Submit your Article

On April 22, the tranquil Baisaran meadow near Pahalgam in Jammu and Kashmir was converted into a site of extraordinary catastrophe. Militants reportedly associated with The Resistance Front (TRF), a proxy of the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), executed a violent assault on the group of tourists, leading to the deaths of at least 26 (25 Indian nationals and one Nepali citizen) victims and injuries to more than 20.

This assault is among the most lethal strikes on civilians in the area since the 2008 Mumbai attacks. In the last 35 years of the Kashmir conflict, tourists were spared even in the height of militancy. This has changed now, it has been visible from the attack in Raesi, Jammu, last year, which took the lives of nine Hindu pilgrims. And so many other things have also changed in the course of the previous 24 hours in the South Asian geopolitical landscape. The attack coincided with four main events that happened recently. 

On the day of the attack, US Vice-president JD Vance was visiting India, interestingly on the same day Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi was in Jeddah meeting with the Saudi Prince and officials. Two other incidents that happened earlier but have a significant impact on the nature, psyche and politics of the attacks, extradition of Tahawwur Hussain Rana, a Pakistani-Canadian citizen who served in the Pakistani military for some time, from the USA to India. 

It reignited the old scars of the terrible 2008 Mumbai attacks, which were a paradigm shift in the global approach to fighting terrorism from South Asia. After a lengthy legal battle, Rana was extradited to India. The last but most significant event which had a colossal impact on the Pahalgam attack was Pakistan’s Army Chief Gen Asim Munir’s remarks on the ethnic two-nation theory between India and Pakistan, which is true for Pakistan but not for India because it is a civic democratic nation. He also referred to Kashmir as their ‘jugular vein’, provoking a load of religious sentiments just weeks before the attack, the clips of which are making rounds on social media. 

The preliminary intelligence findings from India suggest that five culprits, three from across the border and two locals, were involved in this heinous attack. India, in response, took a slew of diplomatic decisions, the most important of which is the suspension of the Indus Water Treaty of 1960, which survived three full-scale wars and many terror attacks perpetrated by Pakistan on Indian soil. 

Other than that, India has declared the defence attaches of Pakistan’s High Commission in New Delhi as persona non grata and given them a week to leave the country. Along with this, the newer development or any escalation from the Pakistani side may result in military retaliation. 

Consider this: in Feb 2025, Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif showed a desire to pursue dialogue with India as it is the only ‘way forward’. Even before that, Pakistan’s ruling party’s patron, Nawaz Sharif, has called for normalizing ties with India. India, meanwhile, has been firm in its approach of not indulging Pakistan unless it dismantles the terror apparatus of the country. India has also been successful in de-hyphenating its relations with Pakistan vis-à-vis global powers, as India and Pakistan are not seen through one lens. 

For India, in the current geostrategic setting, the only rival is China, which is mainly accurate. It has also been successful in creating new ties with Pakistan’s traditional Gulf partners. 

Comparatively, Pakistan’s situation is in the doldrums. Its economy is growing at a meagre 2-3 percent, one of the lowest in South Asia, with a volatile inflation, which went as high as 39 percent in 2023. It also has a very high debt-to-GDP ratio, which is why there needs to be multiple bailout packages from the IMF. Politically, Pakistan has always been in turmoil, where its most popular leader has won an election engineered by the Army, which has installed Shahbaz Sharif as Prime Minister of Pakistan. Still, the driving seat of power is, as usual, with the Army. 

For the longest time in Pakistan, the Army has maintained one of the most venerated positions and a symbol of national unity. It started slowly eroding when the failure of the state became apparent in the last two decades, the tenure of ex-Prime Minister Imran Khan, who was also the Army’s favourite at one point, was in the tussle. His removal prompted protests that echoed to many cantonments in Pakistan, where protesters attacked the army’s establishments. It was the most visible frustration of Pakistanis toward the venerated institution. Pakistan is also grappling with autonomy and secessionist movements in Balochistan, which has also caused forced disappearances of many ethnic Baloch who allege that the state has a direct involvement in these incidents. Islamabad has been rocked with protests by Baloch people.  

