Submit your Article

A young man injured in a road accident in Kathmandu struggles to enter a government office because there’s no ramp. A woman who lost her leg during the 2015 earthquake waits outside a clinic with no accessible toilet. A child with cerebral palsy sits at home because her school lacks a wheelchair-friendly classroom. These are not isolated experiences; they reflect how our infrastructure and social attitudes continue to fail people who live with injuries or disabilities.

In the case of people with disabilities, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reframed the global understanding of dignity. Article 1 declares that “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” Article 16 of the Constitution of Nepal (2015) explicitly affirms that “every person shall have the right to live with dignity.” Yet, for many individuals with disabilities, dignity is frequently compromised through discrimination, exclusion and social stigma. Such violations not only undermine fundamental rights but also contribute to poor mental health outcomes, creating a cycle of suffering that affects individuals, families and communities. From a developmental perspective, Amartya Sen’s capabilities approach broadens the notion of dignity by emphasizing substantive freedoms and the real opportunities people have to pursue lives they value. When dignity is eroded through neglect, discrimination or violence, individuals experience profound personal harm, and the consequences extend further: social systems lose cohesion, legitimacy and overall effectiveness. This underscores the necessity of fostering environments where people with disabilities can fully exercise their rights, capabilities and inherent dignity.

Nepal’s position

There are lots of areas that we are behind in addressing the dignity of differently-abled people. The barriers begin with our built environment. Most public buildings in Nepal remain inaccessible to those with physical limitations. Sidewalks are uneven, roads often lack crossings or tactile paving for the visually impaired, and many schools do not have ramps or adapted toilets. Even newly-built structures often lack accessibility standards mandated under the Act Relating to Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2074  and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), to which Nepal is a signatory. 

These physical barriers are more than design flaws but they are reflections of our social priorities. Our public spaces silently communicate who belongs and who doesn’t. When a person on crutches cannot cross the road safely or a wheelchair user is carried up stairs because there is no ramp, it reveals a failure of imagination and empathy.

Infrastructure that is excluded is not only unjust but it is also economically inefficient. By neglecting to accommodate all citizens, we restrict participation in education, employment and governance. Accessibility is not a luxury for a few; it is a fundamental right for all and every person has an equal dignity.

The cultural barrier

The deeper challenge, however, lies in our attitudes. In many communities, people with disabilities are still viewed with pity or dependency, rather than as individuals with agency and potential. Sympathy often replaces justice. Charity programs and donation drives dominate our response, while systems for empowerment, accessibility and inclusion remain weak. Too often, we view injury or disability through a lens of tragedy instead of resilience. When the injured or differently-abled are portrayed as objects of sympathy rather than participants in society, their voices are sidelined from policy debates and community life.

Nepal’s culture of community and compassion can, paradoxically, both comfort and confine. Compassion must evolve into inclusion. Our values from Buddhist teachings on interconnectedness to Hindu values of sewa (service) already hold the moral grounding for inclusion. But it is time we translated those values into systemic change. True dignity is not about receiving kindness; it is about being treated as an equal.

From the lens of IHD

As Nepal builds roads, hospitals and digital systems, it must remember that true development is not just about what we build, but for whom we build. Integral Human Development (IHD), a dignity-centered framework that aims for human flourishing, and sees every person as a whole reminds us that a just and prosperous society must recognize every individual as capable of contribution and worthy of care. It offers a transformative way to rethink how we design societies. It begins from a simple truth: a person is not merely an economic actor or a recipient of aid, but a whole human being physical, emotional, social, and spiritual. Dignity is its core foundation. Dignity is also the key pillar of development, and every person, regardless of special needs, deserves to flourish.

IHD invites policymakers to pause and reflect before drafting any plan or project. If we are building a school, would we feel confident sending a child with special needs from our own family there? If not, then the project is not good enough. This is what IHD demands, merely not perfection, but empathy and coherence between intention and impact. It helps us to transform policies from technical checklists into moral commitments. It challenges us to see the person before the impairment, the capability before the constraint.

