Submit your Article

The flooded Lhende stream has swept away the Miteri Bridge.

The bridge connects Nepal and China in Rasuwa district.

The flooded stream not only swept away the bridge in the northern border of Nepal but also the vehicles stationed on the yard of Customs Office, Timure, according to Assistant Chief District Officer, Druba Prasad Adhikari.

Eleven persons were trapped in the flood while they were going to rescue the people in the area of the Customs Office. 

The Nepal Army has been requested for rescue.

Detailed information on the damage is being collected, he added. 

As I am writing this essay, the first day of the BRICS Summit chaired by Brazil in Rio de Janeiro has concluded. Some official statements have already been released, all centered on highlighting the importance of the Global South to emerge and thrive in a world so far dominated by developed nations from the West.

With both President Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin of Russia absent, Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India surely can take advantage of the stage, championing together with President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil the role of the developing nations.

“The Global South has often been a victim of double standards. Whether it is development, distribution of resources or security-related issues, the interests of the Global South have not been prioritized; India has always considered it its responsibility to rise above its own interests and work in the interest of humanity, " said PM Narendra Modi at the 17th BRICS Summit

It could be tempting to discuss the double standards of the Prime Minister who has always been very keen to cement his relationship with the Global West, especially with the leaders of the G7 but let’s set this aside.

Instead, let’s focus instead on what the BRICS could represent for a country like Nepal. There is no doubt that BRICS can have an important role in reinforcing a multipolar order. At the same time, there is the risk of this bloc polarizing the world further, especially if Russia and China succeed at pushing a strongly anti-western narrative.
It is one thing to lament the unfairness and imbalances facing the Global South, but a completely different matter if there is an open, continuous and unabated hostility toward the West in the way that both Russia and China are keen to unleash. This is the dilemma that Indonesia is facing as the latest nation officially joining the bloc as a full member.

Indonesia, like India, is one of the strongest representatives of the modern non-alignment in foreign policy. De facto, there is no longer a united nonaligned movement of nations but rather, we are talking of the strategic approach of nations like India, Indonesia and Nepal. With the multiple geopolitical crises arising, non-alignment is increasingly becoming a difficult balancing act for the capitals embracing it.

Therefore, the BRICS has a strong purpose and clear mission but only at a theoretical level because in practice, the bloc remains divided. It is one thing to rally around high rhetoric clamoring for justice and equality in the world but it is another thing to put together a coherent set of initiatives, considering also the divergent views that its members have on human rights and democracy.

Yet, there is no doubt that the BRICS cannot become a united and coherent geopolitical bloc, it has some geopolitical aspirations, given the fact that it has been welcoming new members for quite some time. Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates were officially accepted in 2023 during the South African chairmanship of the BRICS.

In practical terms, there is already a BRICS “global” bank, the New Development Bank (headquartered in Shanghai) under former Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff. While the NDB’s work is still somehow disappointing and underperforming, the potential is clear despite a “sibling” rivalry with Chinese’s Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). In addition, the Brazilian Presidency this year has been extremely careful at promoting very concrete areas of cooperation like climate change and artificial intelligence.

These factors make BRICS more relevant than G20 and G7, groups that, by design, are to be much more loose and unstructured platforms. Taking into account the strengths and the potential of BRICS but also its structural weaknesses, especially now that it is at risk of losing its strategic focus with its expanded (and diverse) membership, could it be worthy for Nepal to consider applying for a partner status membership?

There are many nations with this looser and less demanding type of affiliation, officially called the “BRICS Partner Countries”. It is an increasingly large group (as per now, Belarus, Bolivia, Kazakhstan, Cuba, Malaysia, Thailand, Uganda, Uzbekistan and Nigeria have this status). These are nations that want to ride on the potential of BRICS without a full commitment to it. While they can bring an additional collective strength, these nations further stress the internal divide between democracy and authoritarian nations already existing among the full members of the BRICS.

It would not be unimaginable for Nepal to consider this level of partnership with the BRICS. Most importantly, Nepal would gain some visibility and have some tangible gains, especially in terms of enlarging its very limited global presence and establishing more South-South partnerships.

But, strategically speaking, the number one priority for Nepal would be to find ways to reactivate the process of cooperation in South Asia. The SAARC, despite being moribund, should remain the “North Star” for the country’s foreign policy. BIMSTEC and initiatives like “Nepal-India-Bangladesh Corridor could play an important role but none can match the unlimited potential of the SAARC.”

BIMSTEC, no matter its added significance, would never play a fundamental role like the SAARC. The former is a connector, a bridge between two different regions, South Asia and Southeast Asia and Nepal needs to expand its relationship with a nearby region with an incredibly dynamic market. But, in matters of international cooperation and possibly regional integration (the former is the linchpin for the latter), Nepal needs to find an “engine” to maximize its economic potential and develop holistically while eradicating poverty.

