Submit your Article

When we talk about technology in the context of development, we often treat it as a tool that simply exists to make life more efficient. But I see technology as something that shapes our identities, influences our sense of agency and carries ethical responsibilities across generations. This is why we need to reframe ICT4D (Information and Communication Technology for Development) through an ethics-based lens—one that doesn’t just ask what technology can do, but who it serves, how it  empowers and whether it respects the people and cultures it touches. 

Technology isn’t something that arrives in a vacuum, rather it enters communities endowed with their own ways of understanding the world, their own traditions, identities and their own ethical frameworks. If we introduce technology without considering these dimensions, we risk erasing identities rather than strengthening them. According to Martin Heidegger, the essence of technology is not just about tools or instruments; it’s about how technology shapes the way we see and interact with the world. When technology is introduced into a community without awareness of this shift in perception, it can transform local cultures and identities into mere resources to be exploited rather than ways of life that deserve  respect and preservation. For ICT4D to be responsible, it must integrate into the ways of  communities, aligning with their values rather than imposing external ones. 

I have seen  instances where digital tools were designed with good intentions but ended up disrupting  local practices because they failed to acknowledge the social and ethical realities of the  people using them. 

Agency is at the heart of ethical technology use. People should not just be passive  recipients of digital solutions; they should have the power to shape, adapt and use  technology in ways that enhance their lives. Too often, ICT4D projects are rolled out with a top-down approach, where decisions are made by outsiders who assume they know what’s best for the rest. But when people are involved in designing and implementing technology—when they  have ownership over it—it transforms from an external intervention into a meaningful part  of their lives. This isn’t just about usability; it’s about empowerment. It’s about ensuring that communities are not just given tools but also the knowledge, skills and autonomy to decide how those tools should work for them. This perspective aligns with Amartya Sen’s emphasis on agency in development. 

Intergenerational justice, a concept explored by Hans Jonas, is another crucial dimension  that is often overlooked in ICT4D. When we introduce technology, we aren’t just shaping the present; we are making choices that will impact future generations. If we don’t think carefully about the ethical implications of technology, we risk creating dependencies, eroding cultural knowledge or deepening inequalities. Sustainable technology isn’t just about function or economic efficiency; it’s about ensuring that the benefits of today’s  innovations don’t come at the cost of future resilience. 

Environmental sustainability must also be central to ethical ICT4D. As Fritjof Capra  emphasizes in his work on systems thinking, nature operates through interconnected and  self-sustaining networks. Technology should follow these principles, supporting rather than disrupting ecological balance. Too often, technological advancements come at the cost of  ecological health, depleting natural resources and contributing to environmental degradation. If we are to create truly sustainable solutions, we must embrace a philosophy  that respects and aligns with the natural world rather than exploiting it. This means developing digital infrastructures that minimize environmental impact, encouraging circular economies in technology use and integrating local ecological knowledge into digital innovations. Ethical ICT4D must recognize that the well-being of communities is inseparable from the health of the environment that sustains them. 

An ethical ICT4D means recognizing that technology is never just a tool; it is always part of a larger social and ethical system. If we want it to truly serve communities, we need to ask deeper questions: Does this technology respect local identities? Does it enhance people’s agency rather than diminish it? Does it uphold justice not just for this generation, but for the ones that will follow? And does it honor the ecological systems that sustain life? These are the questions that should guide our approach. If we fail to ask them, we risk using technology as a force of disruption rather than as a means of meaningful progress.

The longer you walk through life’s winding paths, the clearer it becomes: life’s not fair. Not just for you, if you look closely at the lives of others, and you'll find that fairness is a myth we all wrestle with. Life’s more complicated than the mathematical equation that we’ve encountered during our education years. And most of our thought/emotional process, action, decision and the coincidences we face lies beyond the rule of cause and effect. Life doesn’t ask what we’d like on our plate—it simply serves. The only real choice we have isn’t whether to eat it or not rather it is how we eat and digest. There are countless things beyond our control. No bargaining is heard and acknowledged—just acceptance of what life hands us. Looking at the fragility of life, even a slight, accidental cut to a nerve, just deep enough can lead to irreversible consequences. 

