Submit your Article

I can’t quite recall how I ended up teaching primary school students, but it was my first proper job. After completing my intermediate studies in arts from Ratna Rajya Campus in the early 1990s, I was struggling to make ends meet in Kathmandu. My parents had stopped sending me their modest monthly allowance, which barely covered my rent and basic survival.

I must have seen an ad somewhere, which led me to the back alleys of Babarmahal, where an Indian couple had set up a primary school on the ground floor of a three-story building. Strangely enough, as I write this, I’m sitting in a quiet office near the confluence of the Bagmati and Dhobi Khola rivers–close to where it all began.

They hired me to teach English. The principal and his wife were impressed by my English grades. But the stint didn’t last long, and I later heard the school shut down soon after I left.

A few years later, I found myself commuting from my rented room in Thapagaun to Lamatar in Lalitpur district–changing two buses to get there. My friend Kamal Paudel had to leave town for personal reasons, and I was his stand-in at the school. Back then, I was deeply into Bollywood films and sported shoulder-length hair. The headmaster appreciated my teaching, but he asked me to cut my hair. As a young man with a flair for fashion and a fierce sense of freedom, I chose to walk away from my second teaching job.

As my journalism career progressed and later began to stall, I found myself circling back to teaching. Following covid pandemic, freelance journalism opportunities began to dry up. After my stint at a fact-checking organization, I started training journalists on verification and tackling mis- and disinformation. But those gigs were few and far between. 

I had failed to revive my freelance career. In my golden years as a freelance journalist, I always had three stories on the go: one already edited and awaiting publication, another in the reporting stage with an approved pitch, and a third, a solid idea ready to be pitched. But in recent years, my pitches were being regularly rejected, leaving me dejected and crestfallen.

Then, just before Dashain last year, I received an unexpected call from Krishna Niroula, the principal of the Institute of Advanced Communication, Education and Research (IACER) in Kathmandu. He offered me a chance to teach a course to postgraduate students of English literature, filling in for Ujjwal Prasai, who had left for the US to pursue a PhD. Kamal Dev Bhattarai, another friend who taught at IACER, had recommended me for the course.

Fortunately, I wasn’t starting from scratch. Two years ago, I’d been invited as a guest lecturer in the same course. Even better, the course, “Writing in the Digital Age”, had been designed by a friend, Dinesh Kafle. Knowing I could lean on him if I stumbled gave me some confidence. Still, this was a far cry from my Babarmahal days. I was now standing in front of graduate students and the stakes felt higher.

The course was close to my heart. It introduced students to powerful writing, from George Orwell to David Foster Wallace to English translations of essays by Buddhi Sagar and Raju Syangtan. I made a few tweaks to the reading list, adding some of my personal favorites: Pankaj Mishra, Manjushree Thapa, Indra Bahadur Rai, Declan Walsh, Samanth Subramanian and Peter Matthiessen. Their work had helped shape my worldview as a writer; now, I hoped it would inspire my students too.

From day one, it was clear the students came from diverse backgrounds, but most lacked formal training in writing. The course’s goal–teaching someone how to write well–felt at times like chasing the impossible. And yet, there we were, trying.

The curriculum already featured multimedia: a video of Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s “The Danger of a Single Story” was part of the syllabus. I added an audio interview with David Wolf, editor of Guardian Longreads. Wallace’s essay Consider the Lobster, a meditation disguised as a food review, was a surprise hit among the students.

Someone once said: if you want to learn something, teach it. Over those three months, I reconnected with something I’d been losing: my reading habit. Years of social media scrolling and an endless stream of attention-grabbing videos had dulled my focus. But teaching forced me back to the page.

I tried to pass on the lessons I’d gathered from writers and editors I admire and have learned from a great deal over the two decades of my journalism. In 2008, I spent a memorable week at Poynter Institute in Florida. There, I learned the craft of feature writing from masters like Roy Peter Clark, Chip Scanlan and Tom Huang, who hammered home key principles of good writing: brevity, clarity, the power of a strong nut graf or the main idea of the story, the magic of scene-setting. 

At IACER, “Show, don’t tell” became my classroom mantra. I was delighted when the students began to echo the phrase in their own reflections. I also emphasized the importance of capturing sensory details–the sights, sounds and smells–that bring writing to life.

