Submit your Article

On June 7, the CPN-UML and Nepali Congress reached a seven-point consensus to form a coalition government. Days later, KP Sharma Oli cited these points from the rostrum of the Federal Parliament. While most of the agreement focuses on equitable power-sharing, it also solidifies that parties with different political ideologies will govern together for the foreseeable future. Notably, the second point of the agreement emphasizes that the national consensus government will prioritize amending the Constitution and enacting laws to ensure political stability, rather than merely reviewing the strengths, weaknesses, and complexities that have emerged since its enactment.

Given Madhes' significant political influence from the first Constituent Assembly until the Constitution's promulgation, it is crucial to gauge the political sentiments of the region. Politically, some Madhes-centric parties have already backed the Congress-UML coalition, some have stakes in the federal government, one party leads the Madhes Province, and others are still vying for federal government participation. This article aims to address two key questions: How will the Madhes Province handle the constitutional amendment issue presented by the two parties? And what kind of constitutional amendments does Madhes seek?

Madhes’ cautious approach

To understand the political pulse of Madhes Province, I spoke with Dr Vijay Singh, Vice-president of the Tarai Madhes Democratic Party and a former member of the Constituent Assembly. When asked about his party’s stance on the UML-Congress coalition’s agreement to amend the Constitution, Dr Singh welcomed the initiative but stressed the need for a thorough review of what needs to be amended. He criticized the leaders of major parties who blame the mixed electoral system for the existing electoral issues, arguing that the current system has no inherent flaws. Dr Singh pointed out that since 1991, all elections before the Constituent Assembly used the first-past-the-post (FPTP) method, which led to imbalanced, unstable, and weak government structures, underrepresentation of marginalized communities, and greater dominance of the ‘Khas-Arya’ community. In contrast, proportional representation ensures that diverse societal groups, including marginalized communities, are adequately represented.

Dr Singh also highlighted an inconsistency in the Constitution: the upper house of parliament allows for 59 members, with three appointed by the cabinet in addition to an equal number of MPs elected by each province. This setup does not align with the principles of inclusivity, as provinces with vastly different populations elect the same number of representatives. He suggested that the Indian model, where each state is guaranteed one seat in the upper house and the remaining seats are allocated based on population, could be more appropriate. Additionally, Dr. Singh called for a review of the gerrymandered electoral constituencies in the southern plains, which have been manipulated by major political parties.

Ram Saroj Yadav, a Constituent Assembly member and Nepali Congress representative in the Provincial Assembly, echoed similar concerns. He and other party members oppose any alterations to the proportional representation provision, which guarantees inclusive representation from the provincial to the federal level. Yadav stressed that Nepal’s diverse society gives regional parties a unique role in the nation, and any attempt to undermine federalism could trigger a major revolt.

Recently, Satish Singh, the Chief Minister of Madhes Province, submitted a 22-point demand to Prime Minister Oli for the development of Madhes. This highlights the province’s lack of sufficient resources and authority for its development. According to Deepak Sah, Vice-president of the Janmat Party, while Janmat supports the current coalition, they will fiercely resist any attempt by the government to backtrack on the achievements enshrined in the Constitution.

Meanwhile, UML and other national party leaders are optimistic about constitutional revisions to promote political stability, though they acknowledge the challenges of fostering development under the current framework. Historically, Nepal’s national parties have struggled to address regional identity issues, and Madhes remains particularly sensitive to any curtailment of regional party rights.

The road ahead

Electorally, the influence of Madhes-centric parties has diminished since 2017. The CPN-UML and Nepali Congress have overtaken the Janata Samajbadi Party and Loktantrik Samajbadi Party, the two major Madhes-based parties, to become the largest and second-largest parties in the province, respectively. This shift reflects growing discontent with political figures and representatives rather than with the system itself. Within Madhes-centric parties, formal and informal debates are ongoing about whether the larger national parties are attempting to sideline smaller, regional parties under the pretext of constitutional revision.

The Constitution of Nepal envisions a framework based on federalism, republicanism, secularism, and inclusivity, with fundamental rights, proportional representation, and inclusivity at its core. While there are voices in Madhes Province arguing against secularism, their political influence is minimal, and Madhes-centric parties, along with other parties, have generally supported secularism.