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), approximately 1.19m people die in road accidents every year—that’s over 3,200 deaths per day, 133 people in an hour and two every single minute. Each of these individuals was on a journey, with their futures ahead of them. Weren’t they planning what they would do the next day? Yet, how can we justify their untimely deaths? While some religions attempt to justify it through the karma of past lives, others attribute it to destiny, believing it’s all written. And nobody knows how true this justification is and nobody will probably know. Although if we get the justification, will it bypass our emotional reaction and responses generated by the event and coincidences. I don’t think so, because rationalization lacks the power to regulate the emotion that we experience. It’s often said that everything is fair in love and war, but one thing is certain—everything is fair in life. Anything can happen, we can’t deny this fact. 

Human nature is quite opposite of the nature of life. We are drawn to certainty and it comforts us. If we closely invigilate our plan and action, we can sense that they are steps taken to make our lives more secure. Our natural tendency is to seek certainty and control, but with surprises—whether good or bad—we feel discomfort, which is why we attempt to structure our environments and lives in predictable ways. 

When human nature, which seeks control, meets the unpredictability of life, it results in friction. And how this friction manifests, we attempt to challenge the nature of unpredictability of life and try immensely to make it more secure and predictable. We often seek answers that lie beyond our capacity to understand. We are inclined to seek the deeper reasons behind the unwanted experiences that life presents to us. Although nobody has found and nobody probably ever will, the mysteries behind the cause of any events. This mystery creates a deep sense of uncertainty and instability within us. And Sigmund Freud argues that in order to cope with this anxiety of uncertainty, and to create a false sense of control over future events, humans tend to believe in and worship God. To mitigate this, humans invented narratives of control, with God serving as the ultimate answer to chaos. Freud argues in his books titled ‘The future of an illusion’’ (1927) and ‘Civilization and its discontent’ (1930) that if we tend to believe that there is someone in the sky who controls everything, who justifies every sin, we feel we have a shoulder to lean on. Now, let’s explore why we have this tendency to search for such a figure.

Central to Freud’s idea is the notion that children feel very secure being within the arms of parents. In those arms, one experiences the protective figure, feelings of security and are completely able to rely on their parents. Child gets an opportunity to explore life without taking any responsibility for his action and is ensured that it’s taken care of by their parents. The child often develops the belief that their parents are like superheroes, capable of solving any problem they face. This belief is why the child feels more carefree and lively, experiencing a sense of joy and security. And in the process of growing up, he slowly understands that there are a lot of things that their parents cannot control, in fact, many things that no human being can control. One understands that there’s chaos, a mystery that no one knows the formula for. No equation fits in justifying the cause-and-effect rule. As the child matures into adulthood, their cognitive development allows them to analyze and become more aware of the chaos, uncertainty and unpredictability of life. This awareness then gives rise to a profound sense of helplessness and powerlessness, as the illusion of control fades. Now I invite you, dear reader, to contemplate how one might confront this uncertainty that springs from feelings of powerlessness and helplessness.

This is where Freud’s central idea revolves around. In order to address this uncertainty, humans often turn to believe in God—a higher power who is sitting in the sky assessing and evaluating every thought, deeds and action. You can think about it. If you are powerful enough you can repay the injustice given by another human fellow. But how does one seek justice for the suffering inflicted by life itself? Although we can question the unwanted events and experiences that we go through in life, is there anyone who answers that question? Of course there’s no one—no entity to respond to our grievances. This profound imbalance, this need for meaning and resolution demands equilibrium. Here, belief in God serves as a psychological anchor. By surrendering to a divine order, we find solace, attempting to bring emotional closure to our unresolved turmoil allowing us to find comfort in the face of the unknown. Belief in God offers a reassuring shoulder to lean on. 

