Submit your Article

Natural ecosystems play a vital role, even if we often take them for granted. We continue to exploit them without realizing that the consequences will eventually come due. As a highly climate-vulnerable country, Nepal should pay particular attention to its natural habitats. Those who dedicate themselves to protecting and safeguarding these ecosystems deserve deep respect, for their work is often dangerous and their lives can be at risk. Political institutions at all levels—from local governments to the federal state—carry clear responsibilities that cannot be avoided or ignored. The state must do everything in its power to protect natural ecosystems and ensure that no infrastructure project or industrial undertaking is allowed to violate or destroy them.

Procedures enshrined in the constitution and laws must be followed to the letter. At the same time, the state and its elected representatives have a duty to ensure the safety of citizens who stand at the frontlines of the fight against environmental degradation.

This is not what happened on the night of 10 January 2020, when an unsung hero, someone who deeply valued the rule of law and the sacrosanct environmental rights codified in Nepal’s legislation, was brutally murdered.

Dilip Mahato was a young, promising engineering graduate who had just completed his final semester in India. Back home with his family in Dhanusa’s Mithila Municipality, he remained active in environmental work. Without hesitation, he left home in the middle of the night to stop illegal sand extraction from the local Aurahi River.

For his courage, Mahato paid the ultimate price. Not only was he killed, but his family’s entire existence changed for the worse, beginning an odyssey that continues to this day. He tried to stop an illegal activity that, tragically, remains widespread across Madhes and the broader Tarai.

The perpetrators and masterminds behind the assassination were arrested and brought to trial. Yet the process has been marked by several unfortunate twists, and the current status of the case is unclear. No news outlet has recently covered the issue, and this silence is deeply troubling.

At the end of last year, I wrote an opinion piece urging that commemorative actions be taken to honor Mahato and celebrate his life. Among other proposals, I suggested establishing an award in his name for national and local environmental human rights defenders.

This year, I attempted to advance this idea, but I failed. I hoped to collaborate with promising local youths active in environmental work. While our discussions were warm and encouraging, nothing concrete materialized. The September uprising further derailed momentum, and my attempt to build a small “coalition of the willing” gradually lost focus. I regret losing the moment when I could have pushed a bit harder and been bolder, even though the initiative was never meant to be about me; my goal was for locals to lead the process.

As I write this column, the anniversary of Mahato’s death approaches once again. I had nearly given up on doing something meaningful to commemorate him, but the truth is that it is never too late. We still have enough time, even at a modest level, to act. Mahato’s sacrifice deserves a national award in his name. The federal government should take the lead, ideally in partnership with the Madhes provincial government, and work with civil society and the legal community.

Nepal has several prominent lawyers deeply engaged in protecting environmental human rights. Deepak Adhikari, the journalist behind Nepal Check, recently wrote an insightful piece for Mongabay profiling some of these legal trailblazers, including Prakash Mani Sharma Bhusal, whom he described as a pioneer in advancing environmental law in Nepal. Other distinguished lawyers include Dilraj Khanal, who along with Senior Advocate Bhusal successfully fought back a law permitting infrastructure projects in protected areas in 2024. The article also highlighted senior advocate Padam Bahadur Shrestha, who has represented Mahato’s family.

With advocates of this caliber, it is not impossible to imagine a civil-society–led “Dilip Mahato National Award for Environmental Human Rights Defenders.” With imagination and goodwill, such an initiative could even become an internationally recognized distinction honoring defenders from Nepal and the broader Asia-Pacific region. I acknowledge that these proposals may seem ambitious, even grand. But we can always start small, with a simple commemoration to honor Mahato.

Law campuses across the country could host seminars on environmental human rights and the broader field of business and human rights. What matters is doing something—anything—in Mahato’s name. Even a modest action involving his family would mark a meaningful beginning.

As Nepal strives to build a prosperous, sustainable, and equitable economy, it has a chance to lead in promoting environmental human rights. This field of law is neither financially lucrative nor safe; the risks for those who practice it are real. Recognizing Mahato’s sacrifice, and sharing the stories of other unsung heroes who continue to defend their fragile local ecosystems, could become a defining moment in Nepal’s recent history, and a step toward the just, resilient future the country aspires to build.

The Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist) is preparing to hold its general convention on Dec 13–15 to elect a new leadership. The CPN-UML’s  internal dynamics are especially tense this year, as incumbent Chairperson KP Sharma Oli, who has been politically shaken by the recent GenZ movement, is seeking a third consecutive term. Though Oli had signaled before Sept 8–9 protests that he would lead the party for another five years, the large-scale demonstrations and the killing of 19 youths has severely dented his standing both inside and outside the party.

A number of senior UML leaders have urged Oli to retire from the party chairmanship, arguing that he should take moral responsibility for the deaths that occurred under his premiership. Yet, Oli remains defiant. He insists that he was removed from government not because of his governance failures, but because of his uncompromising “nationalist stance.” This claim once again reveals a familiar pattern: Oli’s consistent use of nationalism as a political tool to consolidate his power, deflect criticism and project himself as a defender of Nepal’s sovereignty. Inside the communist party, there is a tendency to create real, perceived or even fabricated enemies in order to convince cadres that they should focus on fighting these threats rather than questioning or changing the leadership. This is exactly what KP Oli is doing right now.

Oli’s nationalism card

‘Nationalism’ has long been a potent currency in Nepali politics, especially within communist parties, which frequently frame internal dissent as externally manipulated. After joining mainstream politics, it was Maoist Chairperson Pushpa Kamal Dahal successfully weaponized ‘nationalism.’ When challenged by senior leader Baburam Bhattarai, Dahal often accused him of being influenced by foreign actors, particularly India. After losing power in 2008, Dahal blamed India for orchestrating his downfall and launched a political campaign centered on “national independence.” This narrative helped him maintain his grip on the Maoist party at a time when his leadership was under pressure.

Oli has followed a similar path since coming to power after 2015. He rose to national prominence during the 2015 Indian blockade, portraying himself as a staunch nationalist resisting external interference. His government’s issuance of a new political map of Nepal in 2020 further cemented his image as a leader willing to challenge powerful neighbors.

Internal challenge

For this year’s General Convention, Oli faces a more organized challenger than in previous conventions. His deputy, Ishwar Pokhrel, backed strongly by former President Bidya Devi Bhandari, has announced his candidacy for party chairman. Pokhrel’s camp is significantly stronger than in the 2021 convention, making him the first genuinely competitive candidate against Oli in years. Predictably, Oli’s supporters have begun portraying Pokhrel’s challenge as influenced by external forces. Such accusations are not new: within Nepal’s communist parties, labeling rivals as “foreign agents” is practically a political tradition.  A Facebook post by Shankar Pokhrel on Nov 29, for example, stated: “The country is in crisis, and attacks on nationalist forces continue. In such a situation, firmness in policy and unity in leadership are essential. Let’s move forward—it is possible.”The subtext of the statement is clear: in the name of national unity, Ishwar Pokhrel should withdraw and support Oli. This framing aligns perfectly with the longstanding internal communist practice of marginalizing opponents by presenting them as threats to national interests.

GenZ protests and ‘foreign ploy’

The GenZ protests shook Nepal’s political establishment as thousands of young took to the streets against corruption, unemployment and political stagnation. Instead of acknowledging the domestic roots of the unrest, Oli and his loyalists characterized the protests as foreign-orchestrated, drawing parallels with color revolutions in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Oli has repeatedly argued that his government was targeted by foreign powers because of his policies in favor of nationalism, such as signing the BRI with China. This narrative implies that the protests were an attempt on the part of Western powers ‘to punish him and destabilize the UML.’

Oli’s belief that the GenZ uprising was externally orchestrated rests mostly on rumors and unverified reports. Most Nepalis view the movement as a spontaneous expression of frustration with political instability, chronic corruption and the failure of leaders to deliver meaningful reforms. The attempt to reduce a youth-led domestic uprising to foreign interference seems increasingly detached from public sentiment.

Social media ban and nationalism

One of the major triggers of the GenZ movement was the Oli government’s decision to ban several social media platforms for not registering in Nepal. Oli attempted to justify the move by claiming that these platforms violated Nepal’s sovereignty and refused to comply with national laws. This explanation, framed once again through the lens of nationalism, did little to placate widespread anger. 

Oli’s public defense of controversial businessman Durga Prasai, arrested for inflammatory remarks, further underscored his reliance on the nationalism narrative. Prasai had released a video claiming that Western-funded NGOs were behind the GenZ protests, echoing Oli’s larger narrative of foreign interference. By siding with Prasai, Oli signaled once again that he sees political advantage in promoting the idea of a foreign conspiracy.

