Submit your Article

A fully stable relationship has been elusive to India and China. Since the birth of the modern nation states, the unresolved border has continued to put an ominous shadow on the relationship. The lack of understanding toward each other has also resulted in major mistrust which has only grown with time. The Galwan clash of June 2020, which pushed the relationship into a total freeze for 4.5 years, has added to the existing mistrust. However, some positive momentum and thaw was finally achieved in October 2024 after multiple rounds of talks and has been pushing the relationship in a positive direction. But, given the history of the relationship, it will not be wrong to assume that a lot needs to be reformed for this relationship to be truly functional.

In a first after Galwan, the Indian defence minister Rajnath Singh visited Qingdao China from June 25 to June 26 to attend the defence ministers meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) meeting and met his Chinese counterpart, Admiral Dong Jun. It was during this meeting that the Indian side proposed a four-point plan to achieve a ‘permanent solution’ to the border problem. The four-point agenda includes: “adherence to the 2024 disengagement plan, continued efforts to de-escalate, accelerated efforts to achieve the goal of demarcation and delimitation at the borders, and the usage of the existing special representative level mechanism to prepare new processes to manage differences and improve relations”. Singh also reiterated the need to build and establish mutual trust, which has been adversely impacted after the 2020 Galwan clash.

The points clearly highlight the multiple level of challenges and issues which India-China relations face even after 75 years of diplomatic relationship. India was one of the first countries to recognize the establishment of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) under Mao Tse-tung and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Since then, the relationship has faced major hurdles and what makes it ever more problematic is the existing unresolved border.

Singh has rightly asserted that there is a need to look for a permanent solution to the border as it has time and again proved to be a major obstacle in the improvement of the relationship. The idea promoted by China, which led to the thaw in 1988, was that borders can be resolved at a future date, while economic and other relationships improved, has been proven quite fragile. The India-China trade relations have boomed in the last four decades and today the bilateral trade stands at $118bn dollars, however, it has not proved to be a factor in actually bridging the trust deficit or strengthening the relationship. The fragility of diplomatic mechanisms has been witnessed time and again.

Both sides had realized the need for regular communication and they tried to look for ways to improve this. The lack of communication was quite apparent during the 73-day military standoff at Doklam. In order to address this lacunae, the two countries did engage in unofficial talks in the form of the Wuhan Summit of 2018 and the Mamallapuram Summit of 2019. These summits were supposed to help the leaders communicate better and help any future challenge like the standoff at Doklam. However, the Galwan clash of 2020 underscored the fact that the mistrust and miscommunication ran too deep.

However, India and China are two of the largest economies and nuclear power states and de-escalation is a crucial and necessary step toward improving the relationship. The Indian side’s reiteration is understood as a peaceful border is essential for overall growth of the country. But it appears that India and China need to genuinely understand each other’s concerns. Both have been working toward achieving their own respective goals and are trying to resolve the border issue as per their understanding. The unresolved border has time and time again pushed this relationship into uncertainty and the fact that the Confidence Building Mechanisms (CBMs) which were achieved and implemented by mutual understanding could be shattered by one incident underscores the need for better communication and peaceful resolution of the border. 

For the last 75 years, the two countries have also built a domestic narrative on the border and this is today closely linked to the sovereignty and identity of the countries. For a resolution, the border will have to be negotiated, and as negotiations go, it will call for a compromise. The question this raises is: Which country or government will be comfortable accepting any such outcome? No government can be seen as giving up on territory and thus appear weaker. The mistrust is too deeply ingrained and the repeated border skirmishes initiated by Beijing time and again has not helped the case. Nationalism soars too high and too strong when it comes to resolving the border.

Even today, it appears that the two sides are talking parallel to each other. The Chinese have continued to stress the need to restart and establish people-to-people contact, which had completely broken after Galwan and also impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic. Beijing has shown its proactiveness here by restarting the Kailash Mansarovar Yatra and also issuing visas to a large number of Indians. It is also asserting that direct flights should be restarted soon. Meanwhile, New Delhi has continued to push for a resolution of the border and push for de-escalation, which is clear from the Indian defence minister’s agenda too. The fact that no joint statement was made during the SCO defence ministers’ meeting further shows the gap in perception. India has been firm on asserting the role of Pakistan as a terrorist state while China continues to push a parallel narrative.

A stable and cooperative India-China relationship will be beneficial to them as well as the South Asian region but it can be achieved only when the two sides genuinely start to understand and trust each other.

