Submit your Article

The nation’s main communist party, the CPN-UML, is now dealing with internal problems. Following the expulsion of senior leader Bhim Rawal and the suspension of two female leaders, Binda Pandey and Ushakiran Timalsena, carried out under the watch of party chair KP Sharma Oli, an alarming trend of intolerance towards dissenting voices emerged, implying that the party lacks democratic culture. Rawal was removed after years of criticizing Oli, which prompted him to run for chairman of the party at the 10th convention in Chitwan. Pandey and Timalsena were suspended for voicing concerns about the party and its leadership receiving land contributions for party offices from a tainted businessman accused of tax evasion and the Lalitaniwas land scam.

A week after his dismissal, Rawal established his new patriotic but non-communist party, accusing Oli of turning the UML into a personal domain in which fealty to him is essential for life. This tendency of purging or marginalizing opponents inside the UML is not new, but it has become more prominent under Oli’s term. Notable senior officials have left the UML due to internal disagreements. Madhav Kumar Nepal and Jhalanath Khanal, both former prime ministers, quit the party to create the CPN (Unified Socialist) after years of disagreement with Oli’s leadership. Similarly, senior leader Bam Dev Gautam has removed himself from the party, claiming that it has no space for leaders like him since he, too, is a critic of Oli. These departures indicate a culture of intolerance.

Political experts claim that under Oli’s leadership, the UML has become a party controlled and dominated by the Oli supporters. Leaders such as Shankar Pokhrel, Ishwar Pokhrel, Bishnu Rimal, and Gokul Baskota are often seen attacking individuals who criticize Oli. Meanwhile, personalities like Pradip Gyawali, Yogesh Bhattarai, Yuv Raj Gyawali, and others who have demonstrated a hatred for following Oli’s lead, have been marginalized. Open discussion on party leadership choices has been restricted, increasing concerns among those who hold grudges against Oli and his staunch supporters. Following Rawal’s expulsion and the suspension of others, many UML leaders remained silent, highlighting the party’s underlying fear.

The infighting within the UML is not unique. The CPN (Maoist Center) faces a similarfaces a similar problem: almost no one can speak out against party head Pushpa Kamal Dahal’s policies or actions. Inside the Maoist party, Dahal has faced claims of marginalizing dissidents while consolidating his control as the party chair.

Former Maoist leaders Baburam Bhattarai, Mohan Baidhya Kiran, Biplav, Ram Bahadur Thapa Badal, and Top Bahadur Rayamajhi are among the leaders who left the party after falling out with Dahal.

The examples described above show Nepal’s socialist parties’ hypocrisy. Despite their dictatorial character, these parties often claim to be the advocates of democracy. The UML, for example, has often declared its support for democratic ideals in manifestos and public statements. However, the behaviors of its leaders reveal a different tale.

Rawal’s removal, together with the suppression of other dissident voices, points to this inconsistency. As Rawal pointed out in his harsh critique, Oli’s leadership has reduced the UML to a “shadow of its former self,” violating the very principles on which it was founded. The same may be argued for other communist parties, particularly the Dahal-led Maoist Centre, that have disliked opposition in parties, though they have claimed that they followed democratic norms in the nation’s polity.

Unlike the communist parties, the Nepali Congress (NC) has taken a more democratic approach to controlling internal dissent. While the NC is not as ideal as many of its staunch supporters believe, it has tolerated major disagreement inside the party without resorting to expulsions or suspensions. NC President Sher Bahadur Deuba, General Secretary Gagan Thapa, and senior leader Shekhar Koirala often disagree on key matters pertaining to the party, politics, and the nation, yet the party has managed to retain a sense of tolerance of dissenting voices.

The contrast between the NC and the leftist parties underscores the need for introspection within Nepal's communist factions. To maintain credibility and cohesion, parties like the UML and Maoist Centre must cultivate a democratic culture that values dissent as an essential component of organizational health. Leaders must recognize that open debate is an opportunity to address flaws, not a threat to authority.

