Submit your Article

Nepal’s political evolution, from its unification in 1768 to the establishment of a federal democratic republic in May 2008, has been a tumultuous journey marked by significant milestones and setbacks. This transformation has been shaped by a complex interplay of historical, socio-political, economic, and geopolitical factors. As Nepal stands at the edge of change, it faces a dynamic landscape—some forces pushing it toward progress, while others present formidable obstacles. The country’s political environment remains volatile, uncertain, and ambiguous, with the resurgence of pro-monarchy sentiments adding a new layer of complexity to its democratic experiment.

Resurgence of monarchy

Former King Gyanendra Shah, who abdicated his throne in 2008 to facilitate Nepal’s transition to a secular federal republic, has re-emerged as a focal point in the nation’s political discourse. His recent activities—returning to Kathmandu after spending two months in Nepalganj and Pokhara, and consulting with Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath in Lucknow—have sparked widespread speculation about the possible restoration of the monarchy. Adityanath, a vocal advocate for a Hindu Kingdom in Nepal, has further fueled these discussions. Meanwhile, regional powers like China and India, as well as global democratic forces, are closely monitoring the situation.

The former king’s appeal to the people to rise for the nation has resonated with some segments of society, creating fertile ground for a renewed debate about Nepal’s political future. His message emphasizes national unity, credible democracy, and a renewed sense of identity—elements that are crucial for Nepal’s strategic stability. However, the dysfunctional democracy, characterized by poor governance, corruption, and self-interest, remains a significant obstacle to achieving these goals.

Polarization and elusive stability

Nepal’s democracy is currently caught between two opposing forces: pro-monarchist electorates advocating for the return of the kingdom and republican forces, which have been marred by allegations of inefficiency and corruption. This polarization has left Nepali society deeply divided. While the people yearn for strategic stability, questions linger: Is Nepal ready for change, or is it still awaiting cues from external powers like Beijing, Delhi, or Washington? The current political system, plagued by poor governance and a lack of meritocracy, has eroded national trustworthiness. The intertwined issues of political, economic, and security affairs demand collective solutions, yet time is running out.

The Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP), which holds 14 seats in the 275-member House of Representatives, has been vocal in its support for the monarchy. Alongside the Rastriya Prajatantra Party Nepal (RPPN) and businessman turned activist Durga Prasai, the RPP has actively participated in rallies demanding the restoration of the monarchy and the abolition of the federal republican system. Slogans like “We want our King back” and “The King and the country are dearer than our life” have become rallying cries for pro-monarchy supporters.

Republican forces on the defensive

The resurgence of royalist sentiment has alarmed republican forces, who view it as a threat to the federal democratic system. Leaders from the three major parties—former Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba of the Nepali Congress (NC), Prime Minister KP Oli of the CPN (UML), and former Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal of the CPN (Maoist Center)—have dismissed the pro-monarchy movement as insignificant. However, their own unpopularity, stemming from allegations of institutional corruption, has weakened their stance.

Deuba downplayed the recent pro-monarchy rally in Kathmandu as a “regular event,” while Oli emphasized the need to focus on democratic and constitutional activities. Dahal, on the other hand, criticized both the pro-monarchy forces and the ruling alliance, blaming the government for failing to address public frustration. The Samajbadi Morcha (Socialist Front), a coalition of leftist parties formed on June 19, 2023, is preparing to hold a protest rally on March 28 to defend republican values. Meanwhile, Madhav Kumar Nepal, chairperson of the Unified Socialist Party, has blamed Prime Minister Oli for the resurgence of “reactionary elements” and called for a two-month-long protest to address the country’s political and social issues.

Historical context

To fully understand Nepal’s current political landscape, it is essential to consider its historical context. The Treaty of Sugauli, signed in 1815, reshaped Nepal’s borders and relations with the British Empire, marking the beginning of a long period of external influence and internal struggle. The Rana regime (1846–1951), characterized by hereditary authoritarian rule, further entrenched feudalism and autocracy. The dawn of democracy in 1951, marked by the Treaty of Peace and Friendship with India, laid the foundation for bilateral relations but also sowed the seeds of dependency.

