BRICS, Nepal and SAARC
As I am writing this essay, the first day of the BRICS Summit chaired by Brazil in Rio de Janeiro has concluded. Some official statements have already been released, all centered on highlighting the importance of the Global South to emerge and thrive in a world so far dominated by developed nations from the West.
With both President Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin of Russia absent, Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India surely can take advantage of the stage, championing together with President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil the role of the developing nations.
“The Global South has often been a victim of double standards. Whether it is development, distribution of resources or security-related issues, the interests of the Global South have not been prioritized; India has always considered it its responsibility to rise above its own interests and work in the interest of humanity, " said PM Narendra Modi at the 17th BRICS Summit
It could be tempting to discuss the double standards of the Prime Minister who has always been very keen to cement his relationship with the Global West, especially with the leaders of the G7 but let’s set this aside.
Instead, let’s focus instead on what the BRICS could represent for a country like Nepal. There is no doubt that BRICS can have an important role in reinforcing a multipolar order. At the same time, there is the risk of this bloc polarizing the world further, especially if Russia and China succeed at pushing a strongly anti-western narrative.
It is one thing to lament the unfairness and imbalances facing the Global South, but a completely different matter if there is an open, continuous and unabated hostility toward the West in the way that both Russia and China are keen to unleash. This is the dilemma that Indonesia is facing as the latest nation officially joining the bloc as a full member.
Indonesia, like India, is one of the strongest representatives of the modern non-alignment in foreign policy. De facto, there is no longer a united nonaligned movement of nations but rather, we are talking of the strategic approach of nations like India, Indonesia and Nepal. With the multiple geopolitical crises arising, non-alignment is increasingly becoming a difficult balancing act for the capitals embracing it.
Therefore, the BRICS has a strong purpose and clear mission but only at a theoretical level because in practice, the bloc remains divided. It is one thing to rally around high rhetoric clamoring for justice and equality in the world but it is another thing to put together a coherent set of initiatives, considering also the divergent views that its members have on human rights and democracy.
Yet, there is no doubt that the BRICS cannot become a united and coherent geopolitical bloc, it has some geopolitical aspirations, given the fact that it has been welcoming new members for quite some time. Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates were officially accepted in 2023 during the South African chairmanship of the BRICS.
In practical terms, there is already a BRICS “global” bank, the New Development Bank (headquartered in Shanghai) under former Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff. While the NDB’s work is still somehow disappointing and underperforming, the potential is clear despite a “sibling” rivalry with Chinese’s Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). In addition, the Brazilian Presidency this year has been extremely careful at promoting very concrete areas of cooperation like climate change and artificial intelligence.
These factors make BRICS more relevant than G20 and G7, groups that, by design, are to be much more loose and unstructured platforms. Taking into account the strengths and the potential of BRICS but also its structural weaknesses, especially now that it is at risk of losing its strategic focus with its expanded (and diverse) membership, could it be worthy for Nepal to consider applying for a partner status membership?
There are many nations with this looser and less demanding type of affiliation, officially called the “BRICS Partner Countries”. It is an increasingly large group (as per now, Belarus, Bolivia, Kazakhstan, Cuba, Malaysia, Thailand, Uganda, Uzbekistan and Nigeria have this status). These are nations that want to ride on the potential of BRICS without a full commitment to it. While they can bring an additional collective strength, these nations further stress the internal divide between democracy and authoritarian nations already existing among the full members of the BRICS.
It would not be unimaginable for Nepal to consider this level of partnership with the BRICS. Most importantly, Nepal would gain some visibility and have some tangible gains, especially in terms of enlarging its very limited global presence and establishing more South-South partnerships.
But, strategically speaking, the number one priority for Nepal would be to find ways to reactivate the process of cooperation in South Asia. The SAARC, despite being moribund, should remain the “North Star” for the country’s foreign policy. BIMSTEC and initiatives like “Nepal-India-Bangladesh Corridor could play an important role but none can match the unlimited potential of the SAARC.”