If the UML continues its authoritarian trajectory under Oli, it risks further fragmentation, as seen with previous high-profile defections. Similarly, the Maoist Centre must learn from these lessons and prioritize inclusivity and transparency. Only by fostering democratic values within their structures can Nepal’s political parties claim legitimacy as proponents of democracy on the national stage.

Bail hearing is the crux of the criminal justice system. It plays a crucial role in a fair legal system. When someone is arrested, the court must decide whether they should stay in jail or be granted bail based on conclusive evidence. This evidence typically includes the First Information Report (FIR), statements from victims and witnesses, evidence gathered from the crime scene, the statement of the offender, medical reports, and more. The goal is to determine whether the accused should remain in custody before their trial or be allowed to go free.

At a bail hearing, the key question is whether there is enough evidence to justify pre-trial detention. This decision should not be influenced by the strength of the case or a final judgment of guilt but by concerns such as the risk of flight, the possibility of evidence tampering, or the threat to public safety. Courts usually rely on prima facie evidence, meaning evidence that appears to support the charges at first glance but is not conclusive.

Many countries make clear distinctions between bailable and non-bailable offenses. However, in Nepal, the legal system does not differentiate in this way. This gives judges significant discretion in deciding bail. While judicial discretion is important, it has led to a troubling trend in Nepal where courts often deny bail even when the evidence is weak. This is especially true in cases involving serious charges like rape, murder, human trafficking, or drug trafficking, where the accused is frequently sent to judicial custody, not because of solid evidence, but because of the severity of the charges pressed.

The fundamental principle of criminal justice is that a person should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Unfortunately, in Nepal, the opposite often happens: an accused person is treated as a criminal before their innocence is proven. This goes against the very foundation of a fair justice system. Merely accusing someone does not make them a criminal; they remain an accused person until proven guilty. Yet, in many cases, the presumption of innocence is ignored when bail is denied, violating this fundamental right and often leading to significant harm before a trial.

The Supreme Court of Nepal has set a clear precedent, stating that bail should still be granted if the accused is not a significant flight risk, does not pose a danger to public safety, and there is no compelling evidence justifying detention. However, district courts often fail to follow this precedent. The reasons for this include pressure from media trials, societal expectations, influence from NGOs, and even fear of repercussions from the Judicial Council. This malpractice can have a severe impact on the human rights of the accused, particularly their right to freedom, the presumption of innocence, and the right to a fair trial.

Article 20 of the Nepali Constitution guarantees the right to justice, including the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial. Denying bail without strong evidence directly violates these rights. The practice undermines both the legal process and the fundamental freedoms of individuals. Bail is a fundamental right, not a privilege, and should only be denied in cases where there are clear reasons for detention, such as a flight risk or a threat to public safety. This principle is also backed by international human rights standards, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), both of which affirm the presumption of innocence and stress that pre-trial detention should be a last resort.

Despite these legal protections, Nepal’s criminal justice system faces serious challenges such as overcrowded prisons, delayed trials, and excessive pre-trial detention. These problems often result in individuals being detained unnecessarily, violating the principle of “innocent until proven guilty.” When bail is denied based on weak evidence, it treats the accused as if they are already guilty, taking away their freedom and causing harm even before a verdict is reached. The impact of this is far-reaching: individuals may lose their jobs, face social stigma, and endure emotional trauma all before their guilt or innocence is decided in court.

Challenges to justice

One of the significant challenges in the bail process is the role of prosecutors. Often, prosecutors bring serious charges based on limited or weak evidence, which can unduly influence bail decisions. Serious charges like murder, rape, or terrorism may automatically lead to bail denial, even when there is little evidence to support them. When prosecutors file charges with the intention of securing a conviction rather than based on solid evidence the courts are often pressured into denying bail without adequate justification.

For example, a prosecutor files a case involving a simple fight between two or more people, where the injury is minor, and there is no intent to kill anyone. However, the prosecutor still charges the offender with attempted murder, leading the judges to reconsider granting bail. Similarly, in drug-related cases, even when a person is merely a user and not a dealer, they may be charged with trafficking, a far more serious offense. This escalates the severity of the crime without a clear basis in fact.

