Submit your Article

Before digging into alkaline foods, understanding how pH balance impacts common health concerns like fatigue or skin health can help you relate to your own well-being. The pH level influences metabolism, enzyme activity, and overall health, making it crucial for maintaining a healthy body. This knowledge empowers you to take control of your health by actively supporting your body’s optimal functioning.

The scientific measure of pH levels works on a scale of 0-14:

• A pH of 0-6 is acidic
• A pH of 7 is neutral
• A pH of 8 or higher is basic (alkaline)

Human life requires a meticulously maintained serum pH level of about 7.4 (a slightly alkaline range of 7.35 to 7.45) to function correctly or, in other words, to survive. 

Understanding the concept of pH and its impact on our health can be challenging, especially with misconceptions about alkaline diets. Clarifying how the body’s buffering systems work and what scientific evidence supports or questions these claims can help you make informed decisions about your diet and health strategies.

Choosing alkaline foods can help prevent inflammation and reduce disease risk, give you a sense of control over your health, and motivate positive dietary choices.

Maintaining a balance between acidic and alkaline foods can help reduce acidity and support your body’s optimal function, providing reassurance about your health and choices. 

Some instances of alkaline foods are:

• Fruits like apples, cherries, avocados, pineapple, bananas, apricots, and cantaloupe
• Non-starchy vegetables include broccoli, beets, asparagus, cabbage, carrots, leafy greens, and garlic
• Fruit juices (unsweetened)
• Nuts such as chestnuts or pumpkin seeds
• And legumes like kidney or white beans

Conversely, acidic foods, such as meat, cheese, eggs, sugar, and other sweetened beverages, can pose serious health risks. Overconsumption of these acid-forming foods can leave a residual ‘acid ash’, a term used to describe the acidic residue left in the body after digestion. This acid ash can cause your blood pH to become too acidic (acidosis), rendering your metabolism vulnerable to various diseases and disorders, including osteoporosis and kidney stones. 

Your body’s metabolism thrives on a balanced pH level, ideally between 7.35 and 7.45. Alkaline foods, with their pH-balancing properties, have a clear advantage over acidic foods in maintaining this balance. This knowledge should motivate you to know that you can actively contribute to your body’s optimal functioning by choosing the right foods. Let’s explore the specific health benefits of alkaline foods, emphasizing the importance of maintaining this balance for your health.

Bone health

An acid-rich diet, such as one high in processed meat and refined grains, stimulates osteoclast activity, increasing the risk of osteoporosis.   An alkaline diet maintains the pH level in your body to help lower the risk of osteoporosis, bone mineral density loss, and erosion. Consuming adequate amounts of fruits and vegetables, rich in alkaline compounds and nutrients such as beta-carotene, lycopene, lutein, and zeaxanthin, helps prevent osteoporosis.

Additionally, foods rich in essential minerals, such as calcium, magnesium, and potassium, found in foods like almonds and tofu, help maintain bone density and strength.    

Cancer prevention

Experts maintain that cancer cells thrive in an acidic environment (low pH) but cannot survive in an alkaline environment (high pH). An ‘alkalizing diet’ may help prevent the development and growth of cancer cells. A 2019 study published in the International Journal of Cancer suggested that alkaline diets could offer protection against hormone receptor-negative breast cancer. Clinical research indicates that increasing fruit and vegetable intake while reducing consumption of acidic meats can lower breast cancer risk. 

Heart health

Science backs up the idea that eating more alkaline foods, such as fruits and vegetables, may help lower the risk of hypertension and stroke. Since alkaline diets are low in fat and calories, eliminating acidic foods like red meat, processed foods, and sugar (a significant contributor to heart disease) naturally promotes a healthy body weight and lowers heart disease risk factors. This information should inspire you to add more alkaline foods to your diet for a healthier heart.

Additionally, alkaline foods such as fresh fruits and vegetables are rich in potassium and low in sodium, which can help lower blood pressure levels.

Kidney-friendly

The kidneys help regulate blood pH levels and perform the delicate task of excreting excess substances, including acids and bases. The mainstay of an alkaline diet is fruits and vegetables, which are indeed dietary alkalis and can help alleviate kidney disease and chronic renal illness. Excessive protein intake overburdens the kidneys. 

