Submit your Article

In the evening of 1 June 2001, the fragrance of roses hung thick in the gardens of Narayanhiti Palace. Inside of the palace, chandeliers cast a warm glow over the assembled royals, their laughter punctuated by the clinking of silverware. Then, a horror unfolded. Gunshots echoed through the billiard room and in a matter of time, Nepal’s monarchy lay in ruins. Its crown splattered with blood.

It was a turning point. Gyanendra, the last monarch of the Shah dynasty, ascended the throne that had already lost its magic. By the early 2000s, the Maoist insurgency had seized control of most of Nepal’s rural areas. Additionally, pro-democracy protests were gaining momentum. The 2006 People’s Movement—Jana Andolan II, which peaked on 4 April 2006, marking its 19th anniversary this week—saw hundreds of thousands, forcing the reinstatement of parliament. In 2008, under overwhelming public and political pressure, Nepal’s Constituent Assembly abolished the monarchy with 560 out of 601 lawmakers voting in favor. The change was not only for removing the king but also for ensuring stability, economic growth and democratic accountability.

A republic on crumbling ground

In March thus, Nepal witnessed perhaps the largest pro-monarchy demonstration after 2008—with protests erupting around Kathmandu Airport and Tinkune. Thousands marched on the streets of Kathmandu, holding portraits of Prithvi Narayan Shah and demanding the restoration of the monarchy. In the pro-monarch demonstration, two people had lost their lives, and many suffered injuries. But this was not just a call for the return of the king but a reflection of a deeper crisis.

One clear reason behind the public frustration was political instability. Since 2008, Nepal has seen 14 different prime ministers, with the current Prime Minister KP Oli alone holding the office three times and Nepali Congress president Sher Bahadur Deuba five times, and Maoist leader Pushpa Kamal Dahal three times.

This makes an average prime ministerial tenure 14.6 months per prime minister.

An increasing number of Nepalis have begun to question the political legitimacy of the parties and their top leaders, if not the polity. Elections are conducted, manifestos are prepared, and promises are made. However, corruption, inefficiency, and economic stagnation persist. In the 2024 Corruption Perceptions Index, Nepal ranked 110th out of 180 countries, indicating a significant corruption challenge within its public sector. The economy runs on remittances, contributing over 23 percent of GDP and domestic employment opportunities at times remain dismal. This dysfunction fuels a dangerous nostalgia. But the question that Nepalis must ask themselves is not whether monarchy was better but why the republic has failed.

The Hindu kingdom question

The demand for the monarchy’s return is also entangled with Nepal’s unresolved identity crisis. The 2015 Constitution declared Nepal as a secular country, a decision that was hailed abroad but was contested at home. For centuries, the kings of Nepal were not just political rulers but also the upholders of Hindu nationalism. Prithvi Narayan Shah called Nepal ‘Asal Hindustan,’ the last stronghold of Hindu civilization. His successors tied the monarchy to religion. When Nepal became secular, the monarchy was abolished, but the debate over national identity continued.

Meanwhile, the deposed king, Gyanendra Shah, has maintained a careful presence, attending religious and cultural events while avoiding presence in the mass rallies—including both at the airport and Teenkune. In a political climate where symbolism matters, this strategy has kept him relevant in the eyes of the people who are questioning the relevance of the parties. But this alone does not provide monarchy the political legitimacy, given its feudal history in Nepal, as a symbolic unitary state. In the recent pro-monarchist rallies, one of the most heard slogans have been, “One language, one attire. Our king, our country!”

The 30 years of the Panchayat rule was far from a golden age. The monarchy ruled without accountability, suppressing the opposition, censoring the press, outlawing political parties, with a singular emphasis on national uniformity. The economy declined, power remained concentrated in a select elite, and inequality deepened. When the king attempted to seize absolute control in 2005, many saw him as the authoritarian ruler.

This is the paradox of Nepal’s right-wing resurgence. The current protests are not a wholehearted endorsement of royal rule. They are more an indictment of a dysfunctional democracy—the federal democratic republic the 2015 constitution enshrined. 

Is Nepal on the verge of restoring its monarchy? No. And it shouldn’t be.