Additionally, a growing trend has emerged in Nepal where, if more than three people are involved in a crime, the prosecutor charges them with organized crime even if the crime does not meet the legal definition of organized crime. This is often done without evidence of a criminal hierarchy or any clear leader. By inflating the seriousness of the crime, the prosecutor may pressure the court into denying bail, further violating the human rights of the accused.

The price of freedom

Denying bail based on the severity of charges alone, without solid evidence, inflicts significant harm on the accused. This practice not only violates basic human rights but also contradicts international legal standards, which state that pre-trial detention should be used as a last resort.

To address these issues, Nepal’s criminal justice system must undergo significant reforms. Courts must base bail decisions on clear and convincing evidence, not just the severity of charges. Judges should follow strict guidelines to ensure bail is not used as a tool of punishment before a trial. There is a saying “Whether criticized or praised, whether money comes or goes, whether one dies today or in the distant future, without worrying about any of these things, those who walk the path of justice never waver.” For this kind of fair judgement, a judge must be provided with a conducive working environment, where there is no fear from society, media trials or NGOs. Only then can they truly deliver justice. Only then can they secure the human rights of the accused in the true sense.

Real justice comes from a system that respects human dignity, ensures a fair trial, and upholds the principle that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Only when these principles are upheld can Nepal’s criminal justice system be truly fair. The price of freedom should not be determined by the whims of prosecutors or the severity of the charges alone. It should be based on the facts and the evidence. The time to act is now, before more innocent people are unjustly punished by a broken system that is meant to protect them.

Dengue fever continues to challenge global health systems, transcending geographic boundaries and posing a threat to millions. Caused by four distinct dengue virus serotypes (DENV1-4), the disease—transmitted through the bites of Aedes mosquitoes—has seen an alarming rise over the past decades with half of the world’s population at risk. In 2023, dengue cases exceeded 6.5m, with over 7,300 deaths, the highest on record. Annually, 390m people are infected, with 96m showing clinical symptoms. Once confined to nine countries before 1970, dengue is now endemic in over 100 nations, predominantly in tropical and subtropical regions. Dengue’s reach is expanding, with cases emerging in new areas due to climate change, highlighting its escalating global impact.

Historical context: A long-standing global issue

The origins of dengue fever can be traced back over a thousand years. While the virus likely emerged from non-human primates and crossed into human populations a long ago, it was not until the 18th and 19th centuries that the disease became more widely recognized. The term “dengue” emerged during the 1828 Cuba epidemic, previously called “dunga”. Suspected outbreaks were reported in Martinique (1635), Guadeloupe, and Panama (1699). Ancient Chinese texts from the Chin (265–420) and Tang (610) dynasties described a similar illness as “water poison” linked to waterborne insects. The disease has thus been a recurrent global health threat for centuries, often emerging in new regions.

Clinical spectrum and diagnosis

Dengue ranges from mild, often asymptomatic cases (80 percent), to severe forms like hemorrhagic fever and shock syndrome. Symptoms last 2–7 days, with complications such as gastrointestinal bleeding and hematuria (blood in urine). Diagnosis varies by phase, using virus detection early and serology later. Treatment focuses on symptomatic management, with most cases managed at home and severe cases requiring hospitalization.

Dengue emergence in Nepal

Dengue outbreaks have evolved significantly over the past two decades, influenced by epidemiological shifts and environmental changes. Since the first imported case, a Japanese national in Chitwan in 2004, Nepal has experienced sporadic outbreaks, initially confined to the Tarai. The 2006 outbreak in Lumbini province, with 32 cases, marked the first notable local spread, with all four serotypes detected. 

The 2010 outbreak with 917 cases, including the first in the highland Kathmandu Valley, signaled dengue’s acclimatization. By 2011, it spread to 15 districts, and in 2013, a major outbreak across 25 districts, dominated by DENV-2, highlighted dengue’s persistence and complexity. The period marked dengue expansion into higher altitudes and the circulation of all serotypes, emphasizing the need for stronger surveillance and public health responses.