BIMSTEC, no matter its added significance, would never play a fundamental role like the SAARC. The former is a connector, a bridge between two different regions, South Asia and Southeast Asia and Nepal needs to expand its relationship with a nearby region with an incredibly dynamic market. But, in matters of international cooperation and possibly regional integration (the former is the linchpin for the latter), Nepal needs to find an “engine” to maximize its economic potential and develop holistically while eradicating poverty.
Such a propeller can be only found in South Asia and it is called SAARC. With SAARC, there would be a real possibility of creating a common pan-South Asian market and united regional economy. But we all know the current status of this regional body that has been adversely impacted by the relationships between India and Pakistan. There might be creative ways for Nepal to restart the process of regional cooperation but perhaps, Nepal needs to think of itself as its engine rather than delegating this essential and yet untapped function to a regional body.
It might be high time for Nepal to think differently and out of the box and overcome the structural obstacles from two nations in the region that are not interested in leaving the past behind.
Regional cooperation and regional integration in South Asia cannot be blocked by a risky rivalry that, if left unchecked and uncontrolled, can threaten the whole region. Why should not Nepal expand its horizon and strategically imagine itself as a member of bigger forums while also not giving up its strategic interests in its own backyard and truly push for reviving the dream of a more united South Asia?
AI and the newsroom
In recent years, traditional media houses across the globe have resorted to layoffs as a last-ditch effort to stay afloat; if not for the long term, then at least for a few more years. This wave of downsizing began during the Covid-19 crisis and has yet to subside.
Media organizations are now restructuring into smaller, smarter and more agile newsrooms to cut costs. They are grappling with a severe financial crisis as conventional revenue streams dry up and new ones are slow to emerge. Nepal is no exception to this trend. To reduce expenses, many media houses are working to merge operations across print, radio, television and digital platforms into unified newsrooms. The only seemingly viable, though not well-thought-out option has been to scale down operations to match dwindling revenues.
In this context, a wide range of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools could prove to be a boon for the fragile media landscape, potentially helping to fill gaps left by staff reductions. However, before embracing AI more broadly, it is crucial for media houses to formulate clear policies to ensure its ethical, transparent and effective use.
While some media houses have already started using AI tools, their applications remain minimal and largely unregulated. It is high time media houses moved decisively, from the Gutenberg-era newsroom to an AI-equipped, high-tech newsroom. A key first step in this transition is to provide training for journalists and collaborate with technology companies to develop customized newsroom tools. While the adoption of AI is not without costs, it can be a cost-effective alternative in the long run, gradually replacing outdated editorial structures.
At present, AI use in Nepal’s newsrooms is limited to individual journalists. Many AI-generated, translated or edited texts are published without any editorial supervision. While no comprehensive study has been conducted to assess the use of AI in Nepali newsrooms so far, a recent survey by Rajiv Timalsina, a student of Kantipur City College, provides some insights. According to the survey, 38 percent of journalists use AI tools for transcription tasks such as documenting interviews. Around 22 percent use them for fact-checking through platforms like Google Fact Check or image verification engines, while only 18 percent use audience analytics tools to understand reader behavior.
The next step after introducing AI tools is to train employees to use them effectively, particularly to improve the quality of writing and editing. Currently, there is a lack of trained human resources in the newsroom, and local journalists are still in the early stages of AI adoption. While some non-governmental organizations have begun offering training, there has been little to no institutional collaborations.
Media houses must establish dedicated AI departments and AI editors to provide proper insight and guidance. Without this, the unchecked use of AI could lead to serious problems. If possible, Nepali media should also seek collaboration with international media organizations to learn from their experiences, though even global media outlets are still experimenting with AI integration.
In 2024, The New York Times publicly released a document outlining its approach to AI in the newsroom. The US media company said it does not use AI to write news or articles. It said it uses AI in three main ways: as a tool in the service of its journalistic mission, under human guidance and review and transparent use. Compared to other international media outlets, it has adopted a more cautious stance on AI use, maintaining that human creativity remains central to content creation.
In 2023, The Financial Times appointed Madhumita Murgia as its first AI editor. The following year, The New York Times rolled out its first generative AI features for subscribers. The same year, The Washington Post launched “Ask the Post AI”, which it described as a generative AI tool leveraging the publication’s deeply-sourced, fact-based journalism to deliver summary answers and curated results directly to users.
