Submit your Article

While the conclusion of a ‘highly productive’ visit of Sergio Gor, US President Donald Trump’s special envoy for South and Central Asia, on May 4 might seem like routine diplomacy, it takes on a sharper significance when paired with Assistant Secretary Samir Paul Kapur’s April engagement with the Balendra Shah government. Together, these back-to-back engagements signal a deliberate recalibration of US policy toward Nepal. At a time of intensifying regional rivalry, Washington is moving beyond traditional rapport, while Kathmandu appears increasingly determined to navigate this geopolitical competition on its own terms. 

The visits reflect a broader shift in the diplomatic grammar of South Asia, where smaller states such as Nepal are no longer treated merely as passive recipients of geopolitical attention, but as increasingly important strategic actors capable of managing external engagement on their own terms. The standalone nature of Kapur’s visit was itself diplomatically significant. Unlike previous senior US officials who often combined Nepal with wider regional tours, his direct visit to Kathmandu signaled that Nepal is gaining independent strategic relevance within Washington’s South Asia policy. Increasingly, the United States views smaller South Asian states—including Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, the Maldives, Pakistan and Sri Lanka—as geopolitically consequential because of their strategic location bordering Xinjiang, Tibet, and the Malacca Strait connectivity potential, and growing importance within the wider regional competition involving China, India, and the United States.

During the Feb hearing, the US House subcommittee emphasized bipartisan recognition that Nepal—strategically located between India and China—occupies a sensitive geopolitical position. Kapur had stated that preventing domination by any single power in South Asia is a core US objective.

“A hostile power dominating South Asia could exert coercive leverage over the world economy,” he said, adding the US must prevent this from happening and keep the region free and open.

Two visits, one pattern

The visit by S Paul Kapur—centered on political engagement, governance reform and institutional dialogue—effectively set the stage for Washington’s renewed outreach to Nepal. It reflected a traditional yet evolving US diplomatic approach: engage early with emerging political leadership, assess the direction of political transition and identify potential partners for long-term strategic and institutional cooperation. But the significance of Kapur’s visit extended far beyond routine diplomacy. It signaled Washington’s recognition that Nepal is no longer viewed merely as a peripheral bilateral partner, but increasingly as a strategically important state situated between India and China within the broader geopolitical competition shaping South Asia and the Indo-Pacific.

Kapur’s earlier congressional remarks underscored that preventing the domination of the region by any single power remains a core US strategic objective. The standalone nature of his Kathmandu visit was therefore diplomatically significant. Unlike previous senior US officials who often folded Nepal into wider regional tours, Kapur’s direct engagement suggested that Nepal is gaining independent strategic attention within Washington’s South Asia policy. Increasingly, the US views smaller South Asian states—including Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Bhutan and the Maldives—as geopolitically consequential because of their location, connectivity potential and exposure to external strategic competition. In that context, the Kapur visit also highlighted a broader reality: Nepal’s domestic political transitions are increasingly being interpreted internationally through a geopolitical and strategic lens rather than purely as internal democratic developments.

Gor’s visit builds on that foundation but shifts the emphasis. His engagements with Rabi Lamichhane, Shisir Khanal, and Swarnim Wagle were not just courtesy calls. They were targeted interactions with the nodes of political authority, economic policymaking including new US business opportunities in the dynamic tech sector, expanding commercial ties and reform momentum within the new government.

The messaging was consistent across both visits: Nepal’s current political moment—defined by a reform-oriented mandate—is an opportunity the United States does not intend to miss.

Washington’s playbook: Early engagement, economic anchoring

Taken together, these visits reflect a familiar but refined US playbook, which appears to pursue three interconnected objectives.

First, the United States sought to establish early political communication in political transition with the new administration and better understand its governing priorities and strategic orientation. By reaching out soon after the formation of a new government, Washington seeks to shape perceptions, build trust and secure a seat at the table as policies evolve.

Second, Washington aimed to anchor continuity in economic and strategic engagement, particularly regarding implementation of the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) Nepal Compact, expansion of US investment, trade cooperation, digital connectivity and broader economic partnerships rather than security. The prominence of discussions around investment climate reform, private sector growth and technology partnerships—alongside continued emphasis on the MCC compact—signals a deliberate choice. In a region sensitive to geopolitical signaling, economic cooperation offers a lower-friction entry point.