Large-scale outbreaks

Dengue outbreaks have shown increasing adaptability and severity. In 2016, a total of 1,527 cases and one death were reported across 30 districts, with Bagmati province and Chitwan district most affected. In 2017, 28 districts reported 2,111 cases with three deaths. In 2018, 43 districts recorded 811 dengue cases and three deaths. The largest outbreak was in 2019, with 17,992 cases and six deaths across 68 districts in all seven provinces, with Bagmati province most affected. Dengue’s spread from tropical to hilly subtropical regions highlighted the virus’s adaptability. 

The Covid-19 pandemic (2020–2021) saw a temporary decline in reported dengue cases with around 500 cases each year, due to movement restrictions, reduced healthcare access, and potential underreporting. However, dengue remained endemic, with the 15–49 age group most affected.

These outbreaks underscored the need for robust public health strategies, continuous surveillance, and climate-adaptive measures to manage the virus’s evolving threat.

Escalating dengue burden: 2022–2024

Nepal faced successive severe dengue outbreaks from 2022 to 2024, with escalating cases and widespread geographic impact. In 2022, the country recorded its worst outbreak with 54,784 cases and 88 deaths across all districts. Bagmati province accounted for 77 percent of cases, with Kathmandu Valley (1,300 meters) heavily affected due to rising temperatures, early monsoon, rapid urbanization and poor waste management. The epidemic peaked between August and November, with September alone contributing 50 percent of the cases.

In 2023, Nepal reported 51,243 cases and 20 deaths, with 75 percent concentrated in Koshi and Gandaki provinces, and 98 percent of the infections occurring between June and November.

By 3 Dec 2024, a total of 34,385 cases and 13 deaths were reported across 76 districts (Humla with no cases). Gandaki and Bagmati provinces contributed over 80 percent of the cases, with Kaski and Kathmandu, most affected, peaking in September and October.

Climate change and spread in highlands

Climate change has aggravated dengue spread to higher altitudes including the Kathmandu Valley and hilly regions. Traditionally confined to the Tarai, dengue now affects subtropical to mid-hills due to rising temperatures, increased rainfall, and extreme weather events like flooding and landslides. Outbreaks in 2016, 2019, 2022-2024 were marked by extreme weather events. 

Nepal’s average temperature has increased by 0.056°C over the past four decades, with higher elevations in the Himalayan regions experiencing more pronounced warming. This shift has created a conducive environment where A. aegypti and A. albopictus can now survive, thrive and breed. The dengue expansion into higher altitudes is particularly concerning, as it exposes new populations to the virus and increases the risk of severe outbreaks. Its spread to higher altitudes underscores its adaptability to diverse ecological niches. The co-circulation of multiple serotypes raises concerns about severe dengue in previously infected individuals. Additionally, poor waste management and inadequate vector control have exacerbated Nepal’s vulnerability. 

The rise of extreme weather events challenges dengue outbreak prediction and management, necessitating climate-adaptive, evidence-based public health interventions. Integrating climate-resilient health systems into national policies and enhancing local capacity is essential to address climate change’s impact on dengue transmission dynamics. A thorough understanding of vector behavior and environmental shifts is critical for effective mitigation.

Dengue’s escalating burden demands a multipronged approach, including vector control, climate adaptation, surveillance, and community engagement with adaptive governance. Community ‘Search and Destroy’ campaigns on eliminating stagnant water, using repellents and fumigation are vital in reducing transmission. A coordinated holistic strategy addressing biological and environmental factors is key to prevent future outbreaks, safeguarding public health across borders.

Before discussing the issues around fairness, let me tease out its meaning. The Oxford Dictionary defines it as ‘impartial and just treatment or behaviour without favouritism or discrimination’. The definition seems straightforward, which is about not being impartial in treating others. If ‘fairness’ is searched on Google, it will provide more than 315m hits in less than a second. The websites include meaning, definition, examples, blogs and companies that work for fairness. Additionally, the Cambridge Dictionary categorizes ‘fairness’ as a Band-5 English word. That means ‘fairness’ is repeated 1-10 times in every one million words used. What that means is—there is no shortage of knowledge about fairness.