The alkaline diet supports the kidneys by slowing down the decline of their blood-filtering mechanisms and helps kidney patients balance their pH to safer levels.

Better digestion

Alkaline foods, with their high fiber content, promote healthy digestion and help alleviate the bothersome issue of constipation. Cruciferous vegetables, such as broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, cauliflower, collard greens, kale, and turnips, as well as fruits like apples and berries, are excellent sources of dietary fiber. 

That said, alkaline fruits and vegetables help regulate bowel movements and promote the growth of gut microbiomes that break down food into beneficial nutrients, thereby reducing the risk of gastrointestinal disorders such as diverticulosis and colorectal cancer. 

Boosts immune function

A robust immune system is pivotal in defending your body against infections and diseases. Alkaline foods are rich in immune-boosting nutrients, including vitamins A, C, and E, as well as antioxidants. These nutrients help fortify your immune response, neutralize harmful free radicals, and curb chronic inflammation, which may also lower the risk of developing cancer. By incorporating more alkaline foods into your diet, you can significantly boost your immune function and improve your overall health.

Supports weight management

Introducing alkaline foods into your diet regimen is more manageable than it may seem. It can be a delicious and enjoyable journey. Doing so can maintain a healthy weight and support overall metabolic function. Because they are low-calorie and nutrient-dense, high-fiber alkaline foods make you feel fuller after your staple meals. As such, they discourage the habit of snacking in between meals. Given this, they help maintain a healthy weight and overall metabolic function, encouraging and motivating you to make these dietary changes.  

Improves skin health

Alkaline foods, such as fruits and vegetables, are rich sources of vitamins, including C, E, and A, as well as antioxidants like beta-carotene. These factors all contribute to maintaining healthy, glowing skin and preventing issues like acne, eczema, psoriasis, and wrinkles. 

Boosts energy level

A regular diet of alkaline-dense vegetables like kale, broccoli, and watercress, and fruits like berries, avocado, apples, and cherries, to name some, provides unfailing increased energy levels and mental agility, not caffeine-rich drinks and sugary treats. 

Prevents arthritis

When your body is too acidic, it deteriorates your metabolism and makes you more prone to degenerative problems like arthritis. By reducing acidic foods and incorporating alkaline-rich fruits and vegetables, you're not just preventing but also alleviating inflammation and increasing growth hormone production. Following this nutritious switch can bring relief and comfort, knowing you're actively managing your health and potentially improving your condition.   

The bottom line: Incorporating alkaline-rich foods is instrumental to achieving optimal health and preventing diseases. Even naturopaths prescribe it and argue that an excessively acidic diet leads to “a breeding ground for disease.”

However, only alkaline foods do not meet the essential requirement of the human body: “a complex, highly organized structure made up of unique cells that work together to accomplish the specific functions necessary for sustaining life.”

At the end of the day, to get the most from your food, adopt a more pH-friendly diet with an 80/20 ratio of alkaline to acidic foods. Eat right. Stay healthy.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in the above text are solely research-based and intended for informative and educational purposes only; the author solicits the reader’s discretion and cross-references or consults a healthcare practitioner for further verification.

[email protected]

The absence of the United States, China and Russia from recent G20 leaders’ meetings has often been treated as a sign that the forum has outlived its usefulness. That reading misses what is actually changing. The G20 has not disappeared from global economic diplomacy, nor has it been formally sidelined. What has shifted is the kind of work it is expected to do. Where it once functioned as a space for high-level coordination among the largest economies, it now operates more clearly as a forum sustained by those states that continue to depend on institutional stability.

This change reflects the erosion of the conditions that made the G20 indispensable in the first place. The forum took shape at a moment when financial instability moved quickly across borders and reduced the effectiveness of national responses. During that period, coordination was not a matter of preference, it was imposed by circumstance. That sense of mutual exposure no longer carries the same force. Economic policy is now shaped far more openly by strategic rivalry, domestic politics and security concerns. Subsidies, sanctions and trade restrictions are increasingly deployed without serious expectation of collective restraint. Under these conditions, broad consensus-based settings offer limited influence while imposing visible constraints.

