Submit your Article

Over the past few months, Nepal and India have stepped up engagement on multiple fronts, including long-overdue meetings of bilateral mechanisms. While the exact date of Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli’s visit to New Delhi is yet to be finalized, Indian officials confirm that preparations are underway, and the visit is likely to take place before Dashain. India has also been engaging with a wide cross-section of Nepali society in the lead-up.

Nepal-India relations faced significant turbulence, especially after 2015, which strained bilateral ties. However, in recent months, both sides appear to be moving toward a reset. Kathmandu and New Delhi have now prioritized economic and development partnerships over longstanding contentious issues.

Two key unresolved matters, the map row and the report prepared by the Eminent Persons’ Group (EPG), remain sensitive. While political parties such as the Nepali Congress, CPN (Maoist Centre), and various Madhes-based parties have largely shelved the EPG issue, some CPN-UML leaders continue to raise it, albeit with less intensity.

India’s renewed outreach to Kathmandu comes amid a shifting regional context: Donald Trump’s inauguration and subsequent US aid cuts to Nepal, political developments in Bangladesh, and a brief but deadly India-Pakistan conflict. In late July, New Delhi hosted an all-party delegation of Nepali members of parliament. According to the Indian readout, the discussions centered on expanding the multifaceted bilateral partnership.

On July 28 and 29, the seventh meeting of the India-Nepal Boundary Working Group (BWG) was held in New Delhi. The BWG had been inactive since 2019 due to the map dispute. Although this meeting did not address contentious territorial issues, both sides adopted updated modalities for inspecting, repairing, and maintaining boundary pillars, and agreed to expedite work in these areas. They also finalized a three-year work plan and committed to using advanced technologies for boundary-related tasks.

In the third week of July, the home secretary-level meeting between the two countries covered the full spectrum of bilateral security cooperation and border management. The two sides finalized the text of an agreement on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters. They also agreed to work toward the early conclusion of a revised extradition treaty, another longstanding and sensitive issue.

India also launched a collaborative initiative in partnership with the UN World Food Programme to support rice fortification and supply chain management in Nepal. The project aims to address gaps in Nepal’s fortified rice supply chain, particularly in procurement, data collection, and human resource capacity, through knowledge exchange with India’s successful public distribution system. It offers Nepali stakeholders the chance to learn from India’s experience in applying digital technologies to food logistics.

Speaking at a public event this week, foreign affairs expert Mohan Lohani, as quoted by the Press Trust of India, said that India is advancing rapidly in economic growth, development, and technological innovation. “Nepal should try to benefit from the progress made by our southern neighbor,” he said.

Another foreign policy expert, Nischal Nath Pandey, advised Prime Minister Oli to travel overland for his New Delhi visit, arguing that it would allow him to observe India’s significant progress in infrastructure, especially road transport.” During the tenure of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, India has made remarkable progress in development and road connectivity, and Nepal should learn from the experiences gained by India,” Pandey said.

As preparations for Prime Minister Oli’s India visit continue, both sides are working to finalize a major project or agreement to be announced during his meeting with Prime Minister Modi. Government officials suggest that resolving issues related to the long-pending Pancheshwar Multipurpose Project could be one such announcement. According to sources, the Indian side has conveyed that when the two prime ministers meet, a substantial breakthrough should be unveiled.

“The Gaad has turned reckless; it has now become a curse to us,” laments 70-year-old Jharana Regmi, a lifelong resident of Daiya, a small village nestled along the riverbank in Budhinanda Municipality-6 of Bajura district. Gaad refers to a river in the local dialect of Bajura and the broader Sudurpashchim region. In this context, she is speaking about the Baadigaad River, which flows along the village’s northern edge before draining into the Karnali River.

Over the past few years, the river has begun to change its course during the monsoon, triggering floods that have severely damaged the riverbanks and canal systems that once reliably irrigated Daiya’s household farms. “This year, the Gaad swept away our two main canals that were crucial for irrigation. Without sufficient water, our fields have turned barren, and all the rice we planted failed,” Regmi adds. The sudden loss of irrigation has led to a complete crop failure, and the village barely harvested any rice this year, leaving families struggling to secure food for the coming winter.

“Earlier, we were self-sufficient in rice. We used to grow several indigenous varieties like Himali and Jawaro (a red rice variety) for both consumption and trade. But now, with the repeated flooding of the riverbanks and canal systems, we can’t even grow enough for ourselves,” says Regmi, her voice heavy with despair.

