Submit your Article

Nepal has many provisions in place to safeguard public health. All health facilities, and health-related educational and training institutions in Nepal need to follow strict regulations of several statutory bodies. Medical Education Commission serves as the central authority for regulating domestic health professional education institutions. Those seeking accreditation must first obtain a Letter of Intent, fulfill required infrastructural and academic standards, submit a self-evaluation report, and undergo periodic evaluation. Institutions are graded based on performance, with continued underperformance potentially resulting in de-accreditation.

Academic institutions need accreditations from concerned councils. Nepal Medical Council recognizes medical colleges and manages the registration and licensure of doctors, including dentists. Nepal Nursing Council accredits nursing education providers, conducts licensing exams and maintains the nursing registry. Nepal Ayurvedic Medical Council regulates traditional medicine programs. Nepal Pharmacy Council works in the field of pharmacy. Accreditation for allied health programs such as public health, physiotherapy, and medical laboratory sciences is handled by the Nepal Health Professional Council.

Students have to pass domestic entrance examinations before they can join such educational programs, whether they join domestic or foreign schools. The graduates are allowed to practice only after registration with respective councils, for which they have to pass the licensure tests. Implemented properly, these criteria ensure quality of registered health workers.

Whether the state, philanthropic institutions or the students themselves pay, producing health workers costs a huge amount of money, time and effort. In this age of global village, we cannot and should not bar such human resources from seeking a career abroad. But we should do everything to attract the workforce the country badly needs.

Look at the figures. From 2020 to 2023, the NMC issued Good Standing Certificates to 1,087 doctors in 2020, 1,502 in 2021, 2,189 in 2022, and 2,582 in 2023, totaling 7,360 certificates over the four-year period. Concurrently, between 2002 and early 2025, approximately 45,000 nurses received certificates to migrate abroad. Although about 45,000 doctors were registered with the council as of Jan 2024, fewer than 15,000 remained actively practicing in Nepal. This stark contrast underscores an accelerating brain drain, particularly acute in rural areas.

While better work environments and higher salaries are major factors, bureaucratic hurdles prevalent in our regulatory bodies and councils are not less responsible for accelerating brain drain, especially by failing to facilitate human resources educated abroad in getting registered in Nepal. These manifest in the forms of equivalence certificates and no objection certificates.

Issue of equivalence

Currently, all foreign graduates, including domestic products in some cases, need their educational degrees recognized by relevant Nepali institutions. Common practice is, instead of issuing recognition letters, these institutions issue equivalence certificates, frequently mentioning ‘in relevant field’, keeping open a space for future misunderstandings and conflicts.

Up to now, Tribhuvan University Curriculum Development Center (TUCDC) is trusted with this task for higher education degrees. The duty may look both as the state recognition and a lucrative income for TU, but CDC faces a myriad of challenges. Among HEIs ranging from high-end to low-end, there are innumerable differences in their performances, thanks to their available resources, institutional capabilities, philosophical outlook and autonomy in framing academic programs. Quality issues are not limited to poorly-performing, weak universities. A renowned university strong in other fields can have poor performance in health sciences.

Let us try to simplify the procedures. Universities and their academic programs do reflect sociopolitical values and technological stages of their countries and societies; their products may not exactly match our products. MIT graduates may excel in physics, Oxbridge products may outperform in history, but TU graduates are the best yardstick for Nepal. So, based on program and subject-specific parameters, the country needs to develop a high-ranking dynamic list of HEIs and programs whose products would be ‘recognized’ automatically, only those who wanted ‘equivalence’ would need to apply with the TU. For others, let us ask them to obtain ‘recognition’ or ‘equivalence’ letters for their degrees. ‘Recognition letters’ fulfil two purposes: prevent the use of fake degrees, and avoid unnecessary torture to graduates from foreign HEIs. As to educational criteria for employment, let the employers decide. Like other countries, we can fix minimum durations of study and entry criteria. We should also be specific on degrees earned with lateral entries, credit transfers and online learnings. As for faculty-wise duration, the country should make the total duration of vertical degrees postschool one of the parameters. 

