Submit your Article

Thousands of supporters greeted Nepal’s former king in capital Kathmandu on Sunday and demanded his abolished monarchy be reinstated and Hinduism brought back as a state religion, Associated Press reported.

An estimated 10,000 supporters of Gyanendra Shah blocked the main entrance to Kathmandu’s Tribhuvan International Airport as he arrived from a tour of western Nepal.

“Vacate the royal palace for the king. Come back king, save the country. Long live our beloved king. We want monarchy,” the crowds chanted. Passengers were forced to walk to and from the airport.

Hundreds of riot police blocked the protesters from entering the airport and there was no violence.

Massive street protests in 2006 forced Gyanendra to give up his authoritarian rule, and two years later the parliament voted to abolish the monarchy as Gyanendra left the Royal Palace to live the life of a commoner.

But many Nepalis have grown frustrated with the republic, saying it has failed to bring about political stability and blaming it for a struggling economy and widespread corruption. Nepal has had 13 governments since the monarchy was abolished in 2008.

Rally participants said they were hoping for a change in the political system to stop the country from further deteriorating, according to Associated Press.

“We are here to give the king our full support and to rally behind him all the way to reinstating him in the royal throne,” said Thir Bahadur Bhandari, 72.

Among the thousands was 50-year-old carpenter Kulraj Shrestha, who had taken part in the 2006 protests against the king but has changed his mind and now supports the monarchy.

“The worst thing that is happening to the country is massive corruption and all politicians in power are not doing anything for the country,” Shrestha said. “I was in the protests that took away monarchy hoping it would help the country, but I was mistaken and the nation has further plunged so I have changed my mind.”

Gyanendra has not commented on the calls for the return of monarchy. Despite growing support for the former king, Gyanendra has slim chances of immediately returning to power.

He became the king in 2002, after his brother and family were massacred in the palace. He ruled as the constitutional head of state without executive or political powers until 2005, when he seized absolute power. He disbanded the government and parliament, jailed politicians and journalists and cut off communications, declaring a state of emergency and using the army to rule the country.

Former central banker Mark Carney won the race to become leader of Canada's ruling Liberal Party and will succeed Justin Trudeau as prime minister, official results showed on Sunday, Reuters reported.

Carney will take over at a tumultuous time in Canada, which is in the midst of a trade war with longtime ally the United States under President Donald Trump and must hold a general election soon.

Carney, 59, took 86% of votes cast to beat former Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland in a contest in which just under 152,000 party members voted.

"There's someone who's trying to weaken our economy," Carney said of Trump, spurring loud boos at the party gathering. "He's attacking Canadian workers, families, and businesses. We can't let him succeed."

"This won’t be business as usual," Carney said. "We will have to do things that we haven’t imagined before, at speeds we didn’t think possible."

Trudeau announced in January that he would step down after more than nine years in power as his approval rating plummeted, forcing the ruling Liberal Party to run a quick contest to replace him, according to Reuters.

"Make no mistake, this is a nation-defining moment. Democracy is not a given. Freedom is not a given. Even Canada is not a given," Trudeau said.

Carney, a political novice, argued that he was best placed to revive the party and to oversee trade negotiations with Trump, who is threatening additional tariffs that could cripple Canada's export-dependent economy.

Trudeau has imposed C$30 billion of retaliatory tariffs on the United States in response to tariffs Trump levied on Canada.

"My government will keep our tariffs on until the Americans show us respect," Carney said.

Carney's win marks the first time an outsider with no real political background has become Canadian prime minister. He has said his experience as the first person to serve as the governor of two G7 central banks - Canada and England - meant he was the best candidate to deal with Trump.

The prospect of a fresh start for the Liberal Party under Carney, combined with Trump's tariffs and his repeated taunts to annex Canada as the 51st U.S. state, led to a remarkable revival of Liberal fortunes.

Unseen, unheard and unrecognized within the walls of the house, domestic workers are the most vulnerable to exploitation and oppression. ILO Convention No 189 defines domestic work as “any work performed in or for a household or households” and domestic worker as “any person engaged in domestic work within an employment relationship”. Domestic work may incorporate the services such as cleaning, cooking, and washing, taking care of the children or other members of the family, guarding the house, gardening, and other forms of household services. ILO has recognized domestic workers as the workers in the care economy who work in or for private households on an occupational basis recognizing that such workers provide services and goods that are socially necessary for the maintenance of household and well-being of the members of the families.