Following Freud’s theory multiple scholars have conducted the research on our tendency to believe in and worship God. Existential security theory (Norris & Inglehart, 2011) suggests that people turn to religion more in uncertain or economically unstable environments. Research suggests that in more secure and stable environments, where there is less insecurity, the tendency to believe in God may decrease. A study by Will Gervais and Ara Norenzayan (2012) found that encouraging analytical thinking reduced religious belief. This implies that in environments where individuals feel more secure and are encouraged to engage in analytical thinking, the reliance on religious beliefs may diminish. Reflecting on these studies, can we infer that our inclination to seek support and believe in God stems from the uncertainty born of helplessness and powerlessness?

Probably we’ll never know the exact answer and the formula that guides our lives. From another perspective, could it be that we are merely puppets in a grand simulation—acting as if we have free will, while every event is already predetermined? There may be a higher power, something beyond our understanding, hidden from our awareness. 

In many of the texts that Freud wrote he never argued about the existence of God. Neither he nor this article directly questions the existence of God. We both are questioning the tendency to seek solace by believing in God. 

Recently, former Prime Minister and President of the Nepali Congress (NC) Sher Bahadur Deuba, along with Dr Shashanka Koirala, the son of BP Koirala, visited BP Koirala’s ancestral home in Biratnagar. This house is more than just a physical structure; it stands as a symbol of Nepal’s long and arduous democratic struggle, embodying the resilience, vision and sacrifices of one of the nation’s most revered leaders. Given its immense historical significance, I had expected that Deuba, as a leader of the party that BP Koirala formed, would acknowledge its value and push for its preservation as a national museum. Unfortunately, that did not happen.

Despite its crucial role in Nepal’s democratic history, BP Koirala’s home remains neglected, with no concrete efforts from the government or political leadership to conserve it. This is more than just the deterioration of an old building; it is an alarming disregard for Nepal’s democratic legacy. Preserving BP Koirala’s home is not merely about safeguarding bricks and mortar—it is about honoring the struggle for democracy and ensuring that future generations comprehend the sacrifices made for Nepal’s freedom and progress.

BP Koirala, Nepal’s first democratically-elected Prime Minister, was a towering figure in the nation’s political evolution. A staunch advocate of democracy, socialism and nationalism, his ideals laid the foundation for modern Nepal. His Biratnagar residence, where he spent crucial years of his political career, bore witness to key moments in Nepal’s democratic journey. It was within these walls that historic discussions, revolutionary ideas and strategic planning took place, all of which played a significant role in Nepal’s transition away from autocracy. The house, therefore, is not just a relic of the past; it is a living testament to the democratic aspirations of the Nepali people.

Despite its historical and cultural significance, neither the government nor the party has made any effort to make it a museum. There has been no substantial governmental or institutional effort to preserve it, a situation that reflects a broader issue in Nepal: the failure to institutionalize historical memory. Around the world, nations take pride in preserving the residences of their national leaders, converting them into museums and cultural centers to educate future generations. India, for example, has meticulously preserved Mahatma Gandhi’s Sabarmati Ashram, which serves as both a museum and an educational center. Nelson Mandela’s former residence in South Africa stands as a monument to his struggles and achievements. Nepal, too, must recognize the value of its historical landmarks and act swiftly to preserve them before they are lost to neglect and decay.

Transforming BP Koirala’s home into a national museum would serve multiple purposes. Firstly, it would provide an educational space for citizens, particularly young Nepalis, to learn about Nepal’s democratic history. Schools and universities could utilize it as a learning center, offering invaluable insights into BP Koirala’s ideology and Nepal’s political evolution. Secondly, it would serve as a significant cultural and historical attraction, drawing both domestic and international visitors interested in Nepal’s democratic struggles. Thirdly, it would act as a unifying symbol for the nation, reminding both political leaders and citizens of the fundamental values of democracy, integrity, and principled politics.

