Submit your Article

The Emperor’s New Clothes, one of the most enduring and insightful fairy tales by Danish author Hans Christian Andersen, continues to resonate deeply with readers across generations. Originally published in 1837, the story is a sharp critique of vanity, deception, and the susceptibility of those in power to flattery and self-delusion. Despite its fairy-tale origins, its themes remain startlingly relevant in the context of contemporary political systems, especially in developing countries like Nepal.

This article draws a parallel between the allegorical tale of the emperor, who is deceived into believing he is wearing invisible clothes, and the current political climate in Nepal. The emperor’s blindness to reality, his vanity, and the fear of appearing foolish that paralyzes those around him mirror the behavior of many political leaders today. Much like the emperor’s advisers, who fail to speak the truth out of fear, Nepali citizens and officials often find themselves complicit in a system where hollow promises, corruption, and the illusion of progress prevail over tangible change. Through this comparison, this article explores how the lessons from Andersen’s story illuminate the challenges facing Nepal’s political landscape, offering a critique of both leadership and governance in the country.

Once upon a time, there was a foolish emperor who was very fond of fashion. He spent a lot of money on the finest clothes and always wanted to look more beautiful than others. The people of the city were often amazed by his elaborate attire.

One day, two clever swindlers arrived in the empire. They presented themselves as weavers of extraordinary fabrics and convinced the emperor that the clothes they made were not only beautiful but also had a unique quality. They told him that only wise and competent people could see these fabrics, while fools would see nothing at all.

Surprised by this idea, the emperor invited the swindlers to his palace. They presented themselves with grand gestures, and the emperor, eager to see these magical clothes, immediately hired them, giving them as much gold and silk as they requested to weave the garments.

However, the weavers were doing nothing but pretending to weave. Every day, the emperor sent his trusted advisers to check on the progress. Even though none of them saw any clothes being made, each of them, afraid of appearing foolish, reported to the emperor that the clothes were magnificent.

One day, the emperor himself went to see the weavers at work. He too saw them working on empty looms, but fearful of being thought of as a fool or incompetent, he praised the clothes, even though there was nothing to see.

Finally, the day of the grand parade arrived. The entire city gathered to see the emperor in his new clothes. The emperor, completely naked, proudly walked through the streets, confident that he looked magnificent. The people, too, afraid of being thought fools, began praising the invisible clothes.

But then a small child shouted, “The emperor is not wearing anything! The emperor is naked!” A hush fell over the crowd, and the emperor suddenly felt exposed. By then, the swindlers had long since disappeared with their sacks of gold.

In Nepal today, the emperor is no longer an individual; the country itself walks naked. The leaders, like the weavers, are weaving empty promises and walking away with sacks of gold, just like the Rajapaksas in Sri Lanka.

The story of The Emperor’s New Clothes resonates deeply in Nepal’s current political context, reflecting the widespread disillusionment and frustration many citizens feel toward their leaders. It serves as a powerful metaphor for the current situation, where many leaders, much like the swindlers in the tale, are focused only on their own personal gain and power.

In recent years, Nepal has faced significant political turmoil. Leaders often make grand promises about development, infrastructure, and social welfare. But these promises frequently remain unfulfilled, leaving citizens with unmet expectations. Many leaders are preoccupied with staying in power and engaging in corruption, while failing to address the problems of poverty, education, and healthcare. Like the emperor in the story, many of these leaders are disconnected from the reality of ordinary citizens. Political campaigns are often presented through catchy slogans and flashy rallies. These spectacles create an illusion of progress. However, beneath the surface, the daily struggles of the people continue: rising inflation, inadequate public services, and a lack of opportunities. Citizens, like the emperor’s advisers, hesitate to tell the truth, unsure of how to challenge the narrative being presented. Awareness is beginning to rise. Recent protests and waves of civic engagement reflect an increasing demand for reality and accountability. Citizens are no longer willing to accept the status quo. They are beginning to challenge the hypocrisy of their leaders. The innocent child in the story symbolizes this awareness, encouraging the public to see through the illusion and to challenge the ongoing deception.