In neighboring India, The Hindustan Times joined the AI race in 2024, establishing a 15-member team to work on GenAI-based initiatives such as news bots, personalization, audience engagement, monetization and subscription strategies.
In Nepal, while journalists have begun using publicly-available AI tools, institutional adoption remains limited. However, some media outlets have started integrating AI technologies in various ways, from digital news readers to audio transcription, translation, image and text generation, and even news writing.
Providing summaries alongside news articles, with editorial endorsement, is a growing global trend. Onlinekhabar is among the Nepali media following this trend. Annapurna Post has also taken help of AI for its digital reader tool. However, some news outlets, which lack strong editorial oversight, are publishing AI-generated summaries that are flawed or misleading.
With the use of AI at the individual level growing, media houses must ensure that AI is used responsibly and ethically. This is necessary both to maintain editorial integrity and to earn people’s trust. With strategic investment and collaboration with tech companies, AI could unlock new opportunities for Nepali media houses.
AI tools can help summarize news stories, but editors must have the final say. The New York Times’ own experience shows that AI-generated summaries often fail to fully capture the nuances of original articles. Many believe that human-written summaries are still superior. Despite this, the US media company’s AI team has been refining its tools, acknowledging that while AI is not perfect, it can still help free up editorial staff for other important tasks.
With the right human guidance, generative AI can also be used to create visuals to accompany new stories. Some Nepali media houses have started using AI-generated images, but these are only accurate when journalists provide detailed guidance. Otherwise, there is a risk of misrepresentation and factual inaccuracies.
Resource constraints have long prevented Nepal media from producing investigative, analytical and in-depth news stories. AI could help bridge this gap. It can assist in scanning documents, analyzing data and identifying leads for investigative reports. These are the tasks that journalists often struggle to manage under tight deadlines. AI can also support wider and more efficient coverage by translating news into multiple languages to reach broader audiences. Some outlets in Nepal have already begun experimenting with this approach.
AI tools can be used to support news writing and editing. However, this should always be done under direct editorial supervision. These tools are best used to prepare preliminary drafts. For journalists, AI can help identify trending topics, suggest potential sources, summarize lengthy documents, conduct background checks and even engage audiences more effectively.
While investing in AI infrastructure may place an additional financial burden on media houses in the short term, it could prove vital to their long-term survival. On one hand, AI can significantly enhance the quality and efficiency of news production; on the other, a compact AI-powered newsroom can help reduce human resource costs. Compared to other countries, Nepali media remain behind in adopting technology. But the use of AI in newsrooms is no longer a distant possibility, it is a present-day reality. The question is not whether to use AI, but how to use it effectively to harness its benefits.
Stability without transformation
The fiscal year 2024–25 marked a cautiously optimistic phase in Nepal’s post-pandemic economic recovery. With a projected GDP growth of 4.61 percent, a narrowed fiscal deficit and record foreign exchange reserves, Nepal demonstrated notable resilience. However, beneath these surface indicators lies a complex interplay of structural weaknesses, external dependencies and opportunities that deserve closer scrutiny.
What it really means
At first glance, Nepal’s GDP growth of 4.61 percent appears moderate and consistent with a recovering economy. But this figure, while respectable, remains below the 7–8 percent growth rate necessary for rapid poverty reduction and meaningful job creation. The marginal increase in growth from the previous year’s 3.9 percent suggests a slow recovery rather than robust expansion.
More importantly, much of this growth was consumption-led and driven by remittance inflows, rather than investment-led industrial or export expansion. This signals a structural concern: Nepal’s economy continues to lean heavily on external income rather than internal productivity.
Services dominate, industries lag
The composition of GDP reflects deep-rooted imbalances. The services sector contributed over 62 percent to GDP, dwarfing agriculture (25.2 percent) and industry (12.8 percent). While services growth—particularly in transport, storage, and financial activities—is encouraging, it raises questions about sustainability. Services, especially low-productivity informal ones, often expand when there is a lack of industrial dynamism.