The monarchy fell in 2008 because it was undemocratic, outdated and incapable of addressing the aspiration of a modern population. The solution to Nepal’s current crisis is not to retreat into history but to confront the failures of the present. The recent protests send a clear warning: Nepal’s leaders cannot assume that democracy is secure simply because Nepalis once stood overwhelming in its favor.

Any polity is not just a system; it is a contract with the people. That contract is being questioned every day by corruption, political instability and a stagnant economy. The protests were not about a longing for a king; they are a demand for accountability.

Deeply ingrained historical, cultural, and geographical links define the civilizational relationship between India and Nepal. Formally expressed via the 1950 Treaty of Peace and Friendship, this bilateral engagement has provided an unmatched degree of permeability between two sovereign governments, enabling the free flow of people and products across an open border spanning 1,770 kilometres. Notwithstanding these apparently tight connections, the relationship has been characterized by occasional conflict, mutual misunderstanding, and diplomatic congestion. Although physical closeness and cultural familiarity should ideally promote smooth collaboration, in practice, India-Nepal ties are nevertheless delicate and vulnerable to both internal political changes and regional forces. This article aims to investigate alternative answers based on existing frameworks and empirical observations as well as to grasp the structural and dependent elements causing these obstructions.

The territorial dispute over Kalapani, Limpiyadhura, and Lipulekh is among the most delicate and persistent causes of disagreements. When India published an updated political map including the disputed areas in 2019, this problem became much more severe. Nepal responded with its map and a constitutional change, thereby supporting its assertions. In Nepal, this move stoked nationalistic fervor and turned into a gathering place for claiming historical identity and sovereignty. It shows how closely conflicts over territory—especially in post-colonial states—are related to issues of nationhood and historical recognition rather than just legal or administrative ones.

This escalation also emphasizes the more significant trend in nationalist politics affecting bilateral ties. Domestically, political players in both India and Nepal have been turning more and more to foreign policy issues to inspire popular support. In Nepal, criticism of India often finds prosperous footing in nationalist narratives that show India as an obstructive force. Although these stories are not necessarily based on reality, their resonance comes from past grievances and the more extensive background of imbalance. In India, however, there is a tendency in strategic circles to see Nepal’s actions as either reactive or shaped by outside players. When free from diplomatic communication, such opinions may harden policy stances and limit the area for compromise.

Another significant bottleneck in the relationship is Nepal’s evolving engagement with China. China has significantly expanded its presence in Nepal during the last ten years by means of diplomatic outreach, economic support, and infrastructural projects. Seeing a chance to diversify its economic alliances and lessen reliance on India, Nepal has accepted China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Nevertheless, it did not bore much fruit to Nepal. In New Delhi, where worries about Chinese intrusion in the Himalayan area have developed, this realignment has not gone unseen. From Kathmandu's vantage point, interacting with China is a hedging and strategic autonomy-boosting tactic. It aims to strike a balance between two big powers, thereby preventing too much reliance on one.

This captures the dynamics of small-state conduct in international relations, especially the idea of ‘soft balancing’, in which smaller governments try to increase their autonomy by including many partners without open conflict. Nepal’s China outreach also shows an effort to change its growth story, presenting itself not only as a dependent neighbour but also as a growing transit centre between India and China. This change for India calls for a review of its strategic posture. India would be better off improving its attractiveness with dependable infrastructure delivery, open project management, and culturally sensitive diplomacy with Kathmandu.

India has shown both technical know-how and readiness to co-develop responses in water resource cooperation. The great hydropower potential of Nepal offers the area transforming prospects. India has funded significant hydropower projects such as Arun III and Upper Karnali, therefore offering not just financial help but also grid connection and market access. Some cooperative ventures have delays that result not from a lack of purpose but rather from the complexities of transboundary water management. In renegotiating agreements, India has shown willingness and flexibility to guarantee that Nepali issues are resolved and profits are fairly distributed. 

The bilateral dynamic is powerfully shaped by ethnic politics as well, especially in connection to the Madhesi community in Nepal’s Tarai area. Historically excluded from Nepal’s political mainstream, the Madhesis have significant cultural and family links to those living in northern regions of India. Their demands for linguistic rights, federal reorganisation, and proportional representation have set off periodic outbreaks of internal strife. The complexity results from these internal issues permeating bilateral relations. While India views itself as supporting democratic values and minority rights, Nepal has seen India’s comments of support for Madhesi’s inclusion as an intervention in domestic affairs. This sensitive problem emphasises how foreign policy and home politics interact. After the civil war, state-building initiatives in Nepal have required a reconsideration of citizenship, identity, and representation. Cross-border ethnic connections can result in hopes of moral or diplomatic assistance in India. Handling these calls for great care. India needs to stress quiet diplomacy and people-to-person interaction in this case.

