Submit your Article

For a long time, Nepali media took its audience for granted. Little to no research was done on reader profiles, content preferences, audience engagement or even on circulation research and readability research which form the backbone of effective print media.

Similarly, there has been a complete lack of audience ratings research for radio and television. In the absence of such insights, audiences were expected to consume and believe whatever content was disseminated. The result of this one-sided dynamic has been disastrous as traditional media are now struggling to retain its audience. 

In the 20th century, audiences did not have many ways to consume the news. The relationship between media and audiences was largely one-way traffic, and audience engagement was limited to occasional letters to the editor or phone calls.

Radio, television and print were used to influence and control public opinion, often pushing through specific narratives. Audiences were viewed as passive recipients of information, and media houses operated under the assumptions of the “magic bullet theory” introduced by Harold Laswell in the 20th century. This theory assumed that media messages had a direct, powerful effect on a passive audience.

Although audiences may have had grievances, they either did not have a channel to register their feedback or media houses simply ignored their feedback. In contrast, the digital era introduced the “two-step flow theory” which seeks greater audience participation, engagement and feedback. Still, the remnants of the old bullet theory persist in the Nepali media landscape, albeit in subtler forms.

In Nepal, things began to change with the advent and subsequent expansion of the internet. By early 2000, online news platforms began to emerge. Unlike traditional outlets, these platforms introduced comment sections from the outset, giving readers space to express their opinion and to engage with content. 

The internet, and the broader digitization of Nepali society, transformed the country’s media sphere. While audiences in the past had limited access to news, they are now inundated with options. More importantly, they now have direct access to primary sources such as government press releases, official documents and reports. This allows them to compare what media houses report with the original information and identify discrepancies.

Meanwhile, the exponential rise of social media began reshaping how Nepali people consumed news. Traditional media lost its monopoly over the creation and dissemination of information. Ironically, media houses themselves rushed to social platforms to share their contents, often produced with significant investment, without a clear strategy for engagement or monetization. 

At the same time, internet access expanded even to remote areas for Nepal, becoming affordable even for low-income communities. Equipped with smartphones and internet access, audiences began spending more time on platforms like Facebook and X (formerly Twitter). Global studies show that between 2008 and 2018, these platforms led to a fundamental shift in new consumption. Today, however, TikTok has overtaken both as a primary source of information for many users.

When media houses began sharing their content on social media, it eliminated the need for audiences to turn to newspapers, radio and television for news. Despite this, Nepali media was doing relatively well in terms of revenue and audience before the COVID-19 pandemic. However, once nationwide lockdowns were enforced to curb the spread, the media landscape changed dramatically. For the first time in the history of Nepali media, many print publications halted operations for days. Radio and television also reduced news production significantly. A few online platforms, despite health risks, continued delivering news.

As people remained confined to their homes, they turned to smartphones and digital platforms for information. At the same time, government agencies, private businesses and NGOs relied heavily on social media to communicate with the public. This combination of traditional media’s limited presence and the active role of digital platforms meant that audiences were able to fulfill their information needs without newspapers or TV.  In fact, during the COVID era, a significant portion of the audience shifted to social media for news consumption, especially in Nepal. By the time the pandemic subsided, traditional media had lost a last share of its readership and advertising revenue.

Despite these seismic changes, mainstream media in Nepal largely failed to recognize, or respond, to the shifting dynamics of news production, dissemination and consumption. Meanwhile, other platforms like TikTok, Instagram and YouTube, and short-form video formats gained rapid popularity. 

For far too long, media houses in Nepal took their audiences for granted. They failed to evolve with changing news consumption behaviors and technological trends. Now, they are faced with a three-fold challenge: finding ways to retain the audience, researching reader preferences and developing sustainable revenue models. This has become a do-or-die situation for the media.

But no scientific research has been conducted in Nepal to understand changing media consumption patterns. Neither regional nor international research organizations have included Nepal in their studies. However, it is evident even without formal data that audiences are consuming news via TikTok and other platforms rather than by reading newspapers and watching television stations. 