The industrial sector, despite moderate growth in construction and manufacturing, remains constrained by infrastructural bottlenecks, power reliability issues and limited domestic and foreign investment. Agriculture, although vital for employment, continues to suffer from low productivity, climate vulnerability and lack of commercialization.
A silver lining?
Headline inflation was 4.72 percent, down from previous years. This reflects effective monetary tightening and better supply chain management. However, food inflation persisted around 3.3 percent, affecting poor households disproportionately.
More analytically, the disinflationary trend owes much to suppressed demand and import-based consumption rather than domestic supply resilience. In a context where inflation in neighboring India remains high, Nepal’s price stability is fragile due to the currency peg and trade dependence. Any external price shock—especially in fuel or food—could reverse the gains swiftly.
Strength built on vulnerability
Remittances grew by 9.4 percent, reaching over Rs 1trn. On the surface, this is a strong signal of income support for households and foreign exchange stability. However, the economy’s growing reliance on labor exports (over 25 percent of GDP) reflects domestic weaknesses in job creation. Migration is not a sign of strength—it is often a symptom of failure to absorb labor at home.
The surge in exports (up 57 percent) is driven by a few commodities like edible oil re-exports and textiles, making it highly sensitive to global demand and bilateral trade policies. The trade deficit remains wide, and Nepal continues to import high-value goods while exporting low-value products—an unsustainable model.
The record-high foreign exchange reserves (covering over 14 months of imports) are welcome but largely attributable to remittances and restrained import demand rather than export competitiveness.
Improved discipline, but at what cost?
Nepal’s fiscal deficit declined sharply—from Rs 70bn to around Rs 16bn in the first eight months—thanks to higher revenue growth and restrained spending. While this reflects improved fiscal discipline, a closer look reveals underperformance in capital expenditure. Many development projects remained delayed or underfunded due to bureaucratic inefficiency, procurement issues and political instability.
Moreover, public debt is at 43.8 percent of GDP—moderate by international standards—but its composition is shifting toward more domestic borrowing, raising concerns over future interest liabilities and crowding out of private investment.
Loosening sans uptake
The Nepal Rastra Bank lowered policy rates to inject liquidity into the economy, leading to historic lows in lending rates. Yet credit uptake remained sluggish, indicating low investor confidence and weak private sector appetite for expansion. The rise in non-performing loans to 4.9 percent underscores emerging stress in the banking system, which could worsen if economic recovery remains tepid.
This disconnect between monetary easing and private sector response suggests deeper structural barriers—legal hurdles, creditworthiness concerns and weak project pipelines.
Climate shocks and structural risks
Nepal’s economic resilience was tested by major floods in mid-2024, causing damage equivalent to 0.8 percent of GDP. This highlights the increasing economic cost of climate change, especially for a country with fragile topography and inadequate disaster preparedness. Yet, climate adaptation and green investment remain minimal in budget allocations.
Additionally, long-term risks—including heavy remittance dependence, trade imbalances, political instability and underemployment—remain unaddressed. These challenges, if not structurally tackled, could stall Nepal’s path to middle-income status.
Conclusion: Resilient, yet restricted
Nepal's economic performance in 2024–25 reflected stability without transformation. The country avoided crisis and managed moderate growth, but it did not make the leap toward a more productive, inclusive or diversified economy. The gains were largely reactive rather than strategic—buoyed by remittances, import compression and fiscal restraint rather than innovation or competitiveness.
To transition from recovery to take-off, Nepal must move beyond short-term fixes. Reforms in public administration, industrial policy, export diversification, education and climate resilience are essential. Without them, the economy risks settling into a low-growth equilibrium marked by dependence, inequality and untapped potential.
Knowledge and responsibility in the age of AI
With the rise of generative AI in research and education, a question keeps coming to mind: How is the way we understand knowledge changing as AI becomes a bigger part of our daily learning and work? This is not just a question for academics or tech experts; it affects everyone who relies on knowledge to make decisions, express ideas or contribute to their communities. We are at a point where the very act of knowing is changing—not just how we know, but who we consider to be the "knower." When a machine writes an article, summarizes a book, or helps design a curriculum, what role does the human thinker still play?
