Submit your Article

Nepal’s political landscape has been shaped repeatedly by acts of betrayal, and today’s GenZ movement finds itself encircled by similar breaches of trust—both from state institutions and non-state forces. This pattern is not new. Twenty years after the 2006 Second People’s Movement, that abolished the monarchy and established a federal republic, Nepal witnessed another youth-led uprising in Sept 2025, commonly referred to as the “GenZ” movement. The protesters’ core demands centered on ending systemic corruption, addressing mass unemployment, lifting restrictions on social media, holding the state accountable and dismantling entrenched old power structures. While some voices within the movement called for constitutional amendments or a directly-elected prime minister, the demand for immediate elections was not the primary focus.

Nevertheless, in response President Ramchandra Paudel dissolved the House of Representatives, appointed former Chief Justice Sushila Karki as interim prime minister and announced fresh elections within six months. Many observers see this rapid dissolution and election announcement as the latest instance of the state deflecting, rather than addressing, popular demands for systemic change.

Whether this abrupt move constitutes a deliberate strategy to defuse and ultimately neutralize the GenZ youth rebellion remains a critical question that warrants serious national debate.

Whither constitutional legitimacy?

After the government collapsed and Parliament was dissolved, the nation was left without leadership. Holding fresh elections and seeking a new public mandate appeared to be the most legitimate and constitutional way forward. It would have ensured that the interim government remained only a temporary arrangement, functioning strictly within constitutional limits. However, this path was never pursued.

The President should have first explored the possibility of forming a new government from within the existing Parliament, safeguarding constitutional integrity and institutional dignity. The more democratic alternative would have been to respond to the aspirations of the youth, bring their concerns to the floor of Parliament, and open meaningful avenues for their representation and participation in state governance. Nepal has taken such steps before—it is not a distant chapter of history.

Yet, the interpretation of the symbolic burning of ‘parliament’ during the movement as an attack on the institution itself has now become a contentious matter, one that may shape political debates and institutional behaviour far into the future.

Some argue that calling for fresh elections in the midst of a power vacuum is merely an effort to preserve the existing power structure. Others claim that this step does not resolve constitutional deadlocks but stands in direct violation of the constitution. Meanwhile, even as the demand for parliamentary restoration remains under judicial review, the very parties advocating for it are preparing to contest elections scheduled for March 5 next year. This, in effect, suggests that they have dismissed the spirit of the GenZ movement.

For some, elections were presented as a way to absorb the movement’s energy—redirecting youthful activism from the streets into parliamentary politics. Yet this logic contradicts the core of the youth uprising, which never demanded immediate elections. The protests exerted intense pressure on those in power, but following the election declaration, criticism has grown that the President’s decision—taken in the belief that street anger could be channeled into ballot papers—constitutes a profound betrayal of the movement’s purpose. In response, a segment of the youth now questions whether another uprising is needed to secure the goals for which they first took to the streets.

A bid to signal stability

By announcing the election date, the President appears to be projecting a message—both domestically and internationally—that Nepal is moving from instability toward procedural normalcy. Despite the scheduled elections creating an impression of institutional restoration, the conditions for a fair and credible vote are still far from secure. If the elections were to be cancelled under such circumstances, the country could face another crisis, reminiscent of events like prison breakouts and the burning of government buildings during previous unrest.

A limited mandate

The interim administration has been granted only one primary task: to conduct elections. This narrow mandate risks entrenching the same old power structures riddled with corruption. In such an environment, the possibility of the GenZ movement returning to the streets remains high. The interim government itself has repeatedly clarified that its role is not to engineer systemic change, but merely to steer the country back to the constitutional path through elections.

Yet, elections within six months are no cure-all. The challenges ahead are immense. The youth-led uprising has demanded deeper structural reforms—reforms that are currently not being addressed. The President’s decision to withhold authority from the interim government to amend the constitution or initiate institutional restructuring stands in stark contradiction to the spirit of transition. This raises a real risk that elections may simply reopen the door for the old parties to regain power.