With both main canal systems damaged at the point where they diverted water from the Baadigaad River, the village now relies on water discharged from a local micro-hydropower plant. This plant, housed within the village, releases water into a canal that provides irrigation only during the night, when the plant operates to generate electricity. Meanwhile, another village, Kaalshila, located uphill and south of Daiya, uses the same water source for irrigation during the day.

“Because the water is only available at night, it’s very inconvenient for us to use it effectively for farming,” Regmi explains. The hydropower plant’s water is sourced from the Baadigaad at a distant point in Kaalshila, further complicating equitable access for Daiya villagers.

Beyond damaging canals, the river has also devastated riparian farmland. Erosion, sand, and debris deposited during floods have rendered many plots uncultivable. The resulting loss of fertile land has severely impacted local livelihoods and food security. With their primary croplands gone, villagers now depend on small vegetable gardens and remote drylands. Some have tried to grow wheat using makeshift canals, but such efforts have done little to ease food insecurity.

Despite repeated damage assessments by the municipality, meaningful relief has yet to reach the village. “We’ve appealed to the municipality several times. Now we just have to wait and see what the government plans for us,” says Regmi.

The global phenomenon behind a local crisis

Intense rainfall over the past two years appears to be the main culprit behind the river’s erratic course changes and frequent flooding. These heavy rains have increased river discharge to record levels and triggered landslides along riverbank slopes, raising the riverbed with deposited debris. As the riverbed aggrades, it causes the river to carve new channels, resulting in unpredictable course shifts and devastating floods.

“Nowadays, we experience heavy rainfall and flooding between June and October, but they can begin as early as April or May,” shares Regmi.

Compounding this natural crisis is weak governance of local natural resources. For instance, the stewardship of the Tushar Community Forest (Tushar Samudaik Baan) in Daiya has deteriorated significantly. “Even though there’s an executive committee for forest management, no serious efforts have been made to protect it,” says Regmi.

The absence of forest guards for the past three years has led to unregulated and illegal extraction of forest products. The lack of enforcement has encouraged excessive harvesting of biomass and even organized timber theft. As a result, many indigenous species, such as Aiselu (Rubus ellipticus) and Tilkhuri (Thysanolaena latifolia), have disappeared. These species once played a vital role in maintaining soil integrity and supporting crop-livestock agriculture.

This ecological degradation has also made the forest slopes more vulnerable to landslides, especially during heavy rains. The cascading impacts are ultimately felt in the geomorphology of the Baadigaad River as it cuts through the weakened forest terrain.

Building a climate-resilient village

Regmi cannot recall any significant community-led efforts to build resilience or minimize the risks facing Daiya. She laments the lack of a dedicated water management committee to maintain and repair damaged canal infrastructure. “We can’t always wait for the government to rehabilitate the canals. We need a local mechanism to organize resources and take responsibility,” she insists.

This, she believes, is where the long-term solution lies.

What Daiya needs is the establishment and strengthening of self-governing institutions dedicated to managing critical local resources, especially water and forests, on which agriculture and livelihoods depend. This could include revitalizing the existing Community Forest User Group (CFUG) to improve forest stewardship and forming a Water Users Group (WUG) tasked with maintaining and rehabilitating irrigation infrastructure.

Theoretical models such as the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework and Design Principles, developed by Nobel laureate Elinor Ostrom, emphasize the importance of well-crafted self-governing institutions for the sustainability of common-pool resources. Ostrom's design principles highlight the need for clear operational rules, monitoring systems, rule enforcement, and exclusivity of access for resource users.

Such self-governing bodies should also coordinate with external stakeholders—including donor agencies, grassroots organizations, and government extension services—to foster adaptive co-management. A collaborative, systemic approach is essential, given the strong interdependence between water, forests, and agriculture.

In mountain communities like Daiya, where both climatic and human-induced shocks are intensifying, empowering local institutions to govern shared resources offers a promising pathway to resilience. Lessons from other parts of Nepal and beyond demonstrate that community-led governance can significantly improve preparedness, recovery, and sustainability. With the right structures in place, even a troubled river like the Baadigaad can become a source of strength, rather than sorrow, for the people who live by its banks.