Such a propeller can be only found in South Asia and it is called SAARC. With SAARC, there would be a real possibility of creating a common pan-South Asian market and united regional economy. But we all know the current status of this regional body that has been adversely impacted by the relationships between India and Pakistan. There might be creative ways for Nepal to restart the process of regional cooperation but perhaps, Nepal needs to think of itself as its engine rather than delegating this essential and yet untapped function to a regional body.

It might be high time for Nepal to think differently and out of the box and overcome the structural obstacles from two nations in the region that are not interested in leaving the past behind.
Regional cooperation and regional integration in South Asia cannot be blocked by a risky rivalry that, if left unchecked and uncontrolled, can threaten the whole region. Why should not Nepal expand its horizon and strategically imagine itself as a member of bigger forums while also not giving up its strategic interests in its own backyard and truly push for reviving the dream of a more united South Asia?

Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli has once again stated his claim that Lord Ram was born in Nepal and made another new claim—that Lord Shiva could have been of the Chamling community from eastern Nepal.

Speaking at a national seminar on ‘Tourism in Nepal: Status, Challenges and Possibilities’ by CPN-UML’s Tourism Department at Kathmandu on Monday, Oli called for greater trust in selling Nepal as the birthplace of such revered spiritual figures as Ram and Shiva. “We keep talking a lot about how to develop tourism but don’t have the courage to say that Ram was born in Nepal,” Oli stated. “Why would we let people say he was born somewhere else by just making up things? We shouldn’t be afraid to speak the truth just because others would get angry.”

Repeating what he had said before, Oli said that Lord Ram was born in Thori, Madi area of Chitwan, which is currently a part of Nepal. “I am not saying it was Nepal then, but today the land is in Nepal. Whether it was a Tharu settlement or something else at that time, we have to accept the present situation,” he said.

He criticized the reluctance of Nepalis to assert such things, reasoning that fear of controversy should not stifle facts. “If speaking the truth makes you angry, then what are we living for?” he questioned. “We can’t even assert Ram was born here. That shows how afraid we have become.”

Oli also suggested Lord Shiva might have been a Chamling boy, referring to the sacred caves of Halesi in eastern Nepal that are connected to Shiva and are located in a region normally inhabited by Chamling people.

“Sometimes I wonder if perhaps Shiva might have been Chamling. The caves we call Halesi, where it’s believed that Shiva meditated, are located around the Chamling community. Perhaps he was Chamling,” Oli said. “But I’m not claiming anything—just making an educated guess. Through the years, different histories may have converged, but geography doesn’t alter.”

He also said that other great religious personalities like Vedvyas, Kapil Muni and Gautam Buddha were born in Nepal. Quoting the Valmiki Ramayan, he said sage Vishwamitra taught Ram and Lakshman west of the Koshi river, which means the incident took place within what is today’s Nepal. “I did not write the Ramayan—it explicitly states that Vishwamitra went across the Koshi and taught Ram and Lakshman. It is also obvious that Vishwamitra was from Chatara,” he stated.

Oli’s remarks are part of a broader initiative to try to put Nepal on the map as a nation of extreme historical and spiritual significance, though his statements continue to receive praise and criticism in equal measure. While some appreciate his attempts to unveil Nepal’s ancient heritage, others fault the historic validity and political motive behind doing so.

While these remarks may appeal to Oli’s nationalist base, they are likely to provoke unease in India, where Lord Ram and Shiva are deeply revered and closely tied to cultural identity. His comments could complicate his efforts to improve bilateral ties and may jeopardize his official visit to India which was supposed to happen soon, diplomatic sources suggest.

Oli’s statements echo similar claims made during his earlier term as prime minister, when he said Ram was not born in Ayodhya, India, but in Chitwan. That assertion had drawn sharp responses from Indian media and political circles.

In recent years, traditional media houses across the globe have resorted to layoffs as a last-ditch effort to stay afloat; if not for the long term, then at least for a few more years. This wave of downsizing began during the Covid-19 crisis and has yet to subside.

Media organizations are now restructuring into smaller, smarter and more agile newsrooms to cut costs. They are grappling with a severe financial crisis as conventional revenue streams dry up and new ones are slow to emerge. Nepal is no exception to this trend. To reduce expenses, many media houses are working to merge operations across print, radio, television and digital platforms into unified newsrooms. The only seemingly viable, though not well-thought-out option has been to scale down operations to match dwindling revenues. 

In this context, a wide range of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools could prove to be a boon for the fragile media landscape, potentially helping to fill gaps left by staff reductions. However, before embracing AI more broadly, it is crucial for media houses to formulate clear policies to ensure its ethical, transparent and effective use.

