Submit your Article

Former President Bidya Devi Bhandari has formally returned to active politics, rejoining her old party, CPN-UML. After 10 years of party politics and seven years as Nepal’s ceremonial head of state, her comeback naturally raises questions: What role will she now play? Will her political approach evolve, or will she repeat her old style? While debates continue, her return deserves a simple acknowledgment: Welcome back to CPN-UML politics, Mrs Bhandari.

Legally and constitutionally, her return poses no barrier. Though some argue that a former ceremonial head of state should avoid re-entering active party politics, this is a moral debate, not a legal one. In today’s realist political environment, morality and principle seldom define political choices. Ultimately, the decision is hers, based on her confidence that she can still serve the nation.

This article, however, centers on the leadership of CPN-UML itself, especially KP Sharma Oli’s continued role. Is this the right moment to challenge Oli’s leadership? The answer is clear: No.

Still relevant and strong

As both Prime Minister and president of CPN-UML, KP Sharma Oli continues to lead effectively, directing internal and external challenges. Leadership must always be judged relatively. In comparison to other leaders, Oli remains Nepal’s most competent prime minister in recent times. His past tenure lists achievements crucial to national development and foreign policy.

Oli’s leadership is defined by rationality and conviction. He does not bend to populist trends or social media pressures. His decisions are grounded in logic, reason and what he perceives as the national interest. While populism tempts many leaders, Oli has largely resisted that path.

Importantly, he has defended Nepal’s national interests consistently, whether dealing with territorial disputes or resisting external influence. His governance style prioritizes sovereignty and independence. Even as foreign powers and domestic rivals target him, Oli stands firm. Weakening his leadership now would not only fragment the party but also undermine Nepal’s assertiveness on the global stage.

At a time when divisive forces seek to destabilize both the government and the party, CPN-UML leaders and cadres must stand united. Criticizing Oli for the sake of internal power struggles will harm the party more than it benefits anyone individually.

Strengthen the party

The Statute Convention of CPN-UML, scheduled for September 5-7 in Godavari, comes at a critical time. According to party rules, the General Congress must convene within a year of this convention. Therefore, this is not the time for leadership contests. Instead, the party’s focus should remain on strengthening internal structures, refining policies and fostering discipline.

Party politics is not about personal ambitions; it is about collective organization. The stronger CPN-UML becomes, the more its members benefit politically. Internal conflicts only weaken the party. This is evident in the example of Madhav Kumar Nepal. His breakaway Unified Socialist Party now faces marginalization and existential challenges. His past defiance against Oli earned short-term attention, but long-term irrelevance.

The priority for CPN-UML members should be clear: focus on making the party a decisive force in national politics. Strengthening the party as an institution will naturally open leadership opportunities for capable individuals over time.

Leadership pipeline

While Oli remains the party’s central figure today, the question of succession is valid. Fortunately, CPN-UML has no shortage of future leaders. Figures like Shankar Pokhrel, Bishnu Poudel, Pradeep Gyawali, PS Gurung and Yogesh Bhattarai represent the next generation of leadership. Each brings unique strengths and perspectives, ready to lead when the time comes.

However, succession planning must be strategic, not opportunistic. Oli might serve one more term, using that time to mentor and prepare younger leaders. If Bidya Devi Bhandari’s return strengthens the party, it should be seen as a unifying development, not the beginning of a rivalry. Oli and Bhandari are unlikely to compete against each other for leadership positions; rather, they could jointly support second- and third-generation leaders when conditions demand.

Leadership transitions should emerge from consensus and institutional processes, not factional contests.

In the current context, targeting Oli weakens both the party and Nepal’s political stability. Undermining him serves only adversarial interests, both domestic and foreign. Constructive criticism within the party is essential, but it should be grounded in facts, strategy and long-term goals.

Ultimately, while Oli will not lead forever, it is neither the right time nor the right approach to force leadership change rashly. His rational, nationally focused leadership remains essential in steering both the party and the government.

In conclusion, the future will depend on how wisely the party cultivates its emerging leadership. The CPN-UML’s immediate task is clear: consolidate around its current leadership, strengthen party structures and prepare a new generation of leaders through unity and discipline—not internal fragmentation.

Criticizing Oli without strategic reason weakens the party and empowers adversaries. As long as Oli prioritizes national interests and rational governance, he deserves the party’s support—not unnecessary challenges.

For now, the question is not who will replace Oli, but how the party can become stronger under his leadership, ensuring a smooth and wise transition when the time is truly right.