To make this vision a reality, the government must take immediate action in collaboration with the party and civil society. A dedicated trust should be established to transform BP Koirala’s home and curate exhibits that showcase his writings, personal artifacts, photographs and audiovisual archives. Additionally, an interactive section could be incorporated to allow visitors to engage with his speeches and ideas through modern, immersive technology. Such efforts would not only preserve the house but also revitalize public interest in Nepal’s democratic heritage.

Nepal cannot afford to let its history fade away through negligence and apathy. The legacy of BP Koirala is too significant to be forgotten. Preserving his home as a museum would be a fitting tribute to his contributions and a reaffirmation of Nepal’s commitment to democracy. The time to act is now—before history crumbles before our eyes.

As a dedicated member of the Nepali Congress, I urge the leadership of our party to take decisive steps toward this cause. With the party currently holding power in the government, there is no better opportunity to take concrete action. The government should initiate the process of acquiring BP Koirala’s home and officially recognizing it as a national museum. This would not only honor BP Koirala’s contributions but also serve as an enduring reminder of Nepal’s democratic journey.

Beyond preserving our democratic legacy, Nepal must also focus on strengthening its global identity. Our country is renowned for its breathtaking mountains, its status as the birthplace of Gautam Buddha, the historical significance of Goddess Sita, and its deep spiritual importance for Hindus around the world. These are core elements of Nepal’s identity, and the government must prioritize the development and promotion of these aspects. Just as we must preserve our democratic history, we must also leverage our cultural and religious heritage to bolster Nepal’s global standing.

By taking action now, Nepal can ensure that both its democratic and cultural heritage are preserved and celebrated for generations to come.

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

The ripples of the Trump administration's decision to freeze USAID under the pretext of misuse and abuse have caused turmoil across the world. As US government officials proclaimed on multiple occasions, “USAID funded an atheism expansion project in Nepal,” narratives colored with religious conversion and secularism are snowballing across Nepal. There is extraordinarily more to the funding debacle than meets the eye.

Originally for religious freedom

In 2021, the United States Department of State Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL) announced a Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) for ‘DRL FY20 IRF Promoting and Defending Religious Freedom Inclusive of Atheist, Humanist, Non-Practicing, and Non-Affiliated Individuals’. The amount of $500,000 would be awarded to projects that support religious freedom in two or three countries in the regions of South/Central Asia and the Middle East/North Africa. An overview of expected outcomes from the projects: increased availability of mechanisms for atheists and nonbelievers; increased capacity among members of atheists; increased awareness of religious pluralism. In principle, DRL presupposes these groups experience discrimination, abuses and harassment.

Because it was an open competition award, any country from the two specified regions was entitled to apply. Perusal of the NOFO details as spelled out by the State Department does not suggest “expansion” of atheism per se. Linda Qiu ingeniously called out the misleading statement by speaker Mike Johnson, “$100m on initiatives like expanding atheism in Nepal”. It was Brian Mast (Republican Congressman) who first brought Nepal’s issue to Congress hearing in March 2024 and February 2025, subsequently in an interview, and repeatedly framed the ‘religious freedom’ grant along the lines of ‘promotion or expansion of atheism’. In this particular context, authority bias was apparent—because high-ranking officials said it, it must be true. Qiu has debunked it with fact-checking; the half a million dollars in funding was the initiative of the State Department, not the USAID.

Misplaced funding

The Humanist International (HI) group secured the award of $500,000 and in the documents obtained by lawmakers in the US, it was discovered that the group intended to use the funding in Sri Lanka and Nepal. Michael T McCaul (chairman of the US Foreign Affairs) has expressed deep concern and dissatisfaction over the funding, as it is against the US Constitution to promote any religious ideology overseas. It is profoundly insulting for him that the State Department decided to entrust HI, whose CEO pushes for anti-Catholic agendas—an organization with anti-religious objectives. Whereas McCaul accuses the department of exercising their creativity in the name of religious freedom and criticizes one key project implementer for keeping details a secret, the department blames the HI for being untruthful.

