Submit your Article

Nepal has been passing through a volatile political phase following the violent protests of Sept 9, during which key state installations—including the Parliament building, Singha Durbar, and the President’s Office—were set on fire. The unrest created a serious political and constitutional vacuum, raising concerns about state stability and security. In the aftermath, the role of the Nepali Army (NA) came under intense public scrutiny.

Many members of the public and political leaders questioned why the NA failed to protect vital government institutions such as Singhadurbar. The Army, however, defended its actions, arguing that its top priority was to prevent human casualties rather than protect physical infrastructure. According to senior NA officials, opening fire on protesters on September 9 could have triggered even more severe violence the following day. They maintain that if more lives had been lost, the situation might have spiraled beyond control of NA. This debate is likely to continue in the days ahead.

Despite the criticism, the Army’s conduct during and after the protests has been widely regarded as measured and responsible. Most notably, in the political vacuum that emerged after the unrest, the NA did not attempt to assume power. Instead, it facilitated the restoration of civilian rule. Following initial engagement with protest groups to help restore normalcy, the Army worked closely with President Ramchandra Paudel and major political parties to expedite the formation of a new government.

Between Sept 9 and 12, the NA coordinated with the President and senior leaders from major parties to accelerate the government formation process. The Army reportedly urged political actors to quickly establish a new administration, given the sensitive and volatile environment. By doing so, it sent a clear message that it had no political ambitions and remained committed to its professional and apolitical role.

A military takeover—even a temporary one until elections could be held—might have further complicated the crisis and jeopardized Nepal’s 2015 Constitution. Senior leaders such as Madhav Kumar Nepal and Pushpa Kamal Dahal publicly acknowledged the Army’s constructive role in restoring stability. The US Embassy in Nepal also praised President Paudel and Chief of the Army Staff Ashok Raj Sigdel for ensuring a smooth transition back to civilian governance.

Following the formation of the Karki-led government and the announcement of elections, the Army continued to emphasize that elections were the only viable path out of the crisis. On this issue, the NA, President Paudel, and Prime Minister Sushila Karki appeared aligned. The Army maintained that any postponement of elections could trigger another round of political instability and constitutional uncertainty. This firm position helped bring political parties together in support of the electoral process.

In preparation for the March 5 elections, the Nepal Army played a proactive role in strengthening security arrangements. Although constitutional questions sometimes arise regarding the mobilization of the Army for election security, the NA fully cooperated with the government. Given concerns about declining morale within the Nepal Police, there had been doubts about whether adequate security could be ensured. In response, the Army expedited logistical and operational preparations within a limited timeframe.

To date, no major incidents of election-related violence have been reported. The Army has continued patrol operations to maintain a secure environment. Just weeks ago, top political leaders had expressed concerns about their ability to campaign safely. However, most candidates are now actively engaged in electioneering without significant security complaints, aside from a few minor incidents.

The NA has provided security for elections since the restoration of democracy. For the March 5 polls, it deployed over 80,000 personnel. Traditionally, the Army is stationed in the outer security ring of polling centers, while police and local security forces manage the inner perimeter. However, in coordination with local authorities, the NA can assume responsibility for inner-circle security when threat levels are high.

Compared to previous elections, the Army’s role in this process has been more extensive and intensive, largely due to the extraordinary political circumstances. These elections are not taking place under normal conditions; they are viewed as a crucial step toward restoring constitutional order and political stability. By committing itself to ensuring free, fair, and timely elections, the Nepal Army has positioned the electoral process as central to resolving the ongoing crisis and putting the constitution back on track.

Free drinking water supply may win votes, but a sustainable water supply system wins the future.

Access to water is a global human rights agenda; however, this global consensus is sometimes misinterpreted as a mandate for ‘free water for all’. The real challenge in the WASH sector is to ensure that no citizen is denied water due to poverty, while also maintaining financially viable systems. Political parties sometimes pick this as an agenda and try to implement it, and the result is that the system becomes more paralyzed. The blanket free water policies ultimately degrade the service quality and disproportionately benefit high volume users rather than the poor, per a study.

Drinking water supply has not been treated as a tradable commodity so far in human history. So that instinct still shapes the public perception today, making tariffs politically sensitive.

But providing water supply is not just to lay pipeline or construction of reservoirs, it’s rather a continuous public service which seeks continuous operation, maintenance, manpower, energy and institutions. Additionally, our WASH sector today does not suffer only from the lack of proper and sufficient infrastructures but from poor utilization of existing infrastructure. Systems constructed with huge public and donor investment remain underused or poorly operated due to inadequate management and lack of institutional support. So, the problem is not the pipe and tanks alone, it is governance. 