Third, and more strategically, the visit reflected growing US concern regarding the expansion of Chinese influence across South Asia by diversifying engagement beyond the immediate neighbors.

Both visits included interactions with business leaders and non-governmental actors, reflecting an understanding that influence in Nepal is not monopolized by formal political institutions.

This is not containment. It is not coercion. It is competitive engagement through opportunity.

The prime minister’s doctrine: Assertion of sovereign protocol

Yet, the most striking feature of Kapur and Gor’s visit was not what happened—but what did not. The Prime Minister and the President did not meet the US envoys, maintaining a position that he would not engage with officials below a certain rank and would prioritize domestic governance over diplomatic interactions.

This is more than a scheduling decision. It is a doctrinal signal.

Nepal, under its current leadership, appears to be experimenting with a new diplomatic posture—one that emphasizes hierarchy, selectivity and sovereign confidence. The intent is understandable. For decades, Nepal’s foreign policy has often been reactive, shaped by external pressures and internal fragility. A more assertive approach seeks to correct that imbalance.

In principle, this reflects a maturing state: one that chooses when and how to engage, rather than responding to every overture.

But diplomacy is as much about timing and signaling as it is about principle.

Between principle and pragmatism

Neither the Head of the State nor the Head of the Government had a talk with the two US officials, pointing out a stiffness between protocol and pragmatism.

On one hand, it reinforces: a message of dignity and self-respect; a departure from aid-dependent optics and a focus on internal governance as the primary national priority.

But on the other hand, it raises questions: does rigid adherence to hierarchy risk missing strategic opportunities? Could it create perceptions of inaccessibility among key partners? Does it limit Nepal’s ability to shape external narratives at critical moments?

In practice, even major powers exercise flexibility when strategic engagement demands it. For a country like Nepal—situated between competing global and regional interests—the cost of missed conversations can outweigh the benefits of strict protocol.

The economic battleground: Where influence will be decided

Both visits converge on a central theme: Nepal’s future partnerships will be decided in the economic domain. Discussions on investment climate reforms, technology collaboration, infrastructure development and private sector expansion are not peripheral—they are the core of modern geopolitical competition.

The focus on Nepal’s tech sector and the demonstration of drone technology in Sagarmatha operations highlight a subtle but important shift. The US is not merely offering aid; it is positioning itself as a partner in innovation ecosystems.

This approach has two advantages. One, it aligns with Nepal’s aspirations for economic transformation and it avoids triggering geopolitical anxieties associated with overt strategic or military engagement. In effect, the US is saying: partnership without pressure, opportunity without overt alignment.

Cultural diplomacy: The quiet reinforcer

Amid the strategic and economic discussions, the return of the Akshobhya Buddha statue stands out as a quieter but deeply significant gesture. Cultural restitution is not transactional; it is relational.

Such actions build long-term goodwill, reinforce trust beyond policy cycles and position the US as a respectful partner in heritage and identity. In a country like Nepal, where culture and sovereignty are closely intertwined, these gestures carry weight that often exceeds their immediate visibility.

The regional context: A crowded strategic space

These developments cannot be viewed in isolation. Nepal today sits at the intersection of intensifying multiple strategic currents—US-China competition, India’s enduring strategic centrality and the broader recalibration of South Asian geopolitics.

What distinguishes the current moment is not the presence of external interest—but its diversification.

Unlike previous eras, where geopolitical engagement often came with clear alignments, today’s environment is more fluid. Economic projects, technological partnerships, and institutional reforms have become the primary instruments of influence.

For Nepal, this presents both an opportunity and a challenge.

The strategic imperative for Nepal

The convergence of visits by Samir Paul and Sergio Gor underscores a simple reality: Nepal always matters more today than it did a decade ago—not as a battleground, but as a partner space.

The question is not whether Nepal will be engaged. It is how Nepal will manage that engagement.

Three strategic imperatives stand out. One is calibrated engagement when Nepal must engage all partners—India, China, the US, and others—through structured and transparent frameworks. Selectivity is useful, but it must not become exclusion.

Second is flexible diplomacy. Protocol should guide diplomacy, not constrain it. Strategic flexibility allows Nepal to extract maximum benefit without compromising dignity.

