Submit your Article

People create laws and constitutions for themselves, then execute, implement and follow these laws as part of their civic duty. This process is common across the globe. The only times when individuals are exempt from following the law are at birth and at death. Otherwise, throughout their lives, people must abide by the law to maintain order and be seen as living a disciplined life.

As social creatures, humans naturally form communities and live among others. This need for social connection underscores the importance of fostering brotherhood and maintaining cordial relationships with one another. It’s through these positive interactions that harmony is created and sustained in society.

In today’s society, however, it’s apparent that many people, politicians and political parties often do not follow the rules and laws they are supposed to uphold. This lack of adherence to the rule of law has led to a breakdown in social harmony and an environment where breaches of legal and ethical standards are common. The authorities frequently enjoy absolute impunity for violating both political and economic rights, undermining the principle of justice that should be central to governance.

This disregard for the rule of law has contributed to growing social and religious conflicts. When those in power are not held accountable, it creates an atmosphere of mistrust and division among the people. Without a consistent enforcement of the law, the development and stability of society and the country are at risk. To move forward, it’s crucial that laws are respected and applied evenly, without favoritism or corruption, ensuring that everyone is subject to the same legal standards. This is the only way to rebuild trust, promote social harmony and foster sustainable development.

To address these issues, laws are needed to combat false accusations, rumors and hate speech. While Nepal has laws and regulations in place for these matters, they are not sufficiently strict, allowing people and political leaders to engage in character assassination with impunity.

Lawmakers in parliament must set an example through their conduct and language, presenting their opinions with discipline and respect. Since they represent the people of an entire nation, they should model behavior that is appropriate and considerate. It’s crucial to define the acceptable boundaries and types of language used when criticizing others. Even when someone is guilty of wrongdoing, there are other ways to hold them accountable without resorting to hate speech or personal attacks. The same applies for the bureaucrats.

Stronger enforcement of existing laws and the establishment of clear guidelines on acceptable discourse in public forums can help prevent the spread of harmful rhetoric and promote a more respectful and constructive political environment. Hate speech should never be tolerated, and strict measures must be taken to discourage and penalize those who engage in it.

The behavior and speech patterns of a country’s people reflect the nation’s culture and level of civilization. If we neglect to address these aspects, how can we cultivate a healthy culture and civilization? This disregard for cultural development will prevent the country from progressing in a positive direction.

Currently, the nation is engulfed in confusion because we struggle to discern who is telling the truth and who isn’t. Even those we consider our protectors and leaders often fail to be truthful, creating further uncertainty.

To address this issue, we need laws that promote honesty and respect for others. Anyone who spreads falsehoods or incites hate should face consequences, regardless of their position. This should apply universally, whether the individual is an ordinary citizen, a politician, a bureaucrat, or even a judge. If someone engages in spreading misinformation or hatred, they must be held accountable and face appropriate punishment.

In addition, it’s crucial to scrutinize the integrity of lawyers as they present their cases in court. Legal professionals should be held accountable for the accuracy of the facts they submit during trials. This ensures that justice is based on truth and prevents manipulation or distortion of evidence.

Furthermore, court verdicts should also undergo rigorous examination to ensure that decisions are fair, unbiased and founded on accurate information. Every part of the judicial process must be rooted in honesty to maintain public trust in the legal system.

Ultimately, the commitment to truth should extend across all areas of society. No matter who you are or what role you play, practicing honesty and promoting integrity are essential for building a just and ethical community.

The media plays a pivotal role in disseminating information, which means it must be held to high standards of accuracy and responsibility. Given that misinformation and disinformation are significant threats on a global scale, media organizations must be checked to ensure they are not contributing to these problems.

Nepal should strive to become a land where truth is valued and upheld in all aspects of society.

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

Following the recent general elections, minor political parties entered the arena with the aim of securing a role in governance, capitalizing on the current electoral framework where no single party can secure a parliamentary majority. Despite initial anticipation of an ideological shift when the Maoist party engaged in the peace process and formed an alliance with the CPN-UML, the coalition fell short of such expectations. Nepali politics is viewed by analysts as being at a critical juncture due to governmental instability, rampant corruption and policy dilemmas. While Nepali people hoped for a lean and efficient administration under democracy, political entities in Nepal failed to deliver on this promise. Instead, the existing governmental structure appeared more bureaucratic and financially burdensome to Nepali taxpayers. Nepal witnessed one of its weakest coalition governments in recent memory, with governing partnerships shifting thrice within a year, reminiscent of past ruthless practices and corrupt leadership.