The 1990 People’s Movement (Jana-Andolan) reignited democratic aspirations, but the triangular conflict between monarchist forces, democrats, and Maoists complicated the transition. The 12-point agreement in Delhi in 2005, which brought Maoists into the democratic framework, was a turning point. However, the transition to a federal democratic republic introduced new complexities, including unaccountable leadership and governance challenges.

Fragmentation and governance challenges

Nepal’s political landscape remains fragmented, with multiple parties representing regional, ethnic, and ideological interests. This fragmentation has led to unstable coalition governments and frequent changes in leadership—13 prime ministers in 16 years. The lack of policy continuity and institutional development has further undermined governance. The pro-monarchy movement, while gaining traction, faces internal divisions. RPP Chair Rajendra Lingden has distanced his party from Navaraj Subedi’s People’s Movement Committee, despite senior RPP members joining the mobilization effort. The former king’s attempt to unify pro-monarchy forces under Subedi’s leadership reflects a last-ditch effort to gauge public support for a royal comeback. However, the movement’s success remains uncertain.

The role of civil society and grassroots movements

Civil society, activists, and grassroots movements play a crucial role in driving political transformation. By advocating for transparency, accountability, and civic engagement, they can help bridge the gap between the people and the political establishment. Initiatives aimed at promoting democratic governance, human rights, and social justice are vital for holding the political elite accountable and fostering a culture of active citizenship.

The way forward

Nepal stands at a critical crossroads. The current political system, characterized by corruption, inefficiency, and fragmentation, has failed to deliver good governance. The people’s frustration with the status quo has created an opening for alternative political discourses, including the restoration of the monarchy. However, the success of any political transformation depends on addressing the root causes of instability: poor governance, institutional corruption, and socio-economic disparities.

Reforming the constitution to create a more functional democracy is essential. This includes ensuring greater accountability, transparency, and representation for all citizens. Geopolitical integration can also play a role in supporting Nepal’s democratic aspirations, but it must be approached with caution to avoid external interference.

Nepal’s political transformation is a delicate balancing act. The country must navigate its historical legacies, socio-economic challenges, and diverse aspirations while fostering dialogue and cooperation among stakeholders. The success of this transformation hinges on the ability of political leaders to prioritize democracy, justice, and development over self-interest and geopolitical maneuvering.

As Nepal moves forward, it must strive to unite its diverse voices and create an inclusive political framework. The current system, with its flaws and failures, cannot sustain the nation’s aspirations. Whether through constitutional reform, a national unity government, or a renewed commitment to democratic values, Nepal must seize this moment to redefine its future. The ball is in the court of its political leaders, and the choices they make will determine whether Nepal emerges as a resilient, inclusive nation or remains trapped in a cycle of instability.

The author, a retired Major General of the Nepali Army, is a strategic analyst

Once, literature was a space where human existence was laid bare. Writers like Albert Camus, Fyodor Dostoevsky, Franz Kafka, and Virginia Woolf used literature as a means of confrontation against society, against fate, against the self. They were not concerned with comfort, nor did they seek to fit their words into a marketable structure. Their works were messy, filled with contradictions, unresolved conflicts, and questions that had no answers. And that is exactly what made them real.

But somewhere along the way, literature changed. Today, the books that flood the shelves—especially those deemed “bestsellers”—often seem to lack that rawness. They are structured, polished, refined to the point where the discomfort of real human experience is dulled. The rise of genre-based literature has played a huge role in this shift, pushing storytelling towards entertainment rather than introspection. Thriller, romance, fantasy, sci-fi—all of these genres, while capable of producing great literature, have been streamlined into formulas that prioritize readability over depth, satisfaction over struggle, and marketability over meaning.

The literary greats were not obsessed with readability or how many copies they could sell. Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment does not spoon-feed the reader a neat resolution—it drags you through the guilt, paranoia, and internal torment of Raskolnikov. Camus’ The Stranger presents a protagonist who feels nothing the way society expects him to, and for that, he is condemned. Virginia Woolf’s To the Lighthouse meanders through thoughts and consciousness, often without a clear direction, because that’s how human minds work. These books are challenging not just in their language but in their themes. They force the reader to wrestle with morality, alienation, the absurdity of life, and the inevitable decay of all things.