Will ‘nationalism’ work again?

UML leaders often boast that their party alone does not compromise on matters of national interest. In previous elections, this rhetoric helped Oli galvanize public support. But this time, the situation appears different. Oli has been raising the issue of foreign intervention behind the GenZ movement for more than two months, yet the narrative has gained little traction. Public sentiment has shifted. Nepalis today are more concerned about corruption, unemployment, inflation and the failure of political leaders to govern effectively. The idea that Nepal’s problems stem from foreign meddling, rather than deep-rooted internal dysfunction, no longer convinces many.  Inside the UML, too, Oli’s nationalist rhetoric appears to be losing its persuasive power. The party rank-and-file recognizes that nationalism has become a convenient cover for resisting internal reforms and maintaining control. With rising dissatisfaction in the organization and the emergence of stronger rival factions, Oli’s grip on the party is not as secure as it once was.

Conclusion

KP Sharma Oli’s use of the term ‘nationalism’ has been a key part of his political identity for nearly a decade. It helped him rise to power, survive internal challenges and present himself as the champion of Nepali sovereignty. But political landscapes evolve, and public patience has limits. Today, with a frustrated younger generation, intensifying intra-party competition, and declining faith in political theatrics, Oli’s nationalism card appears increasingly exhausted. Whether it will still work at the upcoming General Convention remains uncertain, but all signs suggest that its effectiveness is rapidly waning.

It is my pleasure to welcome you today as we celebrate the 54^th anniversary of the founding and establishment of the United Arab Emirates, under this year’s theme “United”. This theme reflects the unity of our society, the strength of our bonds, and the spirit of cooperation and teamwork on which our nation was built since its foundation.

On this day, we remember the journey of an exceptional nation that began with a wise vision and strong will. A journey that made our Union a unique model of progress, development, and advancement. It shaped our present and laid firm foundations for the future, guided by leadership that placed the human being at the center of development and made the prosperity of the nation its constant goal.

This year, we celebrate the Union Day of the UAE under the theme “United,” which also comes at a special moment marked by the announcement of His Highness Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, President of the UAE declaring 2025 as the Year of Community. This reflects our leadership’s deep belief in the ability of citizens and residents to contribute positively to our path of growth, and in strengthening the values of unity and cooperation that have been the foundations of our Union since its establishment.

Over the past decades, the UAE has witnessed major transformations across many sectors—from the economy and sustainable development to space exploration, and from clean energy to artificial intelligence (AI). The UAE has become one of the leading nations that shapes the future immediately without any delay.

These achievements were not just a coincidence. They are the outcome of a clear national vision built on excellence, the wise use of resources, and investment in people and knowledge—making the UAE a global center for innovation, growth, and creativity in many sectors.​​​​​​​

The United Arab Emirates adopts a foreign policy that is balanced, open, and based on dialogue and understanding as key principles in its relations with all countries. The UAE continues its path of building bridges of cooperation and promoting dialogue—values and principles that have guided its foreign policy since the Union was formed, together with respect for good relations, the sovereignty of states, and international law.​​​​​​​

The UAE believes that peace and development are two connected paths toward a better future for all peoples. Through its many initiatives, the UAE works to support humanitarian efforts, strengthen international cooperation, and promote global peace, security, and stability.

On this national occasion, the United Arab Emirates reaffirms its commitment to its steady approach, based on cooperation, openness, and constructive work with various countries and communities, in support of peace, stability, and sustainable development.​​​​​​

The distinguished relations between the UAE and Nepal reflect a deep and strong friendship, built on goodwill, mutual respect, and shared interests. As members of the United Nations, both countries share common perspectives on many global issues, such as climate change, world peace, and combating terrorism.

The UAE always stands with Nepal in difficult situations and constantly seeks to cooperate with and assist the government and people of Nepal during critical situation and natural disasters, such as the 2015 earthquake, the COVID-19 pandemic, and previous floods and landslides.

A large number of Nepalese communities live in the UAE, enjoying life alongside different cultures and peoples in a safe environment. They contribute to the economic growth of both Nepal and the United Arab Emirates.

We look forward to continuing joint efforts to open wider horizons for cooperation in various fields, including renewable energy, tourism, infrastructure, human resource development, and other areas of shared interest.