Artificial intelligence (AI)—encompassing machine learning, neural networks, generative models, and advanced algorithms—is a defining technology of the 21st century, reshaping economies, societies, and global systems. Its capacity to address pressing challenges is unparalleled: AI-driven climate models enhance disaster preparedness, medical diagnostics accelerate drug discovery, and predictive tools boost economic efficiency. Yet, these advancements carry significant risks, including deepening wealth inequalities through corporate monopolies, enabling digital authoritarianism via surveillance systems, and threatening individual freedoms through unchecked data exploitation. The dual nature of AI—its potential for progress and peril—raises a critical question: How can society harness its benefits while mitigating its dangers?

This article does not address the Nepal-specific context, as that could be a comprehensive topic for a separate write-up. Instead, it examines the trajectory of state-of-the-art AI through a multifaceted lens: historical lessons, information networks, practical applications, health and media innovations, corporate accountability, global competition, and ethical realities. We argue that deliberate, equitable governance, ethical system design, and robust global cooperation can maximize AI’s societal benefits while preventing division, surveillance states, or corporate-driven harm. Without proactive measures, AI risks eroding democratic liberties and exacerbating global inequities. With foresight and collective action, however, it can foster an inclusive future prioritizing shared prosperity, human dignity, and sustainable progress.

Historical lessons and corporate power: governing technology for equity

History shows that transformative technologies drive progress but often concentrate wealth and power unless governed equitably. For centuries, global productivity growth stagnated, with innovations like the iron plow benefiting feudal elites while most lived in subsistence. The Industrial Revolution marked a shift, with steam engines and mechanized production boosting annual growth from 0.1 percent to 1.9 percent by the late 19th century, and averaging 2.8 percent through the 20th century. Yet, mechanization displaced workers, sparking unrest until labor movements and policies like the Factory Acts secured protections such as fair wages and working hours. This pattern underscores a key lesson: technological advancements require governance to ensure broad societal benefits.

AI’s evolution mirrors this dynamic. From IBM’s Deep Blue defeating chess champion Garry Kasparov in 1997 to transformer-based models enabling nuanced language processing, AI has advanced from narrow applications to systems with widespread impact. However, a “productivity paradox” persists: global labor productivity growth slowed to 1.8 percent annually between 2005 and 2015, down from 2.5 percent in the 1990s, due to uneven adoption, skill gaps, and corporate prioritization of shareholder value over societal good.

AI offers a path to reverse this trend, streamlining manufacturing and increasing agricultural yields through precision farming tools, such as AI-powered irrigation systems in sub-Saharan Africa that enhance food security. Yet, without equitable deployment, AI risks replicating historical inequities. Tech giants and state-backed firms could monopolize benefits, marginalizing workers and smaller economies. Corporate monopolies control vast data and computational resources, stifling competition and limiting access, particularly in developing economies. Corporate negligence, such as failing to moderate harmful content, has fueled social unrest and public health crises, while partnerships with authoritarian regimes for surveillance tools highlight complicity in undermining freedoms. To counter these risks, antitrust enforcement, public investment in research, and upskilling programs are essential. Policies like universal basic income, piloted in Scandinavia, support workers displaced by automation, enabling retraining for an AI-driven economy. Transparent accountability mechanisms and global standards, despite resistance from corporate lobbying, are critical to ensure AI fosters inclusive growth rather than concentrated power.

AI as an information network: Connectivity and risks

AI extends humanity’s information networks, building on the legacy of the printing press, telegraph, and internet, which enabled unprecedented cooperation but also amplified risks like misinformation and propaganda. AI embodies this duality. It enhances global connectivity and efficiency, with climate models improving flood predictions in vulnerable regions and predictive algorithms optimizing retail supply chains to reduce waste and costs. These advancements demonstrate AI’s potential to strengthen global systems and foster collaboration.

However, AI networks pose significant dangers. Fabricated content, such as deepfake videos, erodes trust in democratic processes, as seen in election-related misinformation campaigns. Authoritarian regimes leverage AI for behavioral surveillance, tracking citizens through data-driven systems. Corporate negligence exacerbates these risks, with social media platforms often failing to curb harmful content due to profit-driven priorities. Solutions include algorithmic transparency, strict content moderation, and decentralized data governance. Some democracies mandate audits of AI systems to prevent bias and misinformation, but global enforcement remains fragmented due to corporate resistance and varying legal standards. Robust accountability mechanisms are essential to ensure AI serves as a tool for cooperation rather than division.

Practical applications and health innovations: Promise and pitfalls

AI’s practical applications span diverse sectors, driving productivity when designed collaboratively and ethically. In education, AI-powered tutoring systems address teacher shortages, improving outcomes in underserved areas. In energy, AI-optimized grids enhance reliability, reducing outages in unstable infrastructures. In logistics, predictive models streamline delivery networks, cutting costs and emissions, as seen in AI-driven route optimization in shipping that reduces fuel consumption. Long-term, AI holds promise for climate solutions like advanced carbon capture and renewable energy forecasting, critical for global net-zero targets.