Nepal’s financial system has disbursed loans totaling Rs 5.55trn to approximately 1.94m borrowers. Governor Biswo Poudel recently highlighted this trend while presenting new data on small borrowers—defined as those with loans under Rs 10m. On that occasion, the chief of the central bank, Nepal Rastra Bank (NRB), raised concerns about the concentration of large loans among a small group of individuals and whether such lending practices are contributing meaningfully to economic productivity.

Around 1.94m Nepali people have accessed loans from commercial banks, development banks and finance companies. Of these, approximately 1.869m small borrowers have taken loans totaling
Rs 1.99trn.

These small borrowers include lower-middle-class individuals who often borrow to start small businesses, send family members abroad for work or fund vocational training. Many also take loans to purchase land or vehicles, or to build homes. However, this group is financially vulnerable. According to NRB data, 28.8 percent—equivalent to Rs 549.85bn—of their loans have become non-performing, accounting for 4.34 percent of total lending.

Mid-level borrowers, defined as those with loans between Rs 10m and Rs 100m, are also under financial stress. This segment includes approximately 6,793 borrowers, holding Rs 1.254trn in loans. Roughly 11 percent of this amount is non-performing, indicating severe repayment challenges, especially post-covid, as many small and medium enterprises failed to recover.

At the other end of the spectrum are large borrowers—those with loans exceeding Rs 100m. This group consists of just 7,763 borrowers, who collectively hold Rs 2.39trn. Even more concentrated, 1,552 individuals manage over Rs 1.34trn in loans, highlighting a stark imbalance in credit distribution. Despite handling large sums, the rate of non-performing loans in this group is significantly lower.

The data indicate that the larger the loan, the lower the likelihood of it being classified as non-performing. Borrowers in the higher brackets often have the advantage of restructuring loans, accessing new credit to service old debt and leveraging networks within the banking system. This circular lending practice, often facilitated by banks themselves, poses systemic risks and raises ethical questions.

Loans in the Rs 10–500m range account for 95 percent of Rs 1.048trn in outstanding loans, with a non-performing loan (NPL) ratio of 22.14 percent (Rs 232bn). Notably, NPL ratios decrease as loan sizes increase. For loans between Rs 50–100m, the NPL rate drops to 4.83 percent, and for
Rs 100–200m, it falls to 3.01 percent, with the highest loan brackets seeing NPLs as low as 0.04 percent.

There is a stark contrast in Nepal’s loan distribution and associated credit risks across borrower categories. While small and mid-level borrowers (with loans below Rs 100m) collectively hold significant portions of the total loan portfolio—Rs 1.99trn and Rs 1.254trn, respectively—they also exhibit alarmingly high non-performing loan (NPL) ratios of 28.8 percent and 11 percent, indicating financial vulnerability and limited resilience. In contrast, large and very large borrowers (with loans above Rs 100m), though few in number, control disproportionately high volumes of credit—up to
Rs 2.39trn—with remarkably low NPL ratios (3.01 percent and 0.04 percent). This inverse relationship between loan size and credit risk reveals a systemic concentration of financial resources among a limited elite, raising concerns about financial equity and governance. The findings underscore the need for regulatory reforms to rebalance credit flows, safeguard small borrowers, and address emerging issues of financial inequality and systemic risk.

This disparity raises concerns over the governance and equitable distribution of financial resources. NRB data reveal that out of 1.94m borrowers, just 194 individuals—0.01 percent—have accessed loans exceeding Rs 2.25trn, or 3.9 percent of the total loan volume. On an average, each of these individuals has taken loans of over Rs 1.11bn. These statistics underscore a critical issue: a limited number of individuals control a disproportionate share of banking sector credit.

This concentration of financial power has drawn attention in parliamentary discussions. In a recent meeting of the Finance Committee of the House of Representatives, clause-by-clause deliberations on the amendment of the Banks and Financial Institutions Act (BAFIA), 2073, are underway. The proposed amendments aim to address conflicts of interest, ensure fair loan distribution and introduce stricter governance measures to prevent the undue concentration of credit.

The ongoing legislative review seeks to establish clearer guidelines on eligibility for loans and address the structural weaknesses that allow such imbalances. Key concerns include whether bank directors and affiliated individuals are receiving favorable treatment and whether existing legal frameworks are sufficient to prevent misuse of financial resources.