My field experience evaluating the performance of urban water utilities shows how poorly-designed pricing policies can backfire. In Katahariya municipality, where the municipality itself used to bear the household drinking water cost, the Water and Sanitation User’s Committee admitted that households use drinking water even for the bathing of domestic animals. So the utilities are under constant pressure to meet demand and operate the system.  In Darchula district headquarters, a flat tariff system—households pay fixed amounts regardless of the consumption—has led to excessive per capita water use. During my visit, treated water was visibly flowing along roads not due to abundance, but because there was no incentive to conserve.

If we look at the result of the Free Water Promise in Rajasthan or New Delhi, the poorer section of society who suffered from the non-availability of water cannot avail the benefits of such schemes. Usually, subsidies end up benefitting mainly those outside the target group.

Among the eight newly-constructed urban water supply systems, one is performing at an ‘improved’ level, according to a recent study of the Town Development Fund. Most remain in the ‘improving’ category, while some are already under the ‘poor’ category. Even the newly-constructed water supply systems are seeking urgent support for operations, management and institutional strengthening. The scenarios in rural areas are even worse.

At the same time, rapid urban growth, change in living standards, haphazard construction and climate-induced stress are reducing the quality and quantity of available water. So, innovation for the adaptation of climate-induced stress, integration of new and sophisticated technologies, system strengthening, alternative operation modalities, etc should be the state priorities.

Promising ‘free water’ is not a solution; it is a distraction. Political parties should focus on providing quality service rather than free.

Every year brings hopeful news about brain disease. Scientists discover drugs that remove toxic proteins. Experimental treatments rescue neurons in animals. Brain scans now reveal damage to extraordinary precision. From the outside, it feels as if cures for Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease must already exist somewhere, waiting only to reach patients. Yet inside clinics, the conversation sounds very different.

Doctors can help reduce tremors, improve mobility, and temporarily slow memory decline. But stopping the disease itself remains rare. Families struggle to understand this contradiction. If science is advancing so rapidly, why does the illness continue to progress? This question has quietly become one of the central challenges of modern medicine.

Across all areas of drug development, treatments for brain disorders fail more often than therapies for heart disease, infections, or cancer. Large analyses of pharmaceutical pipelines published in Nature Biotechnology, Biostatistics, and BIO industry reports show that only about 6 to 8 percent of neurological drugs entering clinical trials eventually reach approval. Most fail during Phase II clinical trials; the stage designed to prove that treatment improves human life rather than laboratory biology. In the laboratory, disease looks solvable. In real people, it behaves differently.

When the brain looks better, but the person does not

For decades, Alzheimer’s research focused on amyloid plaques and sticky protein deposits in the brain. The logic seemed simple: remove the plaques and the disease should slow. After many failures, medicine finally succeeded biologically.

Antibody therapies now visibly clear amyloid on brain scans. The EMERGE and ENGAGE trials of Aducanumab showed plaque removal but inconsistent clinical benefit, leading to controversial approval based on biomarker change rather than functional improvement. The CLARITY-AD trial of Lecanemab, published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2022, showed a statistically significant slowing of decline by about 27 percent, yet the difference in daily life remained modest. The TRAILBLAZER-ALZ 2 trial of Donanemab, published in JAMA in 2023, reported similar results. For families, the outcome felt confusing. The scans improved clearly. Life improved only slightly.

Researchers eventually understood why. Long-term biomarker studies summarized in Lancet Neurology show Alzheimer’s disease begins 15 to 20 years before forgetfulness appears. By the time treatment starts, large parts of the brain network are already lost. Removing plaques changes biology, but it cannot restore neurons that have already died. The treatment works. It simply arrives too late.

Parkinson’s disease, which involves degeneration of dopamine neurons, taught the same lesson. Scientists hoped that protecting these cells would slow progression. In animals, the strategy repeatedly succeeded. In patients, it did not work.

The PRECEPT trial testing CEP-1347 showed no disease-modifying benefit. The STEADY-PD III trial of Isradipine, published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2020, confirmed that a drug protective in laboratory models did not prevent disability in humans. More recently, anti-alpha-synuclein antibody trials such as PASADENA and PADOVA demonstrated target engagement but failed to produce meaningful clinical improvement.