In healthcare, AI is revolutionizing synthetic biology and diagnostics. AI-driven protein modeling accelerates drug discovery for diseases like cancer, while diagnostic tools enhance accuracy in resource-constrained settings, improving tuberculosis detection in low-income regions. AI-engineered microbes show promise in reducing environmental waste, aligning health innovation with sustainability.

However, pitfalls persist. Biased algorithms, trained on skewed datasets, perpetuate inequities, as seen in early AI hiring tools that favored certain demographics. Flawed datasets in healthcare can lead to misdiagnoses, while underrepresentation of diverse populations reduces efficacy and exacerbates health inequities. Biosecurity risks, such as AI designing harmful pathogens, demand urgent attention. Misinformation on AI-driven platforms has eroded public trust, fueling vaccine hesitancy during health crises.

To address these challenges, bias audits, mandatory kill switches, and human-in-the-loop frameworks ensure oversight. Transparent, inclusive datasets and international oversight through global health AI guidelines are vital, as are robust bioethics protocols. Regulatory delays hinder progress, with some regions struggling to implement biosecurity measures. Collaborative innovation—pairing public, private, and academic efforts with ethical scrutiny—will ensure AI drives progress without deepening divides or enabling unchecked power.

AI, media, and democratic governance: Strengthening civic engagement

AI is reshaping political discourse, amplifying populist narratives while offering tools to strengthen democratic engagement. Social media algorithms fuel sensationalism, polarizing societies and undermining trust in institutions. Micro-targeting exploits psychological data to sway voters, and privacy-invasive systems threaten autonomy, with large-scale voter data systems raising concerns about surveillance and democratic erosion. Yet, AI also empowers civic participation. Digital platforms facilitate transparent budget audits, uncovering fraud and enhancing governance, while AI-driven apps boost voter turnout by simplifying access to information and fostering community engagement.

To counter manipulation, algorithmic transparency and independent content moderation are critical. Some governments require platforms to disclose content prioritization methods, reducing harmful narratives. Balancing free speech with global standards remains challenging, particularly on platforms where echo chambers entrench division. Public literacy programs, teaching citizens to evaluate AI-driven content critically, are vital. Inclusive governance, such as participatory platforms engaging diverse voices, can protect democracy. By leveraging AI’s potential for transparency and engagement while addressing its risks, societies can strengthen democratic institutions in an era of rapid technological change.

Global competition and ethical realities: Navigating geopolitics and technical limits

The US-China AI race is reshaping global geopolitics, with both nations vying for technological supremacy. The US leverages advanced chip production and private-sector innovation, while China counters with state investment and domestically developed models. Developing nations, caught in this rivalry, face risks of surveillance and economic dependency, as seen in the adoption of certain 5G infrastructures. Sanctions and competing economic systems deepen divides, with hardware access restrictions prompting alternative supply chains and technological fragmentation.

AI excels in specific tasks but falls short of general intelligence, revealing technical and ethical limitations. Adversarial attacks, where systems misinterpret inputs, and biased outputs from skewed datasets highlight the alignment problem: AI often fails to reflect human values. Errors in welfare systems have excluded vulnerable populations, while biased algorithms perpetuate inequities in justice and hiring. Regulatory frameworks, like risk assessments and transparency mandates, aim to address these issues, but rapid advances outpace governance. Interdisciplinary research, including AI ethics boards, reduces bias through iterative testing, though encoding diverse values, particularly from underrepresented regions, remains challenging.

Cooperative frameworks, such as international AI safety protocols, aim to curb escalation, but geopolitical tensions and corporate interests undermine progress. Developing nations are building local AI capacity through public-private partnerships and research hubs tailored to local needs. AI-driven military systems and surveillance programs threaten privacy and freedom, with global powers deploying data collection at unprecedented scales. Global ethical standards, transparent governance, and international treaties can balance security and liberty, but superpower rivalries complicate cooperation. Balancing competition with collaboration is essential to ensure AI drives global progress rather than conflict or exclusion.