From policy to practice

Nepal needs more than laws to advance inclusion, it needs implementation grounded in dignity. First, enforce accessibility standards across all levels of government. Every new school, hospital and municipal building must meet basic mobility, visual and hearing-friendly design requirements, with accessibility audits built into approval processes. Second, invest consistently in rehabilitation and reintegration. Road-accident survivors, earthquake victims and others with long-term injuries need sustained physiotherapy, counseling and employment support. Third, ensure that people with disabilities and injuries are part of decision-making; their lived experience is essential for designing inclusive systems. Fourth, shift cultural practice. How we speak to, treat and create space for differently-abled people determines whether inclusion is real or symbolic. Finally, mainstream inclusion in education and employment through teacher training, workplace adaptations and public awareness. Economic participation allows people not just to survive but to thrive.

Nepal stands at a crossroads. Progress is visible in infrastructure and connectivity, but true development is measured by who can access those advancements. A ramp at a school or tactile paving at a bus stop may seem small, yet they embody respect and equal opportunity. Designing for the most vulnerable ultimately benefits everyone: the elderly, the sick, children and temporary accident survivors, strengthening trust and resilience.

As Nepal reimagines its development path, IHD offers a guiding compass. It urges policymakers to move beyond economic expansion and ask how policies nurture the whole person. Through this lens, these reforms are not technical fixes but parts of a holistic vision that balances efficiency with empathy, participation with policy and growth with justice.

The author is a graduate student of Global Affairs at the University of Notre Dame, USA

Can we imagine, before 2030, Nepal attending a G20 Summit as an invited participant? At present, this proposition may sound preposterous, impractical, even impossible. But allow me some space to explain why it may not be entirely out of reach.

First of all, this question concerns Nepal being invited only as a guest to the G20, a symbolically important platform with considerable convening power. It is a space where leaders from the most influential nations of both the Global South and the Global North converge to discuss some of the most pressing contemporary issues.

It is also a forum where other countries that matter are invited. For instance, leaders from middle powers and still-influential nations such as Spain, the Netherlands, and Singapore regularly attend as guests. At this moment, Nepal does not count for much in the international arena. But if upcoming elections were to herald a new era of genuine good governance anchored in political stability, the story could be very different.

No one can predict Nepal’s post-election political scenario. Yet, with a degree of optimism, we could assume that if national politics were cleaned up and properly fixed under a serious prime minister and a stable governing coalition, the country could acquire the conditions necessary to be taken more seriously.

It is hardly conceivable that even five years of complete political stability would allow Nepal to become a lower-middle-income economy. But if politics deliver at the local, provincial, and federal levels, and if a capable federal government is in place, then a credible trajectory can at least be set.

In the international arena, Nepal could begin to be noticed by punching above its weight with an unassuming confidence rooted in inner strength. If such a scenario were to materialize, the country could gain prominence not only regionally but also globally.

There are several areas where Nepal could showcase expertise and help elevate global conversations starting with the obvious one: climate justice.

Nepal must significantly deepen its engagement with the UNFCCC Secretariat, the guardian of the Paris Agreement. At COP30, the so-called “Mountain Agenda” was formally acknowledged, but a long journey remains before it evolves into a concrete action plan. One of the central goals of national diplomacy should be to pursue this agenda effectively, even with shoestring budgets.

In this context, the Sagarmatha Sambaad should become an annual event, possibly focused primarily on climate change but designed in a way that connects meaningfully with other critical issues such as artificial intelligence, inequality, and business and human rights. These themes are intrinsically linked to climate justice. AI-driven data centers, for instance, are already showing major impacts on local ecosystems and carbon emissions. Climate warming disproportionately affects vulnerable populations, widening existing inequalities. Meanwhile, the business and human rights agenda becomes essential when countries seek to build climate-resilient infrastructure.

This web of interconnected issues could turn the Sagarmatha Sambaad into a recognized regional and international platform for serious debate. The goal should be to reach a point where the government’s efforts to invite respected speakers gradually fade, because diplomats, scientists, and political leaders actively want to come to Nepal, unwilling to miss the opportunity the Sambaad offers.

Kathmandu or Pokhara should also bid to host major dialogues within the UNFCCC framework. As I have written before, this is not organizationally impossible.

Beyond climate, democracy-building remains one of Nepal’s genuine success stories, despite the messiness and corruption of national politics. There is no perfect democracy anywhere, and no democratic society without corruption scandals. Even Nordic countries—often considered ideal—face their own challenges, albeit better managed.