Even purportedly new political entities became entangled, directly or indirectly, in this murky landscape. Nepali people must understand that a new political party does not inherently equate to moral or ethical integrity. Without ethical leadership, genuine renewal cannot occur. The proliferation of new political parties poses a challenge to Nepal’s democracy and the establishment of a stable governance framework. Hence, analysts must scrutinize emerging trends, including the involvement of Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) in Nepal’s current government.

Analysts assert that RSP emerged from popular sentiments and crowd-driven notions rather than a coherent political ideology. When a political entity originates from populism, it may lack a clear political agenda, principles and policies. Parties’ lack of principles can undermine democracy, as voters may struggle to access accurate information to make informed choices. Furthermore, in the absence of political principles, a party risks becoming the personal domain of its leader, sidelining the interests and agendas of others. Populist ideas have the potential to conceal decision-making processes and mislead the public. Without a solid political ideology, populist agendas may clash with the nation's established plans and policies, resulting in misguided policy decisions. Populist leaders often adhere strictly to their scripted agendas, sidelining other parties from meaningful discussions.

Under CPN (Maoist Center) Chair Pushpa Kamal Dahal-led ruling alliance, RSP has emerged as a significant political force, bearing substantial responsibility and accountability to the Nepali people. However, numerous uncertainties linger regarding the RSP and its leadership. Establishing a political party necessitates several key components: a clear political ideology, organizational structure, committed party members and integrity. Regrettably, RSP lacks all four elements. A robust political ideology serves as the cornerstone of a democratic political party, providing the framework for policy formulation. The absence of such an ideology and principles has downgraded RSP to a populist entity born from popular sentiment rather than sound political doctrine. In a democracy, people reserve the right to inspect their political leaders, and governments and political parties must remain answerable to the people. However, RSP has been quick to silence dissent and avoid pertinent inquiries, raising concerns about its commitment to transparency and accountability.

RSP lacks a robust political infrastructure, functioning more as a non-profit organization where social activists deflect blame onto others without assuming responsibility themselves. Examination of their core leadership reveals a predominance of individuals from elite backgrounds or higher economic layers, primarily residing in urban centers. RSP primarily focuses its activities on urban politics, capitalizing on the ability to amass crowds. The party’s president, Rabi Lamichhane, signals from a media background, using his platform to criticize the government and spread misinformation rather than addressing genuine issues. Lamichhane has adopted a quasi-superhero persona, presenting himself as capable of resolving all challenges through seemingly magical means. Despite his involvement in numerous controversies and disputes within Nepali media and politics, no conclusive resolution has been reached under legal frameworks. Major political parties have exploited Lamichhane for their gains, not bothering to address controversies surrounding him.

Nepal’s major political parties have diligently instructed their members on political ideology and beliefs, yet RSP has faltered in establishing a coherent political ideology and grassroots organization. Instead, RSP relies on amassing followers from the masses without implementing any effective control mechanism. It’s common knowledge that unguided crowds can turn toward chaos and pose a threat to democracy by disregarding laws and regulations. Therefore, RSP must evolve into a responsible democratic political entity, addressing unanswered questions and being accountable to the public. The rise of populism and crowd-driven politics worldwide over the past decade, exemplified by movements like the Mega Republicans in America and radical Hindu nationalists in India, poses a significant risk to democratic institutions and norms. Any embrace of nationalist radicalism could jeopardize Nepal’s overall development and its democratic foundation.

Integrity stands as a crucial pillar for the advancement of democracy. Unfortunately, all political parties in Nepal have fallen short of maintaining integrity to some extent, leading to results of large-scale corruption and conflicts of interest. Despite positioning itself as a viable political alternative, RSP cannot afford to emulate the shortcomings of established parties. Instead, it must exemplify honesty, moral integrity and ethical standards. Regrettably, RSP’s president, Lamichhane, has repeatedly failed to demonstrate honesty and ethical conduct, particularly in relation to an illegal passport case and a cooperative fraud. Moreover, his selection of ministries directly linked to these controversies highlights a clear conflict of interest, further underscoring his lack of integrity. Various incidents involving RSP leaders in controversial situations have been concealed by the party, weakening trust among the people and worsening damage to Nepal’s democratic fabric. When those claiming to offer an alternative view regard themselves as above scrutiny and disregard pertinent questions, public trust is undermined, leading to further harm to Nepal’s democracy.

