Submit your Article

Mero dukha ma roi dine, mero khushi ma ramaai dine,

Sabai bhanda maathi chha, mero euta saathi chha…

That tribute to friendship, set to an unforgettable tune—which I rashly attempted at our National Day (“King’s Birthday Party”, KBP) last week—comes from Sugam Pokharel. To my mind, it beautifully captures the relationship between the UK and Nepal. This year, when I came to write my KBP Speech, it inspired a metaphor about two old friends trekking together.

The UK and Nepal have been travelling together for more than 200 years. We have come to a fork in the path. One track goes straight on. It would take us forward but gain no height. It represents Nepal’s existing business model, reliant on remittances and grant aid. The steeper path would take us more swiftly—up the hill—beyond which lie global capital markets.  

The UK recommends the steeper path—a shorter route to the happy and prosperous Nepal we all want to see. Together, we have mapped out the ascent, fixed some ropes. These include Government achievements such as a positive Sovereign Credit Rating, Nepal’s first international bond (supported by $22m from British International Investment), and important economic reforms backed up by legislation.

Which is just as well. Because the UK has been looking down the apparently easier path and sees several obstacles. Landslides—triggered by things like Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and global trade disputes. We are going to have to climb. The exercise will be good for us!

Here are some of the topics which—being old friends—we discuss amicably along the way:

The national budget

Nepal has a modest supply of provisions but never uses as much as it could. The UK is Nepal’s strongest advocate. But our arguments for climate finance and other benefits are undermined when Nepal does not use its own resources; and use them well.

Concessional international loans

Nepal’s rucksack is full of World Bank and ADB resources. The UK helped procure those entitlements and urges Nepal to take advantage of them. Currently, these sources of finance are largely untouched.

Education

The UK is a big fan of what we call Trans-National Education. We mean any kind of connection between providers in Nepal and abroad which allows Nepal’s young people to get the education they deserve without leaving the country. At affordable prices. The UK has lots of TNE to share. We think it would reinforce Nepal’s economy. It might even attract the other country’s students to this beautiful land.

The diaspora

Many brilliant Nepalis living in the UK are making huge contributions. But the UK doesn’t want them to lose touch with their roots. We want them to help develop Nepal. For this, the UK hopes Nepal will recognise the equivalence of qualifications obtained at British universities. Nepal’s current arrangements seem designed to prevent its children ever investing here.

The last part of the ascent is the steepest. Nepal’s progress is attracting global attention. In London—for example—financiers are starting to talk about Nepal as a destination for investment. They have a sentimental attachment, refreshed by a spectacular visit to Nepal by the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh. Since then, the UK media and dinner party conversations have been reminding the British public about Nepal’s friendliness and beauty, our proud Gurkha ties, as well as its status as the UK’s “first ally in Asia”.

As well as beauty, these private financiers are coming to understand that Nepal is a land of investment opportunities. But they will not bring their money here until they know they can repatriate their profits. Even the famous Sherpa known as Dolma Impact Fund has had trouble doing that.

This is the altitude we are at today. Close to the summit, beyond which it will be much easier going, downhill all the way to The City of London.

Perhaps it is the rarified air. But my old friend seems conflicted. I recognise the signs. The UK had doubts when we opened our economy to foreign investment. We worried about competition. Loss of control. In practice, however, we found that foreign investment brought not just jobs, but also technology transfer, productivity gains and other good things besides. It is now our life blood. So, let’s continue this journey together.

The author is the British Ambassador to Nepal 

In the recently-concluded Nepal Bar Association election, the alliance of the Democratic Lawyers Association (DLA), close with the Nepali Congress, and the Progressive and Professional Lawyers Association (PPLA), close with the CPN-UML, achieved a landslide victory. Lawyers’ associations close to the CPN (Maoist Center) and the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) had also formed a separate electoral panel but failed to secure a single seat in the 25-member working committee.