A constitution’s strength lies in its ability to reflect the values of the people it governs. Madhes has a significant stake in the Constitution of Nepal, having revolted in 2007 after the interim constitution was issued without mentioning federalism—an omission that cost 57 protesters their lives. The devastating 2015 earthquake prompted major political parties to sign a 16-point agreement to promulgate the Constitution, but this agreement was seen by some as a calculated move to undermine federalism. The Supreme Court ultimately mandated the promulgation of a new Constitution, which included provisions for provincial power-sharing and federal boundaries. Advocate Dipendra Jha noted that Nepal’s Constitution was created as a “constitution of winners and losers,” rather than one reflecting everyone’s sentiments.

Now, the same parties that dominated the Constituent Assembly and shaped the Constitution are attempting to amend it. It is crucial to eliminate the mindset of "winners and losers" and address past injustices. For Madhes, the amendment process represents an opportunity to ensure that the Constitution truly reflects the needs and aspirations of all Nepalis.

The author is associated with Peace Development Research Center [PDRC]

When Lee Kuan Yew first took on the task of transforming Singapore from a Third World port city to a First World peaceful and prosperous nation-state, his initial model was Sri Lanka. What happened to Sri Lanka today and why?

Since the 1980s, Sri Lanka, once the island paradise, started falling into the quagmire of ideological and ethnic conflicts. The leaders who led the campaign to militarily end the devastating ethnic conflict were elected several times. But after their last election victory, the serious financial crisis exacerbated by Covid-19 turned into a crisis of political-economy and governance. The same electorate bringing the Rajapaksas to the presidential and prime ministerial palaces repeatedly also forced them not just to flee their palaces but also their country. The Rajapaksas’ fall from power started worrying many others, hence the question: “Are we going to be the next Sri Lanka?”

In South Asia, when Bangladesh first gained independence from Pakistan in 1971, it was described as a “Basket case”. Defying all odds, Bangladesh not just survived but also thrived. In recent years, it was one of the models of stability and prosperity, with highest rates of economic growth and ready to graduate from the grouping of Least Developed Countries to a developing country.

And then suddenly, in August 2024 what do we see? Angry mobs ransacking the official residence of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, who not only presided over the longest period of stability and prosperity but was also the surviving heir apparent to the leader of the new nation, Bangladesh. Not only was assassinated leader Sheikh Mujib’s daughter forced to flee the country, but angry mobs were seen breaking the statue of Bongo Bandhu, the Father of the Nation. It brought back memories of the statues of Lenin being downed after the fall of the Soviet Union or Saddam Husain’s after the Iraq War and the fall of Baghdad.

When leaders fall and nations fail

Starting from the Greek City States to the Vietnam War era US, Barbara Tuchman, in her fascinating book The March of Folly, explains how even intelligent people become blind in the seat of power. In my article, ‘Why do nation-states fail?’ I have related the story of the rise and fall of Mobutu Sese Seko and his role in the failure of one of the largest and richest nations of Africa and indeed the world. Working on a research project, causes of state failure, Mobutu’s case caught my attention for many reasons. His is a classic case of crisis of governance leading to the fall of a leader and state failure.

In 1961, after the assassination of the democratically elected leader Patric Lumumba, Col Mobutu was installed as the President of one of the most naturally endowed countries, Zaire, now the Democratic Republic of Congo. As the darling of external powers, he ruled that nation for close to four decades with an iron fist, further impoverishing his destitute people but enriching himself and his mentors. He had stashed unlimited amounts in foreign banks and had numerous luxury villas all over the world, including one in the lakeside of Geneva, where I used to live at that stage of my own life and world history. Besides my extensive travels and sympathy for the common African people, that was another reason his case caught my attention.

Mobutu’s misrule became so intolerable that his own unpaid security forces eventually started welcoming the rebel leader Laurent Kabila and his forces. On 26 May 1997, as the rebels reached the outskirts of the capital Kinshasa, Mobutu fled on his waiting jet to an uncertain destination. As his stars started falling, the external actors, who initially installed him in power, had already disowned him. Countries where he had amassed his wealth also did not give him permission to land. As the airplane carrying him, his family and closest associates started running out of fuel, France gave permission to land in one of its military airfields on the condition that immediately after refueling he would leave.

The King of Morocco finally agreed to give him asylum until he could find a place to go. As he was suffering from cancer, he soon died there. The irony is, stolen from his poor people, he had so much money and palaces all over the world, but couldn’t find even a place to die in peace.