On the one hand, this technology opens up new possibilities. A student in a remote village in Nepal can now access summaries of global literature, translate complex theories into Nepali or get help writing a research paper—all at the click of a button. Generative AI can be a powerful tool for breaking down barriers of language, access and time. On the other hand, there’s also the risk that we may stop thinking for ourselves, relying too heavily on a tool that reflects patterns, not true understanding. In a world where so much is automated, what happens to reflection, to critical thought, and to the slow and sometimes uncomfortable process of finding our own insights?
As I struggled with these questions, I found some guidance in Eastern philosophy. While ancient texts didn’t predict AI or digital tools, they did take the question of knowledge very seriously. In the Eastern tradition, knowledge (jñāna) is not just about gathering facts. It’s something that transforms us, something that reveals the self, the world, and the relationship between the two. Importantly, it is always tied to ethics. One does not seek knowledge simply to win arguments or impress others; knowledge is pursued to live rightly, act responsibly and move closer to truth and liberation.
This is especially relevant now as generative AI begins to influence how we write, research and think. The Upanishads tell us that the student should not just ask, “What is this?” but also, “Who am I?” It’s a question of identity, intention and inner clarity. When I use AI to write a paragraph or generate ideas, I try to stay aware of what part of me is involved. Am I using the tool to clarify my thoughts or to avoid doing the hard work of thinking? Am I driven by curiosity or by convenience? These may seem like philosophical questions, but they have very practical implications. Imagine a college student in Kathmandu working on their assignments. With AI, they can generate drafts in minutes, find sources and even correct their grammar. But if they stop reading, stop questioning and simply copy what the machine offers, they may submit a polished assignment—but miss the point of education entirely.
The machine can assist, but it cannot reflect. It cannot care. It cannot ask, “Is this meaningful to my society, my values, or my life? Eastern philosophy offers a helpful metaphor here: the yantra or instrument. Tools are nothing new. Humans have always used tools to extend our abilities—whether it’s the plough in agriculture, the loom in weaving or the telescope in astronomy. What matters is not just the tool, but how we use it, and for what purpose.
The Bhagavad Gita reminds us that the right action must be performed without attachment to the outcome, guided by clarity and duty—dharma. In today’s world, AI is a new yantra, but it requires the same discipline. We must ask: is it helping me fulfill my role as a student, researcher or a citizen? Or is it just making things easier at the cost of meaning? This doesn’t mean we should fear technology. Far from it. Used wisely, generative AI can become a partner in learning, a bridge across educational gaps and a tool to preserve and even regenerate local knowledge.
Imagine AI trained to document indigenous languages in Nepal or to translate oral histories into written texts. Imagine teachers using AI to create personalized learning experiences for students from different backgrounds and needs. These are exciting possibilities—but they can only become a reality if we use them with care, ethics, and awareness.
In Eastern philosophy, ethics is not separate from knowledge. Truth (satya) is not just about factual correctness; it is about aligning what we know, say and do. When we conduct research with the help of AI, it still matters that we acknowledge our sources, credit others and question the biases embedded in the tools we use.
It still matters that we ask: Does this help society? Does it deepen understanding? Or am I simply using a machine to do my work for me? This brings us back to the idea of rethinking how we understand and interpret knowledge. Perhaps the real shift is not just technological—from books to machines, from human writers to AI—but ethical.
It is a turn toward remembering that knowledge is not neutral. It shapes lives, it holds power and it demands responsibility. In this light, AI is neither a savior nor a threat. It becomes a mirror, reflecting our habits, assumptions and goals. And it asks us: What kind of knowers do we want to be?
In a country like Nepal, where tradition and modernity often walk side by side, we have a unique opportunity. We can engage with new technologies not blindly, but with the wisdom of our philosophical traditions.
We can teach students not just how to use AI, but how to think with it—critically, ethically and reflectively. We can build an academic culture that values not just output, but insight. In the end, Eastern philosophy doesn’t reject tools. It simply reminds us: We must be worthy users of them.