Submit your Article

The coalition government of Nepali Congress (NC) and CPN-UML, formed in July 2024 with promises of political stability, has not been able to function effectively. The two parties have not been able to hold even preliminary talks on constitutional amendments—one of the major tasks for which the two largest parties in parliament formed the coalition. A lack of unified support from NC is among the reasons weakening the coalition’s ability to govern effectively.

The rift within the NC, primarily between party president Sher Bahadur Deuba’s loyalists, and reformist leaders such as Gagan Thapa and Shekhar Koirala, have caused problems for the government. Thapa and Koirala, both vying for the party presidency in the coming general election and eyeing future premierships, have openly criticized the coalition. Their resistance to Deuba’s potential return as prime minister in the latter half of this parliament’s tenure has only deepened the party’s divisions and weakened its commitment to the coalition. Even Deuba’s loyalist leaders like Purna Bahadur Khadka and Prakash Sharan Mahat have hinted they prefer an alliance with the Maoist Center, with NC leading the government.

It took the government 29 days to reach an agreement with protesting school teachers because of the lack of support from the coalition partner. The protest caused significant damage to the education sector with national examination of Class 12, assessment of Secondary Education Examination (SEE) answer sheets and national school enrolment program all affected. The dismissal of Nepal Electricity Authority (NEA) Executive Director Kulman Ghising was another such incident. Although an NC minister pushed for Ghising’s termination, NC leaders, including general secretaries duo Gagan Kumar Thapa and Biswho Prakash Sharma, vehemently opposed the decision. The protracted delay in the appointment of the governor is another example of lack of cohesion in the ruling coalition. 

The NC’s wavering commitment has created uncertainty for Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli. This has forced Oli to frequently seek reassurance from Deuba on the government’s future. Despite Deuba’s public support, UML leaders suspect behind-the-scenes pressures, reportedly from India, and overtures from Maoist Center Chairperson Pushpa Kamal Dahal, who has signaled readiness to support Deuba’s return as prime minister. Thapa’s suggestions last month that the NC could exit the coalition, citing Oli’s leadership failures, underscores just how fragile the alliance has become.

This internal disarray threatens not only to cause the collapse of a coalition with a two-thirds majority but also to erode public trust in democratic governance. Nepal urgently needs a unified and functional government. The NC must bridge its internal divisions, set aside personal rivalries, and focus on delivering its coalition commitments—chief among them constitutional reform and effective governance. Failure to do so risks plunging the country back into another cycle of political instability. This would further alienate people at a time when some forces are calling for a revert to monarchy.

The teachers’ protest has finally come to an end after a deal brokered by the newly appointed Minister for Education, Raghuji Pant. Former Education Minister Bidya Bhattarai had resigned earlier, citing health reasons, though many believe her departure was due to disagreements with Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli.

Under the nine-point agreement, some of the teachers’ demands have been met, while others will require legal amendments. The government has breathed a sigh of relief, as ruling leaders feared the movement could be politicized—particularly by the main opposition, CPN (Maoist Center)—and used against them.

Meanwhile, royalist leaders Kamal Thapa, Keshar Bahadur Bista, Rajendra Lingden, and Navaraj Subedi have united, setting aside personal differences. However, the pro-monarchy movement has already lost momentum following the violent protests on March 28. Despite their attempts to rally supporters, the royalist campaign is unlikely to regain traction anytime soon. Their focus has now shifted to securing the release of arrested leaders, including Rabindra Mishra. The government is under pressure to free Mishra and is expected to do so soon.

A parliamentary sub-committee led by Rajendra Lingden has submitted its report to the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), revealing an alleged embezzlement of approximately Rs 10bn during the construction of Pokhara International Airport. However, further investigation is unlikely, given the involvement of top leaders. While the PAC may issue directives to the government and the Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA), the strong nexus between politicians and bureaucrats means the report will likely be ignored. Some politicians have already begun highlighting flaws in the report, likely to shield high-ranking figures from scrutiny.

Former Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai visited India to attend a party event and used the opportunity to meet old friends, including former Indian ambassadors to Nepal and Indian Defense Minister Rajnath Singh. His media remarks suggest he sought to dissuade India from supporting any pro-monarchy movement in Nepal. “There was no open discussion about the current coalition, but my sense is that India holds an inconsistent stance—neither comfortable with the current government nor seeing a viable alternative,” Bhattarai told the media. During his India trip, he primarily engaged with former Indian ambassadors who favor Nepal’s existing political system.

