Submit your Article

The global geopolitical stage has been rocked with multiple events, protracted theaters of conflict, and competing interests between different actors. At this time, the rapprochement and de-escalation between the two Asian giants, who have been otherwise seen as competitors and rivals, needs to be studied cautiously. The ties between two of the world’s largest economies went haywire after the clashes along the India-China border during the height of the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020. It caused loss of lives to both sides, causing fundamental alteration in the ties between the two nations. 

After disengagement from the last friction point, namely the Patrolling Point 15 in the Gogra-Hot Springs area in 2022, a hope of fragile calm in that region was expected. It needs to be noted that it is not the return of the pre-2020 status quo ante. But there has been an update since last October as both countries are actively pursuing to deescalate their border tensions and resuming some bilateral ties. There have been visits by the officials of both countries, including the Foreign Minister, Defence Minister and National Security Advisors. There is a resumption of flights after a gap of five years, re-opening of the Kailash Mansarovar pilgrimage and lifting of import ban on fertilizers, rare earth metals, and tunnel machines are all part of this new deal. 

Whatever transpires in 2024-25 is a tentative, at most a fragile change. After the visit of the Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi to New Delhi in August 2025, where he met Prime Minister Modi, External Affairs Minister Jaishankar and National Security Advisor Doval, all agreed on the modalities of patrolling the borders, relaxation of Visa regimes, and possible opening of trade corridors. It is of some significance that this is the first meeting Prime Minister Modi will have had in seven years; his visit to meet Xi Jinping at the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit in Tianjin.

Nevertheless, all these measures do not indicate the resolution of the inherent conflicts. Border regulation systems are confidence-building measures and not solutions. India continues to raise objections to the CPEC, which passes through Kashmir, and the build-up of Chinese infrastructure along the LAC, among other factors, is bound to keep the mistrust tethered. 

In the Chinese view, the major strategic motivation of this rapprochement is the multifaceted and growing rivalry with the United States. China has expressed this through its foreign policy that is highly oriented toward its east coast, especially with the strained relationships with Taiwan and the South China Sea as well as the technology conflict with the United States. A constantly war-like border of hot troops with India, a country of increasing might, is an expensive and risky strategic distraction. The possibility of an accidental escalation might spell out a disastrous two-front scenario to Beijing, requiring it to divert its military and diplomatic resources. 

Such a Chinese strategic outlook over time has demonstrated as scholar Yun Sun has described, stabilizing relations on one front to free up resources and attention to a more urgent theater. This renewed thaw with India is a sensible de-risking policy, which will help Beijing in reducing the risk of war toward its western flank and redeploy its resources in the central arena of its standoff with the US and its allies. This is also a tactical thrust toward undermining the already existing Western rhetoric of a lone and threatening China, being surrounded by a complete coalition of democratic nations.

To India, the practical effect is a reprieve and a powerful endorsement of its diplomacy. On a pragmatic level, the military and economic burdens of the standoff have been enormous, and the de-escalation of direct tensions enables the government to concentrate on economic recovery and its long-term program of military modernisation. 

On a diplomatic level, the biggest achievement is the endorsement of its valued principle of strategic autonomy. This detente is not an isolated bilateral phenomenon but is directly tied to the changing geopolitical environment, specifically tensions with the United States. It must be noted that the defrosting is occurring against a background of what many consider to be the worst period in Indian relations with the US executive in decades. The imposition of high tariffs on Indian products by the Trump administration in the US has revealed the shortcomings of a relationship that was being marketed as a counterweight to China. 

In this regard, China has already expressed its discontent with the tariffs and underscored the importance of collaboration between the two Asian powerhouses against unilateral bullying. This has given a strategic leverage that Beijing has seized upon. Engaging with China, New Delhi plays to its partners in the Quad that the application is not an unconditional commitment against any one nation but a collaboration founded in mutual interests in the Indo-Pacific. This stance empowers India by demonstrating that it can juggle its complicated relationship with China in its own way, making it an independent and dominant power.