The author is an associate professor at OP Jindal Global University

People’s trust in the media is fast declining, if not hitting the rock bottom, already. As a professional journalist with no political affiliation, I have spent two decades in this field, witnessing both highs and lows of Nepali media industry. In the early years of my career, the media was all flourishing: newspaper circulation was rising, radio and television were booming, and college classrooms were filled with enthusiastic media students. Now, the trend has sharply reversed. 

The current state of Nepali media bears some superficial resemblance to American media from 1900 to the 1940s. During that period, US newspapers were characterized by partisan, sensationalism, public criticisms over media performances, abuse of media power and growing concerns about the media’s negative impact on democracy. In response to these issues, American educator Robert Hutchins was appointed to lead a blue-ribbon panel to study the challenges facing US media. 

This piece broadly explores the current crisis of credibility in the media, the government’s attempt to control the press and what a wise and transparent approach to media regulation should look like. We must openly acknowledge that public trust in us is eroding due to a multitude of factors.

Only by first admitting this can we begin to rebuild the trust. At the heart of the media’s current crisis lies a widespread violation of journalistic ethics. Financial struggles are already a serious concern. But if journalists commit to upholding ethical standards, public criticism can at least be reduced, if not entirely silenced. 

It is not only digital platforms which are flouting journalistic codes of conduct. Traditional media, which pride themselves on being part of the mainstream, are also flagrantly violating ethical norms, further fueling public distrust. The erosion of confidence in media is not unique to Nepal; it is a global trend that began in the early 2000s and it continues to deepen. A recent report by the Reuters Institute revealed that only 40 percent of people trust the media. The silver lining, however, is that this figure has not declined over the past few years.

 In fact, trust in news has remained stable for the third consecutive year, even though it is still four percentage points lower than it was at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Nevertheless, public trust in the media continues to erode gradually. For instance, in recent years, the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority(CIAA) has filed cases against more than half a dozen journalists, alongside government officials, for their alleged involvement in corruption and irregularities. Meanwhile, people are struggling to distinguish between news, views and advertisement and paid content.   

Another problem is the structural weakness of Nepali media houses. The ongoing economic crisis is forcing many media outlets to carry out mass layoffs, severely weakening newsrooms. This has not only affected field-based reporting but also undermined the gate-keeping—selecting, filtering and refining the news before it reaches the public. As a result, ordinary citizens are increasingly questioning the accuracy, balance and credibility of the news they consume.

One of the most corrosive issues in Nepali journalism today is the political affiliation of journalists. Many spend more time on social media than in the newsroom, either defending their preferred political parties or attacking their rivals. The level of political alignment among journalists has reached an alarming level. People no longer trust content produced by those who openly align with political parties and shape their social media presence accordingly. Journalism is being misused as a stepping stone for political appointments or personal financial gains. 

Professional journalists are facing pressure not just from political actors but from their own colleagues affiliated with political parties or power centers. If a journalist publishes critical news about these parties or centers, affiliated colleagues often retaliate by undermining or attacking the former. Journalists who maintain independence are finding it increasingly difficult to survive in such a hostile environment.

Another growing problem is the media’s overreliance on social media content, due in large part to the decline in field reporting. This has led to a troubling trend: journalists often use unverified social media posts as the basis for news stories. Recently, a prominent journalist published a report based on rumors circulating online. 

Although filing a cybercrime case against him was unjustified, the video content he produced was clearly problematic and damaged the credibility of the media outlet involved. Those in power are now using such incidents as a pretext to clamp down on the media. Several news stories based on unchecked social media information have sparked controversy. Even worse, there is a growing reluctance among media houses to acknowledge mistakes or issue timely corrections.  

Due to these ethical lapses, all three branches of the state—the executive, legislature and the judiciary—believe that the media should be tightly regulated. The problem is further complicated by the inability of the politicians to distinguish between professional news content and personal social media posts. On that basis, they are attempting to suppress independent journalism, especially as it continues to expose corruption and irregularities. With corruption at an all-time high and politicians and government officials implicated, the media has effectively become their enemy.

Every draft of media-related laws introduced by successive governments directly contravenes the international treaties and convention to which Nepal is a party, and also violates the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and expression. There is now rhetoric within the parliament in favor of restricting the media, while the executive branch is employing various means to jail journalists. The judiciary, once considered a last resort for journalists seeking justice, is letting journalists down, more often than not.

