Submit your Article

Investors finally breathed a sigh of relief, as the Nepal Stock Exchange (Nepse) index ended a six-day losing streak on Tuesday. The benchmark index climbed 7.39 points to close at 2,614.07 points.

The recovery comes as a welcome respite for the secondary market, which had been in a downward spiral after its five-day winning run came to a halt on November 30. Over the subsequent six trading sessions, the index shed a total of 69.35 points.

The index opened in green territory on Tuesday and quickly hit an intra-day high of 2,620.47 points. The gain, however, was short-lived as selling pressure dragged the market down, sparking fears that the bearish momentum would persist. Just as the market seemed poised for another session in the red, a sudden spike toward the closing minutes of the session pushed the index back into positive territory.

Despite the recovery in the index, total turnover shrank to Rs 3.75 billion, a significant drop from Monday’s Rs 4.61 billion. This figure represents the lowest daily turnover since November 19, when securities worth Rs 3.73 billion were traded on the bourse. The low turnover indicates a lack of strong conviction in the secondary market, as many investors likely remained on the sidelines, waiting for clearer trends before committing fresh capital.

By the close of the session, unit prices of 148 scrips had advanced, while 101 declined and nine remained unchanged. Sector-wise, the performance was mixed but generally positive. Of the 13 sub-indices, nine ended the day in the green, while four posted nominal losses. The Hotels and Tourism sector led the recovery, advancing by 0.88%, signaling renewed interest in hospitality stocks. On the other hand, the Non-Life Insurance sector recorded the biggest slide of 0.17%.

Ngadi Group Power Ltd topped the turnover charts with Rs 319.2 million worth of shares traded. Laxmi Sunrise Bank and Radhi Bidyut Company Ltd were next with turnovers of Rs 111.48 million and Rs 99.12 million. A total of 8.74 million units were traded through 62,665 transactions. 

Although the benchmark index has snapped its losing streak, the shrinking volume suggests that the market has yet to find a solid footing for a sustained rally.

As the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist–Leninist)—CPN-UML—the largest communist party in the country, prepares for its 11th general convention from Dec 12–14 in Bhaktapur (inauguration) and Kathmandu (closed session),  the contest for leadership has informally opened. Party President and former Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli has publicly encouraged leaders and cadres to participate freely in the democratic process—either through election or consensus. In doing so, he has set the tone for an open and fair competitive exercise within the party. Emerging dynamics indicate that Oli will once again contest for the top post, while senior Vice-president Ishwor Pokhrel will challenge him with a team of leaders aligned to him. It's not clear, but both sides might prepare a list of office-bearers for internal context.  

This article argues that the UML needs KP Sharma Oli at its helm once again. More importantly, Nepal requires a leader of his stature, geopolitical understanding and decisiveness at a time of shifting domestic and global politics. In this very critical juncture of our history, Nepal needs a strong leader, who can stand with national aspirations rather than divided aspirations deliberately provoked by some external powers. 

Four interconnected reasons support this conclusion: his lifelong resilience against adversities, his uncompromising defense of sovereignty, his ability to pilot Nepal’s complex geopolitical environment and his articulation of national dignity rooted in civilizational confidence. 

Oli’s political life is a testament to resilience. From 14 years in detention during the Panchayat period to steering factional fragmentation within the party, Oli’s journey has consistently demonstrated an extraordinary ability to rise above adversities. He has never surrendered in the face of internal or external pressures. When confronted with politically-motivated turmoil, populist mobs or orchestrated campaigns, he has chosen rational decision-making over emotional impulses. This capacity to take difficult decisions—often during moments of national uncertainty—has distinguished him as a leader with rare political courage. His premierships, particularly in the aftermath of the 2015 earthquake and constitutional tensions, demonstrated that leadership requires willingness to confront crises with clarity rather than retreat under pressure. The organizational challenges within the unified communist party (NCP), formed by merging the UML and the Pushpa Kamal Dahal-led Maoist party, reflected how Oli had been able to hold the party together and rebuild its national outreach despite systematic efforts to weaken it. His leadership restored the UML’s internal coherence after the 2021 split, and today the party remains the most organized political force in Nepal, largely because of his strategic patience and crisis management. It is to remind you all that the UML is the largest party of the country in terms of proportional representation.  

A second and perhaps more defining attribute of Oli’s leadership is his unwavering commitment to safeguarding Nepal’s sovereignty and national interest. Throughout his political career—whether in the government or the opposition—he has maintained a consistent stance on issues related to territorial integrity and independent foreign policy. His approach to foreign policy has always been issue-based rather than actor-based. Contrary to claims that he has sometimes tilted toward one neighbour or the other, Oli has engaged India and China based on the merits of specific issues rather than geopolitical alignments. Because a statesman, who focuses on issues, will appear to lean north on some occasions and south on others, his diplomacy has occasionally been misunderstood. Yet, the underlying principle has never changed: every decision must serve Nepal’s long-term national interest.