The prevailing challenges to democracy around the world encompass populism, crowd-centric politics and leaders who undermine established institutions while advocating against traditional governance. Populist figures prioritize personal interests and political gains, deflecting blame onto others for every issue. In the Nepali context, most populist leaders prioritize attaining power rather than fostering long-term economic agendas and developmental strategies. The surge of crowd-centric politics stems from the failures of conventional political parties, which have either failed to address or neglected the people’s priorities. Regardless of the underlying reasons, populism presents a significant danger to democracy and governance, underscoring the importance of responsible political entities and leadership dedicated to nurturing liberal democratic values and fostering trust within society. Crowd-centric organizations can’t serve as a sustainable solution for Nepal’s long-term development. Instead, there is an urgent need to establish a streamlined government alongside an effective electoral system.

The opinions expressed in this article are the author's sole responsibility and do not reflect the views of any organization with which the author is professionally affiliated

The Civil Aviation Authority of Nepal (CAAN) is essential for an effective and safe operation of the nation’s aviation sector. However, because of its dual function as a service provider and a regulator, a major issue has emerged. This article examines the complexity of this conundrum, potential conflicts of interest, and ramifications for Nepal’s aviation industry.

Civil aviation authorities are often established to govern and control the aviation sector by setting safety standards, providing licenses and monitoring compliance. However, CAAN also offers a number of aviation-related services in Nepal, such as flight navigation, airport management and air traffic control. Concerns regarding potential conflicts of interest and objectivity in regulatory judgments are brought up by this duality.

A civil aviation regulator’s main responsibility is to guarantee the security and safety of aviation operations. To prevent accidents and incidents, regulatory organizations must implement high standards, conduct audits and monitor compliance. Questions concerning an aviation authority’s ability to maintain strict monitoring and objectivity arise when it acts as a service provider. The worry is that regulatory choices can be influenced by the need to sustain service revenue.

The inherent conflict of interest in the dual function issue is a crucial component. The authority’s financial interests as a service provider may conflict with regulatory choices made in the interest of safety. Transparency, accountability and public trust are all crucial components of an effective regulatory environment, yet they are all undercut by this contradiction. The possibility of conflicts of interest is one of the key issues brought on by CAAN’s dual duty. As a service provider, CAAN might put its own financial and operational interests ahead of those of others, which could occasionally conflict with its obligations as a regulator to uphold safety and fair competition. For instance, CAAN’s own financial success as a service provider might have an impact on decisions regarding the construction of airport infrastructure.

In order for regulation to be effective, it must be fair and open. There may be concerns about CAAN’s independence when the same organization is in charge of both the provision of services and their regulation. Fair and consistent laws that put the public interest ahead of financial gains are essential for the safety and expansion of the aviation sector.

The aviation industry in Nepal has been steadily growing, drawing both domestic and foreign firms. It is critical that CAAN’s interests as a service provider are not taken into account when making regulatory decisions in order to maintain a healthy and competitive market. If new entrants feel there aren’t any level playing fields, this situation can put them off.

In many nations, the civil aviation authority only performs regulatory duties, leaving other organizations in charge of providing services. By ensuring clearer lines between regulation and operation, this separation reduces possible conflicts and increases openness.

Nepal may think about changing the functions of CAAN to handle the conflict. Separate organizations for regulatory monitoring and service delivery could be established to help prevent conflicts of interest and advance a more open and competitive aviation sector. A step like this would bring Nepal’s practices in line with the world’s best practices and promote the security and development of the industry.

Several options could be investigated in order to overcome the difficulties arising from CAAN’s multiple roles:

Role separation: One strategy is to totally divide the regulatory and service provider roles. To ensure a sharper focus on safety and impartiality, this would need the creation of separate institutions responsible for regulation and service provision.

Strict governance and transparency: In order for CAAN to continue serving in both of its responsibilities, a strong governance structure and transparency tools need to be put in place. To manage conflicts of interest and guarantee that financial concerns are not influencing regulatory decisions, clear standards can be set.

Consultations with the industry: Involving stakeholders from the aviation sector in decision-making processes can help spot potential conflicts and guarantee impartial viewpoints. This strategy may result in cooperative solutions that put fairness and safety first.

CAAN faces a difficult issue because of its dual function as a service provider and a regulator. For the aviation sector to grow sustainably, the proper balance between meeting its requirements and guaranteeing impartial regulation must be struck. Nepal can overcome this challenge and establish a more open, secure and competitive aviation environment by embracing international best practices and reorganizing its functions. 

In my previous column, I discussed how chronic political instability is affecting the conduct of our foreign policy. Here, I delve into how foreign powers, big and small alike, influence Nepal’s foreign policy. We often criticize our politicians for their lack of maturity and consistency. In most foreign policy discourses, I often hear this question: Who will believe us (read our politicians)? It is a reality that our politicians are neither serious nor have they realized their weaknesses. But it would be unjust to solely blame our politicians without considering other aspects like how foreign powers are behaving with us. Nepal’s key priorities are economic prosperity and social development. For a long time, we have been mobilizing our foreign policy to achieve these goals.