The judiciary plays a vital role in safeguarding freedom of speech, expression and the press by checking the executive’s attempts to impose suppressive laws. Historically, Nepal’s judiciary upheld these principles, from the Panchayat era to King Gyanendra’s direct rule. Unfortunately, the current reality is quite the opposite. 

The judiciary has become more restrictive toward press freedom, emboldening those who wish to curtail it. Courts are now misusing the contempt of court provision to harass journalists and even issuing orders to remove published news content in a clear violation of constitutional norms. 

The media fraternity itself is partly to blame for this situation, having failed to support the enactment of a clear and fair contempt of court law. It is ironic that during times of autocracy, Nepali media stood firmly in defense of press freedom, but in the republican era, that commitment appears to be wavering. A close examination of recent bills related to the media, social media and information technology reveals that the government’s aim is control, not regulation. These efforts undermine the principles of responsible journalism and the social responsibilities of the media. 

As I conclude this piece, I return to the Hutchins Commission report of 1947. To address media shortcomings, the US did not control the press, doing so would have violated the First Amendment, which explicitly states, “Congress shall make no law, abridging the freedom of the press.” Instead, the focus was placed on promoting ethical standards and media accountability. In our context, any attempts to control the media would violate the 2015 constitution and international treaties and conventions to which Nepal is a party. 

Those in power must understand that ethical reform is a far more effective tool than legal coercion for addressing shortcomings of the media. At the same time, collaboration between private media, academic institutions and the government can help find solutions. If necessary, a powerful commission similar to Hutchins Commission can be formed. The state can take a range of non-intrusive measures to promote ethical standards without interfering in press freedom.

The executive, the judiciary and the legislature must urgently abandon their current restrictive mindset. Attempts to control the media will not resolve its shortcomings; it will make the matter worse. We in the media must also recognize that public criticism of our work is both real and justified, and we must act responsibly.

In a turbulent world where a polycrisis looms—from Ukraine to Iran—hot conflicts remain unresolved through diplomacy, and the developed world shows fractures, as seen in the recent G7 summit in Canada, multilateral efforts are withering. A rare exception is European unity in the Ukraine conflict. Against this backdrop, cooperation in South Asia becomes especially noteworthy, particularly given that nuclear-armed neighbors India and Pakistan were on the brink of war after the terror attacks in Kashmir’s Pahalgam.

Amid these tensions, a positive development emerges. Nepal has begun supplying 40 megawatts (MW) of electricity to Bangladesh via India. This is a significant step for one of the world’s least interconnected regions. But why is this a crucial milestone in South Asia’s energy landscape?

South Asia is undergoing an energy transition. India, the world’s third-largest power consumer, saw peak demand reach 250 GW this year, with projections suggesting 458 GW by 2032. Bangladesh’s peak demand is nearing 16,000 MW and is expected to exceed 34,000 MW by 2030. As India expands its renewable energy capacity and Bangladesh shifts from gas and coal, both countries are increasingly turning to cross-border power exchanges to supplement domestic supply.

Nepal and Bhutan represent untapped potential. The Himalayan nations possess hydropower capacities of 40,000 MW and 30,000 MW, respectively, yet less than 10 percent has been harnessed. With proper infrastructure, they could become the region’s clean energy reservoirs.

The feasibility of power trading hinges on infrastructure, where quiet but meaningful progress has been made. Since 2016, the Nepal–India Dhalkebar–Muzaffarpur 400 kV line has enabled Nepal to export electricity to India. The recent Nepal-Bangladesh power transfer utilized this line, routing through India’s eastern grid via the HVDC Baharampur–Bheramara link.

BIMSTEC has sought to capitalize on this momentum. Its Grid Interconnection Master Plan, developed with ADB support and approved in 2018, outlines technical strategies for an integrated electricity market. The Energy Centre in Bengaluru, envisioned as a BIMSTEC knowledge hub, is expected to foster policy alignment and trade facilitation.

Yet BIMSTEC remains institutionally weak. While the recent trilateral power exchange occurred within its territory, it was not coordinated by BIMSTEC itself,  which is a critical distinction. Unlike the EU’s energy union or Africa’s Power Pools, BIMSTEC lacks a formal regulatory framework for energy trade. There is no central market operator, no unified dispute mechanism, and no standardized tariff system. Without a dedicated trading platform, transactions rely on bilateral deals, contingent on India’s willingness to facilitate them.

This model has worked so far, but its scalability is uncertain. As new projects like Bhutan’s Sunkosh and Nepal’s Arun-IV come online, challenges around pricing, grid stability, and regional capacity planning will grow. A regional market cannot thrive indefinitely on ad-hoc bilateral agreements.