We would like to express our sincere thanks and appreciation to the government of Nepal for their mutual contribution to strengthening relations between the UAE and Nepal. We also value their continuous efforts to develop the country and graduate from the list of the least developed countries (LDC) by year 2026.​​​​​​​

The speech delivered by Abdulla Alshamsi, Ambassador of UAE to Nepal, at a reception organized to mark UAE’s 54^th Eid Ai Ethad.

Nepal's contemporary political history shows that an unstable political system has been a constant. The country is at another crossroads following the Sept 8-9 protest of GenZers against chronic corruption, nepotism and political instability that overthrew the government of Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, leading to the dissolution of the Parliament through a presidential decree and the appointment of a retired Chief Justice, Sushila Karki, as PM, with the sole mandate of holding elections to the House of Representatives on March 5 next year. One of the most important questions that we face as a nation at this point in time is: What will happen if the government fails to conduct the polls on time? 

What’s more, the course that Nepal takes will have implications for regional stability too. 

A history of instability 

To understand the gravity of this moment, we must look at Nepal's troubled political history. Since the restoration of multiparty democracy in 1990, our country has witnessed more than two dozen prime ministers. Between 2008 and 2025 alone, Nepal saw 14 different governments. This carousel of leadership has created a political culture where power sharing out-dated policy implementation, and coalition building became more important than serving the people.   

In 1961, King Mahendra banned political parties and began the Panchayat system, which remained until 1990, when a popular movement compelled King Birendra to go for multiparty democracy with constitutional monarchy. With the start of the Maoist insurgency in 1996, Nepal entered a decade-long civil war that killed more than 17,000 people. After the people's movement of 2006, the monarchy got abolished (in 2008) and the Constitution promulgated seven years later turned Nepal into a federal secular democratic republic. 

Political instability continues to be Nepal’s defining feature in spite of these constitutional accomplishments. Frequent changes in administration have caused public confidence to plummet, slowed down development initiatives and fostered an atmosphere that allows nepotism and corruption to thrive unchecked. 

The GenZ awakening 

The September 2025 GenZ protests were not spontaneous, they were the eruption of long simmering frustration. The government banned 26 social media platforms on Sept 4 to silence dissent and what followed is public knowledge. 

Young Nepalis, representing over 60 percent of the population under age 30, poured into the streets with three clear demands: end corruption, eliminate nepotism, and reform the political system.

This movement stood out from earlier demonstrations due to its leaderless, digital-native nature. GenZ activists organized using social media sites like Facebook, Instagram and Discord, completely avoiding established political systems. While regular Nepalis faced depleting earnings and a youth unemployment rate of 20 percent, they revealed the extravagant lifestyles of politicians' offspring, known as “nepo kids,” who were vacationing in Europe and shopping for expensive brands.  

On Sept 8, police opened fire during the movements, killing 19 people, including a 12-year-old. The next day, angry demonstrators stormed and burnt the Supreme Court, Parliament and the homes of politicians. There were 72 fatalities in all. PM Oli resigned on Sept 9 and Sushila Karki succeeded him, becoming the country's first female PM, on Sept 12, leading an interim administration with the sole goal of holding free and fair elections on March 5 next year.  

A gray area  

The interim government exists in a constitutional gray area. Nepal’s 2015 Constitution does not explicitly provide for appointing a prime minister, who is not a sitting member of the parliament. The current arrangement emerged through negotiations involving President Ramchandra Paudel and Chief of the Army Staff Ashok Raj Sigdel with GenZ representatives—an unprecedented process that bypassed normal constitutional channels.

 Under the Constitution, the House of Representatives comprises 275 members: 165 elected through FPTP from single constituencies and 110 through proportional representation. The Election Commission has approved the election schedule, with political parties required to register between November 16-26, 2025, campaign period running from February 15 to March 2 next year and voting on March 5 (7 am-5 pm).

The interim government has formed a judicial commission to investigate the violence, appointed untainted candidates as ministers and pledged to serve a maximum six-month term. Prime Minister Karki promised diplomats that her government is “non-political” with a “single, non-negotiable mandate”—conducting elections on the stipulated date (March 5 next year).  

Neighborly influence 

The political stability of Nepal affects the entire region. For both the neighbours—China and India—Nepal’s stability is very important. 