Several examples clearly illustrate this posture. The 2016 Transport Transit Agreement with China was not signed against any neighbor, it was an assertion of Nepal’s sovereign right to diversify its transit routes. The new map was not an attempt to escalate tensions but a constitutional and historical assertion of Nepal's claims. Before the GenZ movement that toppled him, both sides had been preparing for Oli's India visit with plans to sign some major agreements. Over the last decade, PM Oli and his Indian counterpart Modi had held several sideline meetings at international forums.    

Oli’s support for the Belt and Road Initiative implementation agreement was not a geopolitical gesture but an economic one—an effort to bring Chinese investment into Nepal’s infrastructure, energy and connectivity sectors. His support for the MCC Compact with the United States was guided not by external influence, but by the program’s potential to strengthen Nepal’s electricity transmission and transport infrastructure. Throughout these decisions, one principle has remained constant: he refuses to allow ideological confusion or geopolitical fear to derail development.

At a time when Nepal’s geopolitical landscape is becoming increasingly complex, this clarity of foreign policy vision becomes even more crucial. The United States has expanded its strategic footprint in the Asia-Pacific, and global power shifts are creating both challenges and opportunities for relatively smaller states. Nepal needs a leader who can navigate this environment with balance, confidence and strategic foresight. Oli’s diplomatic conduct has shown an ability to maintain equi-proximity, resist strategic alignment pressures, maximize economic gains and avoid entanglement in military or security coalitions. Even during periods of misunderstanding with India, he kept diplomatic space open and maintained serious engagement. While deepening cooperation with China, he preserved Nepal’s independent foreign policy and avoided commitments that would compromise sovereignty. This pragmatic, confident, and non-aligned approach is central to Nepal’s stability in the coming decade.

Another distinctive quality that sets Oli apart is his ability to articulate national dignity with conviction. In the contemporary political sphere, few leaders speak about Nepal’s civilizational heritage, cultural depth and historical identity with such clarity. Oli consistently highlights Nepal’s philosophical roots in Vedic and Buddhist traditions, presenting the country not as a peripheral actor but as a nation with its own intellectual and historical strengths. His famous assertion—“Countries may be big or small, but sovereignty is equal”—captures not only Nepal’s diplomatic stance but also its psychological confidence. This articulation matters in international diplomacy, where perception shapes engagement. Both India and China have respected Nepal’s sovereign positions even during sensitive times. His ability to communicate Nepal’s dignity to the world has created a diplomatic environment in which Nepal’s voice is heard, not dismissed.

As the UML prepares to choose its direction for the next five years, the stakes are far larger than a party presidency. The election will influence how the party positions itself in national politics and how Nepal steers itself through a transforming global environment. Oli’s leadership is vital not only for organizational coherence but also for national stability. 

Oli is more than just a party leader seeking another term. For UML, he represents organizational discipline and clarity of direction. For Nepal, he represents a necessary political force capable of steering the country through a time of complexity. At this critical moment, KP Sharma Oli is not simply a candidate—he is a national need. No other leader of the party can challenge him. The best for the party is to elect the leadership unanimously. If they compete, they mentally should prepare for the future political course.

As banks and financial institutions (BFIs) increasingly turn to artificial intelligence (AI) to streamline operations and improve customer service, Nepal Rastra Bank (NRB) has drafted a comprehensive set of AI Guidelines and circulated them among stakeholders for feedback. 

The guidelines intend to ensure safe, transparent and responsible use of AI across the financial system at a time when digital technologies are rapidly reshaping service delivery.

The proposed guidelines are designed for all institutions regulated by NRB, including commercial banks, development banks, finance companies, microfinance institutions, Nepal Infrastructure Bank, and payment system operators and service providers.

According to NRB, the primary objectives of the guidelines are to promote the adoption of AI tools in a way that enhances operational efficiency, innovation and customer experience, while safeguarding financial stability and institutional resilience. 

The guidelines state that AI-driven decisions of licensed institutions must remain transparent, explainable, fair and accountable to ensure that customer rights and data privacy are protected and that no discriminatory outcomes arise from automated systems.

The central bank has also warned licensed institutions to mitigate a wide range of risks associated with AI, including operational, ethical, systemic, model-related and cyber risks. To address these issues, all licensed institutions are required to define their AI-related risk tolerance as part of their broader risk management structure and establish strong governance mechanisms with clearly assigned roles and responsibilities.