I also shared my own journey: how I began as a reporter for the now defunct Nepal Weekly magazine in the early 2000s, writing in Nepali, and eventually won an Alfred Friendly Fellowship in the US in 2008 (that’s when I spent a week learning the craft of writing at Poynter). That experience opened new doors–I wrote for Time magazine, then worked for international news agencies like AFP and dpa. I explained how I went on to write for The New York Times, The Guardian, Al Jazeera, Outside, The Caravan and Nikkei Asia.

Standing before the class each week, I felt a quiet sense of fulfillment. Teaching didn’t just pass on the craft–it rekindled my joy in learning it.

In recent days, a strong debate has resurfaced in Nepal’s political landscape: monarchy versus democracy. Nepal has a long history of monarchy, particularly under the Shah dynasty, which ruled the country for centuries until the introduction of an interim constitution in 2007. The swift and peaceful transition from monarchy to a democratic republic was remarkable. The last king of Nepal, Gyanendra Shah, stepped down and left the palace without resistance, marking a historic moment in the nation’s political evolution.

Following the abolition of the monarchy, the country embraced a republican democratic system, which was widely welcomed by the public. However, political parties have since struggled to maintain the trust of the people. The transition was marred by inefficiencies, broken promises and poor governance. One key issue has been the adoption of an inflated and disorganized government structure, which has proven both costly and ineffective. The socialist orientation of the constitution has also had unintended consequences for Nepal’s economy and overall development. 

Additionally, while federalism was introduced to decentralize power, the central government has been unwilling to truly empower local governments. This has created overlapping responsibilities and financial burdens at both the federal and local levels. Given the country’s limited economic resources, it has been impossible to meet the high expectations raised during political campaigns. Political parties have often made unrealistic promises, leading to widespread disillusionment. Many Nepalis, in turn, have placed faith in these false assurances, often without access to accurate, fact-based information. The rise of social media has further enabled the spread of misinformation, deepening public confusion and distrust. These issues have played a major role in fueling public support for autocratic monarchists.

According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a monarch is a hereditary head of state with life tenure, whose powers range from symbolic to absolute. In the 21st century, the consolidation of inherited power and rule over the people is no longer acceptable. However, some monarchies continue to exist due to geopolitical factors. These monarchies tend to survive when they remain politically neutral, avoid scandals and maintain a limited ceremonial role. Unfortunately, Nepal’s monarchy has consistently failed in all these aspects.

Some monarchists have argued that Nepal should adopt a democratic monarchy and reinstate former King Gyanendra Shah. This is a baseless argument, rejected by most freedom-loving citizens. History shows that monarchs who seek absolute power are eventually forced to relinquish it or see it dramatically reduced. For instance, in 1920, King Christian X of Denmark dismissed his prime minister and government over a policy disagreement, which led to mass protests and a constitutional crisis. He was ultimately forced to back down. King Leopold III of Belgium spent five years in exile due to his refusal to comply with his government’s decisions.

The Shah dynasty in Nepal has never demonstrated a commitment to constitutional democracy. Instead, its kings repeatedly sought absolute power. Nepal's monarchy might have survived had King Gyanendra not staged a coup in 2005 to seize full control. This pattern of authoritarianism dates back further: King Mahendra executed a coup in 1960, dissolving democratic institutions and concentrating all power in his hands. King Birendra also maintained absolute rule through the Panchayat system, using political manipulation to hold onto power. Any credible historian can confirm that the Shah dynasty consistently pursued authoritarian governance.

Moreover, Nepal’s monarchy has been plagued by scandals—from the tragic royal massacre to allegations against Paras Shah involving illegal drug use, extrajudicial killings, sexual violence, extramarital affairs and ties to criminal networks. These controversies further eroded any moral legitimacy the monarchy once had.

The Shah dynasty has failed to govern Nepal effectively since the time of geographic unification under Prithvi Narayan Shah in 1768. After his reign, successive generations of the royal family were embroiled in internal power struggles, often marked by violence and betrayal. It was not uncommon for royal family members to conspire against or even kill one another in pursuit of power and personal gain. This violent legacy is one of many reasons why the Nepali people should not trust the monarchy or the Shah dynasty.