As a member and voter in the Supreme Court Bar, I believe these professional associations should remain purely professional. However, they act like sister organizations of political parties, which is deeply concerning. In these elections, political party leaders often nominate and back the contenders, turning the process into an extension of party politics. A troubling trend has emerged where the same coalitions formed at the central government level are replicated within these associations. As a result, professional bodies established for the betterment of professionals have become just as weak and unstable as the country’s central politics.

No political party or their affiliated organizations have the courage to contest elections independently—they almost always form coalitions, which is deeply concerning and detrimental to democratic practice. In a healthy political system, both the government and the opposition should be strong and functional, but that is not the case in Nepal.

The opposition has failed to fulfill its role. As a government-in-waiting, it should hold the ruling party accountable, scrutinize its actions and prevent misuse of power. At the same time, the government should focus on effective service delivery, development and be accountable to the parliament, operating under the rule of law. But neither side is doing its job.

Worse still, when it comes to covering up their wrongdoings—especially corruption—the top leaders of the major parties seem to stand united. There is neither peace nor prosperity, neither good service delivery nor meaningful development. What prevails instead is nepotism.

The government is often influenced by brokers and businesspeople, who support those in power but deliver no benefits to ordinary citizens. Most appointments are made to serve the interests of middlemen rather than the public. This troubling trend persists, regardless of which party is in power.

Because of these ongoing wrongdoings, people have started questioning whether the problem lies in our constitution and current political system. Some are even wondering if returning to the old system might be better. Recent protests have further fueled public sentiment in favor of a systemic change. Due to the misconduct of politicians and the deep politicization of every institution, our political system—and indeed our democracy—is now at risk.

Within the country, many people oppose certain aspects of the constitution, such as the secular state, federalism, proportional representation and inclusivity, even if we are to ignore neighbors’ concerns. There are growing calls for constitutional amendments. However, the government has been ignoring these concerns, which has led to widespread public frustration. Without addressing these issues, how can the country achieve peace and prosperity? How will economic growth take place? How can citizens expect efficient service delivery?

The major political leaders—Sher Bahadur Deuba, KP Sharma Oli, and Pushpa Kamal Dahal—must reflect and reform as the public has entrusted them with power time and again. This is a crucial moment: if they fail to correct their course, it will have serious consequences for our political system, as public sentiment is rapidly shifting due to their repeated misdeeds.

Another troubling situation lies within the political parties themselves. The current leadership has weakened these parties, as there is little to no value given to dedicated leaders and grassroots cadres. 

Why has politics been made so dirty by these leaders? Why can’t these parties contest elections alone? What has weakened the foundation of these parties so badly? The public is convinced that, since the leaders are corrupt and have no intention of reforming themselves, the problem cannot be resolved. This crisis stems from extreme politicization and the growing trend of political coalitions. As most of them are corrupt, they have joined forces not only to cover up their irregularities but also to continue them. Today, political parties and their leaders seem to lack any real ideology—corruption and nepotism seem to be their only focus.

The Nepali Congress, founded in 1950, has a rich legacy in Nepali politics, having played a crucial role in every major political transformation the country has witnessed. The people of Nepal have consistently supported the party, helping it become a strong force in parliament. However, the party is now unable to contest elections on its own. Even in the Bar elections or any election in any sector, why is a coalition necessary? All candidates were respected professionals, so a panel winning or losing would not have made much of a difference.

So why was the alliance necessary?
This coalition culture has deeply affected Nepal—across all sectors, from top to bottom. These tie-ups allow political actors to collaborate in corruption without accountability, as no one is left to question them. This is a deeply troubling situation.

How long will this continue? It has deeply troubled ideologically-driven cadres, and this frustration could eventually impact our political system and even the constitution. The political leadership must address this issue in a timely manner. In the days ahead, all elections—whether federal, provincial, local or those of political organizations and sister wings—should be contested independently. Each party should remain true to its ideology. Politics should not be tainted. No one benefits from such practices.