Many a time, products of domestic institutions have objected to applying to TUCDC for equivalence, questioning why TU should evaluate degrees offered by other Nepali institutions. Against such a background, the University Grant Commission is trusted to shoulder the task from the beginning of the next fiscal year (July 17). Compared with TU, which alone hosts about 80 percent of all students against 20 percent shared by all remaining 27 HEIs, the UGC is an insignificant bureaucratic unit. The problems facing TUCDC will not go away just like that. Needed are policy reforms, not replacements of regulating hands.

Issue of NOCs

The No Objection Certificate (NOC) policy, originally meant to regulate foreign exchange, now unnecessarily obstructs students who do not require financial support from Nepal Rastra Bank. Many students fund their studies through scholarships or families abroad, yet face delays due to mandatory NOC processing, often missing admissions or visa deadlines. With over 110,000 NOC applications last year, the system is overloaded and outdated. Most countries do not require such clearances unless public funds are involved. We should make NOC optional for non-forex applicants, easing bureaucratic friction and empowering students to pursue global education without such obstacles.

Requiring foreign medical graduates to produce an NOC for degree equivalence or professional council registration is both illogical and unjust. Denying students equivalence or licensure for failure to produce a pre-departure NOC punishes them for a procedural formality that holds no relevance to their qualifications. Academic merit, not outdated paperwork, should guide professional recognition.

Nepal is in urgent need of such reforms to cope with alarming brain drain.

Eighteen-year-old Ruma Bhujel finds solace in the pages of a book, “The papers in books illuminate my world with wisdom, courage, and knowledge,” she says. Bhujel’s sentiment reflects a growing trend among Gen Z, those born between 1997 and 2012, who are now increasingly turning to reading as a means of learning and reflection. According to a study published in The New Americanist, 31 percent of Gen Z purchases books based on recommendations from a reviewer or ads on social media. This data highlights the influence of digital media in the life of youngsters. 

Suman Basnet, who owns a bookshop in Kathmandu, says young people are likely to follow the genres that are hyped on the internet and TikTok. “Their reading habit provides insight into their way of thinking and the patterns that influence them,” he adds.

One prominent habit observed among young readers is the impact of social media. The term ‘BookTok’ explains the viral influence of TikTok on global book trends. Young people often choose to read books that have been popularized on social media platforms.“I discovered many Nepali books through my TikTok feed, and this continues to shape my view of the world,” says  Reshma Dhital. One book she recommends is Amar Neupane’s ‘Seto Dharti,’ calling it one of the finest works of Nepali literature. 

Celebrating World Book and Copyright Day in April 2025, UNESCO recognizes the power of learning through books, which serves as a bridge between generations and cultures. Puja Dangol from Kathmandu reflects on the effect of reading. “Books are more than the pages; they are the secret pages that hold the lifelong lessons,” she says. 

While many people use social media for various purposes, Gen Z increasingly turns to reels and short video platforms as an alternative to traditional reading. According to DataReportal, 16.5m internet users were identified in January 2025, making up 55.8 percent of Nepal’s total population. With this widespread access, many youths now share their interests through reels and consume information via short videos, which exposes them to a diverse range of perspectives in a place of conventional text-based reading. 

Supporting this perspective, Biswash Sherpa asserts the role of reading books in the context of summarization through short reels and videos. “Though I cannot grasp the overall content, I feel pleasure in learning this way,” he says. His perspective reflects the blend of technology and the reading culture.

Regardless, distraction remains. Upen Mahat from Biratnagar admits the power of social media over reading. “Whenever I try to concentrate, I get distracted by my phone, though I have tried to adopt the habit of reading,” he says. Mahat’s situation contrasts with other youths who seek to learn through the pages, finding calm in the written words. 