Political commitment within BIMSTEC is also uneven. While India, Nepal, and Bangladesh have made progress, members like Myanmar and Sri Lanka remain peripheral to energy discussions, and Thailand’s involvement has been largely rhetorical.

A multilateral institutional framework is needed—not just for regulation but also to develop infrastructure, from unlocking Himalayan hydropower to building a shared grid. It could also create an integrated market for surplus power. However, this requires sustained engagement. BIMSTEC could learn from ASEAN, where economic cooperation persists despite territorial disputes.

India and Bangladesh aim for net-zero emissions by 2070. With rising energy demand and a push for cleaner solutions, investments in hydropower and other renewables are critical. As a neighbor to most BIMSTEC members, India should not only facilitate power exchanges but also actively help build the necessary infrastructure. This is also a strategic imperative for Indian and Bangladeshi exports, particularly to the EU, which will soon impose a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) tax.

The Nepal-Bangladesh power deal, enabled by India, is more than a regional energy milestone. It underscores a geopolitical and developmental opportunity South Asia cannot ignore. Amid climate crises, energy insecurity, and volatile bilateral ties, cross-border power trade offers a path to redefine cooperation through economic interdependence.

Yet without a multilateral framework, such exchanges remain fragile, dependent on India’s strategic calculus. The absence of standardized rules, dispute resolution, and long-term planning leaves the region vulnerable to political shifts and technical failures. For India, formalizing a BIMSTEC energy community is not just goodwill—it aligns with its climate diplomacy and trade competitiveness in a CBAM-regulated world.

The real challenge is not technical feasibility but political vision. South Asia’s energy future hinges on its ability to institutionalize trust, integrate equity, and depoliticize infrastructure.

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

Nepal’s capital market, represented by the Nepal Stock Exchange (NEPSE), is undergoing a pivotal moment. Once seen as a promising platform for investment and economic mobilization, it now stands marred by widespread manipulation and unethical practices that compromise its credibility. While the trading volume has increased and the number of retail investors has multiplied over the years, the surge in activity has also invited a disturbing trend: systematic market malpractices designed to mislead, exploit and ultimately strip small investors of their capital.

Among the most pervasive of these practices is the manipulation of share prices through coordinated trading, a tactic that exploits small-cap companies with low floating shares. Groups of traders often conspire to corner such stocks—accumulating large quantities and controlling the float. By executing a series of synchronized buy and sell orders through different accounts they control, they create the illusion of heightened market activity and demand. This simulated momentum attracts unsuspecting retail investors who, seeing the surge, interpret it as a sign of growth or news-based rally. In reality, they are walking into a trap. Once these orchestrators have driven up prices and lured in enough buyers, they quickly offload their shares at inflated rates, leaving latecomers saddled with overvalued assets.

This behavior is enabled and obscured by the use of multiple dematerialized (demat) and Trading Management System (TMS) accounts, often opened under the names of family members or associates. These accounts, though legally distinct, are in practice controlled by a single orchestrator, allowing them to shuffle shares around and simulate market demand. By exploiting NEPSE’s lenient policy on multiple accounts per individual, manipulators hide their tracks with relative ease. The lack of comprehensive Know Your Customer (KYC) implementation adds another layer of opacity, making it exceedingly difficult for regulators to identify patterns of abuse or hold culprits accountable.

Price manipulation often intersects with insider trading, which continues to thrive in the absence of robust regulatory deterrence. Those with early access to corporate decisions or financial information use it to strategically time their trades. In some cases, prices are deliberately inflated through internal transfers before being pushed onto the public with aggressive promotion tactics. Retail investors are then exposed to these stocks at their artificial peaks, unaware that the fundamentals of the companies in question do not justify such valuations. By the time the truth unfolds, the orchestrators have exited, and the average investor is left with significant losses.

An alarming dimension of this scheme is the misuse of social media platforms. Sites like Facebook, YouTube and emerging voice platforms such as Clubhouse are increasingly being used to spread misinformation, generate artificial hype, and create momentum for otherwise illiquid or fundamentally weak stocks. Traders pose as analysts or experts and recommend stocks with confident predictions of sharp price increases. These discussions are timed with manipulative trades in the market, creating a feedback loop that convinces the public of the stock’s potential. When the bubble bursts, it is often too late for the retail investor to escape.