There is also constitutional ambiguity regarding the appointment of a prime minister from outside Parliament following its dissolution. Fears persist that those powers granted in the present could be misused in the future.

Trust, reform and inclusion

Nepal is navigating a turbulent period. Institutions are weakened, and public trust in the state is steadily eroding. In such a context, six months is a short window. Rushed elections may favor established political forces rather than fairness or reform. If grievances over unemployment, corruption, exclusion and limited opportunity remain unaddressed, dissatisfaction could resurface even more strongly.

Simply announcing elections and releasing attractive party manifestos cannot restore people’s faith in the existing order. Trust must be rebuilt through visible action. The interim government must prioritise transparency and accountability from day one. Public disclosure of assets—from ministers and top officials to senior policymakers—is essential to reinforce integrity in state leadership.

Sensitive corruption cases must be pursued without delay, and the law must be allowed to act decisively. Only then will citizens feel the beginning of change. Equally crucial is the meaningful inclusion of youth, experts, women, indigenous communities and civil society in candidate selection and electoral rule-making—because inclusive participation is the foundation of genuine democracy.

Before the election day arrives, Nepal needs a broad national dialogue on long-overdue reforms and on the review of vague or disputed constitutional provisions. Such deliberation can set the groundwork for stability, improve governance and gradually rebuild public confidence in the system.

The unprecedented youth-led protests of Sept 8–9—now popularly referred to as the GenZ movement—have fundamentally reshaped Nepal’s political landscape. What began as a decentralized, internet-driven outcry against a proposed social media ban swiftly grew into a mass uprising that targeted corruption, nepotism, impunity, and elite capture of the state. Although Nepal has witnessed people’s movements before, this was the first time that a digitally coordinated, leaderless, GenZ-dominated mobilization managed to topple a powerful government and force all major political parties into deep introspection.

In the two-day violence altogether 76 people were killed, leaving dozens injured. Yet the broader political consequences were even more far-reaching. The immediate effects of the protests was collapse of coalition government of Nepali Congress and CPN-UML, installation of interim government led by former chief justice Sushila Karki, a legitimacy crisis across traditional parties, leadership struggles and generational tensions with each party, and a renewed debate about intra-party democracy and accountability.

The movement provided a space for second-rung leaders of the major parties to speak up against the monopoly of single leaders inside the party. But, top leaders of the major parties have shown very few or no indication of reflection and accept their past mistakes. 

The GenZ movement also showed that there was a deep frustration among the party rank and file against the leaders, as it has been revealed that even the cadres of NC, UML and Maoist were engaged in the arson and vandalisms of party leaders. It also showed the animosity among local level cadres of the major political parties because some cadres of NC were engaged in the vandalism of private residences of CPN-UML and vice versa. Similarly, cadres of Maoist and Rastriya Swatantra Party also attacked the NC and UML leaders.

Inside the Nepali Congress

The Nepali Congress—the oldest democratic party—found itself at the epicenter of public anger. The shocking assault on Party President Sher Bahadur Deuba and then–Foreign Minister Arzu Rana Deuba at their residence was emblematic of the extent of the public’s fury. Their rescue by the Nepal Army late on Sept 9 evening  and subsequent hospitalization symbolized the spectacular collapse of the NC’s authority. For weeks after the protests, Deuba remained silent, undergoing treatment in Singapore, while the party drifted without direction. 

At a critical moment when President Ram Chandra Paudel was consulting parties to form the new government, NC leaders were conspicuously absent. As a result, the Karki-led interim government was formed without NC’s input, a political setback that exposed the party’s organizational paralysis. 

The first NC leader to publicly address the GenZ protestors was General Secretary Gagan Kumar Thapa, who released a video message recognizing the grievances of the youth. His move reenergized young cadres and strengthened calls for generational change.