In addition to that, in March 2025, the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA), an ethnonationalist militant organization, attacked the Jaffar Express, which runs from Quetta to Peshawar and hijacked it. The attacks caused the loss of 31 lives, including 18 soldiers who were travelling on that train. Other than that, after the Taliban came to power, Pakistan’s relations with its northern neighbour have been sour. There has been a condition of low-intensity conflict on the Durand line. Last year, the usually quiet western border of Pakistan with Iran also rocked when Iran launched a series of missile strikes on Pakistan. Paradoxically, for the previous few years, leaving few incidents, Pakistan’s border with India has been relatively peaceful, which has changed with sudden developments. 

It is in this context that General Asim Munir’s remarks and subsequent attack in Kashmir need to be read. Pakistan’s deep state knows that these attacks will have strong retaliation from India, which will help in fuelling nationalist fervor. Nevertheless, it also needs to be clarified that Pakistan’s reason to exist, the “two-nation theory”, which General Munir put so much emphasis on failing more than 50 years ago after the creation of Bangladesh.

It also needs to be noted that Gen Munir was supposed to retire this year, but last year, through an amendment, he extended the tenure of the Army chief for five years. It is a well-known fact that Pakistan’s army is the cause of many structural ailments in the country, and has to face the heat coming from society, causing a significant loss to its venerated position in the country.  Now, with this attack and retaliation from India, the Pakistani Army has tried to find some breathing space to run away from its structural problems. Still, this gamble can be a double-edged sword in a fast-changing situation. 

The world would be simpler if we were all alike. Yet we live in homes, societies, and a world enriched by diversity—defined by vibrant hues of brightness and strokes of darkness. Many are considered neurotypical, but what about those beyond the typical spectrum? I often find myself deeply empathizing with neurodiverse individuals. Through my work with them, I’ve come to believe the true wonders of life lie in our varied abilities—to see, hear, smell, touch, taste, appreciate movement and balance, and understand the world with unique clarity.

Many neurodiverse individuals are diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), a neurodevelopmental condition characterized by challenges in communication, social interaction, and repetitive behaviors. ASD manifests differently across the spectrum, and its greatest challenge often lies in mutual understanding. This is why we must pause... think... understand... and connect—especially with those who need help but may not know how to ask for it. Research shows early intervention and proper support can significantly improve outcomes, but it’s never too late to begin.

Diagnosis and acceptance are crucial. ASD is a lifelong journey, one where burnout is common. Progress is most visible in individuals whose families stand together, persevering with quiet courage. True courage isn’t always a lion’s roar; sometimes, it’s the patient, persistent work of ants. Sadly, the world can be harsh, and hypocrisy runs deep—many claim to support ASD yet fail to deliver meaningful results. While numerous centers offer therapies, their effectiveness varies widely, and costs often place them out of reach for families. Affording therapy shouldn’t depend on luck. Closed-door sessions should be discouraged; I strongly advocate for inclusive therapies where parents are active participants. One-hour sessions alone are never enough.

Effective ASD management requires a multidisciplinary approach. Evidence confirms that early intervention—ideally before age three—yields the best outcomes. Therapies like occupational therapy, behavioral interventions, special education, and developmental programs are used worldwide. Regardless of the approach, the core goal remains the same: to connect with the child. We must build trust, respect their fears, and start where they are—not where we want them to be. With time, the right environment, and guidance, we can help them grow toward independence in daily life. The world is limitless, and so are their possibilities—we must help them believe that. Structured routines (which provide reminders) often work better than rigid rules (which impose consequences), reducing behavioral challenges as the child learns how to navigate their world.