Domestic works are mainly done behind closed doors that make it uncertain and unknown to the outside world. So the domestic workers, in addition to being underpaid and overworked- are more susceptible to remain socially and legally unprotected. These workers are more vulnerable to physical, sexual and mental abuse along with long working hours and deprivation. Since, the domestic work is more of the informal nature, even in the countries with sufficient legal protection, the legal protection becomes difficult. Around 81 percent are in informal employment—that’s twice the share of informal employment among other employees.

Historically, labor law emphasizes industrial work and the protection of labor working in the industrial conditions. Domestic work is often not recognized as a work. The employment in the household is often regarded as an informal and private matter.  In such a context, it is difficult to abide by both the employer and employee by some rules and regulations. Despite their crucial role, domestic workers are often excluded from labor protections provided to other types of workers. Domestic workers typically work alone, hidden behind the closed doors of a private home. Such isolation, along with socio-economic vulnerability and pervasive discrimination, perpetuate deep-rooted barriers to fair working conditions.

The work of the domestic worker is based on personal subordination rather than pre-established rules in the factories or offices. This situation puts the domestic worker within the dependency of the employer in determining the limit of work, time and remuneration. Also, domestic workers work in isolated conditions that deprives them of the right of collective bargaining, and joining the trade union is impossible and far cry. Therefore, resistance to inadequate working conditions is very difficult, putting them to even more suppression and in the darkness of silence. 

The domestic workers do the most precious work bringing the order and management to the household but remain undervalued, unnoticed and unrecognized. Many of the domestic workers carry out their activities without vocational qualifications, and their position remains weak, easily replaceable based on the will of the employer. Exploitation and discrimination are high and sexual exploitation is also common when most of the domestic workers are women. Moreover, this informal nature of work resembles unpaid family work.

Achieving a better level of recognition and protection to the domestic workers would require significant legal reform. Though the Nepali Labor Act has recognized the domestic worker, it is not going to be enough. The special attention to the implementation of the rights of the domestic labor must be given as domestic work remains informal within the isolated environment. 

The real problems remain with the control of implementation. The inspection of the domestic working conditions and the learning of the status of the domestic worker from time to time is going to be inevitable. Since, the labor work comes under the private sphere; the intervention in the working condition can take place only in highly specific instances which are explicitly enumerated by law. Therefore, in order to improve the situation of domestic workers will require comprehensive laws for enforcement of the rights of the domestic workers compared to other workers.

Workers themselves must be in a position to enforce these laws and to bring blatant violations to the attention of the government authorities. Efforts on two fronts will be required: education of undocumented domestic workers concerning their basic rights and elimination of barriers to domestic workers’ enforcement of their rights. 

Another requirement of the proper enforcement of labor law rights depends on the ability of the worker to register a complaint to certain authority which can provide them with the legal recourse. Because of their precarious place within the private household where they have to spend most of the time, are not in the position to complain despite of the physical or sexual abuse, exploitation, or the deprivation of the rights guaranteed to any workers. Therefore, the laws must be reformed that allows domestic workers to come out of the shadows from the limitation within the walls of the house to challenge their wages, working conditions and threats from any kind of violence.

The world is witnessing an unprecedented shift in the global balance of power, shaped by fluctuating levels of trust—ranging from distrust to over-trust—among allies, partners, and rivals. While long-standing adversaries inch closer to trust, former allies are drifting apart.

For nearly eight decades, the United States has dominated the global order, emerging as the unipolar leader after World War II. Historically, international politics has been reshaped after great wars, but US President Donald Trump disrupted this pattern, attempting to redefine global dynamics without such a transition. His disregard for alliances, multilateralism, and diplomatic norms—along with his defiance of the traditional "balance of power" principle—has stunned scholars, analysts, and foreign policy experts worldwide.

A stark display of this shifting order unfolded in the Oval Office last week when the presidents of the US and Ukraine engaged in a tense, televised exchange. The meeting resembled a coercive business negotiation rather than a diplomatic discussion. The Ukrainian president appeared pressured into signing a critical mineral deal, reducing the encounter to a stage-managed spectacle. The scene was less about strategic partnership and more about power dynamics, with Ukraine seemingly treated as a pawn in a larger geopolitical game.