As per the guidelines, licensed institutions must develop a comprehensive AI strategy accompanied by an integrated governance framework. This should include detailed policies, procedures and internal controls to guide the secure development, deployment and monitoring of AI models. They must also ensure that AI systems can maintain critical services during disruptions and have mechanisms in place to detect faults, restore operations and minimize service impacts.

To strengthen oversight, the guidelines require listed institutions to set up a cross-disciplinary AI steering committee—or designate an existing committee—to guide strategy, risk oversight and compliance. The committee should include senior management members with adequate expertise in technology and AI-related risks, and the overall AI framework must be approved by the Board of Directors.

The guidelines also distinguish between internal use of third-party AI tools and formal outsourcing. While internal use of ready-made AI tools for tasks such as drafting, summarizing or analysis will not be treated as outsourcing, BFIs must still follow their own risk and compliance policies. However, any AI-enabled service provided by an external vendor will require full outsourcing procedures, including due diligence, board approval and formal notification to NRB.

Licensed institutions are required to submit annual reports to the central bank, detailing AI use, risk controls and customer impacts, and maintain documentation—including data sources, algorithms and decision-making processes—for all AI systems.

Forty years ago, the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) Charter was signed. Despite its initial successes, South Asia today is politically and strategically fractured, economically least integrated and stuck when it comes to connectivity and diplomacy. With widening internal divisions and growing external demands, how should we look back to the four decades of SAARC and its future? 

Paradigm in peril: “After experiencing twice in their own lifetimes” the tragedies of the two World Wars, that generation of thinkers and leaders came together to create the United Nations to lead the world in transforming human behavior for “saving succeeding generations from the scourge of war” and other threats. After the deaths, devastation, and despair, the UN, standing on its three pillars, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), and the Human Rights Council (initially named Commission), was to be the global repository of a new hope of collective human security, prosperity and dignity.

With the UN at the core, the International Financial Institutions (IFIs) and the ill-fated International Trade Organization (ITO), GATT—now the World Trade Organization (WTO)—were to assist in managing global financial, monetary and trading systems. Aimed at intellectually guiding this global transformation, a new academic discipline, International Affairs, Studies or Relations (IR), bringing together knowledge of history, geography, politics, economics, law, diplomacy and national security etc, also started in Western universities, which has now spread to all parts of the world. 

In both these new developments, there was an assumption that the inadequacies in understanding, codifying and guiding human relations individually, but more importantly relations among the highest and most powerful of the human institutions, the nation-states, were primarily responsible for the death and devastation. Now, of course, technology has fundamentally altered the understanding and application of sovereignty, power and interest, further amplifying the need for some form of convergence between national sovereignty and global governance with transformative IR and effective UN. Sadly, the Global Paradigm was in Peril for a long time. With the crisis in IR and post-Cold-War unilateralism the UN is totally marginalized in global affairs.

Regionalism, the next best hope: With the UN unable to come out of the Cold-War chasm, but regional cooperation in post-War Europe doing much better, some scholars and policy makers thought, perhaps, that cooperation for peace-security, prosperity and human dignity among countries within the same geographic region, with similar culture, stages of development, threat perceptions and security needs would have better prospects. Regionalism thus emerged as the next best hope in IR, a better approach to resolve disputes, avoid wars and promote peace and security, development, and human rights.

With European integration, it was assumed that regional organizations, their leaders and officials could better catalyze national interest harmonization, protecting and promoting individual national interests within the collective regional good. This in turn could act as the building block for future global transformation.

Establishment of SAARC: Aware of the power of the idea of regionalism and their region’s common problems of poverty and political violence, like in other parts of the world, seven heads of state and government of South Asia signed the Charter of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) in Dhaka, Bangladesh on 8th December 1985. “Promoting peace, stability, amity and progress in South Asia” for the welfare of the peoples of the region was the main goal. 

Right at the start, South Asian leaders identified two main areas for regional cooperation: Collective prosperity and regional security. With Afghanistan as the eighth member in 2007, the relevance of SAARC  in addressing the twin tragedies increased significantly. 

Early successes: From a modest start areas of cooperation multiplied, encompassing poverty alleviation to trade and finance, culture to environment, social development to security, science and technology to tourism. Eight agreements, including the South Asian Free Trade Area (SAFTA), six conventions including on Suppression of Terrorism and its additional protocol were signed. The Food Bank and Development Fund was meant to promote greater regional integration. SAARC Seed Bank, Multilateral Arrangement on Recognition of Conformity Assessment, Rapid Response to Natural Disaster and Implementation of Regional Standards were also signed.