Awareness must start at the grassroots level. Parents, families, and communities need education about ASD’s signs, diagnosis, and management. We must advocate for equal opportunities in education, employment, and public spaces to foster true inclusion. Inclusion isn’t just tolerance—it’s about reshaping social norms to welcome neurodiversity. It requires systemic changes in teaching methods, attitudes, and policies. It’s ironic that neurodiverse individuals are often told how to behave, while neurotypical people rarely learn how to support them. Parents and educators must teach compassion and acceptance. Students who understand diversity need less guidance; it’s those with special needs who deserve our patience and time. Being nonverbal doesn’t mean having nothing to say—it means we must listen more deeply.

ASD isn’t a disability; it’s a different ability. We must focus on strengths, not limitations. Judging a fish by its ability to climb a tree helps no one. In a world of constant demands, staying composed is hard—yet families who persist through challenges become beacons of resilience. Their determination reflects the power of the human spirit. While some parents face obstacles head-on, others struggle under social stigma, self-doubt, or fear of the future. We must support ASD children with clarity, acknowledge their struggles, and celebrate their efforts. Let the world resonate with hope. As we navigate this journey, remember: our strength lies in understanding, collaboration, and growth.

Following the executive order issued by the US President on Jan 20—which halted ongoing USAID-supported projects and suspended all new grants and aid—it not only resulted in a cut of the fund flow from  the US, it  signaled a broader shift in foreign aid dynamics globally. Other countries and development partners appeared to be reassessing their funding priorities and gradually moving away from development cooperation. This shift has significant implications for Nepal’s development, especially considering that foreign aid accounts for approximately 15–20 percent of the national budget. 

Furthermore, this change disrupts a range of development interventions previously channeled through INGOs, private development companies, NGOs, and networks. Notably, the incident exposed a growing disconnect between media narratives and public opinion. While mainstream media—traditionally seen as agenda-setters and key influencers—offered a balanced portrayal of foreign aid by highlighting both its opportunities and challenges, Nepal’s civil society and public have increasingly held a skeptical view.  Against this backdrop, this article first examines how mainstream media have framed the issue and then contrasts this with prevailing public opinion, which, according to the trickle-down theory of communication, is typically shaped by media and opinion leaders.

Editorial narratives in the wake of the US aid withdrawal

The editorial positions and feature articles of selected mainstream Nepali media—The Kathmandu Post, myRepublica, The Annapurna Express, and Kantipur—were carefully examined to understand the tone and framing of their coverage following the US government’s announcement regarding a reduction and cut in USAID support. For instance, The Kathmandu Post’s editorial ‘Time for Some Self-Help’ (Feb 17) adopted a reflective tone, positioning the aid rollback as an opportunity for Nepal to strengthen self-reliance and reform its institutions. MyRepublica’s ‘Prepare a Contingency Plan’ (Feb 16) took a more urgent, pragmatic approach, focusing on the potential risks to critical sectors such as health and education and recommending proactive planning by the government. Similarly, The Annapurna Express’s cover story by Lok Nath Bhusal critically examined foreign aid, suggesting that much of it reflects the strategic interests of donor nations rather than altruistic motives, while Kantipur daily, in its editorial, emphasized the need for greater transparency and self-sufficiency in Nepal’s approach to foreign assistance.

The analysis found that the editorials maintained a balance acknowledging USAID’s contributions and stressing the need for Nepal to reduce its dependency on foreign aid. There was a clear call for national ownership of development agendas, diversification of funding sources, and improved donor coordination. This apart, the editorials’ tone—ranging from cautious to critical—highlighted a common message: the uncertainty surrounding foreign aid should be viewed not with alarm, but as an opportunity for Nepal to pursue internal reforms, strengthen fiscal discipline, and build a more sustainable development strategy.

Public opinion on aid cuts: Voices from social media and beyond

Many social media users, including politicians, academics, and social activists have openly criticized the long-term dependency fostered by foreign aid, arguing that it often entrenches power hierarchies and allows INGOs to set priorities that are irrelevant to the local needs. Some voices have even gone as far as claiming that aid undermines Nepal’s sovereignty. Some hailed the aid cut  as a victory for national independence. These highly charged posts have gone viral, shaping popular sentiment around the issue. Memes, tweets, and commentaries increasingly portray foreign aid as a form of ‘soft imperialism’, accusing donor countries of using aid to push political agendas and manipulate Nepal’s policy formulation and implementation.