Of course, the atheism project that Hl designed to implement in Nepal is at odds with the religious freedom project that the State Department envisioned to fund. To be sure, such a discrepancy is a result of the department’s failure to do due diligence. Was this a case of organizational corruption or what MaCaul calls a blatant favoritism on the part of the department? In any case, the State Department should be accountable, more than anyone else, for the administrative lapses and its impractically misplaced project. Because of such a laxity, the already-present preconceived notion or Hindutva propaganda is being reinforced: behind the introduction of secularism in Nepal was international development aid from the US and other Western powers.

Anti-secularists unleashed

The USAID fiasco and atheism grant have activated anti-secular forces in Nepal. Despite the assurance of Dean R Thomson, US ambassador to Nepal, last March 2024, the chairman of Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP), Rajendra Lingden, harped on the ‘atheism funding’ issue in one of the latest parliament sessions in February 2025. He unabashedly misled the parliament by conflating atheism, religious conversion and secularism. It was indisputably a well-colluded or calculated move to obscure the issue and undermine secularism. Not surprisingly, another member of RPP, Gyanendra Shahi, in one press meet, echoed the claims of Lingden verbatim, as all the pro-Hindu kingdom forces are predisposed to.

The end of the Hindu kingdom must have been such a huge blow to the RPP and its supporters that it has severely or interminably affected their ears. Any debate, utterances or conversations on secularism fell in their impaired ears, it is translated into religious conversion; hard of hearing, lately they translated atheism into secularism and religious conversion. It is high time the rankled anti-secularists learn that atheism, secularism and religious conversion are conceptually disparate regardless of religion being an overlapping element in them.

Neither the State Department NOFO document nor US officials (Brian Mast, Mike Johnson, and others) spelled out the term ‘secularism’ or ‘religious conversion.’ Seeking to prove that external powers (USA) funded religious conversion and secularism is an expedient method at anti-secularists’ disposal to weaken the legitimacy of secularism in Nepal. Little do they realize that this project of atheism was part of the Biden administration (2020-2024), and Nepal cemented its secular identity in 2007 and subsequently in 2015. To reinvigorate the preexisting narrative, the atheism grant example is being invoked or exploited so that the national sentiments against secularism are fueled. Social media platforms are rife with conversations or comments that attempt to render objectivity to such misleading narratives.

On social media platforms, the legendary comedians, the duo of Madan Krishna Shrestha and Hari Bansha Acharya, have been subjected to witch-hunting over atheism allegations, especially by anti-secularists. Because of recourse to a retroactive judgment mode, telefilms or plays they produced decades ago are under scrutiny as if USAID funded them for religion or atheism projects. Fueled by misleading information, some critics, keyboard warriors and social media mobs have ganged up against the duo by blatantly ignoring the nuances of USAID’s grant provided to the few projects throughout their careers. In addition to the duo comedians, Krishna Dharabasi, Kunda Dixit, Amar Neupane and Khagendra Sangraula, among others, are not only facing backlash with vitriolic comments—ad hominem attacks—from cyber warriors, but they are also on the verge of becoming victims of what is called the ‘cancel culture’.

Atheism deserves protection

McCaul laments and criticizes the State Department for not funding any project that tackles persecution of Christian and Muslim minorities in South Asia while spending taxpayers’ money for atheist/humanist programs inconsistent with US law. If a project that ensures freedom of atheists translates into an ideologically charged endeavor, how do supporting Christians and Muslims transcend the similar allegations? Ample evidence from countries has emerged where atheists are targeted; non-religious people are ostracized in India, Colombia, and the Philippines, while atheists and non-believers are imposed death penalties in Afghanistan, Iran, Sudan and the UAE. Thus, should Nepali atheists in the future be victims of such mistreatment, then it definitely calls for intervention in terms of funding from USAID, the State Department or other agencies.