Even after the political reforms of the 1990s, the monarchy continued to act as an absolute authority, refusing to adapt to democratic norms. A large network of individuals benefited from the palace and the monarchical system, creating vested interest groups that further damaged the monarchy’s reputation. As a result, the institution lost the public’s trust,

The recent rise in pro-monarchy sentiments has negatively affected Nepal's progress toward prosperity and democratic development. Many Nepalis are understandably frustrated by ongoing political instability and economic hardship. However, this frustration has led some to overlook the value of democracy and entertain misguided notions of restoring the monarchy. There is no evidence that bringing back the monarchy would resolve even a fraction of Nepal’s current problems.

Certain political parties and crook networks have exploited pro-monarchy rhetoric to destabilize the democratic system and gain political advantage. Figures like Rabindra Mishra, Rajendra Lingden and Kamal Thapa appear to be leveraging this unrest to expand their influence. For them, whether the system is democratic or autocratic is irrelevant—they enjoy social, economic and political privileges either way. Their primary interest lies in gaining power, even if it means fueling division, protest or violence.

What the Nepali people truly desire is a prosperous nation where they can live freely and securely. Access to quality education, healthcare, public safety and a government that genuinely represents the people are the real needs of the moment. Yes, there is deep dissatisfaction with corruption, lack of opportunity, political instability and the unethical behavior of current leaders. But these issues are far more likely to be addressed within a democratic framework than under an autocratic monarchy.

The monarchy in Nepal was historically corrupt, repressive, autocratic and ineffective. Under its rule, people had no voice or freedom to speak out. Restoring such a system would be a step backward, not forward. Ultimately, Nepal’s future lies not in a return to monarchy but in strengthening its democratic institutions, promoting good governance and focusing on inclusive economic development.

On April 2, US President Donald Trump introduced a new tariff rule for more than 180 countries on what he called “Liberation Day.” Tariffs are taxes levied on goods crossing international borders. Under the new rules, there will be a baseline 10 per cent tariff on all imports into the United States, with even higher rates on countries that run substantial trade surpluses with the US. In practice, when a government imposes a high tariff on a product, the cost of importing that item increases for domestic consumers. More importantly, when a massive consumption-driven economy like the US erects high tariff walls, it creates disruptions across the global trade landscape. 

Like many other regions, South Asia, a subcontinent of over 2.04bn people and a $5.3trn economy, will be severely impacted—particularly with the imposition of rather higher “reciprocal tariffs.” The policy places some South Asian countries like India (26 percent), Bangladesh (37 percent), Sri Lanka (44 percent) and Pakistan (29 percent) at a distinct disadvantage, with almost prohibitively high tariffs. At the same time, small exporters like Nepal, Bhutan, Afghanistan and the Maldives, whose trade volumes with the US have remained relatively low, face a universal 10 percent tariff, a gentle rap on the knuckles in comparison but a barrier nonetheless. While it was always an uphill battle for South Asian nations—and the Global South in general—to compete in the face of the structural inequities arraigned against them in the global export market, they now have their task cut out for them. America’s reciprocal tariffs will create new challenges for some South Asian nations seeking to export their way to prosperity and economic stability.

In 2024, India continued to dominate South Asia’s trade with the US, exporting goods worth $77.5bn while paying low average tariffs of under two percent. Meanwhile, Bangladesh, the region’s second-largest exporter to the US, faced a much steeper tariff of about 15 percent. Despite these challenges, Bangladesh’s apparel sector, primarily driven by ready-made garments, has managed to grow. Its exports to the US rose by 0.7 percent year on year, reaching $7.5bn by 2024. Sri Lanka, another major South Asian trade partner of the US, is still in the process of rebuilding after its 2022 economic collapse. It now faces the highest tariff in the region: 44 percent. This poses an extreme challenge to Sri Lanka’s export economy.
America remains Sri Lanka’s largest single-country market for apparel, accounting for over 40 percent of the sector’s total exports, which surpassed $5.5bn in 2023. These countries, which rely heavily on the US as their top export market, have been hit especially hard by both the 10 percent baseline tariff effective from April 5 and specific reciprocal tariff rates effective from April 9. Even a slight decline in orders from the US could result in job losses and economic instability, and the likelihood of order cancellations, workforce reductions and escalating debt burden.