Nepali Congress (NC) General Secretary Gagan Kumar Thapa has continued his criticism of the government, accusing ministers of inefficiency. Meanwhile, there has been some progress in shortlisting the candidates for the two transitional justice bodies—the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and the Commission on the Investigation of Enforced Disappeared Persons. However, the top three leaders—KP Sharma Oli, Sher Bahadur Deuba, and Pushpa Kamal Dahal—have yet to finalize appointments. A closer look at the shortlist suggests the commissions may lack subject-matter experts, raising doubts about their effectiveness.

On the possibility of government changes, NC President Deuba reaffirmed that the current coalition remains stable. Speaking to reporters upon his return from Thailand, Deuba said that the alliance would last until the next elections. Encouraged by his remarks, Prime Minister Oli called Deuba’s statement a serious blow to those attempting to topple the government. He also told the party lawmakers that the two parties—UML and NC—will handle the government duties amicably. However, growing frustrations within the ruling coalition and Maoist Chairman Dahal’s public statements have fueled speculation about an impending crisis. Remarks by senior NC leaders, including Shekhar Koirala, Thapa, and Bishwa Prakash Sharma, have further muddled the government’s future. A recent report highlighted how the NC’s contradictory positions are contributing to perceptions of political instability.

Ruling parties have yet to agree on the appointment of the Nepal Rastra Bank governor, drawing widespread criticism. The delay sends a troubling signal that such unresolved issues could eventually lead to a government collapse. President Ramchandra Paudel is set to present the government’s policy and program on Friday (May 2), which will be followed by the unveiling of the annual budget. It remains to be seen whether the NC and UML can cooperate on budgetary matters, as past experience suggests such discussions often sow discord within coalitions.

Both the NC and UML have launched campaigns to expand their membership bases. NC leaders report a lack of enthusiasm among local cadres to renew active memberships—a worrying sign. Meanwhile, the UML aims to increase its membership to 750,000 within a year. However, both parties face challenges in attracting new members.

Preparations are underway for the Sagarmatha Sambad, scheduled for May 16–18. The government has branded this as a global dialogue to highlight the impact of climate change on Nepal’s Himalayan region. The Sambad Secretariat has invited over 300 guests, including several heads of government.

The social contract is a profound idea rooted in the busy marketplace of human society centuries ago. Forged in the fiery debates of the Enlightenment, this philosophical foundation holds that individuals trade under the protection of the state. Visionaries such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau articulated this contract theory as an explanation for why people prefer to live under rules rather than without them.

In today’s interconnected world, this concept is at work in the global trade landscape. In these networks, individuals as well as nations agree on rules for mutual prosperity. 

Against this backdrop, the arrival of President Donald Trump and his trade policies have stirred up a storm in this global landscape. In 2017, Trump began imposing tariffs on imported goods, targeting countries like China, Canada and Mexico to protect American workers and industries. 

He further expanded these measures after taking office for a second term in 2025, declaring a national emergency under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to address a trade deficit of over $1.2trn in 2024. He imposed 10 percent tariffs on all countries, including rates as high as 145 percent on China, effective from April 9, targeting countries with the largest US trade deficits.

Retaliatory tariffs from countries such as China and the European Union could harm American exporters, such as farmers, potentially reducing job gains. If the economic harm outweighs the benefits, the government may be failing in its duty to promote the welfare of citizens.

Globally, Trump’s tariffs test the fragile threads of the international social contract. Like Locke’s conditional agreement, trade agreements are mutual. By acting unilaterally, Trump’s policies risk violating this contract. This could lead to retaliation and market turmoil. Japan’s prime minister called it a ‘national crisis’, and JP Morgan raised the risk of a global recession to 60 percent.

Proponents argue that the global trading system was already broken, with countries like China engaging in unfair practices. From a Hobbesian perspective, Trump’s tariffs assert US sovereignty to protect its citizens, risking a flawed global contract. Yet they also risk destabilizing the cooperative framework that has underpinned post-World War II prosperity.

A philosophical lens

In the swirling currents of global trade, where nations vie for advantage, the ideas of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau cast distinct lights on the unfolding drama of President Trump’s tariffs. Each philosopher, with his unique vision of the social contract, offers a way to understand the motives, actions, and ripples of this modern trade saga.

Imagine a world where countries act like wary travelers in a lawless land, each guarding their own treasures. For Hobbes, this is the state of nature—a realm of raw competition where chaos looms without a strong hand to guide it. In his 1651 work Leviathan, he saw nations, much like individuals, needing a powerful sovereign to impose order. Trump’s tariffs, launched in 2017 and intensified in 2025, seem to fit this mold: bold moves by the United States to assert control, protect its industries, and carve out security in a turbulent trade landscape. Yet, Hobbes dreamed of an unchallenged ruler whose word was law. The reality of global trade tells a different story. As nations like China and the EU fire back with their own tariffs, markets tremble and Japan’s Prime Minister calls it a “national crisis”. This resistance reveals a world that bows to no single power, challenging Hobbes’ vision of a tidy, obedient order.