Among the strategic questions that the thaw poses and mostly depends upon is whether China would re-evaluate its Pakistan policy. Islamabad is vacillating once again between Beijing and Washington. On the one hand, it has inaugurated CPEC Phase 2, pursuing higher Chinese investment in infrastructure. 

On the other, it is renewing contacts with Washington, where Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has overtly solicited US investments and is executing diplomatic overtures to the Trump administration. Pakistan, however, would always be an essential ally to Beijing: a strategic partner, a corridor to the Arabian Sea and a warm client to export arms and finance. China is the major source of Pakistani imports of arms and rollover loans continue to be a major source of fiscal stability in Islamabad. It is due to this factor alone that there can be no likelihood of Beijing weakening its strategic commitment. 

Optics may, however, change. Such a cautious rapprochement with India does not imply that China will give up Pakistan. The most plausible is that of policy dualism, where China is to remain good friends with Islamabad and chooses to accept a limited cooperation dimension with New Delhi. This reflects its longstanding capacity to compartmentalize: advancing economic relations with India at the same time as keeping closer defence relations with Pakistan.

With a relative calm on its northern frontier, India will have time for maneuvering the bumpy roads of Trump’s foreign policy. The US’ strategic interest in India beyond Trump is a strong, independent India capable of anchoring regional stability. A stable border allows India to focus its resources and strategic attention on the broader Indo-Pacific, directly aligning with US goals. Crucially, it proves the US-India relationship is non-transactional and not solely defined by the current geopolitical rejig. Prime Minister Modi’s proposed visit to China and its outcomes are likely to define or redefine the limits and potential of this thaw.

The author is a PhD Candidate at the School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi

Nepal’s rapid progress in digital finance is a well-documented success story. Mobile wallets and QR codes have fundamentally reshaped daily commerce, creating one of South Asia’s most dynamic payment infrastructure. This achievement has laid a vital foundation for a modern economy. Yet, this very success has created a significant imbalance. The nation's fintech ecosystem is heavily tilted toward payments, while the equally crucial domains of credit and investment remain underdeveloped.

While we have solved the problem of how to pay, the more pressing challenge of how to grow remains largely unaddressed by technology. This is more than a theoretical concern. It has tangible economic consequences. The country’s small and medium enterprises (MSMEs), the engine of job creation, face a credit gap estimated in the billions of dollars. Millions of households have savings in low-yield accounts that could be mobilized for productive investment. This imbalance represents a significant missed opportunity for fostering entrepreneurship, democratizing wealth, and accelerating economic growth.

The roots of this lopsided development are twofold: regulatory frameworks that haven’t kept pace with technology, and an institutional focus that has naturally prioritized payments. Key legislation like the Bank and Financial Institutions Act (BAFIA) was designed for a traditional banking era and lacks specific provisions for emerging models like digital-only lenders or peer-to-peer platforms. The Securities Act is similarly silent on innovations like crowdfunding or robo-advisory. This legal ambiguity leaves innovators in a grey area, unable to scale their solutions within a clear, regulated framework.

In addition to this, the institutional focus has logically centered on strengthening the payment systems, which has been essential. However, this has meant that the equally important areas of digital credit and investment have received less strategic impetus. The launch of the Regulatory Sandbox recently is a landmark step forward, but its initial focus on payments, while understandable, limits its potential. What was intended as a gateway for innovation risks becoming a walled garden if its scope is not expanded. To build a more resilient and dynamic digital economy, a balanced approach is essential. This requires a clear vision and decisive action on two fronts: modernizing policy and reimagining the tools for innovation.

First, the regulatory environment needs to evolve. A clear roadmap for amending key financial acts is necessary to create legal categories for new fintech players. This would provide them with a clear path from sandbox experimentation to full-scale, regulated operation, fostering responsible innovation while safeguarding the financial system. Alongside legislative updates, a more consolidated approach to fintech governance could be considered. A dedicated unit or department focused on the full spectrum of financial technology from payments to credit and investment could provide the specialized expertise and coherent policy direction needed to guide the market’s next phase.

