Submit your Article

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

Beijing's tariffs on certain US agricultural goods in retaliation for President Donald Trump's latest hike on Chinese imports came into force Monday, as trade tensions mount between the world's two leading economies, AFP reported.

Since retaking office in January, Trump has unleashed a barrage of tariffs on major US trading partners, including China, Canada and Mexico, citing their failure to stop illegal immigration and flows of deadly fentanyl.

After imposing a blanket 10 percent tariff on all Chinese goods in early February, Trump hiked the rate to 20 percent last week.

Beijing reacted quickly, its finance ministry accusing Washington of "undermining" the multilateral trading system and announcing fresh measures of its own.

Those tariffs come into effect Monday and see levies of 10 and 15 percent imposed on several US farm products.

Chicken, wheat, corn and cotton from the United States will now be subject to the higher charge.

Soybeans, sorghum, pork, beef, aquatic products, fruit, vegetables and dairy will face the slightly lower rate.

The tariffs will not apply to goods that left before March 10, however, as long as they arrive in China by April 12, according to AFP.

Analysts say Beijing's retaliatory tariffs are designed to hurt Trump's voter base while remaining restrained enough to allow room to hash out a trade deal.

The increasing trade headwinds add to difficulties faced by Chinese leaders currently seeking to stabilise the country's wavering economy.

Sluggish consumer spending, a prolonged debt crisis in the vast property sector and high youth unemployment are among the issues now facing policymakers.

Analysts say China's exports -- which last year reached record highs -- might not provide the same economic lifeline for Beijing as its trade war with Washington intensifies.

Sixteen years have passed since the abolition of Nepal’s 238-year-old monarchy, yet the political landscape remains unsettled.

The occasional statements from former King Gyanendra Shah and the persistent protests by his supporters continue to rattle the fragile foundations of the federal republic established in 2008. Interestingly, these pro-monarchist demonstrations often serve as a unifying force for Nepal’s major political parties, temporarily bridging their deep-rooted divisions.

As spring arrives, pro-monarchist forces have once again intensified their protests, echoing their perennial demands for the restoration of the Hindu state and the monarchy. While large-scale demonstrations were rare between 2008 and 2018, the momentum has been steadily building since then, though it has yet to reach a tipping point capable of overturning the 2015 constitution.

The growing disillusionment with successive governments, plagued by unfulfilled promises and systemic failures, has fueled anti-establishment sentiment. This dissatisfaction has provided fertile ground for the resurgence of royalist forces, whose recent street protests have sparked fear and anxiety among Nepal’s major political parties. Spring, traditionally a season of political unrest in Nepal, has once again become a stage for demonstrations, with royalist protests capturing significant attention this year. Even within the largest party, the Nepali Congress, there are vocal advocates for reinstating the Hindu state—though not necessarily the monarchy.

The latest wave of protests was triggered by former King Gyanendra Shah’s Democracy Day message on Falgun 7. In his address, he called on all “nationalists,” democrats, and patriots to unite and address the country’s deepening crisis. While he stopped short of explicitly urging people to take to the streets, his message was notably more pointed than his previous vague appeals. Following this, pro-monarchist forces organized sizable protests in Pokhara, Biratnagar, and Madhes provinces, sending alarm bells ringing among mainstream political parties.

The former king’s message, likely crafted after informal consultations with his supporters, has galvanized a series of protests across the country. Two prominent parties—the Rastriya Prajatantra Party led by Rajendra Lingden and the Rastriya Prajatantra Party (Nepal) led by Kamal Thapa—have openly endorsed the king’s agenda. However, dozens of smaller groups and outfits are also actively working toward the same goal. While Gyanendra Shah has not formally aligned himself with any political party, he has provided tactical support, including financial backing, to these groups.

This is not the first time monarchist forces have made their presence felt. Significant demonstrations in 2021 and 2023 drew considerable attention from both domestic political parties and the international community. However, these protests have lacked a unified structure or leadership, with deep divisions among the various groups hindering the emergence of a cohesive movement.

In response to the growing unrest, the CPN (Maoist Center), which prides itself as a defender of the 2015 constitution, has suspended its ongoing party programs. Party leaders cite the need to monitor the royalist forces, whom they accuse of attempting to create chaos. Meanwhile, Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, CPN (Maoist Center) Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal, Nepali Congress President Sher Bahadur Deuba, and other leaders have issued a unified message to the former king: if he wishes to return to power, he should register a political party and contest elections. Some have even threatened to arrest him if he undermines the current political system. Royalist parties have countered by asserting that the king is a unifying figure above partisan politics and therefore cannot be expected to contest elections.

Gyanendra Shah has been actively touring the country to rally support, while also making frequent visits to Uttar Pradesh, India, to meet Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, a long-time supporter of his bid to regain power. The former king appears to be seeking backing from India’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) for his campaign to reinstate the monarchy and the Hindu state. While some within the BJP support the idea of Nepal as a Hindu state, it remains unclear whether they endorse the restoration of the monarchy. Last August, Gyanendra’s visit to Bhutan at the invitation of King Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuk fueled rumors of third-country involvement, adding another layer of intrigue to his efforts.

Adding to the political turbulence, former US President Donald Trump’s remarks labeling USAID funding for Nepal’s fiscal federalism as a “fraud” have bolstered pro-monarchy and right-wing forces in Nepal. These comments have been seized upon by royalist groups to discredit the current federal system and argue for a return to a more centralized, monarchical governance model.

As major political parties face growing unpopularity due to rampant corruption, unemployment, and economic stagnation, royalist forces see an opportunity to advance their agenda. On a recent Sunday, supporters organized a mass demonstration in Kathmandu, coinciding with Gyanendra’s return to the capital after a week-long stay in Pokhara. He was greeted by enthusiastic supporters at the airport and escorted to his residence, Nirmal Niwas, under heightened security.

Criticism of the 2015 constitution is mounting, fueled by the failures of the political parties that have governed since the monarchy’s abolition. Widespread corruption, economic stagnation, and a lack of opportunities have created a pervasive sense of pessimism, which royalist forces are exploiting to push their agenda. Political analysts warn that the current system could be in jeopardy if mainstream parties fail to address these issues effectively.

While even the monarchist forces doubt that street protests alone can restore the monarchy, they believe their movement could pressure mainstream parties into making concessions. However, the lack of a clear representative for the former king complicates any potential negotiations with the current government. Royalist forces remain steadfast in their belief that only the monarchy can resolve the nation’s deepening crisis. As the political drama unfolds, Nepal stands at a crossroads, with its future hanging in the balance.