Locke steps into the tale with a gentler view, one rooted in rights and reason. Writing in 1690, he saw people coming together to protect their natural rights to life, liberty and property, forming a government only with their consent. Locke might nod at Trump’s aim to shield American workers and businesses, seeing it as a government’s duty to safeguard its people’s economic freedom. But he’d pause at the way these tariffs were imposed—unilaterally, without the nod of global partners. For Locke, legitimacy hinges on agreement, and actions that stray from the public good risk breaking the contract. When tariffs drive up prices, potentially hiking the cost of an iPhone by 30 percent or adding $1,280 to household expenses in 2025, Locke might warn that the government is failing its own citizens, betraying the very trust it was meant to uphold.

Then there’s Rousseau, who in 1762 wove a vision of the “general will”—a collective spirit where people unite for the common good. He’d peer closely at Trump’s tariffs, asking: do they truly reflect the heart of the American people or do they serve a narrower agenda? Protecting jobs in steel towns might seem to honor the general will, rallying communities hit hard by global trade. But Rousseau’s gaze would stretch further, to the global stage. By favoring American interests over shared prosperity, these tariffs spark retaliatory volleys that could shrink the US GDP by 0.8 percent or cost 740,000 jobs if unchecked. Rousseau might argue that such policies fracture the unspoken pact among nations, sowing mutual harm where cooperation could have flourished.

Together, these philosophers weave a rich tapestry of questions about Trump’s tariff war. Hobbes sees a bold bid for order in a chaotic world, yet stumbles against global defiance. Locke champions the protection of rights but demands consent and care for the public good. Rousseau seeks a collective will that binds both nation and world, wary of actions that pit one against the other. Their voices echo through the clatter of trade disputes, reminding us of the delicate dance between national pride and global trust, between safeguarding one’s own and honoring the shared bonds that keep the world turning.

The heart of the matter

Trump’s tariff war lays bare a core tension: can a nation honor its domestic social contract while upholding its global commitments? Domestically, tariffs address real concerns about job losses and economic decline, but their costs—higher prices and potential job losses from retaliation—raise doubts about their alignment with the common good. Globally, unilateral actions challenge the mutual consent that underpins trade agreements, risking a breakdown in the global social contract. 

The tariffs reflect a broader distrust in globalization, fueled by perceived inequities in trade. Yet, the path forward is fraught. As nations grapple with rising costs and market instability, the principles of social contract theory remind us that legitimate governance, whether at home or abroad, requires mutual agreement and a commitment to shared prosperity.

Labor Day is a celebration of workers’ contributions across the world. But for millions of women—especially in developing countries like Nepal—it serves as a bittersweet reminder: despite working just as hard, women continue to earn significantly less than their male colleagues. According to the Nepal Labor Force Survey (2022), women earn about 23 percent less than men on average, even when performing similar roles.

In Nepal, women not only face lower wages but also encounter insecure job conditions such as lack of benefits, and limited promotion opportunities. Even when legal protections exist, the realities on the ground tell a different story.

Every morning Sunmaya Lama (33) from Kavrepalanchok, goes to build homes for others. “I came here three years ago,” she says, her hands calloused from hauling bricks and mixing cement. “There weren’t many opportunities back home. At least here, I can earn something for myself and my parents back home.”

Lama works as a daily wage laborer, but her labor comes at a cost. Despite doing the same heavy lifting and physical work as her male coworkers, she earns slightly less. “They say the men are stronger, so they get more,” she explains. “But we carry the same weight, work the same hours.”

Her words reflect a broader problem faced by many women in the construction sector: lack of formal contracts, unequal pay, and limited access to healthcare or workers’ rights. Her dream is simple. “I don’t want to do this forever,” she says. “Maybe one day I can open a small tea shop.”

For the past year, Bikram Yonjan has been working on construction sites across Kathmandu—stacking bricks, mixing cement, and carrying loads. But alongside the sweat and struggle, Yonjan carries something else: respect for his female co-workers.

“When I first started, I didn’t think much about it,” says the 45-year-old from Dolakha. “But then I saw how hard the women here work—just as hard as us. And still, they get paid less.”

Yonjan, who fought hard to even secure his own daily wage when he started, says the pay gap didn’t sit right with him. “I had to argue with the contractor at first just to get fair wages. I know how that feels.”

While he now earns a bit more than the female laborers he admits it doesn’t feel entirely fair. “We do the same work. Sometimes they carry more. The only difference is what we’re paid.”

