Submit your Article

Jimmy Carter, the 39th president of the United States, passed away at the age of 100, leaving behind an enduring legacy as a humanitarian, advocate for peace, and champion of human rights. His life was a testament to humility and service, symbolizing the principles of a true humanitarian. Carter’s most significant contributions came after his presidency, proving that former leadership roles can be harnessed for greater societal good.

In contrast to many global leaders who cling to power until their last breath, Carter chose a different path. In Nepal, politics is often seen as a lifetime occupation, with leaders reluctant to step away from the political stage. Carter, however, demonstrated that one's impact can extend far beyond the tenure of an official role. Despite facing numerous challenges during his presidency—including the energy crisis, Soviet aggression, and the Iran hostage crisis—he remained steadfast in his principles and commitment to service. His post-presidential work earned him global admiration, not just as a former US president but as a global humanitarian.

Nepali leaders could greatly benefit by emulating Carter's qualities: resilience, integrity, dedication, and adherence to personal principles. Carter provided a clear vision and skillset to create meaningful change even after leaving office, a lesson Nepali politicians should adopt.

Carter was not widely popular during his presidency, particularly when he sought re-election. The American public doubted his leadership during tough economic times. However, his unwavering resolve to serve humanity became his hallmark. Through the Carter Center, he addressed global challenges, including health care, democratic governance, and human rights. Even in declining health, he continued his mission to improve lives worldwide, exemplifying hope and resilience.

Nepali leaders, by contrast, often fail to contribute meaningfully outside the political arena. This stems from an identity crisis and an egoistic mindset that prevents them from engaging in other areas of service. Nepal has many academically and professionally capable former leaders who could contribute to nation-building through education, economics, or social initiatives. Yet, few follow Carter’s example of using their experience to serve the greater good.

Carter’s simplicity and discipline stand in entirely contrast to the materialism and extravagance that characterize many Nepali leaders’ lifestyles. His unwavering integrity, commitment to peace, and belief in human rights shaped his legacy. Nepali leaders often foster corruption and social inequality through their pursuit of luxury and power. Carter, on the other hand, will be remembered not for his presidential power but for his modest, principled life. The current fragility of Nepali society—marked by political dilemmas, misinformation, and populist agendas—calls for leaders who prioritize unity, social harmony, and fact-based solutions. Nepali leaders must abandon political biases and work towards strengthening democracy, ensuring justice, and promoting economic prosperity.

Carter came to office in 1976, offering a fresh alternative following the Watergate scandal. His administration emphasized transparency, human rights, environmental conservation, and historic achievements like the Camp David Accords, a historic peace agreement between Egypt and Israel. However, economic struggles and international crises overshadowed his presidency. Despite these setbacks, Carter never wavered in his honesty and commitment to his principles.

One of Carter’s most profound statements reflects his philosophy:

“I believe that anyone can be successful in life, regardless of natural talent or the environment within which we live. This is not based on measuring success by human competitiveness for wealth, possessions, influence, and fame, but adhering to God’s standards of truth, justice, humility, service, compassion, forgiveness, and love.”

Carter’s dedication to doing even small things with consistency and humility made him a leader for the people rather than for a party. Nepali leaders can learn from his legacy that serving the people and pursuing greater causes outweigh political ideologies or party loyalties. Jimmy Carter’s life is a reminder that leadership is not confined to holding office but is defined by one’s actions and principles. Nepali leaders must focus on building a legacy that future generations can admire. This is the time to act—to strengthen Nepal’s democracy, foster social justice, uphold the rule of law, and pursue economic prosperity. By embracing Carter’s values of service, humility, and integrity, Nepali leaders can transform their country into a more just and prosperous society. 

President Jimmy Carter exemplified humility, integrity, and a committed dedication to public service, with his most impactful accomplishments occurring after his presidency. Through his efforts to improve global health, uphold human rights, and promote peace, he demonstrated that true leadership extends far beyond the confines of political office. Unfortunately, many Nepali leaders remain fixated on retaining power and struggle to contribute meaningfully outside the political sphere, often constrained by personal ego. By embracing Carter's values of simplicity, resilience, and service to the greater good, Nepali leaders could strengthen democracy, foster social harmony, and build an enduring legacy that inspires many generations to come. The question remains: Will they rise to the challenge?

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.