Conclusion: A human-centric vision for AI’s future

AI’s potential to tackle humanity’s greatest challenges—healthcare, productivity, climate change—is matched by its risks to equity, freedom, and trust. Historical lessons, from the Industrial Revolution to modern generative models, underscore the need for deliberate, inclusive policies. Collaborative innovation, corporate accountability, and global cooperation provide a roadmap for a sustainable AI future. Antitrust measures, workforce upskilling, and public investment counter wealth concentration, while transparent information networks and ethical frameworks mitigate misinformation and biases. Global treaties prevent technological fragmentation, and public literacy empowers democratic oversight.

AI raises profound questions about truth, agency, and global power, challenging traditional notions of knowledge and autonomy. By prioritizing human dignity, fairness, and freedom through ethical design and governance, we can ensure AI’s benefits outweigh its harms. Interdisciplinary collaboration—spanning governments, academia, and civil society—can overcome corporate lobbying and technical complexity, steering AI toward collective human progress. This human-centric vision fosters an inclusive future where technology amplifies shared potential, driving equitable, sustainable progress for all.

Note: The author acknowledges using large language models, such as Grok and ChatGPT, to edit this article

Deputy General Secretary of the CPN (Maoist Centre), Janardhan Sharma, has challenged Chairperson Pushpa Kamal Dahal’s monopoly and continued leadership of the party. However, most members of the party’s Standing Committee have sided with Dahal, leaving Sharma politically isolated.

Sharma had hoped for internal support to break Dahal’s long-standing grip on the party. Instead, colleagues have urged him to issue a self-criticism for making internal matters public. His call for leadership change has now cost him his standing within the party. Like in the CPN-UML, senior Maoist leaders argue that Dahal should continue leading the party, citing his central role in the armed insurgency, the peace process, and the constitution-drafting effort.

Only a handful of leaders, such as Ram Karki and Parshuram Tamang, have echoed Sharma’s call for change. Both have proposed that Dahal assume a ceremonial role, transferring executive powers to the younger generation. Karki, in particular, has proposed a rotational leadership model, arguing that transitions in communist parties are often problematic. He cited historical examples, noting that even leaders like Lenin and Mao struggled with succession. Dahal, who has been at the party’s helm since the 1980s, shows no indication of stepping down.

“We should establish a leadership transition system while Chairperson Dahal is still healthy and active,” Karki said, emphasizing that his proposal does not seek to remove Dahal, but to place him in a respected role while others assume executive authority.

With party elections approaching, it is now almost certain that Dahal will be re-elected as chairman. Party leaders have warned against making statements that could undermine party unity. Dahal himself has accused "reactionary forces" of conspiring to divide the party since it entered mainstream politics in 2006. Earlier, he had challenged Sharma to leave the party if dissatisfied with his leadership.

A few weeks ago, Sharma made waves by saying that, with the exception of Manmohan Adhikari, all top communist leaders had accumulated significant wealth. At a party meeting, Sharma stated he was willing to self-criticize for his public remarks, on the condition that Dahal also take responsibility for the party’s collective failures.

He also proposed convening a special convention to elect new leadership. He accused Dahal of spreading rumors of a party split to suppress dissent. “We once had three million members. That has dropped to just one million. The leadership should self-criticize for that,” Sharma said. “If speaking about party reform violates policy, I’m ready to face the consequences.”

During the insurgency, leaders Mohan Baidya and Baburam Bhattarai had also challenged Dahal. Baidya left in 2012 to form a separate party, and Bhattarai followed in 2015 to establish a socialist party. Since then, Dahal has enjoyed a largely unchallenged monopoly. Narayan Kaji Shrestha briefly attempted to build a rival faction but lacked broad support, having joined the Maoist party only in 2009.

In recent years, Sharma has emerged as the most vocal challenger to Dahal’s leadership, but his efforts have so far been undermined by the lack of internal support. In response, Dahal has focused on unifying communist parties to consolidate his position. He is in talks with CPN (Unified Socialist) led by Madhav Kumar Nepal and has also reached out to smaller leftist groups.

Meanwhile, internal rivalries among second-rung leaders like Shrestha, Sharma, Agni Sapkota, and Barshaman Pun have only reinforced Dahal’s position, as none are willing to back each other as the next leader. They all seem more comfortable working under Dahal’s leadership.

At 70, Dahal has given no indication of retiring. The CPN-UML’s recent decision to remove the term limit for its top leader has created a favorable environment for Dahal to continue. As things stand, both KP Oli and Dahal are expected to remain at the top of their respective parties for at least another 5–10 years. In contrast, Nepali Congress President Sher Bahadur Deuba is set to retire in 2027, as party rules bar him from seeking a third term.