This is precisely why a future federal government should take a bolder stance in promoting democracy and human rights internationally. Nepal could partner with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and other UN agencies to host major events in Kathmandu through a sustained series of initiatives.

Another opportunity lies ahead as the UN and the international community prepare to discuss a post-2030 development agenda, once the current Sustainable Development Goals expire. Nepal could host early convenings and, more importantly, lead intellectually, especially on the localization of the SDGs, an area long neglected despite its potential to place people at the center of development and governance.

In doing so, Nepal could champion democracy, human rights, and localized development in any future global framework.

Such engagement, which embraces global issues from the perspective of a developing nation seeking sustainable prosperity, could significantly alter how global leaders perceive Nepal. Bold ideas matter. Barbados, for instance, reshaped debates on debt sustainability through innovative proposals. Nepal, too, could initiate internal reforms that allow intellectuals, scientists, business leaders, and young people to propose and share ideas more easily.

In essence, the state must find ways to open itself to its own citizens. This would allow Nepal to attend global summits with meaningful propositions, rather than delivering scripted speeches shaped by international agencies.

Consider artificial intelligence. Nepal has never meaningfully participated in global AI summits, likely due to ignorance, lack of foresight, and chronic political instability. Yet an opportunity may soon arise, as India is set to host a major AI Impact Summit in February, which could offer Nepal a chance to engage and network.

Finally, if Nepal aspires to global recognition, it must not neglect the regional arena. Just days ago, SAARC marked its 40th anniversary. The regional organization is in disarray. Yet Nepal should not abandon the pursuit of regional cooperation.

Even if India and Pakistan continue to block progress at the leadership level, Nepal should seek to invent new ways of fostering South Asian collaboration. SAARC is more than just leaders’ summits; it includes technical mechanisms that, if supported—even symbolically—can still make a difference.

Nepal should adopt a pragmatic approach: advance whatever cooperation is possible without requiring top-level political consensus. Simultaneously, it could invest in the creativity of South Asian civil society by convening regional gatherings aimed at reimagining cooperation beyond current geopolitical constraints.

One immediate, symbolic step could be for Prime Minister Sushila Karki to formally visit the SAARC Secretariat, an easy logistical task, yet rich in meaning. As for BIMSTEC, Nepal should continue its engagement, hoping gradual progress will follow.

All these steps point toward one objective: raising Nepal’s international profile through a deliberate, tailored strategy. Such a strategy would move incrementally, setting higher horizons step by step.

Nepal can be ambitious internationally while remaining grounded and humble, demonstrating a new way of conducting diplomacy—quietly, but with determination. If these elements converge into a coherent policy agenda, then it may not be so unimaginable for Nepal to one day receive an invitation, as a guest, to a G20 Summit.

The slogan “Unite to End Digital Violence Against All Women and Girls” captures a growing reality—violence against women is no longer confined to homes, streets, or workplaces. It now thrives online. 

Violence against women is one of the most pervasive human rights violations in the world. It has many forms: physical assault, sexual harassment, emotional abuse, trafficking, online harassment and institutional discrimination. Despite growing awareness, millions of women still suffer in silence. Cultural norms, fear of retaliation, weak legal systems, and social stigma keep many from speaking out. With the rise of digital platforms, social media has emerged as a powerful space that can both challenge and complicate the fight against gender-based violence. 

Domestic abuse, often hidden within intimate relationships, is one of the mostly reported forms of violence against women. It usually involves physical harm, threats and coercive control. 

Sexual violence and harassment, including rape, molestation, stalking, and unwanted advances, remain deeply underreported due to fear of social repercussions. Psychological abuses like humiliation, manipulation, intimidation, and isolation deeply damage women's mental health but are often dismissed. Economic violence, on the other hand, restricts women’s access to money, work, or education, reinforcing dependency and inequality.

Digital violence is now among the fastest-growing threats. Women face online harassment, cyberstalking, doxing, and revenge pornography. New technologies have added new risks. Deepfake pornography, coordinated trolling, rape threats, and gendered disinformation are becoming increasingly common. 