Moreover, social media users have criticized the role of civil society organizations, INGOs, and development partners, dubbing their staff as ‘foreign agents’ and their action being ‘dollar-driven’. This category of the social-media users celebrated the aid cut as a form of revenge. Social media platforms have become flooded with accusations that NGOs and INGOs prioritize administrative overhead and personal gains over the societal benefits they purport to deliver. There have also been claims that these organizations promote agendas that clash with Nepal’s cultural values. Alongside these criticisms, conspiracy theories abound, suggesting that foreign aid, particularly from the US, has been strategically used to shape Nepal’s political landscape—especially in pushing federalism and secularism. Such narratives, fueled by misinformation circulating on platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and TikTok, have deepened public confusion.

Why the conflicting narratives on foreign aid? 

One key reason for the discrepancy between media narratives and public opinion is the greater influence of social media, where content is often driven by emotion, perception, and virality rather than fact-checked journalism or editorial oversight. Unlike mainstream media, social media platforms lack gatekeeping mechanisms. Non-professional content creators and influencers, prioritize sensationalism to boost engagement, often spreading misleading or emotionally charged narratives. This environment fuels public skepticism, as viral posts—often based on individual perception or political bias—are more readily consumed and believed than editorials grounded in verified information. The Vibrant Information Barometer (VIBE) Nepal 2024 report emphasizes this trend, highlighting the influence of cyber armies and politically motivated content creators who now act as de facto opinion makers.

Additionally, the psychological phenomenon of ‘negativity bias’ makes the public more interested to receive negative portrayals of foreign aid, further distancing public sentiment from the more balanced perspectives offered by mainstream media.

A third contributing factor is the gap between macro-level policy discussions in editorials and the micro-level realities of citizens’ everyday lives. While media narratives often frame foreign aid within the broader context of national development, governance, or international diplomacy, the public tends to assess aid based on concrete local impact. When people fail to see direct benefits in their communities—despite decades of foreign assistance—they develop negative narratives. This is compounded by political actors and influencers who capitalize on public frustration, promoting populist or nationalist rhetoric that portrays aid as manipulative or infringing on sovereignty. Limited media literacy, ideological echo chambers, and the rise of political cyber wings further polarize discourse, reinforcing a public narrative shaped more by emotion, misinformation, and unmet expectations than by mainstream media content.

Conclusion and way forward

The growing gap between media narratives and public opinion on foreign aid in Nepal signals a major shift in Nepal’s information ecosystem. Traditional theories like trickle-down and agenda-setting fall short in explaining today’s digital dynamics, where algorithm-driven, emotionally charged social media content often overrides fact-based journalism. Influencers, cyber armies, and politically motivated content creators now shape public perception more than trained journalists, especially among digitally illiterate populations. This has led to an environment dominated by misinformation, disinformation and mal-information.

To address this, Nepal must urgently foster a culture of fact-based opinion building. Media and information literacy should be prioritized, alongside institutionalized fact-checking and inclusive public dialogue. Empowering citizens with critical thinking tools and promoting ethical journalism are key to bridging the narrative gap.

Since the 1950s, America’s development assistance to Nepal has steadily increased. However, after Donald Trump was re-inaugurated as the 47th President of the United States, this assistance was significantly cut, straining small countries’ health, education, and humanitarian sectors.

Small nations are increasingly viewing superpowers as unreliable partners, as assistance and projects have often been canceled midway. Experts say at the very least small countries should have been given time to find alternative sources of funding before support in critical sectors like health and education was withdrawn.

While the exact figures remain unclear, dozens of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have canceled projects previously supported by USAID. Referring to America’s Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) during an internal party meeting, Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli noted that agreements signed after years of deliberations were abruptly terminated.