Lessons from the neighborhood

Rajapaksa and Hasina are not Mobutu and knowing the resilience of the people and leaders there, Sri-Lanka and Bangladesh are certainly not going to be DRC. In fact, Sri Lanka is already on the path of recovery and under the enlightened leadership of Nobel Laureate Prof Mohammad Yunus, whom I have the honor of knowing, Bangladesh will be back on its path of stability and prosperity soon.

I recounted the Mobutu story simply to illustrate that leadership motivations and roles explain why despite plentiful natural and human resources, some countries fail whereas other less naturally endowed countries prosper and succeed. With this in mind, how can leaders and nations avoid what happened to Rajapaksas in Sri Lanka and Hasina in Bangladesh?

Once a leader reaches the top, popular demands for a more equitable sharing of political power and economic benefits within and across societies creates a crisis of global political-economy and governance. Dynamics of time and technology, demonstrated by the power of social media, has completely changed state-society relations. The fall of the Berlin Wall saw the collapse of communism in Russia and Eastern Europe. Of late, the relationship between the governors and the governed under liberal democracy, as defined by periodic elections, has also changed. Today leaders are under constant vigil. Any misbehavior and anger of the same electorate, which gives leaders the mandate to rule for a certain number of years, can force them to flee halfway or even before. So, the first lesson is, never take people for granted, just because you have been elected. Leaders too must remain watchful of the popular mood.

Both in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, there is at least one other significant common denominator. International relations is the study of great power relations and how they affect the rest of the world. It was important to comprehend the Great Game or the Cold War to fully understand the rise and fall of Mobutu yesterday. Today, it is even more important to understand the simultaneously cooperating, competing and confronting nature of great power relations and how it affects leaders and societies in one of the new epicenters of the current global paradigm flux, South Asia. These complexities and challenges demand knowledge and wisdom in leaders interested in managing state affairs successfully.

There is also a lesson for great powers. It is futile to intervene in the politics or electoral processes of other countries as democracy only works if and when popular will is allowed to prevail without considering with me or against me. In this day and age, it will not take much time for people to know who is real and who is a proxy. And when they do, as Newton’s Third Law, it will also create an equal and opposite reaction from the people. 

So, understanding the motivations and mindsets that conditioned the leadership roles and behaviors of Rajapaksa and Hasina, elite culture that supported and later disgraced them, external factors that first helped and sustain them in power and later precipitated their fall, are all important for anyone interested in avoiding their experiences. Amidst these complexities of personal behaviors, national and international challenges, if there is one single but significant lesson from both Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, it is this. In this age of instant information and communication, remote listening, viewing, networking, and great power games, ignorance and arrogance are weaknesses of leaders which can easily turn success into failure, victory into defeat. Sadly, when leaders fall and states fail, mostly it is the people who suffer. The DRC, Somalia and Afghanistan, are examples which must be avoided. South Asia can ill afford another Afghanistan.

Views are personal

While national politics in Europe has witnessed the resurgence of the far-right, an unprecedented congress-communist coalition has emerged in Nepal, with KP Oli playing a crucial role in the country’s political chess game. Oli is considered the most astute political leader in contemporary Nepali politics, second only to King Mahendra, and is thought to have the same level of sensitivity as BP Koirala when it comes to foreign policy and international diplomacy.

Yet, the crucial concern is—can Oli be daring enough to programmatically handle a variety of present-day pressing issues in domestic, regional and external affairs? In the domestic sphere, the most persistent issues that need to be handled with utmost sensibility are the essence of democratic governance, economic prosperity, development, political stability, territorial sovereignty, and national security. On the regional front, the immediate neighbors—China and India—are trying to narrow down their misunderstandings and resolve various pressing issues including the border issues by improving their relations, while both of them are likely to improve relations with Nepal as well. 

They are expected to resolve persistent issues with Nepal as well. China has constantly put Nepal in its development and diplomatic priority, while India has most recently revised its aid policy to Nepal. In this regard, Nepal ought to maintain a balance in its relations with both parties by prioritizing its own national interest, regardless of their covert political agendas. 

Indeed, the Oli government will encounter numerous foreign policy challenges from all sides. The most important concerns, however, will be striking a delicate balance in the country’s relations with China, India, the US and the EU.