Social media use is expanding rapidly. In Nepal, the government’s push to provide free public Wi-Fi, including in remote areas, has widened digital access. Easy access to the internet is beneficial to people in many ways. But it also increases exposure to harm. Many users lack digital literacy. Misinformation spreads easily. People often accept what they see online without questioning its accuracy. Social media is currently playing a dual role in Nepali society and most of the world, both as a tool that empowers victims and as a platform where new forms of violence occur. 

Globally, millions of women experience violence every day. The UN’s Sustainable Development Goal 5 calls for gender equality and the elimination of all forms of violence against women and girls. Every country has pledged to protect and promote women in all sectors. However, the implementation aspect remains uneven. 

Abuse now comes not only from people, but also through technology itself, including artificial intelligence. This makes protection more complex, especially for vulnerable groups.

Still, social media can be part of the solution. Online movements such as #MeToo, #TimesUp, and #SayHerName have shown how platforms can amplify survivors’ voices and break long-standing silence. Similarly, social media connects women to support networks, counselors, NGOs, and legal aid. Online communities can offer emotional support and help victims regain confidence. Digital platforms also help document abuse. Screenshots, messages, and videos can serve as crucial evidence in cases of harassment or threats. Likewise, public pressure generated online has forced governments, companies, and institutions to revisit policies on workplace safety, harassment, and gender representation.

At the same time, the harm cannot be ignored. Social media companies must do more to curb cyberbullying, online harassment, misinformation, and privacy violations. 

Violence against women is a global crisis rooted in inequality and sustained by silence. Social media has become a powerful force in this struggle—for better and for worse. It is our collective responsibility to make it a tool for protection rather than harm. We must have stronger laws, safer digital practices, accountable platforms, and a culture that supports and listens to women. Ending violence against women begins with acknowledging the presence, amplifying voices, and using every available tool, including social media, to build a safer and more equal world.

(Ghising is an Inspector of Nepal Police) 

President Vladimir Putin’s ninth visit to India starting from 2000—his first after 2021—has arrived at a moment of extraordinary strategic recalibration. Only two days before the visit began (Dec 4), Washington released its National Security Strategy 2025 (NSS 2025), a document that signals the United States’ shift from expansive values-based foreign policy to a sharper, interest-driven approach rooted in economic security and technological primacy.

The simultaneity is not accidental; it symbolizes a transforming global order in which India, Russia, and the US are pursuing overlapping but divergent strategic goals, and South Asia sits at the fulcrum of this new geopolitical geometry.

The Putin-Modi meeting carries implications not only for Eurasian stability but also for how the US interprets India’s strategic autonomy and recalibrates its own Indo-Pacific playbook.

India at the center

The NSS 2025 acknowledges bluntly that the US cannot “secure every geography nor stabilize every region”; instead, it will prioritize critical partners capable of shaping the global economy, technology ecosystems and regional balance. India stands at the top of this list, described as a “system-shaping middle power” whose partnership is essential for US economic resilience, defence innovation and Indo-Pacific balancing.

Yet Putin’s visit demonstrates that India’s ascent is anchored in multi-alignment, not alignment. India has neither abandoned Russian defense ties nor restricted Eurasian dialogue despite Western pressure. Instead, New Delhi has widened all channels—deepening defense co-production with the US, sustaining energy ties with Moscow, and managing a complex relationship with China across competition, deterrence and cooperation. This can be accounted precisely for the behavior Washington anticipated, but perhaps underestimated in intensity.

Why Putin’s visit matters 

To the US, the optics of a confident, sanctions-resistant Russian leader receiving a warm Delhi welcome carry three strategic messages: one, that Russia retains influence where the West expected decline. India continues to leverage Russian defense support—particularly spare parts, legacy system maintenance and co-development initiatives that Washington cannot fully replace in the short term. Energy cooperation remains robust, and discounted Russian oil has been crucial to India’s inflation management.

Two, India will pursue autonomy even when US pressure peaks. Despite the growing US–India defense technology partnership—jet engine co-production, UAV collaboration, semiconductor cooperation—New Delhi refuses to limit strategic options. Putin’s visit reinforces India’s unwillingness to become a pillar of a US-led bloc.