The consequences of this shift were visible well before Johannesburg. The New Delhi summit showed that agreement was still possible, but only by narrowing the range of issues treated as appropriate for collective engagement. Disruptions linked to geopolitical conflict were acknowledged indirectly, if at all. This allowed the meeting to remain orderly, but it also reduced the forum’s capacity to engage with the sources of economic instability rather than its symptoms. Once this approach became routine, leader-level participation lost some of its urgency. Johannesburg made that clear.

The effects of selective disengagement have not been evenly distributed. For countries such as India, the European Union and Brazil, participation in multilateral institutions remains closely tied to economic and political strategy. Their economies are deeply embedded in global markets, and their policy objectives rely on predictable regulatory and financial environments. Institutional credibility matters more to these states than unilateral leverage. Unlike the great powers, they cannot easily replace multilateral engagement with bilateral or bloc-based arrangements without incurring costs.

This dependence has also increased their visibility within the G20. India, the EU and Brazil have become central to maintaining continuity in the forum not because they exercise coercive power, but because they retain a material interest in its operation. Their economic weight gives substance to this role. India’s expanding domestic market and manufacturing ambitions place it at the center of debates on development and technology. The European Union brings regulatory capacity and financial depth that influence global standards regardless of geopolitical fragmentation. Brazil’s position in commodity, energy and agricultural markets connects development concerns with climate and food security in ways few other actors can.

India’s recent engagement illustrates how an emerging great-power leadership now tends to function. Its emphasis on digital public infrastructure and development finance draws directly on policies already deployed domestically. Rather than relying exclusively on aspirational commitments, India has used practical experience to structure discussion. This does not compensate for the absence of great-power coordination, but it keeps multilateral engagement connected to implementation rather than rhetoric alone. The European Union operates through a different channel. Its influence rests less on mediation and more on scale. Through trade regimes, climate regulation, and digital standards, the EU shapes economic behavior well beyond its immediate membership. Within the G20, it provides a degree of policy continuity at a time when economic governance is increasingly shaped by short-term strategic considerations. Brazil’s contribution lies largely in its diplomatic positioning. Its engagement with institutional negotiation, the size of its economy, and South–South cooperation allows it to frame issues such as debt relief, food security and climate adaptation as shared economic challenges. In a polarized environment, this ability to keep discussions from sliding into distributive conflict has practical value.

Together, these states help prevent strategic rivalry from overwhelming multilateral settings altogether. They cannot resolve competition between the largest powers, nor can they substitute for the resources those powers control. Major initiatives in areas such as debt restructuring or climate finance still depend on actors with greater influence over capital and markets. Middle powers can align positions and sustain discussion, but compulsion remains beyond their reach.

What has happened to the G20 cannot be separated from what has happened to the political order that made it possible. The United States has already moved away from the model of leadership that sustained this forum in its early years. It still participates selectively, but its priorities now lie elsewhere: domestic industrial policy, security-driven trade decisions and tightly-managed alliances. The assumption that global economic stability requires sustained engagement in universal forums no longer shapes American behaviour in any consistent way.

China’s trajectory is different, but no less consequential. Beijing has not withdrawn from multilateralism. Instead, it has become increasingly selective about the kinds of institutions it is willing to invest in. Where rules, agendas and hierarchies are inherited from an earlier order, China engages cautiously. Where institutions can be designed, expanded or reshaped, its commitment is far more visible. This does not amount to abandonment, but it does reflect an effort to reconfigure the institutional landscape around Chinese preferences rather than adapt to existing constraints. Russia’s position is shaped by yet another set of pressures. Prolonged sanctions and political isolation have reduced any incentive to preserve institutions associated with Western economic dominance. Its alignment with China is less about shared economic vision than about mutual dissatisfaction with the current system. For Moscow, weakening the authority of existing frameworks has become a strategy in itself, particularly where those frameworks are seen as enforcing exclusion.