Second, the Regulatory Sandbox should be empowered to become a true engine for full-spectrum innovation. Building on its initial success, its scope must be broadened. The next cohort of the sandbox could be transformative if it invited innovators to tackle the economy’s most significant gaps. Imagine a stream dedicated to MSME finance, testing PAN-based digital micro-loans that leverage alternative data to extend credit to viable businesses. Another could focus on retail investment, piloting robo-advisory services and micro-investment platforms to bring first-time savers into the capital markets. A third stream could enable regulated crowdfunding platforms, allowing the Nepali diaspora to invest directly in promising local startups.

Global experience shows this path is both practical and powerful. India has created specific licenses for P2P lenders, while Kenya’s M-Shwari pioneered mobile credit, demonstrating that innovation and regulation can and must evolve together. These examples provide proven models for safely incorporating new financial tools into the mainstream economy. The challenge now is to build upon the remarkable success of our payment infrastructure. Payments are the rails, but the real economic journey involves what runs on them: credit that fuels businesses, and investments that build wealth. By modernizing legal frameworks and expanding innovation initiatives, Nepal can correct its current imbalance. The goal is to create a financial system that is not only digitally efficient but also inclusive, dynamic, and capable of funding the nation's growth for decades to come. The time for this next digital leap is now.

The author is a director of Nepal Rastra Bank

Starting on 3 Nov 2017, the Université de Montréal, a premier higher education institution in North America and beyond, initiated an ambitious journey that involved hundreds of citizens that came together to discuss Artificial Intelligence.

In partnership with multiple stakeholders including the provincial and local governments and academic think tanks including the prestigious Mila—Quebec AI Institute, the goal of this exercise was ambitious and pioneering at the same time: defining the key ethical principles who should drive the development of AI.

Through multiple sessions covering different topics and themes, around 500 participants started discussing broad ranging ethical principles that should always be at the foundations of any discourse on AI. The whole undertaking was defined as a “collective”, an informal initiative where associations, think tanks, government agencies, academic institutions and citizens come together to discuss and deliberate on one of the most daunting topics of our society.

We are talking of an unprecedented technology with untapped potential that, at the same time, carries enormous risks. The shift towards an AI centered economy, if not properly and adequately managed could trigger tectonic consequences that can be devastating.

Nepal recently approved its first ever AI Policy. This is, without questions, an important milestone for the country but from here, where to go? How to ensure that this new document will be different from other policies that, almost by default, always struggle to get implemented? The new policy envisions also a set of new institutions like an AI Regulation Council and a National AI Center.

A new AI-driven and centered governance is being shaped but will these institutions be effective, meaningful and, importantly, inclusive? Will experts and citizens alike be enabled and allowed to participate beyond the usual tokenistic approaches? Like for climate change, our societies are utterly unprepared for what might happen with an unregulated AI.

As I wrote in this column a few weeks ago advocating for a new set of multi-stakeholder governance that can address the challenges of climate warming, I do believe that an emerging nation like Nepal that aspires to become a lower middle income economy over the next decade, must be prepared. Both challenges, climate and AI, will test the resilience of our systems.

Certainly, more developed and industrialized nations will have to face more daring times, especially in relation to the shocks their economies might suffer from a race to the bottom in which corporations will cut their work-force and rely more on AI agents. In both cases, the resilience of our political systems, especially in democratic settings like the ones Nepal is enjoying, could come under stress.

We are already aware of the risks associated with waves of social media driven waves of misinformation and disinformation. These problems are going to be further magnified by AI. That’s why we need to talk about a Just Transition, an important element of the climate discourse, also for the rollout of AI, ensuring that no one is left behind, including the most vulnerable classes.

Frankly speaking, the concept of leaving no one behind might be way too timid for a future dominated AI. Actually, the risks posed by the AI are more about crashing and rolling over millions of people rather than leaving them behind. In order to be able to tackle a potentially devastating scenario, the Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence based at Stanford University, has come up with a series of important research papers inspired by what the Founding Fathers of the American republic had done with the Federalist Papers.

Entitled the Digitalist Papers, the contributions, written by renown luminaries from across different disciplines, offer insights and suggestions to ensure that AI systems can, as Dario Amodei explained in a powerful essay, “Machines of Loving Grace”, be capable of doing incredible and so far unthinkable things for the benefits of humanity.