If the current leadership of these political parties is unwilling to change the status quo, then alternative leaders must step forward. For instance, in the Nepali Congress, Shekhar Koirala should take a stand for change if Sher Bahadur Deuba does not. The same applies to KP Sharma Oli and Pushpa Kamal Dahal in their respective parties. Such shifts in leadership can strengthen party organizations and make the parties more competitive in the days to come.

The author is a member of the Supreme Court Bar and has been practicing corporate law for around three decades

Nepal is facing a growing crisis of trust in government. Recent protests by teachers demanding reform in education law and doctors calling for enforcement of prior agreements have disrupted essential services. High-profile resignations—including the Education Minister, state minister and the Vice Chancellor of Tribhuvan University—reflect a political culture marred by interference and disillusionment. Statements by former Governor Vijayanath Bhattarai, who criticized the influence of middlemen in public appointments, underline a widening gap between citizens and institutions.

This disillusionment is not exclusive to Nepal. As Chris Eccles explains in his essay Restoring Trust in Government, public confidence in democratic institutions has declined across many countries over the past several decades. His insights are especially timely for Nepal as it navigates its own democratic transition and seeks to restore public legitimacy.

Eccles begins by highlighting how trust in government has eroded steadily since the 1960s, citing surveys in countries like the United States and New Zealand. This decline cannot be attributed to isolated events or leadership failures. It reflects a deeper, structural shift in how citizens perceive and interact with democratic institutions.

In Nepal, trust remains low despite constitutional reforms and federal restructuring. Political institutions are often viewed as self-serving and unresponsive. Eccles argues that declining trust is not just a result of poor performance but of a changing political culture where citizens demand more than material benefits—they seek fairness, dignity, and voice.

For decades, governments believed that delivering roads, schools, and jobs would be enough to earn public support. Eccles refers to this belief as “performance legitimacy.” However, his research shows that service delivery alone is no longer sufficient to maintain trust. Citizens increasingly judge governments by how decisions are made, who is included, and whether processes are fair.

In Nepal, development initiatives often fail to improve legitimacy when implemented without transparency or local participation. Even when services are delivered, communities may feel excluded or manipulated. Eccles’ insight is clear: trust is not just about output, but about justice and accountability.

Eccles draws on Ronald Inglehart’s theory of social modernization to explain how rising education and global exposure have changed citizen behavior. As societies modernize, people expect governments to respect their rights, engage in dialogue, and share decision-making. They no longer accept top-down rules without explanation or consultation.

Nepal is experiencing this shift. Civic protests, youth-led campaigns, and digital activism reflect a political environment where citizens—especially young people—demand transparency, equality, and ethical conduct. Trust must now be earned through relationships and engagement, not merely promised in speeches.

A defining feature of Eccles’ argument is the idea of a new civic culture. Citizens want more than services—they want institutions to act with honesty, competence, and respect. Trust today is not an automatic result of governance; it is a public value that must be cultivated.

Nepal’s participatory frameworks provide an opportunity to build this culture. Local governments hold public hearings and consultations, but these often fail to influence actual decisions. To restore credibility, these mechanisms must go beyond ritual and become meaningful platforms for collaboration.

Eccles notes that repeated political scandals deepen public cynicism. While the media plays a vital role in uncovering wrongdoing, constant negativity without resolution can damage morale and weaken democratic engagement. In Nepal, headlines about corruption, impunity, and political manipulation are common, yet few are followed by accountability.

Citizens begin to believe that change is impossible. Eccles calls for a shift in narrative—one that includes not only critique but also examples of reform, ethical leadership, and citizen participation that rebuild hope and confidence.

Eccles presents several reforms introduced in New South Wales, including a Public Service Commission, a Customer Service Commissioner, and Infrastructure NSW. These bodies aimed to strengthen professionalism, prioritize public needs, and insulate planning from political interference.