Building a new society

This is a crucial moment for the citizens of Nepal to become actively involved in the political process. They must demand transparency from their leaders and advocate for policies that prioritize social welfare and real development, rather than hollow promises. Grassroots movements and civil society organizations are key to this struggle, as they can force leaders to be accountable. This will help cultivate a culture of civic engagement and participation. The final lesson is clear: true leadership is about service, integrity, and accountability. It calls for leaders who are ready to face the challenges of governance and put aside their personal ambitions for the well-being of the people. By adhering to core values, civil society can build an honest political environment that addresses the needs of the public. The story of The Emperor’s New Clothes serves as a cautionary tale of foolishness, but it also carries an important message for the citizens of Nepal. It underscores the importance of vigilance, participation, and the constant pursuit of truth. Citizens are waking up to the illusions spun by their leaders. They are raising their voices for a cleaner political character and demanding standards based on higher values. By rejecting deception and embracing reality, we can build a political system that is accountable to the people. A collective effort can ultimately lead Nepal toward a stronger, more responsive system that listens to the voice of the people.

As Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli prepares for his official visit to China, political and diplomatic circles are actively debating the state of Nepal’s relationship with India. Observers suggest this move reflects Oli’s strained relationship with New Delhi and points to a shift in India’s approach toward Nepal. Many Indian politicians, bureaucrats, think tanks, and media figures often attribute fluctuations in bilateral relations to the Nepali side.

Critics in New Delhi argue that Nepali leaders often make commitments in India but fail to uphold them once back in Kathmandu. Similarly, Indian authorities frequently accuse Nepali politicians of politicizing critical bilateral issues for party or personal gain. Nepal’s internal political instability and lack of consensus on key foreign policy matters are also seen as contributing factors to the inconsistent relationship. A foreign policy expert from New Delhi remarked that India seeks a reliable partner in Kathmandu but finds it challenging to trust Nepali leaders, who are perceived as unpredictable.

While these criticisms may hold some truth, there’s also a need for reflection on India’s approach toward Nepal.

One current debate centers on Prime Minister Oli’s planned visit to China, a departure from the tradition of a new Nepali prime minister making their first official trip to India. However, this tradition has been broken before; in 2011, for instance, India did not invite then-Prime Minister Jhala Nath Khanal, and in 2008, Pushpa Kamal Dahal visited Beijing before later affirming India as his first political visit destination. India’s decision not to invite Oli this time has stirred speculation in political circles that New Delhi is dissatisfied with Nepal’s recent policy moves. At a time when economic cooperation has been progressing, India's hesitation to invite Oli risks undermining bilateral relations, potentially stirring suspicion and impacting other areas of the partnership.

Soon after the formation of the new government, there were talks about a visit from Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to Nepal, though this has yet to materialize. There are differing views within India’s bureaucracy and ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), leading to mixed signals that complicate Nepal’s understanding of India’s priorities. Unlike in the past, senior BJP leaders have recently engaged with Nepal’s political parties and bureaucracy, but a lack of alignment between India’s political and bureaucratic circles seems to be creating further challenges. India’s handling of issues around trade and assistance has also contributed to tension, with frequent reports of delays in the movement of goods between the two countries, fueling a trust deficit that affects the broader relationship.

There are other factors that call for reflection in both Kathmandu and New Delhi. Among Indian policymakers, there is often a perception that Nepal is solely responsible for any disturbances in bilateral relations. The case of the Eminent Persons’ Group (EPG) report illustrates this imbalance; India’s reluctance to receive the report has affected  bilateral relations, and the situation will likely remain unresolved unless addressed. Other areas, such as the difficulties faced by Nepali citizens in India and along the border, also deserve more attention from Indian policymakers.

Since 2017–18, New Delhi has maintained a policy of engaging with whichever party leads the Nepali government, a position that should continue. While India may have reservations about Nepal’s growing ties with Washington and Beijing, both sides should openly discuss India’s legitimate security concerns. But for now, a significant trust deficit persists between Nepal and India, which could potentially worsen after Oli’s China visit. Both New Delhi and Kathmandu need to actively work on bridging this gap. Although there was hope for renewed bilateral cooperation after 2014, missteps from both sides since 2016 have strained relations. Only through earnest reflection and engagement can meaningful progress be made.

By the third day of the 29th Conference of the Parties (COP29) in Baku, Nepal had engaged in a couple of events. President Ramchandra Paudel addressed the World Leaders Climate Action Summit and also addressed a high-level session organized by Kyrgyzstan on ‘Advancing Mountain Agenda’. Nepal also hosted a high-level session titled “Addressing Climate-Induced Loss and Damage in Mountainous Regions,” and unveiled two projects—Managing Watersheds for Enhanced Resilience of Communities to Climate Change in Nepal (MaWRiN) and Building National Capacities of Nepal to Meet Requirements of the Enhanced Transparency Framework of the Paris Agreement (CBIT)—funded by the Global Environment Facility (GEF).