Taken together, these trajectories point to an uncomfortable reality. There is no major power waiting in the wings to restore the conditions under which the G20 once functioned. The idea that a hegemonic actor will step in to stabilize multilateral economic governance now belongs to an earlier period. That world has already passed. This is why the role of countries and entities such as India, the European Union, Brazil, and others matters more than is often acknowledged. These actors continue to benefit directly from stable, predictable economic frameworks. Their growth strategies, regulatory environments and external engagements depend on institutions that manage friction rather than amplify it. For them, the erosion of multilateral forums is not an abstract concern but a practical problem.

Sustaining the G20, then, is not about nostalgia for an earlier order or faith in institutional idealism. It is about interest. In the absence of great-power custodianship, responsibility shifts to those who still gain from continuity. Whether this responsibility can be translated into real influence remains uncertain. What seems clear is that multilateralism will no longer be upheld by those with the greatest power, but by those with the greatest stake in keeping the system from fragmenting further.

The author is a PhD Candidate at the School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. He is also a Life Member of Delhi based International Centre for Peace Studies

A right that lives only in writing is not a right at all. Without sincere enforcement, even the finest laws become empty promises. As the world marks Human Rights Day on December 10—commemorating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of 1948—it is worth asking: are we genuinely upholding these rights, or merely celebrating them in speeches and documents?

The UDHR, with its 30 articles, protects basic freedoms such as the right to life, liberty, equality, speech and expression. These rights are also guaranteed by Nepal’s 2015 Constitution. However, guaranteeing rights and ensuring people enjoy them,in true and material sense, are two different things.

Rights on Paper

Human rights violations continue around the world. Children, women, and workers still face mistreatment. Even basic rights like clean air and safe public spaces are not fully protected. In Nepal, the Constitution promises dignity for all, but dignity requires respect, equality, and real opportunities.

Developing countries like Nepal often struggle to implement fundamental rights, which increasingly appear dependent on economic capacity. As a result, their enforcement begins to resemble the fate of Directive Principles—lofty aspirations constrained by limited resources.

When states, in practice, start placing fundamental rights and directive principles on the same footing solely because of economic inadequacy, it leads to undemocratic governance and systematic human rights violations. Every individual is entitled to enjoy these rights fully by virtue of being human. It is high time for the states to assume collective responsibility in combating discrimination and safeguarding human rights. After all, the mere enactment of laws carries little value without meaningful enforcement.

Governance Matters

Good governance is essential for protecting rights. Nepal’s Constitution emphasizes rule of law, transparency, inclusion, and welfare. Global thinkers—from Locke to Gandhi—have long linked justice and governance. Nepal’s own history, including Prithvi Narayan Shah’s Dibya Upadesh, stresses fairness and preventing injustice.

The Good Governance (Management and Operation) Act of 2008 is a specific law aimed at promoting good governance by ensuring public administration accountable, transparent, inclusive, and participatory. This Act emphasizes values like the rule of law, corruption-free administration, financial discipline, and efficient public service. Section 17 mandates for the basis and reason to be mentioned in decision. 

Other relevant statutory measures, such as the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority Act (1991), Prevention of Corruption Act (2002), the Public Procurement Act (2007), and the Right to Information Act (2007), further reinforce Nepal’s commitment to ensuring good governance.

The Supreme Court in the case of Gopal Guragain on behalf of Communication Corner Pvt. Ltd. v. Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers, Singhdurbar, Kathmandu (N.K.P., 2067, Vol.1, Decision Number. 8299) held that transparent governance helps reduce corruption, delays, and red tape.

The UN lists eight pillars of good governance, including accountability, participation, and equity. Without these, rights cannot flourish.

Poor Economy 

Many fundamental rights remain unfulfilled because of weak economic conditions. Pollution violates environmental rights. Unemployment pushes thousands of youths abroad for survival. Social inequality, political favoritism, and digital gaps deepen discrimination.

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar famously argued that political democracy cannot survive without economic democracy. Rights become empty promises when the state lacks the resources to enforce them. Perhaps the world needs a new global commitment to support poorer nations in fulfilling human rights obligations.

Way forward 

Education should promote peace, equality, justice, and respect. Legal knowledge alone is not enough; people must learn empathy, fairness, and non-violence.

Human rights should not depend on a country’s wealth. Nor should they remain limited to paper or be treated merely as a topic for university curricula. Instead, they must be taken seriously as a matter that demands genuine, practical implementation. 