Third is issue-based alignment. Rather than aligning with powers, Nepal should align with issues: infrastructure, energy, technology, governance reform. This reduces geopolitical risk while maximizing developmental gains.

Conclusion: Convergence or drift?

The back-to-back engagements by US officials signal intent: Washington is ready to invest—politically, economically and symbolically—in Nepal’s transition.

Kathmandu, meanwhile, is signaling something equally important—a desire to redefine how it is engaged.

Whether these two trajectories converge will determine the future of the relationship.

If managed well, Nepal can transform external interest into internal strength—leveraging partnerships without becoming dependent on them. If mismanaged, the gap between engagement and assertion could widen into quiet misalignment.

In the end, diplomacy is not about who visits or who declines to meet. It is about whether those interactions—taken together—advance national interest.

Nepal stands at a moment where it can do precisely that. The question is whether it will choose adaptation over rigidity, and strategy over symbolism.

The author is a Major General (retired) of the Nepali Army and a strategic affairs analyst. He is also a researcher and is affiliated with Rangsit University in Thailand

As we observe Law Day on May 9, it is a moment not just for celebration, but also for honest reflection. The day marks the enforcement of the Supreme Court Act and symbolizes our commitment to the rule of law. Yet, an uncomfortable question remains: have we truly succeeded in enforcing our legal mandates in both letter and spirit?

Many argue that Nepal’s commitment to the rule of law still falls short of what our Constitution promises. Laws look impressive when written, but they lose their meaning if they remain only in books. When legal provisions are not followed in practice, they become little more than decorative words.

Take, for instance, the clear constitutional provision under Article 132, which bars former Justices or Chief Justices of the Supreme Court from holding government positions. Despite this, we have witnessed instances that appear to contradict this mandate. During the 2013 Constituent Assembly elections, former Chief Justice Khil Raj Regmi simultaneously held the position of Chief Justice and head of the executive (while the legislature was in a state of animated suspension). 

Such events raise serious concerns about separation of power and constitutional compliance.

Another example lies in the formation of oversized cabinets in the past, which seem to go beyond the limits envisioned under Article 76. When constitutional provisions are bent or ignored for political convenience, it weakens public trust in governance.

Fate of fundamental rights

The gap between enactment and enforcement is more visible in everyday life. Article 30 of the Constitution guarantees every citizen the right to a clean environment. Yet, pollution continues to affect cities and towns across the country.

Likewise, the Constitution guarantees the right to employment, but hundreds of youths leave Nepal every day in search of jobs abroad. If rights exist only on paper, can we truly say they exist at all?

The same can be said about the right to housing. Many citizens still struggle to find adequate shelter despite this being a fundamental right. As consumers, people are frequently overcharged, with prices of goods varying widely from one shop to another without transparency. Restaurants and hotels often charge arbitrarily, raising questions about the enforcement of consumer protection laws.

Political appointments

The Constitution also envisions fair and merit-based appointments in public offices. However, reality often tells a different story. Many individuals appointed (in previous governments) to key positions have strong political affiliations rather than proven competence.

It is not uncommon to find that loyalty to political parties outweighs merit and qualifications. This creates a system where capable individuals are overlooked, while less qualified individuals are elevated.

Question of rule of law

This situation reflects what legal scholar AV Dicey warned about when he discussed the rule of law. He emphasized that laws must not only exist but must also be applied equally and fairly. If political influence dominates legal processes, the very foundation of the rule of law is shaken.

It raises a deeper question: are we moving toward a “rule of law” or merely a “rule by law”? The difference is crucial. The rule of law ensures fairness, accountability and equality before the law. Rule by law uses laws as tools to serve those in power.

The consequences of this gap are visible. Many young people feel disappointed and see no future within the country. They look abroad for opportunities, believing that merit is better recognized elsewhere.

Even within the bureaucracy and other sectors, frustration grows when capable individuals remain stuck while others rise through political connections.

So, has the system failed us, or have we failed the system? The answer likely lies somewhere in between. Political leaders often act in their own interests, but citizens, institutions, and watchdog bodies also have a role in demanding accountability.

Law Day should not be reduced to a symbolic event marked by speeches and ceremonies. It should serve as a reminder that laws must be implemented, not just written. Observing Law Day without ensuring implementation risks turning it into an empty ritual.