Nepal can adopt similar reforms. Independent commissions, long-term planning authorities, and citizen feedback mechanisms can improve integrity and transparency. These changes must be supported by a public service culture that values competence and service over patronage.

To guide institutional behavior, Eccles introduces the ITARI framework: Integrity, Transparency, Accountability, Responsiveness, and Inclusiveness. Each principle addresses a key dimension of democratic trust.

Nepal’s constitution and laws already reference these values, but implementation is inconsistent. Merit is often compromised by political interests. Public data is not always accessible. Marginalized communities are still underrepresented in key decisions. Restoring trust means turning these values from ideals into lived practice at every level of governance.

Eccles outlines an “engagement continuum” with five levels: networking, coordination, cooperation, collaboration, and partnering. Many governments promise partnership but deliver only limited consultation. This gap between promise and practice damages trust.

Nepal’s experience reflects this challenge. Community members may be invited to meetings, but decisions often remain top-down. True engagement requires that citizens help define problems, shape solutions, and share responsibility for implementation. Community forestry and school management models offer practical examples of deeper participation already at work in Nepal.

Eccles critiques overly strict administrative rules—called probity frameworks—that were meant to prevent corruption but often block innovation. In many systems, civil servants become afraid to take initiative, slowing progress and avoiding responsibility.

This is a serious issue in Nepal. Delays and inaction are often driven by fear of audits or political retribution. Eccles proposes a fit-for-purpose approach, where rules are tailored to the size and risk of each project. Such flexibility can encourage problem-solving while maintaining integrity.

A vital solution offered by Eccles is co-production. This means that the government does not act alone but works with citizens to design and deliver public services. Trust grows when people see themselves as contributors, not just recipients.

Nepal has strong traditions of cooperative action, from community-managed forests to disaster response. These approaches show that when citizens are trusted, they help solve complex problems. Expanding co-production can make governance more inclusive and more effective.

Eccles ends his essay with a powerful revision of a common phrase: instead of saying, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help,” public servants should say, “I’m from the government and I need—and want—your help.” This simple change reflects a deeper transformation—one that centers humility, partnership, and mutual respect.

In Nepal, this message is more urgent than ever. Trust cannot be rebuilt with slogans or plans alone. It requires institutional courage, ethical leadership, and daily practices that honor the voice and dignity of every citizen. 

Just as the Russia–Ukraine war, initiated by Russia’s  invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, was entering its fourth year, the international community was shocked by reports alleging that the North Korean regime has refused to repatriate the bodies of its soldiers who were unlawfully deployed and subsequently killed on the battlefield at Kursk, instead seeking to preserve them through a controversial “freeze-drying” technique known as “promession.” Even though the Kim Jong Un regime’s atrocious human rights record has long been widely recognized, its refusal to bring home its war dead and its bizarre approach to managing their remains further underscore the regime’s brutality and disregard for basic human dignity. 

Historically, how a nation handles the remains of its fallen soldiers has had a significant impact on military morale and served as a reflection of national dignity. Ensuring that those who sacrificed their lives for their nation are respectfully repatriated and honored is a critical part of sustaining the courage and willingness to sacrifice those soldiers who are alive. The United States, the world’s leading power, tirelessly searches for its soldiers’ remains even in the remotest regions of the world. For example, in the 1990s, the US negotiated with North Korea to excavate and repatriate the remains of American soldiers from the Korean War, demonstrating its commitment to honoring the nation’s fallen heroes.

South Korea also has an organization dedicated to recovering its fallen military members, putting forth every effort to return their remains to their families. South Korea has also continually repatriated discovered remains of Chinese soldiers to their homeland, demonstrating both humanitarian values and respect for national dignity. In stark contrast, the North Korean regime has shown an utter lack of respect even for its own fallen by refusing to repatriate them and instead engaging in an unprecedented and morally reprehensible attempt to freeze-dry their remains. This is a clear demonstration that the regime prioritizes its own security over basic human decency.