Amodei, the CEO and co-founder of Anthropic, is one of those sector leaders who are the most aware of the potential downside of an unrestricted, unethical turbocharging of AI systems. Among these essays that are aimed at rethinking America’s social compact and strengthening its democratic political systems in such a way that it can thrive in an era of AI, Lawrence Lessing, a legal scholar at Harvard Law School, penned “Protected Democracy”.

In an era where democracies are already being tested and are showing deep cracks in the system, Lessing calls for forums where citizens can discuss and deliberate without any undue influence and undeterred by the polarization that already is eroding the trust in democracies. He proposes the establishment of forms of “protected democracy” based on citizens being able to come together, discuss and deliberate based on reasons and facts. “Democratic choice requires participants engaging on the basis of a common understanding of a common set of facts. We already don’t have that; AI will give us even less” he wrote.

“We live now in an unprotected democracy. As we come to our views about what is to be done and who is to be supported, we are exposed to information by a media that has an agenda unrelated to crafting collective, coherent understanding”. Lessing thinks of citizens’ assemblies as forms of “protected assemblies”.

The risks associated with AI can derail the democratic fabric of the United States of America due to its power to further polarize the society by spreading misinformation, disinformation and overall turbocharging orchestrated campaigns of maligned political influence. It will also widen the equality gap because AI systems will be controlled by a miniscule group of powerful interests, a combination of political and economic actors within a few nations.

Lessing concludes,”We, as a people, are thus increasingly vulnerable politically to the effect of AI.” While the Digitalist Papers are focused on America, also developing nations, especially democracies like Nepal, must be prepared. That’s why it is important to start a conversation in a very structured fashion on how AI can shape the future development trajectories that Nepal is striving to achieve.

Deliberative democracy, a topic I often cover in my pieces, can truly make the difference in involving and engaging the people, especially the young ones, in a future where AI will increasingly play a significant role. Slowly the effects of AI systems that potentially might not be completely under human control whose outcomes cannot be understood (the problem of interpretability), will also be felt here in Nepal.

This is not a dystopian scenario but the phase in which AI reaches the level of Artificial General Intelligence, AGI that equals and exceeds human capacities, is not far from now. AGI will be the biggest scientific breakthrough that, as fascinating and as potentially scary as it will be, will represent a steppingstone for a further giant jump, the arrival of an inevitable superintelligence akin to what we watch now in the movies.

Internationally, there have been also discussions to create a Global Citizens Assembly focused on AI. ISWE Foundation, a leader in the promotion of transnational models of citizens’ deliberation, together with Connected by Data, has already conducted some studies. Can also the policy makers of Nepal imagine similar initiatives in which the people are empowered to first understand and second to decide how AI could be developed?

Because of its young generations who thrive in the digital world, Nepal could stop being a slow mover that just simply copycats the best practices. While it would be silly not to learn from the experiences matured by the major developed economies in the field of AI, Nepal must also take the lead. From a late adapter, the country could become a trailblazer at least in terms of showing the world that is doing its homework to lay down a pathway to harness AI for the benefit of its people.

On 4 Dec 2018, after a year of intensive debate, amid the cold of Quebec’s winter, the Montréal Declaration for a Responsible Development of Artificial Intelligence was endorsed. Its ten principles are centered on well-being, respect for autonomy, protection of privacy and intimacy, solidarity, democratic participation, equity, diversity inclusion, prudence, responsibility and lastly sustainable development. The declaration is a blueprint to guide any nation trying to develop a safe and secure AI framework.

It was a truly pioneer document that ensured some basic forms of legitimacy because citizens ‘participation was a key cornerstone to the whole initiative. Interestingly as a collective, the stakeholders involved in facilitating the discussions also conducted other activities including research and educational training on AI and human rights.

How will AI help transform Nepal? Will the country be able to gain from this new technology while minimizing its side effects or will the nation continue to blindly follow others without any homework? For AI to be a WIN WIN in the country, let’s involve and engage its citizens. The AI policy that the federal government just approved is important but the way it will be executed will be even more crucial.