From Prithivi Narayan Shah to the current set of leaders, all have realized that Nepal is situated between India and China, understanding the difficulties of being caught between two global powerhouses. For a long time, our Rana rulers tried to live in isolation out of fear that opening up could threaten their regime. Nevertheless, they still endeavored to serve both their personal interests and national interests. After the 1950s, Nepal began diversifying its economic, security, development and trade policies or looking beyond its immediate neighbors. Let’s consider the current situation. We are conducting our foreign policy in accordance with the 2015 constitution.

Article 51 of the constitution states: “Safeguarding the freedom, sovereignty, territorial integrity, nationality, independence, and dignity of Nepal, the rights of the Nepalis, border security, economic well-being, and prosperity shall be the basic elements of the national interests of Nepal.” Nepal places economic diplomacy at the forefront of its engagement with the wider international community. We need money and technology to accelerate social development and economic prosperity. Lately, we have been vocal about our reluctance to take on significant loans, preferring grants for infrastructure development. Our stated position is that we will not align with any strategic or military blocs.

Nepal takes a neutral position in regional and international conflicts, consistently advocating for their resolution through peaceful means, with some exceptions resulting from adventurous policies of our politicians. Nepal believes in non-interference in each other’s internal affairs, non-aggression, and the peaceful settlement of disputes. For instance, Nepal opposed the Russian attack on Ukraine while maintaining a neutral stance on other issues. Many argue that this stance contradicts Nepal’s non-alignment policy, but it aligns with our stated policy. If one sovereign country attacks another, Nepal cannot remain neutral and opposes such actions but avoids taking sides.

Our message is clear: we do not wish to be embroiled in big power rivalries, and we urge major powers not to involve us in their geopolitical games. Currently, amid the Middle East crisis, we maintain the same policy. If not a zone of peace, we aspire to become a zone of investment. We have a straightforward message for major powers: we understand and protect your security and other legitimate concerns, but only a prosperous and strong Nepal can effectively address those issues, so invest in our country. Of course, challenges such as corruption and bureaucratic red tape exist, but the investment climate in Nepal is comparatively favorable, and we have big markets like India and China in close proximity. Despite getting huge support from major countries in Nepal’s social and economic development, the country is starting to feel the heat of geopolitical tensions. As these tensions escalate, there is a fear among our politicians that major powers may pull Nepal into their orbit through economic assistance. As major powers roll out strategic initiatives one after another, there are concerns that Nepal may become ensnared in a geopolitical ambush. Not only politicians, but senior bureaucrats also find themselves in awkward positions as they consolidate all bilateral issues under one strategic basket. And, there is a lack of understanding among politicians and bureaucrats about these issues, and there have been no efforts to educate them.

By closely monitoring negotiations between our leaders and major powers, we can see that our leaders are facing pressure. Whenever they engage in talks with their counterparts, they struggle to avoid committing to strategic projects outright. Since they cannot outright reject them out of fear for their regime’s stability, they attempt to reassure that Nepal could consider such initiatives after thorough study and consensus at home. Due to such apprehensions, our politicians are even hesitant to accept pure development projects without strings attached. Similarly, diplomats in Kathmandu bypass the due process in dealing with Nepal. Instead of going through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, foreign countries tend to approach political leaders and certain ministries directly seeking their consent. For example, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs may be unaware of a host of initiatives proposed by major powers. If there is institutional memory, foreign countries cannot complain about policy inconsistency or lack of ownership across governments. If all proposals go through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which remains unaffected by changes in government, it ensures policy continuity to some extent.

Our stance remains that, due to our geopolitical location and other factors, we cannot align with major powers. Whether termed neutral, non-aligned or otherwise, our bottom line is clear: we seek engagement solely on economic terms. If major powers engage with Nepal in this manner, frequent changes in government may not pose significant difficulties. Therefore, support and invest in Nepal, so that we can safeguard the security and other legitimate interests of our friends. If major powers attempt to turn Nepal into a battleground for their conflicts, it will be detrimental not only to the Nepali people but also to the major powers. We understand that our neighboring countries, both near and distant, desire to see a stable and prosperous Nepal, as it serves their interests. My request to all: we aspire to grow with you as a sovereign and peaceful country. As I mentioned in my previous opinion piece, major countries should not favor one party over another or play them against each other. Instead, they should adopt a Nepal-centric policy with the economy at the forefront. Moreover, major parties should collaborate to formulate a common position on the issues mentioned above. We want to declare Nepal as a Zone of Investment.