Pathology studies had already hinted at the explanation. By the time tremor appears, roughly half of substantia nigra dopamine neurons and most striatal dopamine are already lost. A drug cannot protect cells that no longer exist.

The disease begins long before diagnosis

In laboratory models, disease is fast and clear. Toxin damages neurons within days. A mutation produces symptoms within months. Cause and effect are visible. Human neurodegeneration behaves differently. It resembles slow aging under a microscope. Sleep disruption, inflammation, metabolism, environmental exposure, and genetics interact quietly for decades before symptoms appear. By the time someone notices tremor or memory loss, the brain has been compensating for injury for years. Many drugs were designed for early disease but tested in late disease. The medicine did not necessarily fail. The timing did.

One name, many diseases

Another discovery of a further complicated treatment. Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease are not single, uniform disorders. Research in Nature Reviews Neurology and Neuron shows multiple biological subtypes involving inflammation, mitochondrial dysfunction, vascular injury, and immune signaling. Parkinson’s may even begin in the gut in some patients and in the brain in others.

Two patients may look identical in clinics but have different underlying biology. When placed in the same clinical trial, a drug helping one subgroup can appear ineffective overall. Cancer treatment improved only after medical science accepted that one diagnosis could contain many diseases. Neurology is now learning the same lesson.

Why this matters even more in Nepal

The gap between discovery and benefit becomes wider in countries like Nepal. As life expectancy rises, dementia and Parkinson’s disease are increasing. Early symptoms such as loss of smell, constipation, sleep disturbance, or slowed movement are often dismissed as normal aging. Medical care is usually sought only after tremors, falls, or major memory problems appear, indicating that the disease has already advanced. At such a stage, treatments designed to slow early degeneration can do little. Scientific progress exists globally, but its impact depends on timing. The challenge is not only access to medicine, but access early enough for medicine to matter.

Why failed trials still move science forward

A failed clinical trial sounds discouraging, but it rarely means the idea was wrong. Often, it means the treatment was given too late, to the wrong subgroup, or measured over too short a period. Because of these lessons, neuroscience is changing direction. Blood biomarkers, imaging, and genetic screening are being developed to detect disease years before symptoms appear. Prevention trials such as AHEAD 3-45 and DIAN-TU now test therapies in people who are biologically positive but still healthy. The central question is shifting from "Does the drug work? To whom should it be administered, and when?”

The real meaning of progress

For families living with brain disease, progress feels painfully slow. Yet decades of disappointing trials revealed something profound: these illnesses begin long before diagnosis. Many treatments did not fail because hope was misplaced. They failed because they met the disease at the wrong moment. The future of brain medicine may depend less on discovering a miracle cure and more on matching the right therapy to the right person at the right stage. When early detection, precise diagnosis, and timely treatment finally align, scientific breakthroughs will stop fading after headlines and begin changing everyday life both around the world and in Nepal.

The author is a PhD candidate in the Department of Neurosciences and Neurological Disorders at the University of Toledo

In the modern era, we often think of state power as the presence of a stable monopoly, borders, bureaucracy, and security forces. But in reality, state power is not confined to such a situation. World history has repeatedly shown that no political power gains stability in popular support until long-standing rulers and their dominance are suddenly overthrown. In my copyrighted theory, “A Theory of Understanding State Power Through Knowledge, Identity, Liberty, and Power, and State-Power” I propose a revolutionary framework for understanding this situation: the “ladder of control.”

I argue that state power is the institutional culmination of a five-step progression. This ladder of knowledge, identity, freedom, and power ultimately leads to state power. By examining this ascent, we can better understand how authority is constructed and why it is resisted.

Step 1: Knowledge as a foundation

The first rung on the ladder of knowledge is knowledge. Knowledge provides the ability to interpret and apply knowledge to shape social outcomes. Historical events have shown that the ultimate gatekeeper of power is the right to control knowledge. Ancient Egyptian scholars used literacy as a means of consolidating power, while today state actors and corporations use “big data” and algorithms to control power.

Knowledge can wield the power of states to monitor and manipulate, like a double-edged sword, through propaganda or censorship. It empowers individuals and institutions. While print media fueled reform in the modern era, the Internet has fueled the rise of Arab and South Asian rebellions and upheavals in the postmodern era. Without the technical, historical, and strategic foundational mastery and maturity of knowledge, any attempt to climb the ladder of statehood is bound to fail.