When I was growing up in Kathmandu, science often felt distant and confined to textbooks. We memorized the contents for exams and conducted experiments in the labs with limited resources. We rarely talk about how we apply science in our daily lives, and the significance of scientific research in the advancement of the nation.

Today, as a PhD student in the United States, I see that gap more clearly than ever. A few months ago, I got an opportunity to visit the US Capitol in Washington, DC, to meet with the lawmakers as part of the science advocacy effort. During the visit, I talked about the necessity of investing in scientific research and how that is connected to better health and stronger societies. It was a surreal moment for someone who began an academic journey in Nepal. But more importantly, it made me understand how much Nepal can gain if we start valuing scientific research as part of our national development plan.

As I shared my journey as an international student from Nepal to the United States and my research on gut microbiota and high blood pressure with the staff of the lawmakers at Capitol Hill, they were all ears. I basically emphasized how investment in science can create not only opportunities for students like me, but it fuels discoveries that benefit people worldwide by finding solutions to problems that affect global health. What struck me the most was how the staff members listened attentively and promised to brief the lawmakers on our conversation regarding the inevitability of sustained investment in scientific research.  

So why does this matter in the context of Nepal?

It is because the challenges Nepal is facing are directly connected to science.

Take health, for example. Hypertension or high blood pressure and diabetes are common pressing issues that affect almost every household in Nepal. Thousands of people lose their lives to these conditions every year. It is not only shortening the lives of people but also burdening the family. Research can help us understand why these conditions are rising in Nepal and give us an idea to develop affordable and effective treatment strategies and prevent future incidence.

Or consider climate change. Nepal is on the frontline of its impacts. Floods and landslides are increasing, and air pollution in the major cities always exceeds the safe limits. These conditions affect our livelihood, economy, food and health systems, so they demand scientific solutions. We cannot be fully prepared to face these challenges by relying on foreign studies, which may not fully reflect Nepal’s geography and social structure. We need to have a culture of supporting scientific ideas and promoting national research.

This is where advocacy comes into play. Advocacy is not always about meeting with the members of parliament or government officials. It is about communicating science, which is understandable to everyone, and making the science visible. It could also mean explaining and communicating scientific ideas via articles, blog posts, podcasts or through videos in a layman’s language to the public, students and leaders. All these actions should reflect the importance of scientific research. Advocacy also includes visiting schools and colleges to inspire young minds, organizing science fairs or festivals and events. It could also mean urging the policymakers to stop seeing scientific research investment as an expense but a crucial requirement in the development of health, education and the national economy. The more openly we talk about science, research, and policy, the better prepared we become in addressing challenges that hold back scientific progress. 

On the bus ride back from Capitol Hill, I realized that scientific progress is often undervalued in Nepal. We still depend upon neighboring countries to import basic kits for research activities. We need to support national entrepreneurs to invest in developing research tools in their home country, so the budding scientists do not have to wait for months to get access to the research tools.

Our universities and schools are full of talented students and researchers, but without sufficient resources, funding, advocacy and support, meaning their talent hardly reaches the public or policymakers. We must value scientific research by supporting young scientists, funding local research projects and ensuring that scientific research outcomes are regularly discussed with the public and policymakers.

Through my own journey, I have come to believe that speaking up for science is as important as doing science. Through the American Physiological Society’s Early-career Advocacy Fellowship, I have been committed to strengthening my advocacy efforts, designing advocacy tools and writing for the public to become a long-term advocate for scientific research. Beyond this fellowship, I am writing science blog articles, visiting high schools to demonstrate science experiments and serving as a science fair judge. These experiences have deepened my belief that science belongs to all, not just to those who wear lab coats.

Science is not distant. It is in the medicines that save lives, the clean water that keeps us healthy and the policies that protect us from floods and pollution. Whether in the halls of the US Capitol or the classrooms of Kathmandu, the message is the same: science matters. If we are to meet the challenges of tomorrow as a nation, we must start advocating for and investing in research today.