With media reports suggesting that the Trump administration might shut down the MCC, there is growing concern in Nepal that two major projects—a cross-border transmission line and a road upgrade—could be affected. Prime Minister Oli says that Nepal should not overly rely on foreign aid. In a direct reference to the MCC, he noted that even though the parliaments of both countries had ratified the compact, the US unilaterally decided to terminate it.

Foreign policy experts say the new US administration’s policies pose both challenges and opportunities for countries like Nepal, which have relied heavily on foreign aid for decades, even in critical sectors like health. In the short term, countries will struggle to secure funds, impacting infrastructure development. But in the long run, experts say it presents an opportunity to reduce dependency on foreign assistance.

Nilanthi Samaranayake, an independent analyst based in Washington, DC, says that smaller countries are clearly affected by the shift in US international engagement policy and that they should reassess their economic and security dependencies on the US.

Nepal, she suggests, should seek a broader range of international partners beyond just the US, India, and China. While Washington’s policy changes bring challenges, she is of the view that they also offer Nepal an opportunity to enhance its diplomatic outreach and diversify its economic and security partnerships.

Development cooperation between Nepal and the US dates back to 1951, when the two countries signed their first bilateral aid agreement under the US’s Point Four Program. Early US assistance prioritized building roads, establishing telephone exchanges, eliminating malaria from the Tarai region and promoting agricultural development. By 1959, the US had helped Kathmandu install its first automatic telephone exchange, providing 1,000 lines, and supported the construction of the 87-kilometer Bharatpur-Hetauda road under the Rapti Development Program. Work also began on the Hetauda-Kathmandu ropeway the same year.

In the 1960s, during King Mahendra’s consolidation of the Panchayat system, US aid surged dramatically. President Dwight Eisenhower’s unexpected $15m pledge to King Mahendra in April 1960 marked a turning point in US involvement in Nepal’s development. USAID expanded its programs in agriculture, health, education and industrial development. After King Mahendra dissolved parliament and banned political parties in 1960, US aid was redirected to support the Panchayat system. The US supported construction of administrative structures across Nepal, viewing the Panchayat system as a potential vehicle for mobilizing human resources and fostering economic, social and democratic political development.

Chandra Dev Bhatta, a Kathmandu-based geopolitical expert, says that as traditional Western donors reassess their commitments, the impact on countries like Nepal’s development and service delivery mechanisms could be significant.

“With the withdrawal of USAID and now the MCC, some of Nepal’s vital infrastructure projects may face serious challenges, if not come to a complete standstill,” Bhatta says. “International aid architecture is not only evolving but has also become increasingly politicized. While reduced aid and grants are a concern, Nepal must press forward with infrastructure development and keep the service delivery systems intact.”

In the short term, Bhatta suggests that Nepal should urge donor countries to honor their previous commitments despite new geopolitical realities. In the long term, he says, the importance of recognizing that aid is often driven by the donor’s own interests. “This is the stark reality of international cooperation,” he says. “Global political and economic dynamics demand us to have self-reliant models of economic development, and Nepali certainly will have to work in that direction.”

It is now almost certain that US assistance to Nepal will continue to decline. Support is likely to persist only in areas aligned with the Republican Party’s priorities. So far, there have been no concrete discussions between the two countries regarding this new reality.

Satoru Nagao, a Non-Resident Fellow at the Hudson Institute, says that under the current rules of global free trade, China has been catching up with the US. And for small countries, he adds global trade brings both opportunities and challenges. “While factories may relocate elsewhere, small countries can still attract investment if they maintain competitive production costs.”

Nagao points out that if tariffs dominate the new global trade rules, small countries will need to adapt. Although this shift may allow local industries to survive, there will likely be fewer opportunities for foreign investment. He says since the primary target of current US policy is China, countries that depend heavily on China could suffer under these shifts. He warns that if Nepal increasingly relies on China, it risks becoming “a passenger on a sinking ship.”