As the debate continues, it has become evident that financial inequality is deepening. There is a pressing need for reforms to ensure that credit distribution contributes to inclusive growth, supports small and medium enterprises, and reflects principles of transparency and social justice.

The author is a senior fellow and program executive at SNG Solution

This is a challenging time for legacy media. As an editor, I frequently encounter concerns about the financial health of media houses. It is evident that society is becoming increasingly aware of the problems that the media industry is facing. Traditional media outlets are in the midst of an existential crisis, as both advertisers and audiences are migrating to digital platforms. 

Historically, the media has weathered technological shifts. The rise of radio in the 1920s did not significantly impact print, and radio itself managed to survive the television era despite visual’s strong appeal. However, the emergence of digital platforms is different; it is pushing all traditional media to the brink. This is why legacy media are now desperately working to develop a viable blueprint for survival. At this point, the primary goal for legacy media is to survive, if not thrive. To this end, for better or worse, they are working on two broad areas.

First, they are restructuring newsrooms to reduce staffing and administrative costs. While most layoffs have already been carried out, the new model, referred to as the integrated newsroom, is still taking shape. At the same time, media houses are exploring alternative revenue streams, as income from traditional sources, particularly advertisement, is fast declining. The idea of integrating radio, television and print newsrooms into a single space has gained momentum since the 2000s. In principle, it holds promise, especially if the goal is to foster collaboration among journalists across platforms, thereby enriching content. However, if the integration is pursued purely to cut costs, it risks undermining the very strengths of radio, television and print in the long run.

We must recognize that radio, television and print each have unique characteristics that have enabled them to survive for over a century. While they may report on similar issues, each platform has its own style of storytelling, audience engagement and distinct target audience. For instance, radio content often caters to both literate and illiterate audiences. This is something print and television may not fully accommodate. Delivering the same content across all platforms may offer short-term financial relief, but it will ultimately weaken the media’s overall impact. In Nepal, some experiments have already been done and they have been proved harmful rather than good outcomes in terms of securing the advertisement. 

Consider this: why did radio survive in the age of television? Because it offered something television could not. It had unique strengths that remained relevant despite the appeal of video. Over sixty years ago, Marshall McLuhan introduced the ‘medium is the message’ concept, suggesting that the characteristics of a communication medium influence how messages are perceived. Applying this idea today, we must be cautious about full-scale integration which may reduce costs marginally but compromise content quality and diversity in the long term.

International experiences show that poorly executed integration often leads to generic, homogenized content, sacrificing depth and specialization. In reality, if a media house is committed to delivering quality content, integrated newsrooms offer limited cost savings; perhaps only in administrative overheads or rent. In some cases, integration has even led to revenue losses, as clients are unwilling to pay separately for nearly identical content across platforms.

In the pursuit of financial sustainability, media houses are now experimenting with new revenue models. However, they are still unsure which model works best in Nepal.  Globally, dozens of new models are being tested, but most are still in the experimental stage. One thing is clear: While no alternative has matched the scale of advertising revenue, these new streams are providing a crucial lifeline for media houses, at least for survival. The Nepali context is even more complex. While internationally available revenue models can be useful for academic discussions, they may not be practical in Nepali society. A copy-paste approach to these models risks losing existing readers and audiences, especially if implemented without a clear understanding of Nepali society and its media consumption patterns.

Since the late 16th century, advertising has remained the dominant source of income for media; first for print, and later for television, radio and digital platforms. In addition, the print industry has long relied on subscription and circulation models, while television adopted the pay-TV model. The late 1940s saw the rise of advertorial content—paid content blending advertising and editorial, which, while still present, now contributes far less to overall revenue.

Advertisement continues to be the main revenue source for both legacy and digital media. However, the advertising landscape has changed significantly. Ads are now spread across both journalistic and non-journalistic platforms, ending the long-standing monopoly of legacy media. As a result, advertising alone can no longer sustain either traditional or digital outlets. This is not just a crisis of legacy media; it also affects digital media. That is why media organizations are desperately seeking to adopt new revenue models already in use internationally. Let’s consider the current revenue crisis and examine the strengths and weaknesses of some emerging models. One income stream that Nepali media houses have increasingly embraced is organizing events focused on political, economic and social issues.

Both legacy and digital outlets have generated substantial revenue from these events. Many advertisers now prefer sponsoring such events over placing traditional ads. While this approach is not new or particularly innovative, it has become competitive, with media outlets vying to host high-profile events to generate income. Another growing trend is video advertising, particularly through social media platforms. The volume of digital advertisements is gradually increasing. Some outlets are earning respectable sums from platforms like YouTube and Facebook though some legal hassles remain. Even small revenue from these platforms is offering much-needed support to struggling media houses.