With these stacked difficulties, which paths may be followed for a more steady and cooperative relationship? First, bilateral communication has to be institutionalised right now. Although ad hoc conferences and high-level visits are valuable, they cannot replace organised systems of participation. Joint Commissions’ regular meetings, strategic conversations between foreign secretaries, and the rebirth of bilateral working groups on trade, water, and energy can help to provide continuity and lower misperceptions. Scholarly research on international regimes emphasises how crucial ongoing engagement is to building confidence and lowering diplomatic transaction costs.

Second, economic interconnection has to be extended and strengthened beyond conventional industries. In recent years, India has made admirable progress in building cross-border rail connections, starting a petroleum pipeline from Motihari to Amlekhgunj, and setting integrated checkpoints. Other areas like digital infrastructure, educational exchanges, and tourism should have these ideas expanded and duplicated. Economic cooperation should be considered as a vehicle for the empowerment of Nepal’s development aspirations as much as a tool for influence. Here, theories of complicated interdependence are informative, stressing the variety of channels and the role non-state players play in maintaining peaceful interactions.

Cooperation on water resources calls for a paradigmatic change. Pursues of joint development should centre on environmental sustainability, equality, and openness. Project agreements and bilateral treaties have to be negotiated inclusively with local populations and interested parties. Establishing dispute-resolution systems and cooperative environmental assessment agencies would also help to build confidence. Other areas, including the Mekong basin, where transboundary cooperation is controlled by multi-stakeholder systems balancing growth with sustainability, might provide lessons as well.

Ultimately, structural inequalities, changing geopolitical alignments, and deeply ingrained political sensitivity restrict India-Nepal relations, even if they have traditionally been close and profoundly nuanced. Though they are not insurmountable, the obstacles in the way of collaboration call for a change in institutional involvement, policy instruments, and attitude. Mutual respect, strategic empathy, and an awareness of Nepal’s sovereign goals will form the foundation of a forward-looking, sustainable cooperation. Through cooperative development, inclusive diplomacy, and long-term trust-building, India and Nepal can overcome regular difficulties and create a robust and future-oriented alliance.

From an anthropological perspective, health is largely viewed as a state of physical, mental and social well-being shaped by a complex interplay of biological, environmental and social cultural factors. The scholarly contributions of anthropology in understanding health and illness narratives, social inclusion, equity and diversity are monumental and profoundly innovative. More importantly, the social, cultural, economic, political and environmental determinants of health are deeply entwined, influencing and shaping each other in complex and challenging ways.
 

My recent ethnographic field research in Raksirang of Makwanpur was an interesting and humbling experience in terms of exploring health and illness narratives of indigenous and socially-excluded communities such as Chepangs. Moreover, my intellectual curiosity was to understand how local governments have been responsive to these communities in terms of inclusive policies to enhance their easy access to basic health care and other social protection services. 

Within and across societies, illness is largely viewed as a culturally interpreted subjective experience of becoming unwell. Such an experience is influenced by a range of factors such as age, gender, social status and access to health care. Additionally, indigenous knowledge and practices are deeply embedded in social and gender relations, cultural norms, values and religions. 

The ethnographic insights from the fieldwork have offered new frameworks for examining and exploring how indigenous communities are organized, and their knowledge, understanding and experiences of health care are shaped by cultural norms and social hierarchies.
 

Seeking health care is largely a social process. The way people and health care providers interact is influenced by culture. Interactions such as eye contact and language are also important to make people more comfortable in accessing health care. The systemic barriers such as discrimination or bias often yield worse health outcomes. 

The intersection of health and illness is an interesting area of exploration. It helps explain how relationships and power dynamics within and across social structures in local health systems have enabled or constrained the agency of the local communities in accessing health care. 

My understanding on reflective approach to ethnography was meaningful in terms of enriching ethnographic data and ensuring a more nuanced understanding of local perspectives on inclusive health governance.
 