Step 2: Identity as the catalyst

If knowledge provides the tools, identity provides the motivation. To move beyond individual understanding toward collective action, there must be a shared sense of ‘who we are’. I highlight how ‘imagined communities’—built through national anthems, flags, and shared history—legitimize the state by fostering loyalty.

Yet, identity can also be a source of profound instability. When identity is manipulated to exclude or marginalize, as seen in the ethnic divisions of the Rwandan genocide or modern populist movements, it fragments the very society the state seeks to govern. To successfully ascend this rung, leaders must forge a cohesive identity that unites rather than divides.

Knowledge and identity are two sides of the same coin. Knowledge provides tools, while identity provides inspiration. Identity is collective rather than individual. There must be a shared sense of “who we are.” This highlights how “imagined communities”—constructed through national anthems, flags, and shared histories—enhance the state by fostering loyalty. However, identity can also be a source of deep instability. When identity is manipulated to exclude or marginalize, the brutal events of the Rwandan genocide are even more ancient. This is evident in the ethnic and racial divisions of modern populist movements. The power to govern thus tends to fragment society. For sustainable development and a creative society, leaders must promote and protect a unified identity that unites rather than divides.

Stage 3: Freedom for individual and collective prosperity

The third stage, freedom or liberation, is where knowledge and identity are transformed into productive action. This stage represents the freedom of people to think, speak, and organize freely. In authoritarian regimes, freedom is not for everyone but is limited to a small elite, while in democracies it is widely distributed through voting and citizen participation.

However, the modern era has introduced new tensions in the trade-off between freedom and security. Through surveillance technologies, states curtail civil and business freedoms in the name of security. Without the freedom to organize, even groups with knowledge and identity cannot effectively challenge the status quo.

Stage 4: Power as a mechanism of influence

The final rung and bridge to statehood is power. Power operates through a variety of means. Power operates through coercion (power), economic (resources and resources), cultural (ideology), and political (institutions). However, my theory supports Max Weber’s notion that power must be legitimate in order to endure.

We see a positive transition in great figures like Nelson Mandela. These men of the era transformed the “illegitimate” power exercised by the state into the exercise of “legitimate” power through popular support and moral authority. Such a transformation requires the use of knowledge, identity, and freedom to influence the behavior of others and to gain control over institutions.

Stage 5: State power as the supreme power

State power sits at the top of the ladder, with the institutional authority to govern a territory through legitimate violence, taxation, and a monopoly on law enforcement. Yet I argue that this is not a fixed endpoint. State power is a constantly evolving process that requires maintenance over time.

These five stages represent the basic components of the “ladder of control” and are a framework used to understand how individuals and institutions exercise governance and authority.

The following summary outlines how these elements work to maintain state power:

Knowledge: Serves as the basis for control, using technical expertise and legal frameworks to maintain state legitimacy. It includes the ability to interpret and enforce political outcomes.

Identity: Acts as a catalyst for collective action by uniting populations through shared personal and group narratives and symbols, fostering the sense of loyalty and belonging necessary to maintain state authority.

Freedom: It allows for healthy civic participation and the management of dissent, providing the necessary space for individuals and groups. Freedom acts as a “crucible” that transforms knowledge and identity into tangible action.

Power: It acts as a mechanism of influence through coercive, economic, or political means to enforce authority and defend the territory of the state.

These steps, while not strictly linear, are interdependent, which strengthens the stability of the governing body.

The feedback loop of governance

The premise of this theory is rooted in the recognition of interdependence. The ladder is not a one-way street but a feedback loop. Once achieved, state power must be able to shape the conditions of knowledge, identity, and freedom for the next generation.

The main reason why consensual social welfare states have been stable in Scandinavian countries, including Sweden, is because these elements are balanced there. When these elements are out of balance, as during the French Revolution’s “Reign of Terror,” this controlled ladder collapses when uncontrolled freedom leads to chaos. This imbalance persists into the 21st century, as leaders exploit misinformation (knowledge) to manipulate identities and erode democratic norms (liberties).

Conclusion: A human process

Ultimately, I believe that state power is not a static entity but a human process shaped by agency. Understanding this ladder is all the more important in an era where non-state actors such as corporations and digital networks are challenging traditional boundaries.

To build systems that are powerful, just, and resilient, it is essential that the ladder be accessible to all. The ladder must be built on a foundation of legitimate knowledge and inclusive identity. The struggle for control may never be easy. But it is through this struggle that the soul of a society is defined.