While some media houses have already started using AI tools, their applications remain minimal and largely unregulated. It is high time media houses moved decisively, from the Gutenberg-era newsroom to an AI-equipped, high-tech newsroom. A key first step in this transition is to provide training for journalists and collaborate with technology companies to develop customized newsroom tools. While the adoption of AI is not without costs, it can be a cost-effective alternative in the long run, gradually replacing outdated editorial structures.

At present, AI use in Nepal’s newsrooms is limited to individual journalists. Many AI-generated, translated or edited texts are published without any editorial supervision. While no comprehensive study has been conducted to assess the use of AI in Nepali newsrooms so far, a recent survey by Rajiv Timalsina, a student of Kantipur City College, provides some insights. According to the survey, 38 percent of journalists use AI tools for transcription tasks such as documenting interviews. Around 22 percent use them for fact-checking through platforms like Google Fact Check or image verification engines, while only 18 percent use audience analytics tools to understand reader behavior.

The next step after introducing AI tools is to train employees to use them effectively, particularly to improve the quality of writing and editing. Currently, there is a lack of trained human resources in the newsroom, and local journalists are still in the early stages of AI adoption.  While some non-governmental organizations have begun offering training, there has been little to no institutional collaborations.

Media houses must establish dedicated AI departments and AI editors to provide proper insight and guidance. Without this, the unchecked use of AI could lead to serious problems. If possible, Nepali media should also seek collaboration with international media organizations to learn from their experiences, though even global media outlets are still experimenting with AI integration.

In 2024, The New York Times publicly released a document outlining its approach to AI in the newsroom. The US media company said it does not use AI to write news or articles. It said it uses AI in three main ways: as a tool in the service of its journalistic mission, under human guidance and review and transparent use. Compared to other international media outlets, it has adopted a more cautious stance on AI use, maintaining that human creativity remains central to content creation.

In 2023, The Financial Times appointed Madhumita Murgia as its first AI editor. The following year, The New York Times rolled out its first generative AI features for subscribers. The same year, The Washington Post launched “Ask the Post AI”, which it described as a generative AI tool leveraging the publication’s deeply-sourced, fact-based journalism to deliver summary answers and curated results directly to users. 

In neighboring India, The Hindustan Times joined the AI race in 2024, establishing a 15-member team to work on GenAI-based initiatives such as news bots, personalization, audience engagement, monetization and subscription strategies. 

In Nepal, while journalists have begun using publicly-available AI tools, institutional adoption remains limited. However, some media outlets have started integrating AI technologies in various ways, from digital news readers to audio transcription, translation, image and text generation, and even news writing.

Providing summaries alongside news articles, with editorial endorsement, is a growing global trend. Onlinekhabar is among the Nepali media following this trend. Annapurna Post has also taken help of AI for its digital reader tool.  However, some news outlets, which lack strong editorial oversight, are publishing AI-generated summaries that are flawed or misleading.

With the use of AI at the individual level growing, media houses must ensure that AI is used responsibly and ethically. This is necessary both to maintain editorial integrity and to earn people’s trust. With strategic investment and collaboration with tech companies, AI could unlock new opportunities for Nepali media houses. 

AI tools can help summarize news stories, but editors must have the final say. The New York Times’ own experience shows that AI-generated summaries often fail to fully capture the nuances of original articles. Many believe that human-written summaries are still superior. Despite this, the US media company’s AI team has been refining its tools, acknowledging that while AI is not perfect, it can still help free up editorial staff for other important tasks. 

With the right human guidance, generative AI can also be used to create visuals to accompany new stories. Some Nepali media houses have started using AI-generated images, but these are only accurate when journalists provide detailed guidance. Otherwise, there is a risk of misrepresentation and factual inaccuracies. 

Resource constraints have long prevented Nepal media from producing investigative, analytical and in-depth news stories. AI could help bridge this gap. It can assist in scanning documents, analyzing data and identifying leads for investigative reports. These are the tasks that journalists often struggle to manage under tight deadlines. AI can also support wider and more efficient coverage by translating news into multiple languages to reach broader audiences. Some outlets in Nepal have already begun experimenting with this approach.

AI tools can be used to support news writing and editing. However, this should always be done under direct editorial supervision. These tools are best used to prepare preliminary drafts. For journalists, AI can help identify trending topics, suggest potential sources, summarize lengthy documents, conduct background checks and even engage audiences more effectively.

While investing in AI infrastructure may place an additional financial burden on media houses in the short term, it could prove vital to their long-term survival. On one hand, AI can significantly enhance the quality and efficiency of news production; on the other, a compact AI-powered newsroom can help reduce human resource costs. Compared to other countries, Nepali media remain behind in adopting technology. But the use of AI in newsrooms is no longer a distant possibility, it is a present-day reality.  The question is not whether to use AI, but how to use it effectively to harness its benefits.