With an eye toward the North, Oli himself signed the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) deal with China in 2017, and it is anticipated that his current administration will rationally carry it out. The Oli government has already started facing multiple pressures on foreign policy, including the status of BRI implementation within the parliament as well as from outside. Given that the alliance with the CPN (Maoist Center) was recently crushed, Oli may have to endure pressure from the Chinese Communist Party (CPC) in the name of maintaining communist unity in Nepal. PM Oli should be sensible enough in implementing the past agreements or initiating new ones with both India and China by keeping national interest above all else. In the current tenure, Oli should astonishingly initiate talks with China to grant visa-free travel to Nepali citizens in China. This would not only help strengthen people-to-people contact and enhance trade activity by opening several connectivity options between China and Nepal but also help elevate the global status of the Nepali passport, which would indeed lead Oli at the helm of foreign policy.

While turning toward the South, border and trade issues and the Eminent Persons Group (EPG) report are ever-pressing concerns. Oli has garnered huge support by including in Nepal’s map the territories of Kalapani, Lympiadhura and Lipulekh on the basis of historical evidence like land tax payment papers and historical accounts, and the formation of the EPG, so Oli is expected to be more apprehensive with revisiting, and resolving these issues. India, however, has its own share of problems and foreign policy challenges, as it has recently witnessed unprecedented politico-electoral changes, while the opposition in the Indian Parliament has emerged stronger. Chances of the Indian National Congress winning the next election and forming a government are greater. In light of the impending change of power in New Delhi, the Oli administration ought to strengthen ties with the ruling party along with the opposition in the Indian parliament. This is because the Congress has openly backed Nepal on a number of issues, most notably the blockade in 2015, when Oli was leading the government in Kathmandu. India, however, is carefully balancing its relations with all powers, including the US, China, Russia, and the EU, with the Modi government acting in a very dynamic manner and conducting a shrewd and sensible foreign policy with all of them. The Oli government in Kathmandu ought to do similar stratagem in foreign policy execution with its immediate neighbors to the north and south as well as other powers to the west,

Looking Westward, implementation of the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) and potential pressure on the Indo-Pacific Strategy (IPS) as well as the State Partnership Program (SPP) cannot be ruled out, which will be Oli government’s foremost foreign policy challenges. Meanwhile, the US is on the verge of a presidential election, which might bring dramatic results by shocking not only America but also the entire world. The US election of 2024 is probably going to be a whimsical one, especially with President Joe Biden pulling out and Vice-president Kamala Harris entering the presidential race. Since a failed assassination attempt a few weeks ago, former president Donald Trump has received tremendous sympathy and support—both political and moral—within the Republican Party and outside of it. Since then, Trump has grown braver, stronger and calmer, all of which may help him win the election. Yet, a large section of Americans are worried whether the US would be winning. Nevertheless, Harris’s endorsement has indeed traumatized Trump and his team, as she is considered a strong contender for presidency. Thus far, America has largely suffered from identity and racial politics since its establishment. So, the likelihood that the American people will elect a president of ‘race’ and ‘color’ is minimal, regardless of one's attributes, appeal, strengths, exposure, or charisma. The presidential race is not likely to be so easy for both of them.

Nevertheless, if Harris wins the US presidential election, she is most likely to continue Biden’s foreign policy, including the IPS and Taiwan and Tibet policies. She is also likely to follow the path of confronting China, which will largely affect not only South Asia, but the entire world. 

Her administration will surely support Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. This means the international war, uncertainty, and chaos will continue, marked by growing US-China rivalry, while Russia will remain the biggest enemy of the West, including the US, EU, and NATO. 

At the same time, chances of growing India-Russia proximity affecting India-West relations are higher, which will have a significant bearing in South Asia and beyond. In addition, the risks that Taiwan issues will be heated up cannot be ruled out, which will directly affect Nepal in all aspects—security, economy, politics and diplomacy. While Nepal has already suffered from the Russia-Ukraine and Israel-Palestine wars directly and indirectly, as a significant number of Nepalis  have lost their lives in the Russia-Ukraine war and in Palestinian captivity, Nepal will suffer much more from the Taiwan occupation and corresponding consequences.

Alternatively, should Trump win the US presidential election, the country’s foreign policy will change, affecting not only its friends and allies but also every nation on the planet, including its most formidable adversaries, China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. In any case, regardless of the winner—Harris or Trump—the US remains in a position where a major shift in its foreign policy will have a substantial impact on the rest of the world, including Nepal and its immediate neighbors.

