees were successful. The Board reported that 38.83 percent of regular students received a “non-grade” result in the exams held this May.

This is yet another indication of a resource-rich republic performing well below par for reasons best known to its ruling clique.

In recent years, Nepal has witnessed exponential growth in the use of various social media platforms. The most popular social media platforms include Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, Instagram and LinkedIn. Among these, Facebook maintains strong dominance over the Nepali social media landscape. According to data from the NapoleonCat, there were 16,479,500 Facebook users in Nepal as of Aug 2024, accounting for 51.6 percent of the population. Of these, 55.9 percent were male.

However, Facebook’s user base is gradually declining as adult users shift toward TikTok and GenZ increasingly favors platforms like TikTok and Instagram. Meanwhile, X is gaining popularity, particularly among news-savvy and politically-engaged users. But it has also become a tool for political propaganda, with ‘cyber armies’ from various political parties engaging in online smear campaigns and character assassination. This toxic environment is pushing intellectuals and thoughtful users away from the platform.

LinkedIn, on the other hand, is growing steadily in popularity among professionals seeking networking and career development opportunities. The spread of misinformation, disinformation, hate speech and cybercrime has become a pressing issue globally. Many countries are grappling with how to regulate social media in ways that respect freedom of speech while addressing these concerns. While many European nations have developed balanced approaches, several South Asian countries, including Bangladesh, are using social media regulations to suppress political opposition. 

Nepal is no exception. For over 15 years, authorities have misused Section 47 of the Electronic Transaction Act to arrest journalists and silence critics. Recently, this trend has intensified, with ruling party leaders increasingly targeting those who voice dissent. Criticisms of the government or political parties are often misclassified as fake news or hate speech, even when it clearly is not. This raises concerns that new laws may also be exploited for similar purposes.

In February, the government introduced the Social Media Act Bill in the National Assembly, the upper house of the country’s federal parliament. The Bill has sparked public debate due to several fundamental flaws. The first and foremost is the flawed legislative process itself: government officials involved in consultations have adopted a narrow, bureaucratic perspective.

There is a belief within bureaucracy that regulation can be achieved by simply creating a department. This approach fails to recognize that regulating digital platforms is far more complex than overseeing traditional media like radio, television or print which are historically governed by the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology and its subordinate bodies.

Social media regulation is multi-faceted and far-reaching. No state agency can realistically monitor an entire population. Yet the ministry appears to consult only with stakeholders like the Federation of Nepalese Journalists (FNJ), organizations of journalists affiliated with major political parties and a handful of non-governmental organizations close to the ruling parties. Independent academics and experts outside the political sphere are largely excluded from the process.

This issue is not limited to social media bills; similar problems exist in other media-related legislation. While parliament has the authority to correct fundamental flaws, lawmakers often lack necessary expertise. Many rely on briefings from NGOs. This limited input, combined with their often weak academic backgrounds, proves insufficient. Lawmakers frequently raise concerns merely to appease journalists rather than engaging meaningfully in the legislative process.

From top to bottom, the bill is riddled with problems. The preamble fails to affirm commitment to international treaties and conventions and other legal instruments to which Nepal is a party. The country has signed international treaties and conventions expressing its full commitment to upholding freedom of speech and expression. But the principles laid out by those international conventions often clash with the narrow understanding held by many Nepali politicians who view criticism as a threat rather than a democratic right.

The 2015 constitution, like its previous versions, contains progressive provisions when it comes to safeguarding freedom of speech and expression. The draft briefly touches the constitutional provision of freedom of speech and expression but remains silent about international commitment. Regarding the international part, the bill states that as other countries are formulating the news, Nepal also needs to formulate the law which is a misrepresentation of Nepal’s international commitments.  The Supreme Court has also delivered landmark verdicts upholding these rights.

However, recent rulings by lower courts appear to contradict the precedents set by the apex court. These decisions only briefly acknowledge the constitutional guarantee of free speech, signaling a shift away from the earlier commitment to protecting this fundamental right.

The Social Media Bill reflects this trend. It fails to clearly state that its purpose is to strengthen freedom of speech and expressions. Instead, it focuses more heavily on regulating social media users, given the impression that its main intent is to restrict, rather than protect, free expression.  

Undeniably, countries across the world are moving quickly to regulate social media to mitigate its negative impacts on society and democracy. But such efforts must never come at the cost of fundamental freedoms, especially freedom of speech, expression and press. Nepal should study how other nations have successfully enacted social media without undermining democratic rights.