Soon after, both general secretaries—Gagan Thapa and Bishwa Prakash Sharma—openly demanded that Deuba relinquish party leadership, asserting that the NC could not regain public trust without internal reform. But, Deuba and his supporters opposed Thapa’s demand of resignation stating that it is morally wrong to attack the party leadership at a difficult time, though there is a very few space of morality in the politics.

Under growing pressure, Deuba named Purna Bahadur Khadka as acting party president before leaving for medical treatment. This gesture, however, did little to calm the situation. Top leaders of the party after Deuba, such as Shanshak Koirala, Bimalendra Nidhi, Krishna Prasad Sitaula, Prakash Man Singh, Prakash Sharan Mahat, Gopal Man Shrestha and Bijaya Kumar Gachhadar, stood against Thapa.

As per NC’s statute, Deuba is no longer eligible to run for the presidency, which means a leadership transition is unavoidable. But the question is who will lead the transition—and when. In the wake of the protests, about 54 percent of general convention representatives signed a petition demanding a special general convention before the March 5 national elections. Their objective was clear: elect a new leadership that resonates with the GenZ wave. But the proposal of a special general convention faced fierce resistance from seven brothers. They argued that holding a convention based on outdated delegate lists would be unfair and politically unsound. Acting President Khadka and senior leader Shekhar Koirala played a neutral role but they were also against Thapa and Sharma. In a way, all top leaders are against the Thapa’s bid to become party president either from special general convention or regular one.

The conflict escalated when Thapa and Sharma, backed by younger leaders and grassroots cadres, threatened to unilaterally convene the convention. This raised the specter of a party split, sending shockwaves through the NC. The party’s indecision lasted nearly two months, during which critics accused the NC of failing to act as the responsible political actors.  Ultimately, the Central Working Committee decided to hold the convention in January, setting off a fierce internal leadership contest. Thapa has announced his candidacy, positioning himself as the face of generational change. The establishment faction is preparing to field Khadka as their candidate. Senior leader Koirala, who previously competed against Deuba, is also gearing up for the presidency.

The outcome remains uncertain, but one thing is clear: The GenZ movement has forced the NC to confront its internal contradictions and prepare for a transformation it long resisted. However, holding the party’s general convention in January is still challenging, as the dispute regarding the active membership still remains unsettled. The process of holding NC’s general convention is one of the democratic processes in South Asia and it is too technical as well which demands a great deal of time to accomplish all tasks. The ‘seven brothers’ are working to find a consensual candidate for the party president who can get the support of Deuba.

Inside the UML: Oli’s struggle to retain control

If the NC suffered from inertia, the CPN-UML suffered from arrogance. Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli—widely criticized for undemocratic tendencies—became one of the vocal critiques of the youth movement. He had to be evacuated from Baluwatar by the Nepali Army (NA) only after tendering his resignation. Because NA reportedly told him they can rescue him only if he resigns.  For four days, he was held in an army barracks in Makawanpur with his phone confiscated—an extraordinary development for a sitting prime minister in a democratic state—he spent altogether 10 days in army barracks before being released. Once released, Oli launched a political offensive, accusing the Karki government of being “unconstitutional” and calling for the reinstatement of Parliament. 

The party has filed a writ at the Supreme Court demanding the revival of Parliament. But inside the UML, the mood had shifted dramatically. Senior leaders demanded Oli’s resignation from party leadership, arguing that he should take moral responsibility for the deaths of 19 youths. But Oli refused, stating that the GenZ movement was launched against his party and country and he is not responsible for what happened on Sept 8-9.  To avoid the pressure to step down, he declared he would seek a renewed mandate at the Dec 13–15 General Convention.

Even before the GenZ movement, Oli had amended the party statute to secure a third consecutive term as party chair. He also blocked former President Bidhya Devi Bhandari from rejoining the mother party, fearing she could challenge his dominance. His decision to revoke her membership caused deep resentment among party cadres and senior leaders. The GenZ movement only intensified the internal fractures. For the first time in years, a strong challenger has emerged: Ishwar Pokhrel, backed by former President Bhandari and a coalition of disillusioned senior leaders, has announced his candidacy.