The US is Nepal’s third-largest buyer of carpets, with imports valued at $48m in 2024. The newly-imposed 10 percent tariff could also pressure Nepali carpet exporters to either absorb additional costs or risk losing their market share to competitors. Nepal’s niche export products, including hand-knotted carpets, pashmina, RMG, leather and tea, may face reduced competitiveness in US markets, which accounted for $112m in exports in 2024. The new trade barrier could pose fresh challenges for these sectors by threatening to impact their growth and market share. However, amid the crisis, there is a potential silver lining for a country like Nepal. While Sri Lanka, India, Bangladesh, and even Nepal’s northern neighbour China risk losing their price competitiveness due to the overwhelmingly high reciprocal tariffs, Nepali manufacturers, especially large-scale and medium-scale makers of export-worthy products, can seize the window of opportunity this may open by positioning themselves as a reliable and cost-effective alternative. 

The shifting sands of American trade policy create new uncertainties for India’s diverse set of export industries, Bangladesh RMG’s sector, and the textiles hubs of Sri Lanka and Pakistan. Southeast Asian competitors like Vietnam, Cambodia and Indonesia will also be adversely affected by the high reciprocal tariffs levied on them, accounting for 46, 49 and 32 percent, respectively. China, another low-cost manufacturing competitor and the world's premier exporter, is already subjected to a 20 percent tariff due to its alleged involvement in the fentanyl trade. China will now face an additional tariff, raising the total rate to a staggering 54 percent. This sharp increase represents a major escalation in trade tensions between the US and China, the two largest economies, and it renders the international market vulnerable to significant disruptions in the flow of goods.

These changes may be compelling enough for many companies that previously focused on manufacturing in Southeast countries like Vietnam to turn to smaller South Asian countries like Nepal in order to bypass US tariffs. This could substantially benefit Nepal. The baseline rate of 10 percent imposed on Nepal—significantly lower than tariffs imposed on Vietnam, Indonesia and China—means that Nepal may have a notable competitive advantage over other Asian economies. Businesses will increasingly seek alternatives to traditional manufacturing hubs such as China and Vietnam. Nepal, benefiting from low labour costs and affordable manufacturing conditions, is strategically positioned to attract attention as a viable alternative destination within global supply chains. Brands and retailers that had outsourced production to countries like Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Vietnam to avoid tariffs on Chinese goods may now view those destinations as less attractive under the revised US policies. Consequently, Nepal stands to benefit considerably as companies look to diversify and stabilise their international production bases. 

By effectively leveraging its reputation for ethical manufacturing, Nepal could appeal strongly to socially-conscious consumers, particularly in North America and Europe, presenting its products as both sustainable and responsible alternatives in the global marketplace. Importantly, Nepal enjoys duty-free access to the US market for 77 specific products under the Trade Preference Program, an arrangement which remains effective until December 2025 despite recent tariff changes, and this only enhances Nepal’s attractiveness as a manufacturing and export hub. By strategically leveraging the shifting trade landscape, Nepal can position itself as a competitive and stable destination for industries to mitigate tariff-related risks. 

This cannot be achieved unilaterally, though. Nepal will need to rope in businesses and governments in its region, South Asia, by positioning itself as an attractive investment destination. Given its relative tariff advantage, manufacturers from other South Asian countries such as India, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh can leverage Nepal as a strategic investment destination, establishing joint ventures or manufacturing facilities to lower their tariff exposure considerably in the American market. Promoting complementary manufacturing—where initial production occurs in Sri Lanka or India, for example, and final assembly or processing takes place in Nepal—can optimise the tariff differential effectively while, at the same time, ensuring that both Nepal and its South Asian partner countries have the opportunity to be involved in the supply chain. The creation of bilateral Special Economic Zones (SEZs) in Nepal can also attract South Asian and international businesses seeking tariff-efficient production locations. Nepal and individual South Asian countries should also consider initiating negotiations for a bilateral Preferential Trade Agreement (PTA), particularly targeting niche sectors like herbal products, tea, spices, textiles and handicrafts. The South Asian Free Trade Area (SAFTA), if implemented in the right spirit, can also serve as an enabler. 

While the ‘new normal’ will undoubtedly create instability and erect more barriers for South Asian exporters, it is usually possible to find a silver lining, even around the darkest clouds. This testing new phase in the life of the global economic order presents an unprecedented opportunity for strategic cooperation between Nepal and the rest of South Asia. Bolstering regional bilateral and multilateral ties is the right way to stimulate economic resilience.

Chairperson of the High-Level Economic Reforms Commission, Rameshwor Khanal, recently submitted the commission’s report to the Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister, suggesting a number of measures to boost the economy. 