In his summit address, President Paudel urged that vast resources currently allocated for arms be redirected toward adaptation and mitigation to safeguard humanity and ensure a habitable planet for future generations. “Not only have pledges for climate funding been insufficient from the outset, but the funds remain largely unmet,” he noted, pointing out that complicated procedures prevent targeted communities from accessing these funds. He called for immediate implementation of the “polluter pays and compensates” principle.

President Paudel also called for the rapid operationalization of the Loss and Damage Fund to assist vulnerable developing countries. He argued that climate finance should account for contributions from nations like Nepal, which preserve biodiversity, protect the Himalayan cryosphere and supply freshwater. Such countries, he asserted, should be adequately compensated for climate-related loss and damage.

Highlighting Nepal’s dedication to sustainable resource use, he pointed to increased forest cover and expanded clean energy production, which aligns with Nepal’s ambitious emission reduction goals under its second NDC, benefiting global environmental efforts. However, he cautioned, “The challenges of global warming and climate change far exceed our capacity and resources.” He also emphasized the need for technology transfer and adequate capacity-building grants under the Paris Agreement, insisting that climate finance be provided as grants, channeled through national treasuries for effectiveness.

President Paudel expressed hope that COP29 would make concrete progress on setting a clear NCQG (New Collective Quantified Goal) aligned with climate justice, equity and capacity to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius and advance sustainable development in least-developed and Himalayan nations.

In a session organized by Kyrgyzstan, Nepal pointed out that “due to the effects of climate change, young people from mountainous regions are forced to migrate, leaving the poor, women, children and the elderly to suffer the most.” President Paudel emphasized the need for integrated programs that simultaneously address poverty and climate change.

With climate indicators breaking records each year, people in mountain regions are facing increasingly harsh conditions. He cited the displacement of over 35 families from Thame village in Solukhumbu, Nepal, following a glacial lake outburst flood (GLOF) last August, as well as the tragic loss of over 500 lives due to floods and landslides during the monsoon season. “The suffering and trauma from these disasters are long-lasting. Thorough assessment and increased preparedness are crucial to reducing future loss and damage,” he added.

Additionally, the launch of the MaWRiN and CBIT projects underscores Nepal’s commitment to enhancing community climate resilience and strengthening national reporting capabilities under the Paris Agreement. This event, organized in collaboration with Nepal’s Ministry of Forests and Environment (MoFE) and GEF, gathered stakeholders from Nepal’s Ministry of Finance, MoFE’s Climate Change Management Division, and global climate organizations.

The MaWRiN project, funded with $9m, aims to build climate resilience for Indigenous people and local communities in the Marin watershed. Through nature-based solutions and diversified livelihood support, MaWRiN is designed to empower vulnerable communities to adapt to climate impacts.

The CBIT project, funded at $1.65m, focuses on building Nepal’s institutional capacity to meet the Enhanced Transparency Framework (ETF) requirements of the Paris Agreement. By tracking progress on Nepal’s Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), CBIT will bolster Nepal’s climate reporting and accountability, targeting the submission of Nepal’s first Biennial Transparency Report (BTR).

Sindhu Prasad Dhungana, head of MoFE’s Climate Change Management Division, remarked on the importance of these projects for Nepal’s international climate commitments. “With MaWRiN and CBIT, Nepal is advancing its climate resilience and transparency, empowering communities while aligning national goals with global standards,” he said.

Esteban Bermudez, representing GEF, emphasized the projects’ importance in ensuring Nepal’s timely compliance with the Paris Agreement. Although he acknowledged some procedural delays, he praised Nepal’s ministries for their commitment and affirmed GEF’s continued support for Nepal’s climate objectives.

Dhaniram Sharma, joint-secretary of the Ministry of Finance, underscored the CBIT project’s critical role in enhancing transparency and accountability in Nepal’s climate action, highlighting MaWRiN’s focus on watershed management and community-centered sustainability. “While Nepal has received some climate financing, the escalating impact of climate change requires stronger financial backing,” Sharma stated.

Deepak Kumar Kharal, secretary of MoFE, closed the event by reaffirming the ministry’s commitment to supporting WWF Nepal in implementing these projects. He expressed optimism for increased international funding to scale climate resilience and mitigate the adverse impacts of climate change in Nepal. “These projects are not just a response to present challenges but a step toward a sustainable, resilient future,” Kharal concluded.