Local-level conventions revealed that nearly 50 percent of organized members abstained from voting, signaling widespread frustration and voter fatigue. UML’s upcoming general convention is now seen as a defining moment: a battle between Oli’s authoritarian grip and a rising internal rebellion. Whether Pokhrel can unite the anti-Oli faction remains uncertain, but the party’s internal cohesion has already been severely damaged. Out of 18 office bearers of the party, more than seven have already openly supported the Pokharel. Among the public, UML’s image has been severely damaged due to the killings of 19 students on Sept 8 when Oli was the prime minister. Now, Ishwor Pokhrel is challenging Oli who has the strong backing of the former President Bhandari.

Inside the Maoist Center: Dahal’s cunning consolidation

The Maoist Center responded differently from the NC and UML. Chairperson Pushpa Kamal Dahal was the first major leader to react positively to the GenZ movement. His quick engagement in consultations for the new government allowed him to position himself as a pragmatic and flexible actor.  

To preempt internal criticism, Dahal dissolved the party’s Central Committee and announced the formation of a Convention Organizing Committee. This allowed him to reset the party structure and eliminate internal dissenting voices. Soon after the protests, senior Maoist leaders Janardhan Sharma and Narayan Kaji Shrestha pressed him to step down. But, Sharma was ultimately forced to leave the party after leaders and cadres who were close with Dahal intimidated him through social media and public forms.

Simultaneously, Dahal began a political outreach campaign, inviting former splinter groups and leaders from the CPN (Unified Socialist) led by Madhav Kumar Nepal. Dahal claims that 15 fringe communist groups have now joined his umbrella structure, the newly proclaimed Nepali Communist Party (NCP)—with Dahal as its convener. But, those parties which had joined the party have a minimum level of people’s support.  Whether this unity is ideological or merely symbolic is yet to be seen, but the move has strengthened Dahal’s control over the left space. 

Despite these consolidations, prominent leaders like Janardan Sharma and Sudan Kirati left the Maoist Centre to join former Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai’s new political formation. Their exit underscores the lingering dissatisfaction with Dahal’s long tenure and centralization of authority. Nevertheless, compared to other parties, the Maoists appear the least destabilized—mainly because Dahal has mastered the art of internal crisis management. Unlike NC and CPN-UML, Dahal seemed positive about the GenZ movement. He has also formed a GenZ organization within the party to demonstrate that he fully supports the agenda of the movement. He is attacking Oli for failing to improve himself even after the GenZ movement. Another important development is Pushpa Kamal Dahal has abandoned Maoism because he has agreed to change the name of the party.

Inside the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP)

The RSP entered Nepali politics as a fresh alternative to traditional parties, appealing especially to young urban voters. In the 2022 election, it emerged as the fourth largest party in the 275-member House of Representative (HoR), in a surprising victory. But paradoxically, it was one of the parties worst affected by the GenZ movement. Many protesters accused the RSP leadership of opportunism and inconsistency. Similarly, it was found that scores of the party’s cadres at the local level were involved in the arson and vandalism. After the Sept 8 protests, the party’s lawmakers decided to resign en masse from the House of Representative. 

The party’s chair Rabi Lamichhane, who was released from jail during the protests, returned to custody after widespread public criticism. Senior leaders Sumana Shrestha, Santosh Pariyar, and others resigned from the party. RSP hurriedly announced a unification with the Bibeksheel Party, but the move was perceived more as damage control than a strategic coalition. The party’s internal credibility crisis raises questions about whether the RSP can retain the youth support it once enjoyed. At the same time, the party faces a leadership crisis as Lamichhane is in jail. There is a tussle between top leaders of the party.