India and Nepal have an open border, and India is home to the largest Nepali diaspora. An open border between two sovereign countries is taking a toll on the overall security of both the countries, thanks to a relatively unrestricted movement of people, transnational crimes and illegal trade.  

In order to protect its Tibetan border and further BRI projects, China sees Nepal as strategically significant. Beijing emphasized its commitment to “regional stability” by quickly recognizing the Karki-led government. However, Nepal’s inability to strengthen bilateral ties and repeated changes in administration have become a constant irritant for China.  

 Both the neighbors kept a close watch on the GenZ movement. China voiced hope that “dialogue will restore social order,” while the Indian ambassador was present at Karki’s swearing-in. Our history shows that any extended instability invites outside intervention, teaching us to move with extreme caution. 

Consequences of electoral delays   

If elections do not occur on March 5 next year, Nepal faces dire consequences across multiple dimensions. 

Political Crisis: The commitment of the interim government to holding elections on time is the only thing that gives it legitimacy. Any delay might spark violent protests again because it would be seen as treachery. The CPN (Maoist Center), Nepali Congress, and CPN-UML are the main major groups that already oppose the temporary arrangement; some call for the reinstatement of Parliament. Nepal might experience a constitutional crisis in the absence of elections, necessitating either military action or authoritarian governance.  

Economic collapse: Damages from the protests in September totalled $22.5bn, or over half of Nepal’s GDP. Growth estimates dropped below one percent, investor confidence hit rock bottom and cancellations decimated tourism throughout the holiday season. Prolonged uncertainty is too much for Nepal's economy, which already depends on remittances that account for more than 25 percent of GDP. Postponing elections will hinder reconstruction efforts, halt development initiatives and encourage more young people to go overseas.  

Social instability: GenZ called for the abolition of nepotism, direct executive elections and investigations into corruption scandals from 1990 to 2025. Postponing elections will not make these goals go away. Young people’s “radically different understandings of power, deference and legitimacy” from older generations came to light through the movement, revealing significant generational gaps. Continued isolation runs the risk of radicalization, which could reignite an armed insurgency or ethnic conflicts similar to the Maoist insurgency of 1996–2006.  

Regional instability: The crisis in Nepal is similar to recent upheavals in Bangladesh (2024) and Sri Lanka (2022), where youth movements and economic desperation overthrew governments. In addition to upsetting India-China relations and undermining trust in democratic institutions throughout the region, a failed transition in Nepal will destabilize South Asia.  

Will big parties cooperate? 

There is an existential challenge for established parties. Although they still have rural support and organizational strength, the GenZ movement has destroyed their credibility. How the new and the old parties fare remains to be seen.  

The CPN-UML has called for the restoration of the Parliament, while others insist elections proceed as scheduled. Some traditional leaders refuse to resign or make way for younger voices, clinging to power despite widespread discontent. Yet cooperation is essential, elections without major party participation would lack legitimacy.  

While tackling three pressing issues—restoring police infrastructure damaged during protests, removing legal barriers preventing young voters from voting and establishing a competent commission to investigate the violence—Prime Minister Karki must forge unity across the political spectrum. Current methods put thousands of young people at risk of losing their right to vote, while the pledge to grant Nepalis overseas the right to vote remains a pledge.    

The path forward 

More than just a democratic exercise, the March 2026 election will determine if Nepal can overcome the decades-long cycles of instability. The GenZ movement demanded fairness, clean government, and youth participation in decision-making; it was more than just resistance.  

Success requires political will from all stakeholders. Traditional parties must accept that "rank and power" alone cannot sustain legitimacy. They must embrace reforms, investigate corruption transparently and genuinely include marginalized voices. The interim government must restore law and order, rebuild destroyed institutions, and conduct elections that command legitimacy domestically and internationally.  

If elections fail to take place on time, Nepal faces a grim future: constitutional crisis, economic ruin, social upheaval and regional destabilization. But if we seize this moment, if political leaders rise above narrow interests and young citizens engage constructively, Nepal can finally establish stable, accountable governance.   

The choice is ours. A government born from a people’s movement cannot afford to fail. The world watches as Nepal stands at a crossroads: reconstruction or regression, democracy or chaos, hope or despair. Our response to this question “If the elections are not held in time, what will happen?” will define Nepal’s route for generations to come. So, let’s create a conducive environment for free and fair elections.