Now, compare that to the kind of books that dominate today’s literary market. Most follow clear story arcs—beginning, middle, and end—structured in a way that keeps the reader comfortable. It’s not that complexity has disappeared entirely, but it has been tamed. Even books that explore dark themes often do so in a way that is digestible for a wide audience. They hold the reader’s hand instead of letting them wander into the abyss alone. 

Rise of genre fiction and the death of rawness

A major turning point in the decline of raw literature was the rise of genre-based storytelling. This isn’t to say that all genre fiction is shallow—there have been deeply introspective sci-fi books, psychological thrillers, and poetic fantasy works. But the majority of what gets published under these categories follows rigid formulas.

In romance novels, characters have clear motivations, conflicts, and resolutions. In thrillers, there is an inevitable twist or revelation, and in most cases, the hero triumphs. In fantasy, world-building often takes precedence over existential depth. These genres have been shaped by reader expectations, and because publishers know what sells, they continue to push books that fit into these patterns.

There is an obsession with writing styles that are “clean” and “accessible.” But reality is not clean. Human emotions are not linear. Thoughts are not always beautifully structured. A truly great book should leave you unsettled, questioning, perhaps even changed. It should not just be something you consume; it should be something you wrestle with.

Why do we need unpolished literature?

The world itself is not neatly structured. Life does not follow a traditional narrative.  Life is not a story with a clear beginning, middle, and end. People do not always grow, relationships do not always resolve, and meaning is not always found. The greatest literature has always embraced this reality. People act irrationally, events happen without reason, and most of our questions remain unanswered. The greatest literature has always reflected that disorder. It does not try to comfort us; it forces us to confront things we’d rather ignore. 

Books like Notes from Underground (Dostoevsky) or The Plague (Camus) show us the depths of human suffering, self-destruction, and isolation. Mrs. Dalloway (Woolf) immerses us in the fragmented thoughts of a mind burdened by time and memory. These works do not try to make sense of life for us; they simply present it as it is. That is what makes them timeless.

It’s not just that modern books are too polished—it’s that they’ve turned into brain rot. Instead of challenging readers, literature has become a tool for distraction, feeding people easily digestible, surface-level stories that keep them comfortable rather than forcing them to think. Romance tropes are the biggest offender. They are everywhere, infecting even genres that were never meant to be about love. Every story now seems to revolve around predictable relationships, characters written solely to be adored, and emotional payoffs designed to give readers a quick dopamine rush.

Shraddha Acharya

BSc IInd year

Padma Kanya Campus

Let the ocean take me away

To a place far beyond reach

To a land far away

Where noone has a place to be 

where life is laid out in an eternal plane

Where limits have no bounds 

Where dreams come alive

Where mortals come to die

A life in eternal bliss

Sound so pure

The voice of ignorance

Sounds so quiet

But don’t let them see beyond the walls 

Beyond the old wooden door

Don’t let them see the pain

The suffering of the world

Just live in this peaceful place

No violence or war to be heard

Just let the quietness drown you

Just let the nothingness consume you

Arnav Shrestha 

A Level

LA College

With the growth of its power, China’s overseas interests are rapidly expanding. Along with this, in addition to the extreme containment and suppression by Western countries, there are also various ‘stigmatizing’ hype such as ‘neo-colonialism’, ‘debt trap’, ‘China threat theory’ etc.. This highlights the sharp cognitive opposition between China and Western countries in expanding overseas interests.

Expansion methods

Win-win cooperation vs zero-sum game

The concept of win-win cooperation proposed by China emphasizes achieving complementary resources and shared advantages through close cooperation with host countries, thereby fostering mutual benefit and ultimately leading to common development and maximized interests. The ‘Belt and Road Initiative’, put forward by China in 2013 and based on the concept of win-win cooperation, has achieved numerous results, covering policy communication, facility construction, trade cooperation, investment growth, and project construction etc., injecting new momentum into global economic growth. China’s pursuit of a win-win development path in expanding its overseas interests is the right path for the world.