Inside the Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP): Limited impact

The monarchist RPP experienced less disruption compared to the mainstream parties. The party maintained that elections alone cannot solve Nepal’s systemic crisis and called for fundamental political restructuring. A positive outcome of the GenZ movement was that longtime rivals Kamal Thapa and Rajendra Lingden initiated discussions about party unification. Although many challenges remain, both leaders acknowledge that a fragmented right-wing space cannot capitalize on the shifting political mood. Despite uncertainties, the RPP has expressed readiness to participate in upcoming elections.

The dismantle of CPN (Unified Socialist)

The GenZ movement led to the dissolution of the CPN (Unified Socialist) party led by former Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal who had formed the party in 2022, breaking up his ties with CPN-UML Chairperson Oli. A group of leaders led by Madhav Kumar Nepal decided to make party unification with CPN (Maoist Center) with an agreement of forming a new party Nepali Communist Party. However, scores of leaders refused to join Nepali Communist Party. Some leaders including Ram Kumari Jhakri decided to return to their mother party CPN-UML, while senior leaders of Ghana Shyam Bhushal joined hand CPN (Unified) led by veteran communist leader Chandra Dev Joshi.

The GenZ movement has forced Nepal’s political elites to confront realities they long ignored. 

Traditional parties can no longer rely on hierarchical, patronage-based politics. Leaders cannot remain in power indefinitely without facing internal revolts. Youth frustration has reached a breaking point—and will continue to shape political behavior. Political transparency and accountability are now unavoidable demands. Every major party—NC, UML, Maoist Centre, RSP, and RPP—has been compelled to undergo some degree of transformation.

Whether these changes lead to genuine democratic renewal or simply a reshuffling of old elites remains to be seen. But one truth is undeniable: Nepal’s GenZ has entered the political arena, and they are not leaving anytime soon. The GenZ movement has been beneficial for the youth leaders of the major political parties because now they are more vocal than in the past about the need for leadership change. The movement is also likely to force the traditional political parties to provide more space to the youths in the internal party organizations and in the elections. But, except inside the NC, the leadership change is unlikely in the major political parties.

After the GenZ movement, major political parties namely Nepali Congress, CPN-UML and CPN (Maoist Center) have not come together. In the past, during the time of crisis, there were traditions of three parties coming together but now they maintain a distance, at least publicly though they are engaged in informal talks. The animosity between Dahal and Oli remains in the political landscape. Dahal is publicly saying that the protest on September 8-9 happened due to the governance failure of Oli, while the latter has blamed Dahal that Maoist party was engaged in the vandalism and arson. Nepali Congress is also maintaining a distance with Oli on the political agenda. Oli tried to convince NC to stand in favor of restoration of Parliament but NC decided to participate in the elections.

New parties, new voters

The GenZ movement has triggered a surge in the registration of new political parties. After the GenZ movement, 25 new parties have been registered. According to the Election Commission, of the 37 applications submitted for party registration after the GenZ movement, 25 new parties had been registered as of this week. Similarly, the number of the political parties participating in the election is also going up. 

In 2022, only 84 political parties had participated in the election but this time more than 120 political parties have expressed their eagerness to participate in the elections. The total number of the political parties registered in the EC has already exceeded 143. Out of the 143 parties registered at the Election Commission, seven parties are led by women. The Election commission has said that the addition of more than 800,000 new voters is encouraging. Before the latest voter registration drive began, there were 18,168,000 voters, and for the upcoming elections, an additional 837,094 voters have now been registered.

Devendra Gautam of ApEx had a wide-ranging conversation with Andrei Kiselenko, minister-counselor and charge d’affaires of the Russian Embassy in Nepal. Here it goes:

Q: Your excellency, global geopolitics is getting choppier by the day. Tensions are palpable between Russia and the United States, the US and China, India and China, India and Pakistan, India and Bangladesh, so on and so forth, marking the ascendance of a multipolar world order in place of a unipolar one. Against this backdrop, the president of Russia, Vladimir Putin, was on an important visit to India. What does it mean for Nepal, the South Asian subcontinent and the world?