Way forward

If Nepal is serious about strengthening democracy, it must commit to implementing the Constitution fully and faithfully. This means respecting constitutional limits, ensuring merit-based appointments, protecting fundamental rights and holding violators accountable—regardless of their position.

Otherwise, the gap between promise and practice will only widen. And, if that happens, the celebration of Law Day will lose its meaning, becoming just another date on the calendar rather than a true reflection of justice in action.

In a country where many people still face problems like distance, poverty and language barriers in reaching the courts, Law Day reminds the government that “justice delayed is justice denied.”

Law Day acts as a guiding light for the nation. The 2015 Constitution brought major changes in how power is shared, and the judiciary now plays a key role in settling important political disputes.

It also shows that no matter how serious political instability may be, the Constitution remains supreme. The day honors the strength of legal institutions that have continued through many changes—from monarchy to republic, and from conflict to peace.

As we celebrate the Rato Machhindranath Jatra, the biggest and longest festival of Patan, it is worth pausing to recognize that this festival is not merely celebration and fanfare, but carries a much deeper meaning, carefully embedded by our ancestors.

The story behind the Jatra goes that saint Gorakhnath once came to the valley seeking alms during planting season. The residents, busy with their work, paid him no attention. Enraged, he meditated and trapped all the nagas of the valley. Since nagas were closely associated with rainfall, the Kathmandu Valley saw no rain for several seasons, leading to famine. To remedy this, the king and a renowned tantric devised a plan to bring Gorakhnath’s own guru, knowing the saint would rise to pay respect, releasing the nagas in the process. 

The king, tantric, and a porter traveled to bring Karunamaya, also known as Lokeshwor or Machhindranath. The all-merciful guru, moved by the suffering of the valley’s people, agreed. His essence was transferred into an idol and carried in a chariot procession. Upon seeing his guru, Gorakhnath immediately rose and released the nagas, bringing rain back to the valley. This is why Rato Machhindranath is revered as the god of rain and provider of food.

Woven into this story is one of the most powerful demonstrations of the valley's culture-based water management, or the Hiti system. Though commonly referred to as dhunge-dhara in Nepali, the stone spouts are only one part of a larger network. The Hiti system encompassed state canals (rajkulo), ponds (pokhari), natural aquifers, pipes, and stone spouts, working together to ensure year-round water access, enable groundwater recharge, and reduce urban flooding.

The Jatra itself is deeply tied to this system. Before the chariot procession begins, all major ponds in and around Patan must be filled with water. Since the procession takes place during the dry months, the only way to fill them is through the state canals—meaning their maintenance must be completed every year before the Jatra begins. The procession route, too, reflects this connection. It begins at the strategically located Kamalpokhari of Pulchowk and rests at Purnachandi Pukhu of Gabahal, then at Nuga-Hiti (Sundhara), Langa-Pukhu (Lagankhel), and finally ends near Jawlakhel Hiti and Pukhu.

Each resting point carries ritual significance. At Nuga-Hiti, water from the spout is used in the daily ritual of Lord Machhindranath, as it is at Tangah Hiti, Lagan Hiti, and Jawalakhyo Hiti. In effect, the Jatra cannot proceed unless all Hiti infrastructure is sound and functioning. By embedding water stewardship within religious practice, the festival transforms maintenance from a mundane task into a sacred act of devotion, generating genuine community ownership.

The wisdom embedded in the Jatra goes even further. Beyond annual upkeep, larger maintenance works are needed periodically, and this too is woven into the tradition: every twelve years, major water works are carried out, mirrored by the renewal of the chariot itself, which is built anew and pulled all the way from Bungamati to Lalitpur.

The Jatra also served as a vehicle for intergenerational knowledge transfer. Young people learned where water came from and why it mattered through participation, not textbooks.

Modern urban development in Kathmandu has largely abandoned this integrated approach. Ponds have been filled for construction, underground canals severed by roads, and recharge zones overlooked in land-use planning. Water is now treated as a commodity delivered through pipes, rather than a system sustained by nature and culture together. The consequences are visible: falling groundwater levels and growing dependence on distant, expensive sources.