Shibham Luitel, a bookshop owner in Kathmandu, notes that many bookstores are now leveraging social media to influence their customers. “I often see popular stores attracting people through reels, catchy content catching readers’ eyes,” he says. 

Yet, Luitel notices the sharp distinction between past and present reading culture among young people. He notes a shift in reading culture; earlier, youth were drawn to Nepali classics, whereas today, many are inclined toward novels that emphasize love and personal struggles.

For someone like Astha Limbu, reading is a pure form of escapism. “Reading a book is like watching a series of movies,” she says. Recalling Khaled Hosseini’s novel, The Kite Runner, Lamsal notes how it taught her valuable lessons about redemption, guilt, and friendship. Although she watched the movie based on the same novel, she felt the movie left an emptiness, while the book provided meticulous detail for understanding. 

“For me, books are the epitome of happiness and peace in daily life”, Limbu says. 

Others adapt reading to their routines. “I read e-books while traveling, as I can’t manage daily reading,” says Uma Sah, who turns to self-help books for motivation. Twenty-year-old Kumar Basnet finds comfort in audiobooks. “The voice brings me peace. Works like Karnali Blues and Palpasa Café, offer layered insights into Nepali writing.”

Such evolving habits highlight how digitalization is reshaping reading culture. “This trend is evolving, but at least we are gaining knowledge from both traditional and digital platforms,” says Bishal Gautam, an avid reader from Pokhara. His reading blends philosophy, classics, and historical fiction.

The reading culture of Gen Z reflects change, but also resilience. From physical pages to digital reels, books continue to hold meaning. While habits shift, the search for peace, inspiration, and knowledge endures. Far from a lost generation of readers, today’s youth are forging a culture that bridges tradition and modernity.

After years of tension and hostility, India and China are slowly moving toward rapprochement, signaling a potential shift in the geopolitical landscape of the Indo-Pacific region. Their recent interactions, notably during the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in Tianjin, China, are being closely observed not only across South Asian capitals but also in Western capitals, particularly Washington, DC.

On Aug 31, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi met Chinese President Xi Jinping on the sidelines of the SCO summit. This marked one of the highest-level engagements between the two nations since their last meeting in Kazan in Oct 2024. The deadly Galwan Valley clash in 2020 had severely strained bilateral ties.

During the meeting, both leaders acknowledged the progress made in stabilizing their relationship and expressed intent to build on this momentum. A particularly sensitive area—the long-standing border dispute—was a focal point. Modi noted that after the disengagement along certain friction points at the Line of Actual Control (LAC), an “atmosphere of peace and stability” had emerged. He further stated that special representatives from both countries had reached an agreement on enhanced border management.

Chinese President Xi emphasized that both sides should not let boundary issues define the overall relationship. He advocated for stronger bilateral cooperation and said, “It should be the right choice for China and India to be good-neighborly friends and partners that help each other succeed, and have the dragon and the elephant dance together.”

The ‘Dragon and Elephant’ metaphor has been previously invoked by Chinese officials, including Foreign Minister Wang Yi, who in March this year described it as the only correct strategic choice for both sides.

The Galwan Valley clash of June 2020 was the most serious military confrontation between India and China since the 1962 war, resulting in casualties on both sides. The incident led to a rapid deterioration in diplomatic, economic, and people-to-people ties. In the aftermath, direct flights between the two countries were suspended, the Kailash Mansarovar Yatra was halted, and economic cooperation was curtailed.

However, signs of normalization have begun to appear. Both the Kailash Mansarovar Yatra and direct air travel between New Delhi and Beijing are set to resume, signaling a renewed interest in rebuilding trust.

The rapprochement comes at a time when both countries are facing economic headwinds—partly due to external pressures such as the US trade war. US President Donald Trump’s administration has imposed steep tariffs on Chinese goods and extended similar measures to India, further complicating relations with both Asian powers.

