Submit your Article

A hero to a villain is the one to be feared

A story of hate, a story of rage, a story needed to be heard

A hero broken by the world sets out for revenge

The false justice chased by the hero is soon to come out

Once the threat is gone a sharp knife is felt in the spine

The knife not as much pain as the face that lay behind

The starry night he sees that now seem so bleak 

He lays there in a bloodied floor thinking what did he achieve?

Sadness turns to anger, love turns to hate

A pawn in the game has now become aware

A hero once praised by all is now feared 

A villain is never born he is made by another

The darkness that crept within can’t be controlled no longer

In this tale old as time the story has been revealed

The villain now so much despised in this story, was a hero in another

Now that he sits on the throne with all the peasants at his feet

The smile the smirk makes his face anew

He sees a knight, a pawn with might is to be revered

He sees himself, a hero before was broken

Soon to realize the vicious cycle that has been awoken

Arnav Shrestha

A Level

LA College

If we analyze the current curriculum up to the secondary level, we observe a wide range of subjects, including literature, physics, chemistry, biology, social education, moral education, grammar, and health. However, there is a noticeable absence of any focus on the fundamental laws of the country. As a result, students graduating from secondary education often lack fundamental knowledge about legal provisions that directly impact their lives.

This gap becomes particularly evident when individuals enter the workforce. In the context of Nepal, after completing secondary education (+2), many students either enter the workforce or continue their studies while simultaneously working. At this stage, alongside technical knowledge in their chosen field, understanding essential legal provisions becomes vital. Many young individuals, while pursuing further education or engaging in part-time employment, are unaware of crucial legal aspects such as labor laws, taxation, civic code, consumer rights and others. This lack of awareness can make them vulnerable to exploitation.

For instance, knowledge of labor laws is crucial for employees to ensure they are not exploited. Without an understanding of the minimum wage rate, overtime pay, or occupational safety provisions, employees may face underpayment or unsafe working conditions.

Similarly, awareness of basic taxation rules is important. A lack of understanding of taxation, especially provisions like Tax Deducted at Source (TDS), may lead to unjustified deductions from their salaries in the name of tax.

Further, for aspiring entrepreneurs, understanding laws related to business operations is equally important. Basic knowledge about company registration, VAT requirements, applicable tax rates, and available concessions can significantly impact the success of their ventures. Additionally, individuals should be aware of consumer rights and civic responsibilities to ensure that they can effectively exercise their rights and fulfill their duties as responsible citizens.

The question arises: How and when should basic legal education be imparted to the general public? A practical and effective solution would be to modify the existing curriculum to include foundational legal education. Teaching students about fundamental laws, such as labor rights, taxation, consumer protection, and civic duties, at an early stage would equip them with life skills essential for navigating adulthood.

I feel that, the curriculum can be modified as follows, 

Introduction of basic legal studies

Introduce a dedicated subject or module on ‘Civic and Legal Education’ from middle school onwards, covering topics such as fundamental rights and duties, labor laws, taxation, consumer rights, and cyber safety.

Interactive teaching methods

Beyond theoretical knowledge, case studies, role-plays, and real-life scenarios to make legal education engaging and relatable can be incorporated. This could simulate real-world scenarios where students could learn about employment contracts, tax calculations, and workplace rights, providing them with hands-on experience.

Integration with existing subjects and technology driven learning

Embed legal concepts within existing subjects like social studies and economics to ensure a holistic understanding and developing digital platforms or apps to provide accessible and interactive legal education for students and the general public could also aid. 

By implementing these modifications, students will be equipped with the knowledge and skills to protect their rights and fulfill their responsibilities as informed citizens.  Law should not be treated solely as a subject for professional legal degrees but as a fundamental area of knowledge for every individual. A basic understanding of the country’s laws can empower citizens, foster responsibility, and create a more informed and participative society. Such an initiative would not only reduce instances of exploitation but also foster a culture of legal awareness, accountability, and social justice, contributing to the nation’s overall progress.

Sudiksha Timalsina

CAP III, The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Nepal

The Ozone layer knows no political boundary—nations do. Yet, it is the only common roof beneath which life flourishes. This roof is decaying, getting weak enough to filter out lethal rays of the Sun, contributing to global warming. The effects are evident: melting of the snow-capped mountains, rising sea levels, and deteriorating climatic conditions on Earth. That is inviting an adverse change in the ecosystem.

While political interests of nations may vary, they should not outweigh the cost of environmental degradation, which affects all life. There is no denying the fact that the developed nations in their race for industrialization have always been the major contributors to the emission of gases that deplete the ozone layer. From mining Bitcoin to constructing a skyscraper, the price has been paid heavily by the environment. This underlines the need for strong global policies and accountability to reduce further environmental damage. Given what we have seen so far, recent developments in international politics in the wake of Trump’s executive order to withdraw from the Paris Agreement raise common concerns since the environmental crisis is a global one.