The visit of President Vladimir Putin to New Delhi has taken place at a moment of profound global transformation. We are witnessing the steady, irreversible evolution of a multipolar world order, where regional voices, including those of South Asia, increasingly shape the international agenda. In this context, Russia views its partnership with India as one of the key pillars of stability across Eurasia and the broader Indo-Pacific region. India is a long-standing and highly respected strategic partner of the Russian Federation. Our countries share decades of cooperation in defense, energy, nuclear technology, science, education and people-to-people exchanges. The summit will only strengthen this multidimensional relationship at a time when constructive dialogue is needed more than ever.

It is also important to highlight a development that directly connects this visit with the broader economic future of the region. On Nov 26, the first round of negotiations on a Free Trade Agreement between India and the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) was officially launched. This step has the potential to create the largest free-trade framework in Greater Eurasia, opening new markets, reducing barriers and encouraging more predictable, secure and mutually advantageous economic flows. For Nepal, this trend is of direct relevance. As a close neighbor of India and an observer of shifting economic dynamics in Eurasia, Nepal stands to benefit from a more interconnected regional architecture. Enhanced India–EAEU trade routes and logistics corridors may create new opportunities for Nepali exporters, students, technologies and even labor mobility, expanding the country’s access to northern Eurasian markets. Moreover, a stronger and more stable India-Russia partnership contributes to the overall resilience of South Asia.

In a world where tensions often dominate headlines, this visit demonstrates that major powers can still choose dialogue, cooperation and long-term vision. That is a positive signal not only for Russia and India, but for Nepal and the international community at large.

Q: Historically, Russia’s strategic alignment in the subcontinent has altered the political map of the subcontinent. Given this context, is Russia aware of defense-security sensitivities of countries in the region reeling under chronic domestic instability unabated by external interference?

Russia has always approached South Asia with a deep sense of responsibility and an awareness of the region’s complex security landscape. Our engagement has never been opportunistic or destabilizing; on the contrary, Russia has consistently acted as a force of balance, predictability and dialogue.

Unlike many actors whose policies have historically aggravated regional tensions, Russia’s role has been fundamentally different. For decades, Moscow has respected the sovereignty, internal political processes and security concerns of each country in the subcontinent. This is precisely why our partnerships whether with India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka or Nepal remain stable, trusted and free of hidden agendas.

Russia is uniquely positioned as a nation that does not divide the region into “spheres of influence.” We do not impose military blocs, political conditions or ideological pressure. Instead, we support indigenous development and national self-reliance.

For Nepal, a country that values non-alignment and strategic autonomy, this is especially important. Russia’s steady, respectful approach helps ensure that regional processes evolve in a way that strengthens stability rather than undermines it.

Q: What, in your opinion, can superpowers and regional powers do to shore up defense and security of weaker states?

Security for smaller states is best strengthened through stability, dialogue and respectful cooperation. Larger powers can help by supporting national priorities rather than imposing external agendas.

Russia has a long and positive record of working with Nepal in exactly this spirit. Over the decades, Moscow has consistently supported Nepal’s sovereignty, development and capacity-building from training Nepali officers and specialists in Russian educational institutions to cooperation in disaster-response, helicopter aviation safety and hydropower. These practical areas of engagement quietly contribute to national resilience, which is an integral part of long-term security.

Q: In her development endeavors, Nepal, one of the founding members of the Non-aligned Movement, has received support from both Russia and her rivals, especially during the Cold War era. But development support from Russia has plummeted markedly after the political change of 1990. What went wrong?

Over the past years and decades, enormous changes have taken place in our countries and in the world. But the feelings of mutual sympathy between the two peoples and the desire to deepen multifaceted international cooperation have not changed.

 Russia attaches great importance to the development of relations with Nepal. Our countries have a rich history of cooperation in economic, cultural, educational, technical spheres. At all times, relations between Moscow and Kathmandu have been of traditionally friendly nature and have never been clouded by any contradictions or differences. Russia values the peace-loving foreign policy of Nepal, its adherence to the principles of Non-Alignment and peaceful coexistence.