As economic nationalism and protectionism rise in the West, India and China are increasingly turning to each other—not out of mutual affection but pragmatic necessity. Both countries are exploring expanded market access, supply chain integration, and greater cooperation in global governance.

At the SCO summit, Modi emphasized the importance of the bilateral relationship, stating, “Cooperation between our two countries is linked to the interests of 2.8bn people. This will also pave the way for the welfare of all humanity,” he said. Despite the warming tone, deep strategic divergences remain, particularly in the Indo-Pacific region. India is a key member of the Quad alliance, along with the US, Japan, and Australia. The group aims to promote a free, open, and rules-based Indo-Pacific, which Beijing perceives as an anti-China bloc.

India has also rejected China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) on grounds of sovereignty and transparency—especially given that the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a flagship BRI project. Moreover, India remains wary of China’s growing influence in South Asia, particularly in countries like Sri Lanka, Nepal, and the Maldives, where Beijing has invested heavily under its regional outreach strategy.

Despite these regional tensions, both countries continue to collaborate on global platforms. India and China are active participants in BRICS—a bloc that includes Brazil, Russia, and South Africa—which aims to offer an alternative to Western-dominated institutions. Discussions are ongoing about introducing a BRICS currency, although differences between India and China on implementation persist.

In their statements, both leaders recognized their roles as ancient civilizations, populous nations, and key voices of the Global South. They pledged to continue cooperation in multilateral frameworks on issues like climate change, sustainable development, and global economic governance.

India-China relations have seen cyclical highs and lows since they established diplomatic ties in 1950. Major milestones include Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi’s landmark visit to China in 1988, and Chinese President Xi’s visit to India in 2014, followed by reciprocal visits and two informal summits in 2018 (Wuhan) and 2019 (Chennai). These engagements laid the groundwork for what was once seen as a promising new phase in bilateral ties.

However, the Galwan clash derailed much of that progress. Now, with global realignments and economic shifts, both countries appear to be reassessing their strategic calculus. The recent SCO declaration also criticized unilateral economic measures—widely interpreted as a rebuke of the West’s use of tariffs and sanctions. 

“Member States oppose unilateral coercive measures, including those of an economic nature, that contravene the UN Charter… negatively affecting the global economy, undermining fair competition, hindering international cooperation and the achievement of the UN Sustainable Development Goals,” the declaration states.

The meeting between Modi and Xi in Tianjin symbolizes a cautious thaw between two regional heavyweights who have more to gain from cooperation than conflict. Yet, while economics may bring them closer in the short term, deep-seated geopolitical differences will continue to shape the trajectory of the India-China relationship. Whether the dragon and the elephant can truly dance or merely avoid stepping on each other’s toes remains one of Asia’s most critical strategic questions.

Tensions between governments and social media platforms are on the rise around the world. States are pushing for regulation to combat disinformation, curb hate speech, safeguard national security, protect minors and assert sovereignty over digital space. Tech companies, however, long accustomed to operating globally with minimal state oversight, are often reluctant to comply with country-specific rules.

Increasingly, governments are requiring local registration or licensing as a condition to operate.

While some platforms accept these demands, many resist, particularly in smaller and less influential countries that lack the leverage to enforce compliance. Nepal offers a telling example of this ongoing battle. Over the past few years, the government has attempted to regulate major platforms, though critics fear such moves could also restrict freedom of speech and expression.

On August 28, the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology issued a seven-day deadline for all social media companies—domestic and international—to register locally or face progressive deactivation. While platforms like Viber, TikTok, Global View, We Talk and Nimbuzz have complied, most major players like X (formerly Twitter), YouTube, LinkedIn, Reddit, Snapchat and WeChat continue to operate without registration. Telegram, under pressure, has begun the process.

The requirement is not just about paperwork. Registered platforms must designate a local point of contact, a grievance officer and a compliance officer, effectively obliging them to establish a physical presence in Nepal. The policy reflects growing public concern over disinformation, hate speech and illegal content that many believe threaten social harmony.