Despite being a common word, the understanding of fairness is diverse and differs from person to person, time to time and community to community. Let me give three examples and show a diverse understanding of fairness. In 1974, we had a puja (a religious event) in our house. Upon completing the puja, my father gave tika and money to some, just tika to some and nothing to the rest. My brothers and I got the tika but not the money. All my sisters got both tika and money.

I witnessed the second case in 1992. In a family, both husband and wife used to work for a commercial bank. They used to share the transport while going to the office and coming home. Other than during office hours, the husband used to read newspapers, watch TV, call friends and relatives, meet people and attend club meetings. The wife did have a different schedule that included cooking food, cleaning the house, washing clothes, shopping for groceries and preparing their children for school. I thought it was unfair to the wife. One day, I approached her and asked how she felt about the work she was doing at home. Interestingly, she never thought about the unfairness in daily life. She said, “I treat my husband as god. How can I ask him to do the dishes? This is my duty and little service to him.”

The third case links to a community school I saw in 1996. I visited a primary school in Palpa district, where I spent a day with a teacher and students. The primary school had three classes (Year 1, Year 2 and Year 3). Due to the low number of students, one teacher had to teach all students. While passing through the school, I saw wide age-ranging students sitting in one classroom. I learned that the youngest in the class was five years old, and the eldest was 13. Was it fair for students to study in the same class despite the expectations of developing skills and knowledge of different levels? Didn't those students deserve a better education?

The analysis of the above three examples provides multiple facets of fairness. The first one demonstrates the diverse understanding of fairness between father and son. Even though the difference seemed individual, deep-rooted culture and rituals played a vital role. The puja incident hurt me badly. It was unfair treatment to me and my brothers. Why couldn’t we get money? Even though I did not know the actual value of money, I knew its importance in getting sweets. I cried for money, which I believe was the cry for fair treatment. My requests were not heard, my tears ignored, and my questions overlooked. I was discriminated against sisters. The second case is an example of ignorance of fairness. Since the actions are accepted as a duty or the best act of a human being, fairness-related issues are not realized and raised. The third case is very broad in the sense of fairness. Many people may not even realize how people were treated differently.

Given the complexity of the understanding, the meaning of fairness is relatively straightforward for those who often miss the criticality in evaluating their thoughts and ideas when making decisions and distributing resources. Only those people who realize unfair treatment may better understand the importance of fairness. From a fairness perspective, people could be divided into three broad categories—some always get the benefits and feel it is deserved, some are always treated unfairly and believe that is what they have earned, and the rest do not understand the difference or do not care about fairness. Even though fairness lies in every action and decision, deep-rooted thoughts and ignorance cover unfair incidents. As a result, people do not pay much attention to fairness.

My sticking point regarding fairness was the unfair treatment in puja. The incident was one of thousands happening in the village every day. Even after three decades, I do not think these examples have become uncommon and outdated. If you have not gone through any of the unfair situations, you might be a privileged person. That means your position may have blocked the vision for differentiating fairness from unfairness.

The issues can be viewed from three broad perspectives–moral, social and legal. I took a moral view and expected equal treatment from my father. I expected my father to be impartial while making decisions and distributing resources. But my father took a social approach while treating me and my sisters differently. The government took a legal perspective in making the decisions for teacher allocations, maintaining the student-teacher ratio in the country. From the students’ point of view, their birth was random to the place, which should not have been penalized by deputing fewer teachers.

Fairness becomes more complex when happiness and profit are involved. For example, during an ultralight flight over Pokhara about a year ago, I marveled at the breathtaking views of land, rivers, lakes and vibrant communities–Pokhara is a canvas made of nature and hands! That is what I felt on landing. While I enjoyed the experience, the company earned profit. In return, the local residents had to cope with noise and polluted air. Is it fair for them?

Whilst considering everyday actions and decisions, can anyone be fair in all situations? Perhaps the obvious answer is no. What will happen if society lacks fairness? How far can a society go with favoured decisions and partial resource allocations? If these questions point toward a dark future, this is the time to think and act for a fairer and wiser society.

The author is the subject lead for Business Management (UG) at De Montfort University, Leicester and holds a PhD in the performance of small and medium enterprises