Listening to interesting stories of Chepangs about their health and illness narratives, my questions about why they do the way they do are variously answered. The stories about illness are not just accounts of personal experience but also reflect cultural values and beliefs about health and healing. Their age-old practices to seek health care from natural resources, traditional healers, religious and spiritual leaders do exist. But they have started to visit health facilities and consult with health workers or volunteers for health care.
 

Michael Taussig, a doctor and anthropologist, argues that understanding illness requires attention not only to biomedical models but also to the subjective experiences of individuals who are ill. The emphasis is more on the importance of illness narratives in understanding local health care practices. By examining how people experience illness at a personal level, Taussig provides insight into how medical practices shape individual experiences and social structures.

Interestingly, the shamanic practices of the indigenous communities are culturally constructed and historically nurtured.  In recent years, with public health awareness, local government’s inclusive priorities for health, education and improved infrastructure such as housing, rural road, water and sanitation and telecommunications, the livelihoods of indigenous communities have greatly improved. 

Instead of a health post, now there is a rural hospital in Raksirang which has good health infrastructure and trained human resources. Local government provides additional allowance to mothers who are pregnant and deliver in hospital to encourage the communities for institutional delivery and immunizations. Nutrition allowance to families is another local initiative to address malnutrition and other social protection services in need.

Despite noted progress, the reality is still different. Poor and socially marginalized communities in remote areas of Raksirang have limited access to essential health care. There are little efforts exploring how individuals and communities perceive, experience and cope with what they understand about illness. Moreover, the importance of understanding local healing traditions and practices is overlooked as it can impact how the communities respond to illness or disease.

Going beyond biology, a more holistic understanding of health and illness is required in the changed socio-political context. More specifically, there needs to be a more inclusive and reflexive understanding of political leaders, officials of local government, health workers and civil society activists to promote intersectionality approach in planning and delivering health care services. 

In addressing most pressing health challenges, anthropological perspectives can contribute to shape the future of health and social well-being by developing culturally appropriate interventions and advocating for health equity. Evidence suggests that social, economic and political structures have profound implications on health outcomes. Moreover, social inequalities significantly contribute to health disparities and social injustice within and across social groups.

As we move forward, a broader socio-cultural approach helps local governments to be more creative, accountable and responsive to the unmet health care needs of communities which are culturally appropriate. Moreover, it is high time to critically challenge the traditional ways of thinking about illness, medicine and health care, and build a resilient and sustainable system for health.

The author is a health policy analyst

“Look closely at nature. Every species is a masterpiece, exquisitely adapted to the particular environment in which it has survived. Who are we to destroy or even diminish biodiversity?” The quote by EO Wilson, a pioneer biologist, emphasizes the intrinsic value of every species and its role in maintaining biodiversity and ecosystem balance. All species, including humans, are integral to the web of life, each contributing to ecosystem resilience. As humans, we hold immense power over nature, yet this power comes with the responsibility to protect biodiversity rather than diminish it.

Our actions, such as habitat destruction and the spread of invasive species, disrupt ecosystems and threaten our own survival, highlighting the ethical imperative to preserve the intricate interdependence of life. 

Invasive alien species (IAS) are non-native organisms introduced to new habitats through human activities, intentionally or accidentally, that disrupt ecosystems and threaten biodiversity. Without natural predators, IAS often proliferate rapidly, outcompeting native species and driving them to extinction. Their spread causes irreversible biodiversity loss, alters ecosystem services and incurs colossal economic and social costs. Globalization, trade, travel and climate change have further accelerated IAS spread, making them one of the top five drivers of biodiversity loss, contributing to native species extinction, noted by IPBES, 2019. Globally, around 37,000 IAS are established.

Pyšek et al (2020) reported that around 14,000 species with established alien populations represent four percent of global flora, while 175 terrestrial gastropods as IAS across 56 countries, 745 of 15,000 freshwater fish species, and 971 out of 2000 bird species have become established IAS across various regions.