Over the past few years, there has been a debate about the feasibility of a paywall subscription model in Nepal. While the online news portal Setopati has implemented this model, another popular portal Onlinekhabar remains hesitant due to fear that it may lose readership. We, at Annapurna Media Network, are also considering this model. However, we have concluded that further preparation and deliberation are necessary before moving forward.

Broadly speaking, digital platforms offer two types of subscription models: premium where users pay to access content, and freemium where basic content is free and only select content is behind a paywall. The paywall model cannot succeed without ensuring consistent quality in both text and video content. Readers will not be willing to pay for content that is superficial or poorly produced. Without significantly scaling up our current content, this model is likely to fail. At the same time, we must avoid the mistake of comparing ourselves with international media. The fact is that only a small segment of the Nepali population is willing to pay for content, even when it is of high quality.

A close study of quality content produced by media houses shows that very few people are actually reading it. One major reason is that the private sector, intellectuals, academia and society as a whole have become highly politicized and polarized. As a result, a wider section of the population tends to consume partisan and biased news that reinforces their perceptions and views rather than content that is accurate, balanced and impartial. While Nepal’s population is not small, the country’s economic conditions limit people’s ability and willingness to pay for news content. In short, the first major challenge is to consistently produce high-quality content tailored to different segments of the population.

As mentioned earlier, there is no lack of revenue models; the real challenge lies in identifying which models are suitable for our context. Potential models include live streaming, monetizing content through social media, generating income from memberships and newsletters, corporate social responsibility (CSR) support from businesses and funding from international organizations, among others. Unlike in the past, no single platform or model now dominates the media landscape. The only viable way forward, therefore, is to adopt a mix of revenue sources. Doing so, however, requires a broad strategic plan and upfront investment in these diverse areas. Since advertising alone cannot sustain media houses, it is time to re-imagine how they operate.

One bold step could be to transform media houses into non-profit entities, which would enable them to seek contributions from various sectors of society to support media sustainability. However, the current ownership structure may limit the ability to implement all possible revenue-generating models. Over the past three decades, Nepali media have rarely embraced innovation or entrepreneurship, primarily because they could rely on steady income from advertising. They also did little to engage with or respond to readers’ preferences and feedback. Today, innovation, entrepreneurship and the ability to adapt to changing expectations of readers are not just optional; they are essential for survival.

Nepal’s School Education Bill, long awaited to operationalize Article 31(2) of the Constitution—which guarantees every citizen the right to free and compulsory education up to secondary level—is now mired in conflict and controversy. Initially introduced to provide equitable, quality education, the Bill’s process has become a battlefield of political interests, pressure groups, and conflicting ideologies. Instead of upholding learners’ rights, the Bill now appears to be tilting toward protecting vested interests.

On April 30, the Nepal Teachers’ Federation reached a deal with the chief whips of the Nepali Congress and CPN-UML, halting its month-long protest on the understanding that the Bill would be endorsed by June 29. The Education, Health, and Information Technology Committee had initially agreed to a provision allowing permanent appointment of temporary, relief, and contract-based teachers through a 60 percent internal and 40 percent open competition model. Earlier, this was adjusted to a 50–50 ratio while presenting in parliament. However, the Federation insisted that 100 percent of permanent appointments be reserved for internal candidates, arguing they had “sacrificed” long enough.

In response to this demand, Education Minister Raghuji Panta requested the committee to withhold the Bill. This action drew sharp criticism and revived public distrust, evoking memories of the controversial cooling-off period in the Civil Service Bill. The credibility of the Parliament’s legislative sovereignty is now under scrutiny, as it appears increasingly vulnerable to organized lobbying. The key issue at stake is whether sacrifice can override constitutional principles such as fairness, competition, and inclusivity in public service. Can the Parliament remain accountable to the wider public—students, parents, and future educators—or will it continue to serve organized interest groups?

Reflections on the purpose of education

Meanwhile, the core idea of education itself is being missed in this debate. The Latin root educare means “to draw out” or “to lead from darkness to light.” In the words of the Upanishads: Asato ma sadgamaya, tamaso ma jyotirgamaya—“From falsehood to truth, from darkness to light.” However, when education becomes limited to securing permanent jobs for insiders, its transformative essence is lost. Education risks becoming a bureaucratic entitlement rather than a fundamental right.