Driven by zero-sum game mentality, in international politics, Western countries focus on safeguarding their own interests, viewing China’s expansion of overseas interests as a threat to their own interests, and fearing that China’s strength could undermine their power and status in host countries. The zero-sum game mentality espoused by Western countries is detrimental to others and not beneficial to themselves, often leading to tension and conflict in international relations.

Expansion approach

Peaceful development vs ‘Thucydides Trap’

The term ‘Thucydides Trap’ is used metaphorically to describe the competitive situation among major powers in contemporary international relations. Specifically, when an emerging power rises and attempts to play a greater role on the international stage, it often clashes with existing powers in terms of resources, markets, influence, or geopolitical advantages. This situation of mutual confrontation and threat may ultimately lead to the outbreak of war. Based on the cognitive logic of Thucydides Trap, Western countries often pursue containment and suppression strategies towards the friendly cooperation between China and host countries in areas such as economy, military, and technology.

However, ‘Thucydides Trap’ is not an iron law, and war does not necessarily break out between major powers. China’s concept of peaceful development reflects the common pursuit of peace and development by countries around the world, offering the possibility to avoid the ‘Thucydides Trap’. Based on the concept of peaceful development, China has always been committed to becoming a builder of political peace, a contributor to economic development, and a maintainer of social order for host countries in the expansion of its overseas interests.

Expansion path

Co-consultation, co-construction, and sharing vs colonial plunder

The expansion of overseas interests by Western countries employs the bloody and brutal method of colonial plunder. Specifically, Western countries maintain their colonial rule through violent occupation of land and signing unequal treaties. By occupying, enslaving, and exploiting weak countries, they gain financial and trade privileges, as well as plunder natural, human, and strategic resources. They expand their sphere of influence and balance competitors through colonial expansion in order to ensure their own security and national interests. They regard themselves as disseminators of civilization, attempting to establish a kind of social structure and cultural identity in colonies that is similar to that of their homeland.

Guided by the principles of co-consultation, co-construction, and sharing, China promotes joint consultation with host countries in the expansion of overseas interests. This ensures that host countries have an equal voice and participation rights, enabling political disputes and economic conflicts to be resolved through consultations. Cooperative projects are jointly undertaken by both parties, with the results shared to foster mutual development and prosperity. Furthermore, it aims to involve citizens of host countries as participants, contributors, and beneficiaries of these projects, particularly ensuring that local residents also reap the benefits, thereby creating a conducive and friendly environment for the expansion of China’s overseas interests.

Expansion goal

Community with a shared future for mankind vs hegemony and power politics

Based on the concept of a community with a shared future for mankind, China is dedicated to promoting high-quality development in host countries during the expansion of its overseas interests, implementing global development initiatives, global security initiatives, and global civilization initiatives in these countries. China is proactively addressing various complex social issues, and encouraging more citizens of host countries to participate in Chinese projects and share dividends, thereby contributing Chinese wisdom and solutions to the economic and social development of host countries and demonstrating its responsibility as a major power. The concept proposed by China has garnered support and endorsement from the majority of countries worldwide, particularly those from the ‘Global South’.

The hegemonic behavior of Western countries manifests as gross interference in the internal affairs of other countries, manipulation of international affairs, and expansion of spheres of influence through military means. The core idea of power politics is that ‘power is truth’, referring to the policies and activities of Western powers that bully the weak, arbitrarily dominate other countries’ people, interfere in other countries’ internal affairs for their own interests, and infringe on other countries’ interests. Based on the logic of hegemonism and power politics, Western countries have seriously damaged international peace and stability, the well-being of people all over the world, and the common interests of all mankind through various perverse acts in the world.

Conclusion

In response to the cognitive opposition between China and western countries in expanding overseas interests, China should uphold the concept of peaceful development and win-win cooperation, and strive to build a community with a shared future for mankind. At the same time, in countries where China’s overseas interests are expanding, China should take practical actions of extensive consultation, joint contribution, and shared benefits to practice its own propositions and demonstrate international fairness and justice.

The author is  Dean of China’s Overseas Interest Studies Institute at Yangtze Normal University