The regime’s indecency
This act of indecency by Kim Jong Un’s regime appears to be part of a deceptive attempt to conceal its illegal actions. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is a blatant violation of international law. Labeling it a “special military operation” does not obscure the fact that Russia’s act of aggression has claimed countless lives. 

Most nations, with the exception of a few authoritarian states such as North Korea and Belarus, have condemned the invasion and joined sanctions against Russia. Assisting that nation in this unlawful war constitutes an equally undeniable breach of international law. Regardless of this, North Korea has supplied ammunition, missiles and other military equipment in support. And after strengthening ties with Vladimir Putin at the Vostochny summit in Sept 2023, Kim Jong Un escalated his support by deploying around 12,000 North Korean soldiers to Kursk, a Russian territory occupied by Ukrainian forces. These North Korean troops have reportedly suffered approximately 4,000 casualties.

However, neither Russia nor North Korea has officially acknowledged this troop deployment. North Korean soldiers reportedly carry Russian military identification, wear Russian uniforms, and fight as part of Russian military units. According to reports, most of the fallen North Korean soldiers have been found in horrific condition, decapitated or with severely damaged faces. Eyewitness accounts suggest these gruesome injuries result from either suicide drone attacks or soldiers detonating explosives on themselves just before capture.

Reports have it that Russia attempted to return hundreds of dead North Korean soldiers, but North Korea has refused them. Instead, North Korean officials stationed abroad have reportedly been looking into facilities capable of rapidly freezing and pulverizing human remains—a practice known as promession. Promession, developed by Swedish biologist Susanne Wiigh-Mäsak in 1997, involves rapidly freezing human remains with liquid nitrogen at -196℃ and then vibrating and dehydrating them into powder before burial. However, the practice has not been widely adopted, due to psychological resistance as well as practical concerns. North Korea’s efforts to pursue the use of this technique, despite these issues, suggests a deliberate attempt to permanently destroy evidence of its unlawful troop deployment.

The primary motivation
The primary motivation behind the Kim Jong Un regime’s  actions appears to be the fear that returning soldiers’ remains in such horrific condition to grieving families could trigger enough public outrage to destabilize the regime itself. The North Korean regime has rigorously concealed the truth about its troop deployment to Russia, even from its own soldiers. This was recently revealed through testimonies of two North Korean soldiers captured by Ukrainian forces.

They stated that they had been told they were traveling abroad for training. The regime also lied to the North Korean people, telling the soldiers had simply gone overseas for training. However, it is only a matter of time before these lies are brought to light. As casualties mount and concealing the truth becomes impossible, the North Korean regime has begun notifying families of soldier deaths, demanding absolute secrecy while offering compensation such as televisions, electronic devices, and additional food.

No matter how strictly a regime maintains control through surveillance and oppression, parents would not just suffer and do nothing once they realize their children have been sent to die senselessly on a foreign battlefield. Should this appalling reality spread across North Korea, it could profoundly unsettle the population.

The unlawful deployment of North Korean troops to Russia is solely driven by Kim Jong Un’s desperate effort to secure his regime’s survival. Due to its efforts to further develop its nuclear weapons arsenal, the international community has exacted punishing sanctions, leading to collapse of North Korea’s economy and great suffering among its people. Kim’s alliance with Vladimir Putin is seen as a way for the former to overcome these challenges and preserve his hereditary dictatorship. However, sending young North Koreans to die on a foreign battlefield and then preventing their remains from returning to the grieving parents goes beyond being profoundly inhumane and will lead to the regime’s collapse—the exact opposite of Kim’s intentions. North Korea must end its unlawful conduct before it’s too late and begin actually practicing its self-proclaimed policy of “putting the people first.”

The author is director of the Center for Korean Unification Strategy at the Korea Research Institute for National Strategy