Globally, education has often swung between these two poles: liberation and control. Caroline Veniero’s legal-historical research in the U.S. shows how the Freedmen’s Bureau (1865–1872) helped African Americans acquire literacy after slavery, reinforcing the connection between literacy and citizenship. In stark contrast, the Boarding Schools for Native Americans forcibly assimilated Indigenous children under the slogan “Kill the Indian, save the man.” These examples highlight how education can be used either to empower or to dominate.

Additionally, India’s legal evolution offers further insights. In Unnikrishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993), the Indian Supreme Court linked Article 45 (Directive Principle) with Article 21 (Right to Life), recognizing education as fundamental to human dignity. This marked a doctrinal shift by merging Directive Principles with enforceable Fundamental Rights. Literacy was seen not just as a skill but as a condition for democratic participation. Yet, as Anil Sadgopal argues, this principle was soon undermined. Sadgopal’s critique of India’s Right to Education Act (2009) reveals how it created a segmented system: elite private schools for the rich, under-resourced public schools for the poor. He described it as a “Fundamental Right to Unequal Education.” His alternative vision was a Common School System based on Neighbourhood Schools, where children from all backgrounds would study together in the same public institutions. Nepal could draw from this model as it reconsiders its own Bill.

Alongside domestic policy debates, international frameworks have shaped education’s trajectory. The Jomtien Declaration (1990) and the Dakar Framework (2000), both endorsed by the World Bank, promoted education reform through “basic” and “life skills,” encouraging public-private partnerships and reducing state responsibility. Education was recast as a service to meet market needs rather than a public good. In India, this led to an emphasis on voucher systems and minimum learning benchmarks, gradually disconnecting education from its democratic and egalitarian roots.

Moreover, these global and regional influences carry serious implications. Historian Badri Raina reminds us how access to education has historically been denied to preserve privilege. The stories of Eklavya, Karna, and Shambuka from epics show how caste and class boundaries were enforced through educational exclusion. Colonial policy continued this pattern. Lord Macaulay’s 1837 Minute on Indian Education proposed to create a class of intermediaries loyal to the colonial state by limiting education to the privileged few.

Raina argues that postcolonial policies like the National Education Policy (1986) also reproduced inequality by assuming poverty as permanent and designing education around that assumption. If Nepal’s School Education Bill moves in the direction of institutionalizing privilege by excluding open competition and undermining local autonomy, it may replicate these unjust patterns.

A call for rights-based and inclusive education reform

Further, this risk becomes even more pronounced when education is evaluated against four international standards of rights-based provision: availability, accessibility, acceptability, and adaptability. A meaningful education system must provide sufficient infrastructure and qualified teachers (availability), ensure non-discriminatory access (accessibility), uphold quality and relevance (acceptability), and remain responsive to diverse learner needs (adaptability). Without addressing all four pillars, any reform risks being incomplete.

The current proposal, as shaped by union demands, fails on all four counts. It limits access for new and future educators, prioritizes job security over learner outcomes, resists decentralization, and risks undermining the constitutional authority of local governments. By shifting decision-making back to central and freezing competitive recruitment, the Bill sets a precedent for political capture over public accountability.

If passed in its current form, the law will likely protect the system but not the students. It will reward seniority over merit, representation over performance, and status quo over innovation and departure. It risks becoming what one might call a “School Staff Bill” rather than a “School Education Bill.”

In this context, the haunting phrase from US history—“Kill the Indian, save the man”—becomes relevant once more. It shows how education, if misused, can erase identities, suppress change, and maintain control. Nepal must choose another path. It must adopt a law that empowers rather than protects, that includes rather than excludes, and that looks ahead rather than backwards.

Nepal’s School Education Bill was introduced to fulfill the constitutional right to free, equitable education. But under political and institutional pressure, it risks becoming an instrument of exclusion rather than inclusion. The demands for 100 percent internal recruitment, the delay in committee meetings, and the withdrawal of agreed provisions all point to a system more concerned with safeguarding employment than delivering justice.

Conclusion

This is the moment for the Parliament to show courage. It must listen to students, parents, and prospective teachers—not only to organized interest groups. The Bill must be reframed to center education as a public good, grounded in constitutional ethics, democratic participation, and equity. Ultimately, the choice is clear: a law that leads Nepal from darkness to light, or one that leaves it circling in the shadows of inequality. Let this Bill become a beacon of justice—not a symbol of another missed opportunity.