Before drafting the bill, the government should have consulted with representatives of major social media companies. Content regulation and moderation are core to the functioning of these platforms, and without their cooperation, any regulatory framework is likely to fail. In this context, Nepal’s top political leadership should use its diplomatic and political channels to engage with these companies. For instance, a few months ago, there was communication between Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli and Elon Musk on certain issues. This shows such outreach is possible.

Regrettably, the ministry issued a public notice demanding that social media giants register in Nepal and obtain licenses. It even set a deadline that went ignored. The ministry also threatened to shut down social media platforms, a move widely seen as immature and impractical. A more constructive approach would have been to initiate dialogue, revise the proposed provisions in consultation with these companies and then develop a feasible licensing system.

As it stands, the bill grants sweeping powers to a government-formed department to oversee all social media-related issues. Given the scale and complexity of regulating digital platforms, this is highly problematic. What’s needed is an independent, empowered commission—free from political interference, bureaucratic control, corporate influence and other vested interests. Such a body should be authorized to work directly with social media companies to ensure effective and fair regulation.

The current draft appears to be designed with the aim of removing political content critical of ruling parties. In recent years, there has been a clear trend of political parties using state agencies to target and punish critics of the government and party leadership. If passed without meaningful amendments, the bill risks becoming an extension of the Cyber Bureau, an institution that has already been misused for political purposes.

One positive aspect of the bill is its commitment to launching a large-scale awareness campaign on the responsible use of social media. It proposes to raise public awareness through publications, broadcasts, websites, seminars, public service announcements and dialogues. However, the government does not need to wait for the bill to be passed to begin this vital initiative.

In conclusion, the government must take proactive steps to address the fundamental flaws in the draft bill as it is evident that the agencies involved have failed to adequately study international best practices or documents prepared by global institutions.

The KP Sharma Oli-led government has completed one year in office, delivering a mixed record on its promises. Two major parties came together pledging to ensure political stability, especially after the CPN (Maoist Center), the third-largest party, had repeatedly shifted alliances—often playing the Nepali Congress (NC) and CPN-UML against each other.

One notable outcome over the past year is a degree of government stability, if not full political stability. The current NC-UML coalition appears relatively stable and is unlikely to collapse in the near future, though questions about its longevity persist.

Despite the coalition’s stability, the government has failed to curb the frequent transfers of high-level bureaucrats, which has severely disrupted the functioning of government agencies. At the provincial level, however, there is now more stability, ending the earlier pattern of frequent changes in chief ministers and governors.

When the coalition was formed, both parties had agreed to amend the constitution. However, there has been no progress on that front, drawing criticism from opposition parties and the general public. The parties seem uncertain whether to first assess the constitution’s implementation or proceed directly with amendments. “The slow progress clearly shows that NC and UML raised the amendment issue without a well-thought-out plan,” says political analyst Chandra Dev Bhatta. “It’s a complex issue that requires delicate handling.”

While the NC and Madhes-based parties have discussed constitutional amendment internally, there has been no broader cross-party effort. Parties remain deeply divided on the matter, with each inclined to revive their core agendas from the constitution-drafting process.

The 2015 constitution was a compromise among parties with competing priorities. Reviving the amendment issue risks hardening those old positions, making any changes unlikely. Prime Minister Oli himself has repeatedly said that constitutional amendments are unlikely before 2027. Within the NC, the faction led by senior leader Shekhar Koirala has criticized the government for its inaction on this front.

On the economic front, there have been signs of modest recovery. To recommend reform measures, the government formed a high-level panel led by Rameshwor Khanal, which has already submitted its report. It remains to be seen how the government will act on its recommendations.

Though the economy underperformed over the past year, some recovery has been observed. According to the Asian Development Bank, Nepal’s economy is expected to grow by 4.4 percent in the current fiscal year, up from an estimated 3.9 percent in FY 2023/24. Consumer inflation has also declined to 2.72 percent, down from four percent last year.

However, with just days left in the 2024/25 fiscal year, more than half of the development budget remains unspent. According to the Financial Comptroller General Office (FCGO), only 46.59 percent of the capital budget had been utilized as of July. Of the Rs 352.35bn allocated, just Rs 164.15bn has been spent.

On the external front, Prime Minister Oli paid an official visit to China, where he signed a long-pending framework agreement. While this caused some unease within the Nepali Congress, it has not led to significant rifts between the coalition partners. Projects selected under the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) framework have yet to show any real progress. The Prime Minister has also made other bilateral visits, and preparations are underway for his upcoming visit to India, which is expected to take place soon.