The measures include suggestions like making the economy borderless to benefit from the global economy, a radical suggestion in a country like ours where the government does not admit that anything is wrong and the central bank paints a rosy picture even when there’s a 3-4 percent economic growth.
In our case, most economic forecasts are as reliable as weather forecasts, if not more.

What steps does a weak economy need to achieve a healthy growth? Before jumping into the report, let’s take some lessons: 

Investing in human capital

First, smaller countries like ours should identify what they have. If a country is small, it would be appropriate to increase human capital just like what Singapore did.

Having a good leader makes a great difference. Singapore is a shining example. The former prime minister of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, transformed a poor country into the world’s second richest in terms of GDP per capita in six decades by prioritizing education, infrastructure, services and industry.

Rwanda is another example. It spends 22 percent of its entire GDP on education, while Singapore spends up to 24 percent of its entire GDP.

Increased infra investment 

Take the example of China, whose public transport infrastructure is one of the best. Japan cannot match China's numbers but the quality of its public transportation, roads and high-speed rail makes it the best in the whole world!

Rails and roads should be a priority for poor countries too. The Covid-19 pandemic not only challenged human health, but also dealt the global economy a serious blow.

Emphasis on policy reforms

The above-mentioned report has presented a roadmap for economic reforms by suggesting steps for the creation of a private sector-friendly environment.

Economic policies should be formulated to create economic opportunities and build an economy where all sectors can compete equally, the report goes. In terms of monetary policy, the report recommends reducing the band of the interest rate corridor, reducing interest rate fluctuations by making liquidity management more active, confining inflation to a single digit by keeping it in a range of 4-6 percent. It has called for discussions, research and preparations on alternatives to a fixed exchange regime with the Indian currency. 

The report suggests radical changes aimed at institutional reforms. In particular, it suggests that every ministry, department and central-level body should formulate and implement a periodic improvement strategy by determining indicators to promote business-friendly and investment-friendly nature of its work and to provide services to citizens.

In the light of these suggestions, is it possible to not transfer secretaries deputed at federal ministries for at least two years in an unstable political situation?

Is it also possible to not transfer employees deputed at ministries for five years and let teams undertaking development projects work for five years?

Citing increased expenditure on social security, training and pensions, the report has recommended increasing the age for mandatory retirement of government employees to 60 from 58 years. This suggestion makes sense, given that the current average life expectancy is 73 years.

Against old and regressive acts

What’s more, the report recommends repealing 15 old and regressive acts, a demand that the private sector, especially the Confederation of Nepalese Industries (CNI), has been raising for a long time. They include Income Stamp Duty Act (2019), Black Market and Certain Other Social Offenses and Punishment Act ( 2032), Private Forest Nationalization Act ( 2013), Administrative Procedure (Regulation) Act (2013), Revenue Leakage (Investigation and Control) Act (2052), Foreign Investment Prohibition Act (2021), Nepal Agency Act (2014), Provincial Development Plans (Implementation) Act (2013), Import and Export (Control) Act (2013) and Social Behaviour Reform Act.  

The report is against increasing social security allowances for the next five years, recommending that the allowances should be reviewed every two years after that, on the basis of price inflation. The government is currently providing senior citizens a monthly old-age allowance of Rs 4,000, among others. Although this is a good suggestion in terms of treasury, it is difficult to implement before the elections.

On BFIs, derivatives market

The report recommends amending Banks and Financial Institutions Act to allow the operation of peer-to-peer lending institutions, allowing crowdfunding through the Securities Act and putting in place a licensing policy and regulatory arrangement for the same. It has suggested that the Securities and Exchange Board of Nepal (SEBON) should create necessary infrastructure for the development of the derivatives market. Legal and regulatory arrangements should be made for angel financing and arrangements made for registering potential angel investors, the report suggests: Since such investors invest in start-ups and bear the risk, only 10 percent income tax should be levied on the income received from such investments, it states. 

Furthermore, the report has suggested reducing transaction fees for large-scale share transactions while standing against the opening of a new stock exchange. It has recommended restructuring Nepal Stock Exchange and increasing its capital with the participation of the private sector.

The commission has expressed belief that the suggestions proposed in the report will be helpful in creating economic opportunities and expanding entrepreneurs’ access to available economic opportunities, expanding employment within the country, and achieving high and sustainable economic growth.

To what extent will the government be able to implement the suggestions given through the report? Let’s wait and watch.