Over time, he has become known on the site not just for his strength, but for his attitude. He often tells the women to take a break when they look exhausted. “I know many of them deal with body pain, some even during their monthly cycle. But they keep working without complaint.” He smiles, “I admire them, truly. They deserve better—more pay, more rest, more care.” “We’re all building the same house,” he says. “We should be treated equally while doing it.”

Why does this wage gap persist?

Sudip Singh Nakarmi, a member of the Gender Studies Department at Tribhuvan University (TU), says that occupational segregation begins in childhood, shaping how society expects men and women to work. Women are often burdened with juggling office work, household chores, and caregiving, yet their labor is undervalued.

Ramhari Nepal, chairperson of the General Federation of Nepalese Trade Unions (GEFONT), notes that wage disparity is common in sectors like agriculture, service industries, and house construction. He points out that although both men and women contribute equally to house construction, the work is divided by physical demands, leading to differences in pay.

“Wage differences can often be determined by the nature of the work performed by men and women. For example, during house construction, men typically undertake heavier tasks such as climbing three to four stories and cementing structures, while women are more often responsible for assisting by transporting materials. Although both contribute equally to the construction process, the type of service they provide differs, leading to wage disparities,” he says.

Humnath Parajuli, under secretary and information officer at the Ministry of Labor, Employment and Social Security, says that wage disparity is often recognized in the formal sector but persists—and even appears “idealized”—in informal sectors like the movie industry. Efforts to create gender-sensitive workplaces focus more on behavior and environment, often ignoring wage inequalities.

Many companies do not openly share salary information, making it harder to spot and correct discrimination. A 2023 report by the Forum for Women, Law and Development (FWLD) found that only 40 percent of surveyed workplaces in Kathmandu complied with equal pay requirements.

Although Nepal’s Constitution, Labor Act, and various policies guarantee equal pay for equal work, enforcement remains limited. Employers sometimes bypass regulations through informal wage practices.
Beyond formal employment, women’s unpaid work—cooking, cleaning, caregiving—remains largely unrecognized in economic calculations.

The Central Bureau of Statistics, Nepal’s national data agency, reports that the widest pay gap between men and women exists in the ‘professional’ sector. For instance, while a male professional earns around Rs 25,800 per month, a female in the same category earns only Rs 14,000.

Nepal ranks second among South Asian countries and 101st globally in the Global Gender Gap Report 2020. Although the country performs relatively well in political empowerment, it lags behind in educational attainment and health outcomes for women.

A 2023 report by the World Economic Forum (WEF) highlighted that no country has yet achieved pay equality between men and women. Alarmingly, at the current pace of progress, it could take more than two centuries to fully close the global gender pay gap. However, this daunting reality should strengthen, not weaken, efforts to eliminate wage discrimination.

Globally, women now hold 34 percent of senior management roles in the mid-market sector—a 0.5 percentage point increase from 2024. This steady rise marks five consecutive years of progress toward gender parity in leadership positions, exceeding the previous trend.

Legal framework in Nepal

Nepal has made significant steps in ensuring gender equality through a legal framework. The Constitution, along with key laws like the Labor Act and the National Gender Equality Policy, guarantees equal protection, pay, and opportunities for women. Additionally, Nepal is committed to international agreements too. Some legal frameworks are listed below:

• Constitution of Nepal: Article 18 guarantees equal protection under the law and prohibits discrimination based on sex.
  Article 38 ensures women’s participation in all state structures and mandates equal pay for equal work.
• Labour Act, 2017: Section 7 prohibits discrimination in employment based on gender.
  Section 15 requires employers to determine wages without discrimination and promote transparency.
• National Gender Equality Policy (2016): Aims to provide equal economic opportunities for women and ensure fair access to decent work.
• International commitments: Nepal is a signatory to ILO Convention No. 100 (Equal Remuneration) and Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), both of which call for elimination of gender-based discrimination in the workplace.

Despite these strong legal frameworks, societal attitudes, weak monitoring, and lack of awareness among employers and workers alike contribute to persistent inequalities.

The way forward

Addressing the wage gap requires a multi-pronged approach. Implementing salary transparency through clear and public sharing of wage structures is crucial to ensuring accountability. Stronger enforcement mechanisms, including regular monitoring and strict penalties for violations, must be established to uphold equal pay laws.

At the same time, cultural shifts are needed to genuinely value women’s labor, both paid and unpaid, across all sectors. Education and awareness play a vital role, as emphasized by Nakarmi, in empowering women and marginalized communities to advocate for their rights. Additionally, inclusive policies must be prioritized to ensure that lower-class communities and LGBTQIA+ individuals—who often face multiple layers of discrimination—are not left behind in the fight for wage equality.