Has Trump's approach advanced American interests, or has it weakened the country’s global standing? Following the heated Oval Office confrontation, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was hailed as a “dignified hero” by EU leaders and US Democrats. Unlike past leaders who complied with Washington’s directives, Zelensky defied the American president, refusing to yield to pressure. However, this did not translate into a victory for Ukraine. Instead, the United States suffered a diplomatic setback, fracturing its alliances and reinforcing global skepticism about its leadership.

The diplomatic rift between the US and the EU on the Ukraine issue signals potential realignments. Analysts warn that institutions like NATO and the Transatlantic Alliance could face an existential crisis as America's credibility erodes. Critics argue that no US president has misunderstood trade, tariffs, multilateralism, or diplomacy as profoundly as Trump. Even his former National Security Advisor, John Bolton, has condemned his foreign policy as reckless, warning that it may jeopardize American security rather than strengthen it.

Meanwhile, key global players—including India, Saudi Arabia, Australia, Japan, and South Korea—are quietly observing America’s struggles, ready to exploit its diplomatic missteps. Trump’s policies, which have alienated allies while appeasing adversaries, raise serious concerns about the future of US leadership. Can a nation maintain global dominance when it mistreats its allies and emboldens its rivals?

Trump’s erratic foreign policy has further complicated global tensions. Instead of working toward a resolution in Gaza, he mocked an AI-generated video, “Trump Gaza,” on his Truth Social platform—an act widely criticized as insensitive. While the US frames its national interest as “merciful” in Jerusalem, its stance in Gaza and Kyiv appears markedly inhumane, raising ethical concerns.

The shifting power dynamics extend beyond Ukraine. If Trump applies similar coercion to Taiwan, the US could effectively hand over the island to China, fulfilling Beijing’s long-standing ambition. A comparable approach toward Japan, South Korea, or the Philippines could dismantle critical alliances like QUAD and AUKUS, leaving America increasingly isolated. The notion that Trump might either dismantle NATO or invite Russia to join it—an idea reportedly echoed by his close advisor Elon Musk—reflects the volatility of his global strategy.

Under Trump's leadership, US foreign policy has become a source of global instability. The question remains: Is this a calculated shift or a dangerous slip in America’s 250-year legacy? Many analysts believe that the post-Cold War world order, which once revolved around the US, is now giving way to a multipolar system where Washington is no longer the sole authority.

While Trump claims to be fostering global peace, his actions suggest otherwise. The possibility of a major global conflict looms large. China has already warned that it is prepared to confront the US—whether in trade, tariffs, or war—until the end. If tensions escalate, and relations with the EU, Canada, and the Middle East remain strained, Washington may find itself without key allies in a potential US-China conflict.

A nuclear confrontation, though unthinkable, could prove catastrophic for humanity. Sensible voices across the world, including this author, oppose all forms of war. However, if Trump continues to push the boundaries of international diplomacy, the US may face unprecedented domestic turmoil. A political crisis could even lead to constitutional amendments limiting presidential authority. Some foresee a scenario where Trump faces mass protests, possible impeachment, or even resistance from the US defense and intelligence community.

As global alliances shift, other nations are stepping up. The EU may seek stronger ties with China, while Saudi Arabia leverages its position in Middle Eastern politics. Russia continues to assert itself, while India navigates its role with strategic shrewdness. The US, once the dominant force in global geopolitics, is now at risk of losing influence across multiple regions.

For Ukraine, the only viable path forward may be direct negotiations with Russia. While Zelensky has called for NATO intervention, the West must prioritize peace over prolonged military engagement. Without diplomatic talks, Ukraine's chances of securing a lasting resolution remain slim. If Israel can negotiate with Hamas, Ukraine too can engage in dialogue with Russia.

In this era of global upheaval, Nepal must tread carefully. Given its strategic location between two rising powers—China and India—Nepal must resist external pressure that could drag it into conflicts resembling Ukraine’s plight. Instead, it should focus on internal stability and self-reliance, strengthening its institutions, economy, and diplomatic standing.

To thrive in an increasingly complex world, Nepal must enhance its global competitiveness in areas such as political stability, technological innovation, data sovereignty, and social integrity. Rather than seeking leniency from global powers, Nepal should cultivate its own strengths and maintain a balanced foreign policy rooted in nonalignment and the principle of “amity with all, enmity with none.”

As the global order shifts, peace remains the ultimate objective. True leadership lies in diplomacy, dialogue, and cooperation—not in coercion and conflict. The world must work collectively to prevent further geopolitical fragmentation and prioritize stability over discord.

The author is a geostrategic thinker and techno-geopolitical analyst