Nepal’s foreign policy should therefore be utterly sensible, rational, and pragmatic, rather than being influenced by fear-psychoses, imperceptible hypotheses, or submissive philosophy, given the country’s sensitive geo-location and the ongoing competition between global and regional powers in South Asia, especially in Nepal. Thus, it is necessary to pragmatize the conventional approach to foreign policy making in light of realism, facts, data, information, history, intelligence and changing dynamics in techno-geopolitics and international relations. So, it is necessary to establish a robust and all-encompassing intelligence unit at the Prime Minister’s Office, which could supervise various sub-units such as the desks for the US, China, India, and the EU, with foreign policy experts employed to maintain the respective desks and offer the Prime Minister real-time advice and information as well as practical recommendations based on dynamism in international political and diplomatic spheres.

Oli, however, has largely suffered from some problems of “makeover leadership”, such as high vision, big dreams and patronizing expectations. He needs to be more pragmatic and patriotic than nationalistic at the moment, yet the nationalistic agenda can be emphasized based on national consensus. Also, he needs to take every criticism as an input for his mission on nation-building. Oli is said to be an idealist and is believed to be capable enough to inspire the nation, stimulate the citizens, and envision several steps ahead of contemporary Nepali leaders. Subsequently, Oli should be able to take the major political parties into confidence to develop a consensus on significant domestic and foreign policy issues, while democratic governance and political stability need to be at the core of the efforts.

That being said, the Oli government ought to strive not only for economic and political stability but also for the establishment of a prosperous nation, the preservation of Nepal’s territorial sovereignty, and the affirmation of its sovereign dignity. Meanwhile, Oli must once again demonstrate that he is a nationally acclaimed ‘true patriot’ leading the country with a strong sense of economic patriotism, spirited leadership and rational intelligence. He needs to show his distinct charisma to cement friendly relations with foreign leaders through ‘personal diplomacy’, while personal diplomacy can play a significant role in solidifying Nepal’s relations with other nations even when bilateral relations go low. As a patriot, PM Oli must exhibit his valiant persona and immense sense of patriotic morality to stand tall, neck-to-neck and shoulder-to-shoulder with leaders of neighboring and other powers such that he could gear up the momentum of diplomatic and foreign relations to safeguard national interests.

Considering the implications of international political, diplomatic, and security intelligence, the government must view intelligence through a wider lens, examining it from military (or security) intelligence to political intelligence to diplomatic intelligence to emotional intelligence (of the leaders and diplomats). Political and intelligence culture can help understand foreign policy and military and security affairs in depth. The powerful countries frequently practice astute intelligence and counterintelligence, while some of them also regularly push political and diplomatic propaganda to influence countries like Nepal. Where are the diplomatic intelligence systems in Nepal? Can foreign policy succeed without any significant intelligence mechanisms?

Nepal should rationally invest in intelligence, especially political and diplomatic intelligence such that it could rationally enhance diplomatic engagement with its friends and strategic partners. The National Security Council and National Investigation Department (NID) need to be strengthened with regards to expertise, resources and responsibilities. Diplomatic intelligence, a pragmatic approach in contemporary diplomacy, needs to be potently exercised so that there won’t remain ample ground for diplomatic mishaps. When it comes to foreign policy and diplomacy, a careful calibration of words matters. Most significantly, emotional intelligence—the capacity to identify, comprehend and control one's own emotions as well as understand, identify, and influence the emotions of others during bilateral negotiations—is highly prized in diplomacy and diplomatic relations.

Even with all of these persistent challenges on both domestic and foreign fronts, PM Oli cannot bring about a radical change in the nation on his own. A comprehensive ‘political culture’ is necessary to pledge domestic political stability, envision perpetual democratic governance and advance national interest, while a strong “intelligence culture” is necessary to safeguard territorial sovereignty and national security. Essentially, these goals can only be achieved through broader national consensus among major political parties as well as the cohesive will of the people, society, intelligentsias, constitutional stakeholders and the nation.

The author is a techno-geopolitical analyst/geo-strategic thinker. Views are personal

I used to focus on tech as a business, but I realized there is a higher calling. It is why I shifted to directing the Dharma Farm, an institution that seeks to preserve culture through education in linguistics, history, and environment. Nepal is blessed with an extraordinary array of cultures, cultures exquisitely worthy of saving. Yet, so many of its inhabitants want to leave.