Donald J. Trump was sworn in as the 47th President of the United States on 20 Jan. Upon his swearing into office, he has signed a number of executive orders that have become the subject of heated debate over the policies set for his term.

Views remain sharply divided on particularly those orders which portend grave implications for withdrawal from international obligations. However, Trump’s policies were expected generally to be mired in controversy, based on cardinal principles of the “America First” policy that he put forward during his first tenure as the 45th president of the US. As a nation, national interest plays a central role, often at the expense of international obligations. The emphasis on national interests in the administration’s policy is a reflection of the “America First” principle that marked Trump’s presidency, where domestic interests were placed above international commitments.

International political practices, from the ethical point of view, should surely rest on the very basic principle of acknowledging “inevitable interdependencies while also protecting sovereign rights” a principle the US seems unconcerned with. The question thus arises whether a nation like the US, long believed to be an inspiration for humankind’s greatest problems, actually should step aside from international commitments.

The Paris Agreement, which was adopted in 2015, was negotiated at the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP21) in Paris, France. The Paris Agreement is a legally binding international treaty on climate change. In 2016, it was opened for signature, and with great enthusiasm, almost every nation including the United States, signed the agreement. In addition, the main goals of the Paris Agreement are to Limit Global warming by reducing the temperature below, boost adaptation, fund developing nations, ensure transparency, and review progress every five years.

Similarly, Article 3.1 of the United Nations Framework Convention UNFCCC and Article 2 of the Paris Agreement articulate this principle of “Common but Differentiated Responsibilities” clearly. Supported by developing nations, CBDR recognizes that climate change is indeed a problem of the world, while responsibility for its resolution lies with each country’s history of GHG emissions and existing resources. Poor countries insist that developed, industrialized countries like the United States need to bear the burden of carrying a larger load given their historical responsibility and availability of superior resources and technology. The Paris Agreement represented an outstanding opportunity for the United States to demonstrate commitment and leadership, given that it is one of the world’s largest carbon emitters. However, its withdrawal in 2019, rejoining in 2021, and the decision to withdraw from the agreement again in 2025 shows unconformity in International Environmental Policies.

Article 28 of the Paris Agreement provides that the signatory state may withdraw by sending a written notification to the depositary. Based on this, Trump signed executive orders to begin the process of withdrawal from the agreement. Therefore, there is no legal obligation of the United States to adhere to the agreement commitments but under moral grounds, it has failed to prove its global leadership.

Despite the US’s reluctance to follow through with international agreements, the country has a domestic legal regime and regulations dealing with environmental concerns such as climate change, air, and water pollution, and resource depletion with inter-agency cooperation between the federal government and the states as well as local government entities. Therefore, we should not be judgmental regarding the United States' concerns with environmental crises. However, its withdrawal from the Paris Agreement suggests that though the US might be effective in responding to environmental crises within its national boundary, it is reluctant when it comes to global cooperation.

US environmental aid to Nepal ends after the US exits the Paris Agreement. Nepal, a Himalayan country one of the most vulnerable to environmental crises, pleads the principle of Common But Differentiated responsibility (CBDR). In her oral pleadings at the ICJ, Foreign Minister Arzu Deuba Rana advocated the principle following the request for an Advisory Opinion from the states on climate change. “We are bearing the brunt of the impacts of climate change in a disproportionate manner,” said Rana Deuba. “We have been penalized for the mistakes we never made, for the crimes we never committed.”

The United States’ withdrawal from the Paris Agreement is a “selfish move against a shared responsibility” that underlines the tension between National economic priorities, political ideologies, and global environmental obligations. While the withdrawal does not create any legal obligation, it does raise moral questions about US leadership and foreign policy. Whether driven by ignorance or reluctance, the decision has profound implications for the global fight against climate change.

A new bill introduced in the Federal Parliament seeks to regulate social media platforms and users, sparking intense debate among lawmakers, digital rights activists, and the public. The Social Media Regulation Bill, tabled in the National Assembly, proposes stringent measures to curb misinformation, regulate platform operations, and enforce digital accountability. However, concerns over potential threats to freedom of expression and excessive governmental control have raised critical questions about its implications.

The bill mandates that all social media platforms operating in Nepal must obtain a government-issued license within three months of its passage. Platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, X (formerly Twitter), WhatsApp, YouTube, and LinkedIn will be required to comply. Failure to do so will result in penalties ranging from Rs 2.5m to Rs 10m and a potential ban on operations within Nepal. For individual users, the bill outlines severe punishments for offenses such as creating fake accounts, spreading misinformation, cyberbullying, hacking, phishing, deepfake content creation, and sextortion, with penalties ranging from heavy fines to multiple years of imprisonment. Additionally, public officials found violating the law will receive a 50 percent increase in penalties, while crimes involving minors will result in additional prison sentences.