Over the past decade, a number of Russian companies and entrepreneurs have explored various avenues to establish projects in Nepal in sectors such as energy, infrastructure, pharmaceuticals, information technology and tourism. Unfortunately, many of these efforts have faced obstacles on the Nepali side, often due to excessive bureaucratic hurdles or a lack of clear procedures for facilitating Russian investments. In some cases, Russian businesses encountered uncertainty or delays in obtaining necessary permits or approvals.

Frankly speaking, it is somewhat difficult to understand why the Nepali side continues to delay responses on several important pending draft agreements and memorandums, which have been under discussion for quite some time. These include, for example, the Protocol on Cooperation between the Election Commissions, the Agreement between the Ministries of Home Affairs, the Memorandum of Understanding on cultural cooperation, the Agreement on Readmission and others. From the Russian side, we remain fully ready to move forward on these documents, as they would provide a solid legal framework for deepening our bilateral cooperation in a number of key areas. We sincerely hope that the competent Nepali authorities will be able to give due consideration to these proposals in the near future.

Moreover, an additional factor cannot be ignored: some Nepali partners, especially in the private sector, remain hesitant to deepen their cooperation with Russian companies due to political pressure and informal warnings from Western, particularly European and American actors. The fear of falling under secondary sanctions or losing access to Western financial systems still plays a significant role in shaping such cautious attitudes.

Q: Your excellency, do you see the possibility of the revival of historic cooperation? If so, what are some of the probable areas?

It is important to stress that Russia stands fully ready to engage more actively with Nepal across multiple sectors. The Russian side sees enormous potential in Nepal’s development, be it in hydropower, agriculture, aviation, modern industry, or education. I believe that if Nepali authorities and business circles create a more transparent and welcoming environment for Russian investors free of unnecessary red tape and external political influences we will see very dynamic and mutually beneficial cooperation in the near future.

Q: What are your thoughts on SAARC? Do you think the region is better off without the regional body? Should Nepal, the seat of the SAARC Secretariat that played a key role in the establishment of the regional bloc, step up efforts to revive it?

SAARC remains an important regional platform with significant potential. Its activity has fluctuated due to well-known political constraints, yet the very creation of SAARC reflected the desire of South Asian nations to work together rather than drift apart. It is especially symbolic that this December marks the 40th anniversary of the signing of the SAARC Charter—a reminder that the region has a long tradition of seeking collective solutions. In this context, I believe that revitalized and pragmatic SAARC could address many shared challenges more effectively.

Nepal, as the host of the SAARC Secretariat and a country that played a pivotal role in the organization’s establishment, naturally has a unique moral authority to encourage fresh dialogue. If Nepal chooses to step up efforts to energize SAARC at this symbolic moment, it would be fully consistent with its long-standing role as a promoter of regional stability, balance and cooperation. I also sense that many member-states themselves quietly hope to see the organization become more active, more effective and more technically focused.

At the same time, experience from other regions shows that even when multilateral structures go through difficult phases, bilateral and inter-regional initiatives can maintain momentum. In this regard, Russia sees clear potential for greater complementarity between South Asia and the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). Expanded trade flows, streamlined access for agricultural and industrial products, new transport and logistics corridors, cooperation in hydropower and energy engineering, educational and professional exchanges, as well as dialogue on digital technologies, innovation and standards—all these areas open practical opportunities for Nepal and the wider region.

Q: These days, countries like Nepal see a stiff competition of sorts between heavyweights to lead the Global South that appears to be another name for diversity. Do you think any self-proclaimed leader can truly voice concerns and do justice to the aspirations of this entity?    

The Global South is, above all, a community of diverse nations with different histories, priorities and development trajectories. It is not a bloc that can be represented by any single “leader,” nor does it require one. The idea that one country can speak on behalf of dozens of others is increasingly outdated.