Learning from our ancestors, Kathmandu must move toward a more sustainable water future. Traditional systems should be recognized not only as heritage monuments but as active components of urban water strategy. Protecting ponds, mapping underground canals, promoting groundwater recharge, and safeguarding aquifers must become integral to development and land-use planning. Equally important, the cultural practices tied to water must be preserved alongside physical restoration—they are the social fabric that ensures long-term care. Recognizing that earlier societies managed scarcity through balance rather than extraction can help reshape the development mindset of today.

As we celebrate the Rato Machhindranath Jatra this year, let us also pause and reflect on the profound wisdom of those who came before us.

Human thinking is largely constricted today, with many people thoughtlessly running behind money, market, merit, masculinity and muscle, along with a deep-rooted sense of ‘me’, ‘my’ and ‘mine’.

For most of them, the most important thing, perhaps, is to ‘earn’ popularity, rather than to ‘learn’ the reality—the reality of the self and innate nature. Learning of ‘thoughtfulness’ and ‘cognizance’ have been an elective list in many. Human thinking, thus far, is not instinct-rich regarding the “purpose of a profound life” and the corresponding “purity of intention”. Thankfully, a few are precisely thinking about materializing inner energy, stillness, introspection, intellect, insight, thought and forethought. 

Every insightful notion, discovery, novelty, and great mission is stirred by profound thoughts. These sentient thoughts are the instinctive thoughts, which help foster greatness, ecstasy, silence, opulence and vastness, leading to a profound visceral connection. One thought—a conscious thought—cannot only re-attune your life but also rectify society, nation, the universe, and humankind. Your thoughts and mind substantially resemble who you are. Yet, you are not your thought. Neither are you in your mind. You may be your conscious thought. In essence, you are your consciousness, preaching some philosophies. Nevertheless, your thoughts will determine who you are going to be. How you think, how you act, and how you behave in the present are the major traits that cannot only recalibrate your life, but also define your ‘future you’. 

“What you think you become”, said Buddha in his teachings. Our becoming is largely directed or shaped by our thought, while “right understanding” comes first. Buddha’s Noble Eightfold Path begins from right understanding and right thought as: “From right understanding proceeds right thought; from right thought proceeds right speech; from right speech proceeds right action; from right action proceeds right livelihood; from right livelihood proceeds right effort; from right effort proceeds right awareness; from right awareness proceeds right concentration; from right concentration proceeds right wisdom; from right wisdom proceeds right liberation.” Subsequently, the precise understanding and conscious thought could lead to emancipation. 

We have been mastering our thoughts since we entered modern civilization. Every thinker and philosopher, since ancient times, believes that, “The human mind is an instrument that solves problems”, while many of them assert, “Quality of thought determines the quality of life”, writes D. Foroux in “Think Straight: Change Your Thought, Change Your Life”. When you observe life through a mathematical lens, your thoughts, actions and behaviors are the inputs to the function of your life. Even if the inputs are subjective, the output would be deterministic (as like computation in a machine). Sensibly, when positive thoughts, actions and behaviors are repeated in life, you are likely to get analogous output in every computation of your life processes, writes M. Tegmark in “Life 3.0: Being Human in the Age of Artificial Intelligence”. Conversely, when the negative thoughts are encoded as input to the mind, the outcome would go adverse or contradictory. The mind, however, loves to be in a visceral state of calmness and consciousness, but your diverse thoughts circumnavigate it into the waves of upheaval. 

Every objective phenomenon of your physical life (called the body) is controlled by an unseen subjective entity (called the mind). Your thoughts navigate the mind, while the mind controls the thoughts. The mind is again controlled by another mind—called “consciousness”, while the conscious mind is again believed to be navigated by “super-consciousness”. Whereas emotions are linked with the body and brain as well.  “Since there is intrinsic mind-body connection, your thoughts, feelings, beliefs, attitudes, and emotions can largely affect the overall bodily biological functioning—both positively and negatively” (Jimenez). The health of the physical body significantly influences the health of our mental state and vice-versa. Positive thoughts, feelings, beliefs and attitude in mind call for good health in the body; and the good health of body recalls positive thoughts, feelings, beliefs and attitude in the mind. This process goes on incessantly recursively as you feed on positive thoughts into your mind, while good thinking begets better thinking.