Nepal’s digital landscape has faced challenges such as misinformation, cybercrime, and online abuse, making a legal framework necessary for accountability. The rise of deepfakes, online scams, and social media-driven conflicts has created an urgent need for clear regulations. Ensuring that social media companies verify user identities and establish rapid-response mechanisms for complaint resolution is a step in the right direction. Moreover, requiring platforms to store and provide user data for legal investigations will strengthen law enforcement’s ability to tackle digital crimes effectively.

However, while the intent of regulation is justified, the execution raises significant concerns. The bill grants the government the power to order content removal without requiring court oversight. This level of unchecked authority could be misused, leading to arbitrary censorship of dissenting voices, investigative journalism, and politically inconvenient discourse. The ability to ban a platform simply for failing to meet licensing conditions could discourage global tech companies from operating in Nepal, limiting access to vital digital resources. Smaller startups and independent content creators would also struggle under such strict conditions.

Another issue is the vague language used in defining offenses. Terms like “misleading information” or “national interest” remain highly subjective, leaving them open to government interpretation. Criminalizing such behaviors instead of relying on platform-based moderation raises the risk of constraining free expression. Additionally, requiring platforms to store and provide user data without clearly outlining data privacy measures could lead to misuse and surveillance concerns. There is little reassurance that such regulations won’t be weaponized to target political dissidents or activists under the guise of national security.

The bill also requires foreign social media companies to set up local offices or appoint official representatives in Nepal. While this measure aims to ensure accountability, it may create barriers for international platforms that find compliance burdensome. In other countries, overly restrictive policies have led major platforms to limit their services, depriving citizens of diverse digital engagement opportunities. If Nepal follows this path, it risks isolating itself from the global digital economy.

Globally, different countries have tackled social media regulations with varying approaches. India’s IT Rules (2021) mandate content removal but require judicial oversight, while the EU’s Digital Services Act (2022) enforces moderation with strong user privacy protections. Meanwhile, China’s heavy-handed censorship policies serve as a cautionary tale of how overregulation can suppress online freedom. Nepal must ensure that its bill does not follow the latter’s trajectory. Instead of stifling innovation and free expression, it should focus on balancing security with digital rights.

The implications for content creators and social media users are significant. Under this bill, individuals who unknowingly share misleading information could face severe legal consequences. The distinction between intentional disinformation and accidental misinformation is not well defined, which could lead to legal repercussions for ordinary users. Furthermore, the bill allows authorities to monitor and track users extensively, raising concerns about mass surveillance and its potential chilling effect on online speech.

While the bill introduces strict penalties for cybercrimes such as phishing, hacking, and sextortion, it does not provide robust mechanisms for user education or digital literacy. Preventive measures should be emphasized alongside punitive actions. Instead of solely focusing on legal crackdowns, Nepal’s government should invest in digital awareness programs to educate users on responsible social media usage, recognizing misinformation, and securing their online presence.

One of the most controversial aspects of the bill is its approach to fake accounts. While cracking down on fake IDs is important to curb online abuse, enforcing real-name policies could backfire. Many users, especially activists, whistleblowers, and marginalized groups, rely on anonymity for safety. The absence of safeguards to protect these vulnerable users could deter individuals from engaging in online discussions about sensitive topics.

The requirement for content removal upon government request also raises ethical concerns. In democratic societies, freedom of speech is protected through judicial processes, ensuring that content takedown requests undergo legal scrutiny. This bill lacks such oversight, allowing authorities to unilaterally decide what qualifies as objectionable content. The absence of an independent review mechanism could lead to disproportionate enforcement, where criticisms against the government are swiftly removed under the pretext of national security.

The economic consequences of this bill could be far-reaching. If major social media platforms decide to exit Nepal due to restrictive compliance requirements, businesses that rely on digital marketing and e-commerce would suffer. Nepal’s growing digital economy could face setbacks, limiting opportunities for young entrepreneurs and professionals who depend on online platforms for income.

As this bill moves through Parliament, lawmakers must refine its provisions to ensure judicial oversight on content removal, clarify ambiguous terms, and implement strong data privacy safeguards. While addressing online abuse is crucial, broad legal frameworks should not suppress critical discourse or impose excessive restrictions on social media platforms. With digital rights becoming an increasingly important issue, public discourse on this bill will likely shape Nepal’s digital landscape for years to come. The challenge lies in finding the right balance—protecting users from harm while upholding the fundamental right to online expression.

If passed in its current form, this bill could set a dangerous precedent, giving the government excessive control over the digital space. While the need for accountability and regulation is valid, such policies must be carefully crafted to avoid unintended consequences. If Nepal truly wishes to foster a safe, free, and responsible digital environment, it must ensure that regulation does not become a tool for silencing voices but rather a means of promoting transparency and security. The coming weeks will determine whether Nepal takes a progressive step toward responsible digital governance or a regressive slide into digital authoritarianism.

Aishwarya Koirala

St Xavier’s College, Maitighar