Commonly referred to as “brain drain,” the concept denotes the departure of a society’s highest educated or most skillful members to other places in search of opportunity. For Nepal, it is a critical problem. In 2022, the government issued certificates allowing as many as 165,000 students to go abroad for education. That represented a rough doubling of the number the year before. Added to that were somewhere around 800,000 Nepalis people who left for employment. These numbers continue to rise year-on-year. According to The Kathmandu Post, “only a handful” of students return upon graduating from foreign universities.

This indicates a core part of the problem. Having spent a great deal of time in Nepal among students, a common theme emerged, one not exclusive to Nepali youth, but especially troublesome nonetheless. Many authors and policy analysts have proposed a number of strategies to mitigate the brain drain problem, most of which have merit and demand serious consideration and implementation. They have suggested ideas such as improving the education system, focusing on economic innovation, and promoting good governance. One resolution strategy, however, has received relatively scant attention. It is this point that I hear youth ignore more than any other, but it is the single most effective answer to the problem.  

In the American business world, we often employ the phrase “pass the buck.” The phrase connotes the shifting of blame for a problem or the responsibility to solve it. After hundreds, if not thousands, of conversations with Nepali youth, passing the buck is the tacit response for how to improve the situation in Nepal. For them, the issues that drive them from their homeland belong to someone else to solve. Heading overseas represents an easier solution to enhancing their own circumstances than tackling the underlying causes for why they leave in the first place.

To justify this reasoning, they will point to obstacles that appear beyond their individual ability to surmount. Indeed, systemic problems do exceed the capabilities of nearly all individuals to fix them. Ignoring them, however, does nothing to diminish any specific obstacle, let alone a system-wide deficiency. As the saying goes, “Rome wasn’t built in a day,” neither was it built by any one man or woman. So it goes for Nepal.

Over my career, I taught problem-solving strategies in a wide variety of fields. Firefighting, policing, technology, and translation all raise serious challenges that can be quite daunting at first glance. My method always began with reductionism. Any task, no matter its complexity, is eminently less burdensome if broken into its component parts. Whether the duty at hand involves solving a computational bug in a piece of software or battling a forest fire, compartmentalizing the obligations to fulfill, and then completing them one-by-one guarantees a far higher chance of success at resolving the overall dilemma than attempting to undertake the entire thing at once.

There is no question that turning Nepal into a bastion of opportunity will be hard. Leaving the litany of matters in need of attention to someone else is far easier than staying behind and working to address them. Facing the challenge will require numerous sacrifices and an abundance of energy and creativity. But, consider this. If the youth does not do it, who will? They cannot expect their parents, the government, or some nebulous “other” to manage things for them. Despite the good intentions any of them may have, they are simply unequipped to go it alone.

If the youth insist on leaving, then little will change. Nepalese remaining behind will continue to struggle to eke out a living in increasingly empty cities and villages. The beautiful plains of the Tarai and the majestic mountains of the Himalayas will lose the cultures that supplement their magnificence, opening the door for exploitation by outsiders who recognize only their materialistic value. Meanwhile, Nepali youth will move to new lands in pursuit of capitalistic opportunity. In the places in which they settle, however, they will never truly feel at home. At best, their cultural uniqueness will simply blend with countless others, diluting into an austere version of its once splendid self. At worst, it will serve as a constant reminder of its foreignness in this new land they now blandly call “home.” And all the while, the very home they left will slowly cease to exist as they knew it.

I am not writing these words to criticize anyone. Rather, I come from a country whose cultural landscape consists of a vast mix of them, but with little identity of its own. Having been immersed in both mine and Nepal’s, I am unafraid to state that allowing Nepal’s cultural liveliness to degrade into a mere shell of itself would be a tragedy of epic scale. Moreover, once such a catastrophic result is reached, there is no going back. Frittering away such a jewel out of fear of or indifference toward facing problems will summon a specter of regret that will haunt innumerable generations to come.

For the young folks reading this: what I have described is not the inevitable future of Nepal, if you do not want it to be. If that is indeed the case, then the brain drain needs to be plugged. The brilliance I have observed among so many of you needs to be turned inward, to focus on conquering challenges, one small step at a time. It won’t be easy. But your family, children, and country will forever thank you for it. The answers lie within.