The Social Charter and Charter of Democracy were steps toward common political and social order. The South Asian University could still spur greater intellectual interaction and innovation for greater regional consciousness, identity and cooperation. Sadly, performance hugely lags compared to potential. 

Intellectual traffic jam: Three decades after its establishment, Nepal was hosting the 18th SAARC Summit from 23-27 Nov 2014. As the host, the political leadership of the organization came to Nepal. For the second time, the secretariat was also headed by a Nepali and the third time the summit was being held in Kathmandu, where the secretariat is located.

All major global and regional actors (the US, China, Russia, Japan, Myanmar, Iran and South Korea) as observers of SAARC, reflected the pivotal position of South Asia in the post-Cold War world. With national leadership of vision and strong SG, this summit could have been a transformative moment for SAARC. 

As a member of the Summit Preparatory Committee, at the first meeting, I began my remarks by quoting a former SG—“SAARC has hardly progressed beyond signs and symbols”—and reminding the participants of the widespread criticism of SAARC for being ineffective. With Nepal assuming multiple leadership roles, I asked, “what kind of agenda should we propose, business as usual, incremental reforms or transformative?” 

Initially there was an all-round support for a transformative agenda. But from the second meeting the “intellectual traffic jam, political timidity and bureaucratic rigidity” started clogging the highway responsible for making SAARC unable to move forward.

After prolonged discussion, ‘Deeper Integration (Better Connectivity) for Peace and Prosperity’ was agreed as the summit theme. But support for deeper integration for peace and prosperity started diminishing and eventually the summit ended up being what SAARC summits have always been, rich in fanfare and declaratory rhetoric but little progress in addressing the real problems of the people of the region or a more unified position on external demands. “Neighborhood first or last?” dilemma and “beggar thy neighbor” policies keep South Asia divided and SAARC in “coma” today. 

Essentials remedies: This takes me back to the third SAARC Summit in 1987, the first in Nepal. In preparation for it, the Centre for Nepal and Asian Studies (CNAS) of the Tribhuvan University (TU), with which I was then associated, organized a seminar titled ‘SAARC: Retrospect and Prospect’. I started my paper “Nepal in SAARC, a Long-Term Perspective” with a question: What kind of regional cooperation are we talking about without Trade? Trade became one of the areas of cooperation later. 

The next issue I raised was the provision of the charter excluding bilateral and contentious (political and security) issues. The role of the secretariat only as an administrative unit and the level of the secretary-general (SG), a mid-level career official, was the third issue I identified for discussion. Finally, the overly state-centric nature of the organization was, in my view, problematic. With this diagnosis, I proposed three remedies:

1. Strengthening the Secretariat and upgrading the level of the SG, enabling and empowering him/her to more effectively implement the decisions of the inter-governmental bodies and promote regionalism by harmonizing national interests of individual member-states within the larger regional good

2. Greater role for civil society to take up issues that may seem politically contentious for the inter-governmental process to take up immediately but too important to be left out completely

3. A confidence building process by establishing a Council for Dispute Settlement composed of elder statesmen and intellectuals to discuss issues excluded from the inter-governmental process until the charter can be reviewed and amended to strengthen SAARC as a mature institution able to discuss more substantive bilateral political and security issues, which are the main impediments to real regional cooperation

My conclusions then were, without addressing these issues, SAARC will be busy only in marginal issues and diplomatic fanfare but unable to really move regional cooperation forward in any significant way. Since then, I have moved from academia to public service, diplomacy to conflict resolution and peacemaking. In my academic-professional-diplomatic roles, I have spoken and written on the need to ‘Transform SAARC to Prepare South Asia for a New Age’, with emphasis on the issues identified in that short paper.

Almost three decades later, the 18th summit came and went. Not just the 19th summit remains in limbo, but SAARC and South Asia continue at the same crossroads of time and space, history and geography, only in many ways moving backward in regional cooperation. The only difference is, with the new Asian Century, China in the north and India at its center, the Indo-Pacific, South Asia  and the Central Himalayas have emerged as one of the global political, economic and strategic epicenters, significantly increasing opportunities and risks for the region. 

As a student, teacher and practitioner, I have advocated rethinking IR and regional cooperation for long. Today, I am both happy and sad that the discourse on SAARC, its marginalization or BIMSTEC and its revitalization, revolve around the same issues I have raised for four decades. 

The author deals extensively with these issues in his new book “SAARC to BIMSTEC:Breakdown or Breakthrough in Regional Cooperation in South Asia”, being published by a leading Indian publisher in early 2026