Third, Eurasian consolidation remains a live possibility. Moscow’s outreach to India is not merely bilateral. It connects to broader projects—International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC), Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) dialogue, Arctic shipping and Asian energy integration—areas Washington must now monitor with renewed seriousness. India and Russia interact through UN and G20 in the global forums, regional groups such as Brazil-Russia-India-China-South Africa (BRICS), Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), East Asian Summit (EAS), financial institutions like the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and extensive bilateral mechanisms (annual summits, Inter-Governmental Commission (IRIGC), 2+2 Ministerial Dialogue  and Strategic Economic Dialogue. In addition, in the sector-specific cooperation platforms like the Nuclear Energy, Defense Working Group, Space cooperation, energy and Education and cultural exchanges. 

These messages have direct consequences for how the US implements the NSS 2025. The US will respond by deepening India’s economic incentives. While NSS 2025 downplays ideological diplomacy, it elevates economic security and supply-chain diversification as central pillars. Putin’s visit will accelerate US efforts to firstly to expand critical mineral cooperation with India, secondly to attract Indian companies into US industrial ecosystems, thirdly to increase joint research platforms under QUAD and Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for prosperity (IPEF), and lastly to fast-track bilateral trade negotiations previously stalled.

Washington will double down on offering India economic and technological leverage that Russia cannot match.

 Stricter defense technology protocols 

The US understands that India operates Russian-origin systems and engages in sensitive defense exchanges with Moscow. To prevent potential technology leakage, Washington is likely to introduce a more robust end-use monitoring, tighter controls on dual-use technology, and clearer segregation between US-led and Russia-linked Indian projects. 

This will not stall US–India defence cooperation, but it will make technology firewalls more prominent.

Acceptance of India’s strategic autonomy 

The NSS 2025 subtly accepts that India will not become a formal ally. Putin’s visit reinforces that assumption. Washington’s emerging approach is pragmatic: work with India where interests converge, avoid friction where they don’t. This opens space for a more mature, less expectation-heavy partnership.

A more fluid strategic landscape 

Putin’s India outreach reshapes the region in ways Washington will study closely.

Pakistan’s strategic relevance to Washington continues to decline. With India strengthening ties with both the US and Russia, there is little incentive for the US to return to older patterns of Pakistan-centric engagement. Islamabad’s utility becomes more functional—counter-terrorism, nuclear risk management—not geopolitical. 

A more competitive Eurasian environment gives these states greater bargaining power. The US, following its new NSS, will adopt: project-based engagement, maritime capacity-building, debt sustainability support, and supply-chain diversification with Bangladesh, the Maldives and Sri Lanka. 

These states will increasingly play China, India, Russia and the US against one another to secure economic benefits.

Quiet leverage in a multipolar moment

Nepal stands to gain more subtly than other South Asian states. 

A triangular pattern—India maintaining Russian ties, strengthening US partnership and managing China rivalry—creates strategic breathing room for Kathmandu. For the US, Nepal becomes valuable not as a geopolitical frontline but as a functional partner in sectors aligned with American priorities under NSS 2025: green energy and cross-border power trade, digital governance, cyber security, critical mineral mapping, private-sector investment in hydropower, and disaster response and counter-crime cooperation. 

Engagement will neither surge nor decline—but it will deepen sectoral, with fewer political expectations and more performance-based cooperation. This aligns with Washington’s new doctrine: selective, focused, outcome-oriented. 

For Nepal, the key is to maintain balanced diplomacy while leveraging its position within the India-US-China triangle and the emerging India–Russia connectivity frameworks.

A triangular future

Putin’s visit does not derail US-India cooperation. Instead, it forces Washington to adjust expectations, respect India’s independence and compete more intelligently. The NSS 2025 already anticipates this; the visit accelerates it. 

India emerges not as a camp follower but as a sovereign pole—the only major power capable of engaging Washington, Moscow and Beijing simultaneously without aligning with any. 

For South Asia, this means greater flexibility. For Russia, it preserves Eurasian influence. For the US, it demands strategic patience and economic creativity. 

And for the emerging world order, it signals a future defined less by blocs and more by fluid alignment, selective partnerships and overlapping spheres of cooperation.

The author, a Maj Gen (Retd) and strategic affairs analyst based in Kathmandu, writes on South Asian geopolitics, national security, and the intersection of governance, diplomacy and stability