It is time for nations to work together to uphold human rights in practice—not just in speeches and documents. Laws have value only when they are implemented, and every person deserves to enjoy their rights fully, simply by being human.

“To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity,” rightly said Nelson Mandela. It’s high time we acknowledged his words and implemented our human rights-friendly laws in true and material sense.  

Authors are faculty members in Law at Manmohan Technical University (MTU), Biratnagar, Nepal

Forty years ago, the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) Charter was signed. Despite its initial successes, South Asia today is politically and strategically fractured, economically least integrated and stuck when it comes to connectivity and diplomacy. With widening internal divisions and growing external demands, how should we look back to the four decades of SAARC and its future? 

Paradigm in peril: “After experiencing twice in their own lifetimes” the tragedies of the two World Wars, that generation of thinkers and leaders came together to create the United Nations to lead the world in transforming human behavior for “saving succeeding generations from the scourge of war” and other threats. After the deaths, devastation, and despair, the UN, standing on its three pillars, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), and the Human Rights Council (initially named Commission), was to be the global repository of a new hope of collective human security, prosperity and dignity.

With the UN at the core, the International Financial Institutions (IFIs) and the ill-fated International Trade Organization (ITO), GATT—now the World Trade Organization (WTO)—were to assist in managing global financial, monetary and trading systems. Aimed at intellectually guiding this global transformation, a new academic discipline, International Affairs, Studies or Relations (IR), bringing together knowledge of history, geography, politics, economics, law, diplomacy and national security etc, also started in Western universities, which has now spread to all parts of the world. 

In both these new developments, there was an assumption that the inadequacies in understanding, codifying and guiding human relations individually, but more importantly relations among the highest and most powerful of the human institutions, the nation-states, were primarily responsible for the death and devastation. Now, of course, technology has fundamentally altered the understanding and application of sovereignty, power and interest, further amplifying the need for some form of convergence between national sovereignty and global governance with transformative IR and effective UN. Sadly, the Global Paradigm was in Peril for a long time. With the crisis in IR and post-Cold-War unilateralism the UN is totally marginalized in global affairs.

Regionalism, the next best hope: With the UN unable to come out of the Cold-War chasm, but regional cooperation in post-War Europe doing much better, some scholars and policy makers thought, perhaps, that cooperation for peace-security, prosperity and human dignity among countries within the same geographic region, with similar culture, stages of development, threat perceptions and security needs would have better prospects. Regionalism thus emerged as the next best hope in IR, a better approach to resolve disputes, avoid wars and promote peace and security, development, and human rights.

With European integration, it was assumed that regional organizations, their leaders and officials could better catalyze national interest harmonization, protecting and promoting individual national interests within the collective regional good. This in turn could act as the building block for future global transformation.

Establishment of SAARC: Aware of the power of the idea of regionalism and their region’s common problems of poverty and political violence, like in other parts of the world, seven heads of state and government of South Asia signed the Charter of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) in Dhaka, Bangladesh on 8th December 1985. “Promoting peace, stability, amity and progress in South Asia” for the welfare of the peoples of the region was the main goal. 

Right at the start, South Asian leaders identified two main areas for regional cooperation: Collective prosperity and regional security. With Afghanistan as the eighth member in 2007, the relevance of SAARC  in addressing the twin tragedies increased significantly. 

Early successes: From a modest start areas of cooperation multiplied, encompassing poverty alleviation to trade and finance, culture to environment, social development to security, science and technology to tourism. Eight agreements, including the South Asian Free Trade Area (SAFTA), six conventions including on Suppression of Terrorism and its additional protocol were signed. The Food Bank and Development Fund was meant to promote greater regional integration. SAARC Seed Bank, Multilateral Arrangement on Recognition of Conformity Assessment, Rapid Response to Natural Disaster and Implementation of Regional Standards were also signed.

The Social Charter and Charter of Democracy were steps toward common political and social order. The South Asian University could still spur greater intellectual interaction and innovation for greater regional consciousness, identity and cooperation. Sadly, performance hugely lags compared to potential. 