What matters today is not self-proclaimed leadership, but genuine respect for sovereignty and the ability to listen rather than dictate. In this regard, the countries of the Global South, including Nepal, expect relationships based on equality, non-interference and practical solutions to shared challenges.

Russia has long adhered to these principles in its engagement with developing nations. Our approach has never been to claim leadership, but to promote multipolarity, fairness and the sovereign right of each state to determine its own path. This is why Russia is widely viewed across Asia, Africa and Latin America as a reliable and predictable partner that treats others as equals.

Q: Russia used to be the chess powerhouse in the 1990s. What is the status of the game in your country at present? Do you see any possibility of promoting chess diplomacy between our two countries?

Russia remains one of the world’s strongest chess nations, and we take great pride in this tradition. Our grandmasters continue to perform at the highest international level, and chess is deeply rooted in our educational and cultural life. The game is widely practiced in schools, clubs and regional centers. It is truly a part of our national identity.

We also appreciate that even in the world of chess, Russia and Nepal have an unexpected yet beautiful point of connection in the personality of Anish Giri, who has both Russian and Nepali heritage. His success is a reminder that chess is a bridge between cultures and that our peoples can meet each other in the most inspiring ways.

Another positive example is the visit of a large Nepali delegation of the Nepal Chess Federation, led by its President Herakaji Maharjan, to the Republic of Kalmykia (a region within Russia) in September this year. The delegation took part in the First Chess Tournament of Buddhist Countries. We were delighted to see Nepal so actively represented.

As for the future, we certainly see great potential for developing “chess diplomacy” between our two countries. Friendly tournaments, youth exchanges, training camps, master classes and participation in international competitions, all of these can strengthen not only the game, but also mutual understanding between our peoples.

And, if I may add on a personal note, it would be our dream to participate in a major chess event in Nepal—a tournament where, as always, the real winner would be friendship.

With the monsoon long gone, rains are not even on the horizon even as dust and smoke continue to give every living entity a hard time, in the bowl-shaped Kathmandu valley and other urban centers of the country.  

At 4:01 pm on Thursday, Kathmandu stood 18th (not so proudly) on the air quality index with a score of 123 (an air monitoring website considers the AQI between 101-150 as unhealthy for sensitive groups) far behind Tashkent (218), Kolkata (230). Lahore (217), Delhi (192), Hanoi (182), Dhaka (181), Mumbai (178), Almaty (163), Wuhan (160), Krakow (154), Kabul (153), Doha (140), Sarajevo (140), Karachi (133), Shenzhen (127) and Guangzhou (127). 

Even a cursory look at air quality monitoring sites suggests that we survive somehow in a neighborhood where pollution has crossed limits. 

Major cities in our neighborhood experiencing "unhealthy" to "very unhealthy" AQIs for days on end and posing serious health risks to residents, especially children and the elderly, should be a matter of serious concern for our government because we the inhabitants of this living planet breathe the same air and live under the same sky, and pollution anywhere affects us all everywhere.

An alarming situation like this calls for serious transboundary talks aimed at mitigating the debilitating impact, but the government appears to have other priorities, including the extension of South Asia’s first cross-border petroleum pipeline to Kathmandu via Chitwan and the construction of another such pipeline in eastern Nepal along with the construction of storage facilities. In a country where petroleum imports already account for a lion’s share of the trade deficit, the development and expansion of petroleum import infrastructure is sure to bleed the national economy further, apart from taking a heavier toll on public health due to increased emissions resulting from a surge in the consumption of dirty fuels.

In summary, a lush-green country (Nepal has increased its forest cover from 29 percent in 1994 to around 50 percent) taking pride in her nominal carbon footprint must go greener by taking measures such as reduced consumption of petroleum products, adoption of green technologies and engaging in climate diplomacy with neighbors and the rest of the world to curb pollution, air pollution in particular, that has been severely affecting everything and being—from the world’s tallest peak, the Sagarmatha, to flora and fauna to every ordinary Nepali with extraordinary potential.