Adding to the opacity is the practice of fund transfers between related accounts to obscure the money trail. Manipulators move capital across multiple bank accounts under family names or proxy ownership to fund share purchases or mask the source of the investment. This kind of financial obfuscation makes regulatory tracing cumbersome and dilutes the possibility of legal intervention. In some cases, these same actors even default on broker payments, taking advantage of the trust-based relationships between clients and their brokerage firms. By settling trades but withholding payments, they place brokers in financial jeopardy and erode trust within the trading ecosystem.

The use of netting—where trades are balanced across multiple controlled accounts to avoid generating a net position—is another technique used to manipulate prices while maintaining an appearance of normalcy. This tactic helps manipulators push and pull prices during the day, all while ensuring their overall exposure remains neutral by the end of the session. The end result is a market that appears healthy on the surface but is deeply flawed beneath.

The implications of these activities are far-reaching. First and foremost, they create a hostile environment for the average investor. Many enter the market with the hopes of earning modest returns, only to find themselves caught in traps laid by sophisticated manipulators. As losses mount, trust in the market diminishes, driving potential investors away. This is particularly harmful in a developing economy like Nepal, where capital markets should ideally be a channel for democratized wealth creation and economic participation. Instead, the current environment fosters inequality, where those with the knowledge and resources to manipulate the system grow richer at the expense of the uninformed.

From a macroeconomic perspective, this kind of manipulation distorts the price discovery mechanism of the stock market. In an ideal system, stock prices reflect the underlying fundamentals of a company—its profitability, governance, market potential and operational integrity. But when prices are artificially inflated or deflated through manipulative trades, capital is misallocated. Poor-performing companies may receive undue attention and investment, while fundamentally sound firms may be ignored. This harms the broader economy by diverting resources from productive to speculative uses.

Addressing these issues requires a coordinated, multi-pronged reform strategy that targets both the structural loopholes and behavioral incentives that currently enable market abuse. Regulatory oversight must be significantly strengthened. SEBON, as the primary market regulator, needs to enhance its surveillance capabilities, adopting real-time monitoring systems that can detect patterns of matching trades, coordinated activity, and unusual volume surges. The technology exists—it is a matter of political and institutional will to deploy it effectively. Alongside this, NEPSE must overhaul its trading platform to plug known loopholes. Transfers of shares between brokers or across accounts without scrutiny should be restricted or tightly monitored.

There is a compelling need to impose stricter controls on account creation. Limiting each individual to a single demat and TMS account, along with robust biometric KYC processes, will curb the use of multiple accounts for manipulation. SEBON should also require the declaration of beneficial ownership in all trades. Without full transparency on who is ultimately controlling a transaction, regulators cannot effectively enforce accountability.

The penal framework must evolve to reflect the severity of market manipulation. Financial penalties alone may not be sufficient deterrents; trading bans and even criminal prosecution must be part of the regulatory toolkit. Enforcement actions should also be made public, not just to set examples but to build investor confidence that the system protects their interests.

Regulating the influence of social media is another urgent frontier. Financial discussions on public platforms should be brought under the purview of regulatory oversight. Collaborations between SEBON and social media companies can help in tracking, flagging, and penalizing accounts that promote stocks for manipulative purposes. A regulatory framework could also be created to license or verify credible financial commentators, ensuring that their analyses meet ethical and factual standards.

Protecting brokers and incentivizing their role in fraud prevention is equally important. Brokers are often the first to sense suspicious behavior but may hesitate to act due to fear of losing clients or facing legal repercussions. Regulatory bodies must establish clear reporting mechanisms and ensure that brokers are legally protected and encouraged to report red flags. A compensation fund for retail investors, supported by penalties collected from offenders, could provide a safety net for those affected by fraudulent activity.

Education remains the long-term solution. Without empowering investors to think critically, avoid herd behavior and analyze fundamentals, reforms can only go so far. Awareness campaigns, seminars and digital content aimed at educating the public about common manipulation tactics can create a more resilient investor base. Retail investors must be taught how to interpret company filings, understand earnings reports and spot red flags in stock behavior.

Nepal’s stock market is at a crossroads. On one side lies the path of reform, transparency and long-term stability, on the other a continuation of short-termism, manipulation and systemic erosion. The market cannot flourish in an environment where deception outweighs disclosure, and exploitation overshadows equity. A functioning capital market is not just a feature of a modern economy—it is its lifeline. Nepal must choose to protect this vital institution by acting now, decisively and with unwavering commitment to integrity.