After all, thoughts control most of the mechanisms in your body such as raising or lowering the heart rate; improving or interfering the digestion; changing the chemical composition of blood; making you happy or sad, alert and aware, or distracted and depressed; making you positive and negative, well or ill, hero or coward, victim or victor, successful or failure, respected or ignored among others, writes B. Tracy in “Change Your Thinking, Change Your Life: How to Unlock Your Full Potential for Success and Achievements”. The actions governed by your thoughts determine your life. Prominently, the thoughts are entirely under your control.

Aristoteles, Aristocles and Siddhartha Gautam were not transformed into Aristotle, Plato and Buddha by fluke. They did not easily gain their introspection just by waking up the next morning; while their consciousness, self-examination, and their ability to think their ‘own thoughts’ were the result of owing their inner voices, writes M. Sigman in “The Secret of Life of the Mind: How our Brain Thinks, Feels and Decides”. People, perhaps, had less or no idea regarding thought, perception, reasoning and consciousness before Aristotle, Plato and Buddha. Their ideas, knowledge and thoughts have been transmitted across an infinite span of space and time, and across our minds, argues Sigman. Later on, Einstein revolutionized our thought and understanding of the universe, space and time; Karl Marx added dynamism in understanding the society and economy; while Mahatma Gandhi introduced a sense in understanding peace and humanity. Subsequently, we all have Aristotle, Plato, Buddha, Einstein, Marx and Gandhi within us today, and we can claim “there I am”. There are several others whose thoughts have significantly contributed in transforming the people, society, nation and the world in our generations too. This is certainly because of their astonishing contribution to human civilization. 

The structural aspects of human thoughts have been gradually transformed due to their input, which has subsequently shaped human civilization today. With time, people have started recognizing their own strengths, inner voice, intellect, potentials and innermost intelligence. 

Yet people had no idea regarding the “working mechanisms of human thinking” nearly a century ago until the two psychologists—Sigmund Freud and Jean Piaget—developed a theory of human development (psychoanalytic theory and cognitive-developmental theory), writes M. Minsky in “The Society of Mind”. Then mathematicians—Kurt Godel and Alan Turing—propounded mechanical theory on computability of machines in the 1930s where they began to study an “abstract machine” that had all the capabilities of today’s computer. By combining these two theories, Warren McCulloch and Walter Pitts started theorizing on machine thinking and learning in the 1940s. 

The Boolean algebra enabled the modern researchers in bringing cognitive and information revolution to the present stage. The grammars or rules associated with logics and ideas are largely rooted in the Boolean algebra. The grammars in today’s highly algorithmic language, which are suitable for computational applications, are considered from the language of Sanskrit grammar formalized by Panini. This grammar is widely applicable for AI due to its ‘highly structured’, ‘logical’ and ‘unambiguous nature’, essentially to operate as a “programming language” for human thought. 

George Boole envisioned to analyze all the cognitions of today’s computer even before the invention of today’s computing devices, while the insights from Boole, Turing and Neumann to the modern understanding of information, thinking and intelligence itself is an amazing combination of Mathematics, Physics, Information Theory and Psychology, writes R J King in the article “Thinking about Thinking”. John von Neumann gifted the concept of mathematics along with Quantum Theory, Automata Theory (Mathematical model of computation in today’s computer), Economics, Defense Planning and Game Theory, which conceptually help invent digital computer (Neumann, Turing and Claude Shannon together materialized the idea of digital computer). 

Meanwhile Alan Turing proposed a mathematical machine called the ‘Turing Machine’ to model brain function, which turned out significantly useful in studying the ‘computability’ and ‘complexity’ of machines (Rosen, 2001). Turing Machines then could address the two important issues of today’s computer—“what can a computer do at all” and “what can a computer do efficiently”—known as ‘computability’ and ‘complexity’ of a computer respectively (Hopcropt, Motwani, Ullman, 2003). The research on machine intelligence started only in the 1950s, while John McCarthy coined the term ‘Artificial Intelligence’ at a Dartmouth Computer Conference in 1956 (Russell & Norvig, 2010). Since then the unprecedented pace of technological change has brought dramatic transformation in human thought, life and civilization.

Though humans have developed highly intelligent machines, their own sense of intelligence is, perhaps, in a critical juncture, today: will humans be able to shape the future of their mind (rationality and critical thinking) and ensure collective wellbeing? 

The second part of this article will appear next week