China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has once again unsettled Nepal’s coalition government, formed in July. Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli is preparing for an official visit to China, but two key coalition partners—the CPN-UML and the Nepali Congress (NC)—remain divided on advancing BRI projects. While Oli, who leads the UML, advocates for BRI projects, the NC opposes taking loans under BRI, fearing it could lead Nepal into debt.

Since 2022, the NC has consistently communicated its opposition to financing BRI projects through loans, a stance championed by NC President Sher Bahadur Deuba during his tenure as prime minister. Conversely, the UML and other leftist factions argue that Nepal should make headway on BRI to balance its acceptance of the US-backed Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) and to maintain geopolitical equilibrium.

To reconcile these differences, Prime Minister Oli is negotiating with the NC. Currently, there are three major issues regarding BRI. First is the signing of the BRI implementation plan, which was drafted during former Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal’s visit to China in September last year.. Second, although Nepal has proposed four projects under BRI, the coalition partners have yet to agree on an investment model. Third, Nepal has requested China to waive the loan for constructing the Pokhara International Airport, where alleged corruption in the airport's construction has also become a point of contention.

To date, Nepal has only signed a BRI framework agreement in 2017, outlining general directions for the initiative. However, debates have since persisted, particularly around China’s claim that certain infrastructure projects, like the Pokhara airport, are part of BRI, a claim rejected by Dahal’s administration. Additionally, Nepal wants Chinese grants for BRI projects, but China’s official position states that BRI funding only involves loans, not grants, facilitated by the Chinese government. Nepal has proposed that, if loans are necessary, the interest rates should align with those of the World Bank and other international lenders.

The 2017 BRI agreement outlines cooperation in policy exchange, connectivity, trade, financial integration and people-to-people interactions. Although the agreement allows for flexibility in cooperation areas, the debate in Nepal has focused largely on infrastructure and financial arrangements.

A recent 2023 Chinese white paper describes BRI as a joint venture rather than a form of foreign aid, emphasizing collaborative development. “The principle of extensive consultation signifies that the BRI is not a solo endeavor by China, but a collaborative effort involving all stakeholders. The principle of joint contribution highlights that the BRI is not one of China’s international aid programs or a geopolitical tool, but a collaborative effort for shared development.” 

According to the  MoU  signed in 2017, , the BRI does not include grants and primarily involves loans, with a possible contribution from Nepal. Nevertheless, the framework agreement does leave room for mutual agreements on funding sources.

The document states: “Adaptation of appropriate modes of cooperation for mutual benefit to support development and implementation of major programs in the BRI and provisions of investment, financing and technological support for these programs through mutually agreed sources of funds, and strengthening of exchange and cooperation to ensure program’s sustainability and safety.” 

There is also contention regarding China’s integration of numerous activities under the BRI umbrella. However, the 2017 framework does explicitly include areas like cultural exchange, media, health, tourism, agriculture, parliamentary visits and cross-border exchanges—reflecting the current scope of China’s involvement in Nepal. Thus, while BRI has become a significant component of bilateral cooperation, other forms of collaboration can still occur outside BRI’s framework.

Comparing China’s current engagement with the BRI document, there is a common ground between the two countries. In that sense, it seems that Nepal is already a part of BRI and scores of programs are in progress under the BRI. But it does not mean that bilateral cooperation can happen only under the BRI. The document has clearly mentioned that even if the MoU signed in 2017 is terminated, it will not affect any ongoing projects between two countries.

As for the BRI implementation plan and project selection, officials indicate that these steps primarily signify another principle agreement, not one that includes financing details or loan agreements. A senior UML leader said, “It’s similar to the 2017 MoU, without raising the loan concerns voiced by the Nepali Congress.” Although a final investment structure may not be concluded during Oli’s visit, there could be a consensus to include specific projects under BRI, though the NC may resist finalizing these agreements.

The China factor is a sensitive issue that risks widening the rift between NC and UML leaders. Oli is actively engaging with NC and Foreign Minister Arzu Rana Deuba to manage these differences. Tensions between the NC and China have escalated recently, driven by the NC’s stance on alleged border encroachments in Humla and its critical position on BRI. Additionally, external pressures may be influencing the NC to limit Nepal’s engagement with China, complicating the situation further. NC leaders have openly stated that BRI should also  follow the model of MCC, which involves primarily US grants with minimal Nepali investment.