Growing global perils

IAS are major drivers of biodiversity loss and native species extinction, often referred to as ‘biological pollution’ or ‘green cancer’ (Olson, 2006), while also posing risks to human health, food security and livelihoods. For example, the brown tree snake (Boiga irregularis) led to the extinction of 10 bird species on Guam after its introduction in the 1940s. The IAS Asian tiger mosquito (Aedes albopictus) spreads diseases—Dengue, Chickungunya, and West Nile virus, affecting millions globally. Water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), native to South America, introduced for ornamental purposes across the world, invades water bodies, irrigation channels and rice paddies, causing ecological and economic calamity. IAS disrupt critical ecosystem services such as pollination, water purification and soil fertility, essential for natural cycles. Their spread, accelerated by global trade and travel, worsens these risks, undermining public health and economic resilience.

Economic toll associated with IAS is staggering. A study by Diagne et al (2021) in Nature estimated biological invasions have caused a minimum global economic cost of $1.288trn between 1970 and 2017. According to the IUCN, IAS cost €12.5bn annually and Australia AUS$13.6bn each year. Invasive insects alone account for $70bn in global annual losses. IAS damages agriculture, reduces fishery yields, and disrupts urban areas, leading to financial losses and increased management costs. Prominent IAS in the US, including the spotted lanternfly, red fire ant, feral swine, Emerald ash borer,

Asian carp and Burmese python, purple loosestrife, Japanese honeysuckle, barberry, English Ivy and Kudzu have altered ecosystems and incurred billions of dollars in control efforts and lost productivity. IAS like zebra mussels, native to the Caspian Sea, damage aquatic ecosystems, while the Spanish slugs devastate crops in Europe with massive economic damage.

Furthermore, IAS threaten food security and livelihoods, hindering progress toward the UN's SDG 15 aiming to protect life on land and below water. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (2022) reports that one in ten species on the list are threatened by IAS, emphasizing the urgent need for coordinated global efforts to mitigate their spread protecting ecosystem resilience.

The context of Nepal

IAS pose escalating threats to Nepal’s ecology, economy, sustainable development and health, reflecting global concerns. IAS in Nepal have a long history, with Chomolaena odorata (Siam weed) first reported in 1825. Known locally as ‘Banmara’,  these species disrupt ecosystems, outcompete native species, and threaten agricultural productivity. An estimated 219 alien flowering plant species in Nepal’s forests, with 30 flora species are common IAS (Yadav et al, 2024). Budha 2014 reported 69 fauna species; insects (21), fish (16), birds (three), wild mammals (two), freshwater prawn (one), platyhelminthes (one) and livestock breeds (25 improved breeds), identified as common IAS. These species are primarily from the Americas (74 percent), Europe (one percent) and Africa (eight percent) and cause irreparable harm to ecology.

The introduction of IAS is driven by increasing tourism, trade and limited institutional biosecurity capacity, including insufficient policies and quarantine facilities. These conditions provide a conducive environment for exotic species. Notable flora IAS are Ageratina adenophora, Chromolaena odorata, Eichhornia crassipes, Lantana camara, and Mikania micrantha. Specifically, C odorata, E crassipes, L camara and micrantha are listed among the world’s worst IAS. Tomato leaf miner (Tuta absoluta) and Fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) harm crops, and giant African snail (Achatina fulica) spoils vegetables.

The economic cost of managing IAS, such as Tilapia in water bodies, water hyacinth in the Fewa Lake, and Mimosa diplotricha in Jhapa’s community forests, is substantial, requiring extensive resources. However, the ecological, evolutionary and economic impacts of IAS remain under-studied, with a lack of evidence-based management strategies. While physical removal is common, bio-controls have yet to be formally implemented.

Nation-wide surveys, standardized guidelines, policy-advocacy and community awareness are warranted to address IAS.

IAS pose a silent threat, eroding biodiversity and economic stability globally. While developed nations combat established invaders, countries like Nepal face escalating risks due to weak biosecurity defenses and increasing climate change concerns. Proactive measures including stronger policies, scientific research and global cooperation are essential to mitigate these growing perils. Without urgent action, the ecological and economic consequences will be irreversible.

As Wilson’s call to action reminds us, we must reconsider our role as biodiversity stewards and safeguard ecosystems for future generations. Addressing the critical challenges from IAS requires proactive policies, enhanced cross-cutting research and stronger multi-stakeholder engagement to prevent further damage to the nation’s rich biodiversity.

The author is a biological scientist