Intellectual traffic jam: Three decades after its establishment, Nepal was hosting the 18th SAARC Summit from 23-27 Nov 2014. As the host, the political leadership of the organization came to Nepal. For the second time, the secretariat was also headed by a Nepali and the third time the summit was being held in Kathmandu, where the secretariat is located.

All major global and regional actors (the US, China, Russia, Japan, Myanmar, Iran and South Korea) as observers of SAARC, reflected the pivotal position of South Asia in the post-Cold War world. With national leadership of vision and strong SG, this summit could have been a transformative moment for SAARC. 

As a member of the Summit Preparatory Committee, at the first meeting, I began my remarks by quoting a former SG—“SAARC has hardly progressed beyond signs and symbols”—and reminding the participants of the widespread criticism of SAARC for being ineffective. With Nepal assuming multiple leadership roles, I asked, “what kind of agenda should we propose, business as usual, incremental reforms or transformative?” 

Initially there was an all-round support for a transformative agenda. But from the second meeting the “intellectual traffic jam, political timidity and bureaucratic rigidity” started clogging the highway responsible for making SAARC unable to move forward.

After prolonged discussion, ‘Deeper Integration (Better Connectivity) for Peace and Prosperity’ was agreed as the summit theme. But support for deeper integration for peace and prosperity started diminishing and eventually the summit ended up being what SAARC summits have always been, rich in fanfare and declaratory rhetoric but little progress in addressing the real problems of the people of the region or a more unified position on external demands. “Neighborhood first or last?” dilemma and “beggar thy neighbor” policies keep South Asia divided and SAARC in “coma” today. 

Essentials remedies: This takes me back to the third SAARC Summit in 1987, the first in Nepal. In preparation for it, the Centre for Nepal and Asian Studies (CNAS) of the Tribhuvan University (TU), with which I was then associated, organized a seminar titled ‘SAARC: Retrospect and Prospect’. I started my paper “Nepal in SAARC, a Long-Term Perspective” with a question: What kind of regional cooperation are we talking about without Trade? Trade became one of the areas of cooperation later. 

The next issue I raised was the provision of the charter excluding bilateral and contentious (political and security) issues. The role of the secretariat only as an administrative unit and the level of the secretary-general (SG), a mid-level career official, was the third issue I identified for discussion. Finally, the overly state-centric nature of the organization was, in my view, problematic. With this diagnosis, I proposed three remedies:

1. Strengthening the Secretariat and upgrading the level of the SG, enabling and empowering him/her to more effectively implement the decisions of the inter-governmental bodies and promote regionalism by harmonizing national interests of individual member-states within the larger regional good

2. Greater role for civil society to take up issues that may seem politically contentious for the inter-governmental process to take up immediately but too important to be left out completely

3. A confidence building process by establishing a Council for Dispute Settlement composed of elder statesmen and intellectuals to discuss issues excluded from the inter-governmental process until the charter can be reviewed and amended to strengthen SAARC as a mature institution able to discuss more substantive bilateral political and security issues, which are the main impediments to real regional cooperation

My conclusions then were, without addressing these issues, SAARC will be busy only in marginal issues and diplomatic fanfare but unable to really move regional cooperation forward in any significant way. Since then, I have moved from academia to public service, diplomacy to conflict resolution and peacemaking. In my academic-professional-diplomatic roles, I have spoken and written on the need to ‘Transform SAARC to Prepare South Asia for a New Age’, with emphasis on the issues identified in that short paper.

Almost three decades later, the 18th summit came and went. Not just the 19th summit remains in limbo, but SAARC and South Asia continue at the same crossroads of time and space, history and geography, only in many ways moving backward in regional cooperation. The only difference is, with the new Asian Century, China in the north and India at its center, the Indo-Pacific, South Asia  and the Central Himalayas have emerged as one of the global political, economic and strategic epicenters, significantly increasing opportunities and risks for the region. 

As a student, teacher and practitioner, I have advocated rethinking IR and regional cooperation for long. Today, I am both happy and sad that the discourse on SAARC, its marginalization or BIMSTEC and its revitalization, revolve around the same issues I have raised for four decades. 

The author deals extensively with these issues in his new book “SAARC to BIMSTEC:Breakdown or Breakthrough in Regional Cooperation in South Asia”, being published by a leading Indian publisher in early 2026