However, enforcement of this policy is challenging. With millions of Nepalis relying on these platforms for communication, business and entertainment, abrupt bans could spark public outrage. The 2023 TikTok ban, lifted only after months of negotiation, demonstrated both the limits of state power and the possibilities of enforcement. TikTok’s eventual re-registration showed that, with sufficient pressure, even global giants can be brought to the table if they see enough value in the local market.

Nepal is not alone in this regulatory push. In 2024, Malaysia introduced licensing requirements for platforms with over eight million users. While some platforms complied, others like Meta’s Facebook and Instagram, and Google’s YouTube, are still negotiating. The European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA) is often held up as a global benchmark. It rebalances the responsibilities between users, platforms and public authorities, and the protection of fundamental rights. Nepal could draw lessons from the DSA, particularly in ensuring that regulations are not solely punitive, but also protective of democratic values.

Another growing area of concern worldwide is the protection of minors. In 2025, Australia became the first country to impose a mandatory minimum age of 16 for most social media platforms through its Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill. Non-compliance to this legislation carries heavy fines. Nepal, which is seeing increasing reports of online harms affecting children, should consider similar protective legislation.

One of the thorniest issues in social media governance is content moderation. Although tech companies have deployed large moderation teams and AI-driven tools, governments see these efforts as inadequate, especially when it comes to locally sensitive content or criticism of state policies. But beneath this lies a deeper tension: while governments claim to be fighting disinformation, they may also use regulation to suppress dissent and limit freedom of expression. In countries such as Turkey, Pakistan, India and Indonesia, social media rules have often been doubled as tools of political censorship. The same risk exists in Nepal too. Regulation is necessary, but it must not be weaponized to silence critics or undermine the press. A strong legal framework should guarantee that posts from independent or mainstream media are protected, and that takedown requests are transparent and subject to oversight. In the neighboring countries, the Indian government has taken a slew of measures in order to regulate social media platforms.

Another pressing issue is privacy. Social media companies collect vast amounts of personal data, raising concerns about misuse, surveillance and inadequate safeguards for users. Addressing these challenges requires more than registration requirements alone. As Nepal finalizes its Social Media Bill, it should adopt a multi-stakeholder governance model, bringing together not only government agencies, but also platforms, civil society, journalists, academia and international partners.

Open dialogue with major platforms can help align expectations, clarify provisions and ensure mutual accountability. Beyond that, sector-specific laws, robust data protection frameworks and digital literacy campaigns are essential. Regional cooperation, particularly among global south countries facing similar challenges, could amplify Nepal’s voice and build a stronger front for fair regulation.

So far, Nepal’s approach has leaned too heavily on government control. For regulation to be effective and democratic, the country must shift from a control mindset to a governance mindset—one that balances accountability with protection of rights. The relationship between states and social media companies is at a critical juncture. For Nepal, this is an opportunity to craft a regulatory framework that tackles online harms without undermining digital freedoms. A thoughtful, inclusive and globally informed approach could allow Nepal to emerge as a leader in social media governance rather than just another regulatory battleground.

Ultimately, the challenge lies in striking a balance between free speech, content moderation and privacy. Constant dialogue between the government and platforms is essential, given that tech companies operate globally but also be held accountable locally. Another hurdle is the aggressive lobbying that media platforms extensively engage in against regulatory efforts—a trend already visible in Nepal.

Stronger rules inevitably affect the business interests of social media companies, and resistance is fierce. Global experience shows that states face significant pushback whenever they attempt to rein in tech giants. Nepal must navigate this pushback carefully, ensuring its regulatory ambitions protect citizens without stifling democratic values. In conclusion, regulation of social media is still an evolving concept  in many countries and there is no one-size-fits-all model; the only way is to closely follow the steps taken by other countries, and learn from each other. Nepal should also closely follow the attempts being made for global governance.