The Reuters Institute’s Digital News Report, while not focused on Nepal, offers useful insights. The report points out that an accelerating shift toward consumption via social media and video platforms is further diminishing the influence of institutional journalism and fostering a fragmented media ecosystem dominated by podcasters, YouTubers and TikTokers.

The report also states that populist politicians around the world are bypassing traditional journalism, opting instead for friendly partisan outlets and influences. These personalities often gain privileged access, but rarely ask questions. Many of them are involved in spreading disinformation. In many ways, India’s experience mirrors that of Nepal’s, the report says.

According to the Reuters study, Indian audiences show a strong preference for accessing news via smartphones and social media platforms such as YouTube (55 percent), WhatsApp (46 percent), Instagram (37 percent) and Facebook (36 percent), especially among English-speaking users. This trend likely holds true for Nepal as well.

Another global trend that is increasingly evident in Nepal is news fatigue. With decades of political instability, the media has been dominated by repetitive coverage of political wrangling, corruption and the same political figures. On the international front, conflict-heavy news continues to dominate headlines. Audiences are growing tired of this monotony; they no longer want to read or hear the same narratives year after year.

While mainstream media has played an essential role in strengthening democracy, exposing corruption and holding power accountable, it has lagged behind in offering diverse, engaging content. This has contributed to audience fatigue and disinterest.

In conclusion, media houses must rethink their strategy. They need to increase their presence on platforms where audiences are active, especially video-centric platforms like YouTube and TikTok. As gatekeepers of institutional journalism, they still possess the credibility and capacity to serve public interest, but they must listen more to what their audience wants. 

This means developing responsive content strategies, adopting audience research methods and creating sustainable digital revenue models. More importantly, it is time to actively implement Audience Engagement Theory, which emphasizes two-way communication and greater interaction with the public. If mainstream media is to stay relevant, it must stop treating its audience as passive recipients and start seeing them as active participants in the media ecosystem.

Nepal’s political jostling always manages to keep everyone on the edge of their seats—ranging from possible communist reunification to sporadic pro-monarchical protests. However, one constant has kept looming around the mainstream ever since the current constitution’s ratification—a directly elected executive. Apart from the two major parties, this seems to be on every party’s manifesto—from CPN (Maoist Center) to the Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP). There are, of course, variations to the concept—most of which I’ll touch upon very basically below. 

The appeal of a directly elected executive is clear, especially in Nepal’s polity. It brings democracy front and center, appealing to voters eager to sideline political disarray and usher in leadership to provide “effective” governance. The latter is also the reason why this change is championed by parties whilst in opposition but eschewed once in government. This might be why this concept seems irrefutable, as governments struggle to last meaningfully and public perception of governance has consistently been poor. A peaceful transition to a new form of governance—“effective” and “long-lasting”—would appear to be the way out. The issue is, this runs away from its flaws, which are consistently shunned as “details to be worked out”. The details, however, aren’t as bright as political jingoism would have you believe. 

The current constitution could be amended to account for two forms of a direct executive—through the President or the Prime Minister. The first option of a directly elected President is heavily favored by the Maoist Center and its close allies. This would mean a single head of state and the government, appealing to those against “political extravagance”. This system would also include a legislature—whether it is directly elected or PR representation as some have suggested. This would include two cases—wherein the directly-elected President holds a majority in legislature, and wherein they don’t. In case they don’t, governance wouldn’t get “effective” and would instead deteriorate as the legislature will likely look to stamp its authority when it perceives an overbearing executive. There’s a strong chance where key legislation like the budget is stalled leading to government paralysis or even shutdown—as evidenced consistently in the United States. 

However, let’s assume they do—the President’s party has a commanding legislative majority. There will, of course, be a fundamental question of checks and balances but contextualizing it to Nepal’s polity shows its dangers. A presidential majority might seem like former Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal’s political endgame, given the circumstances surrounding his resignation during his first term. Although it seems long gone now, it wasn’t too soon ago when former President Ram Baran Yadav had to step-in to prevent Dahal’s overreach. Even if one were to disregard that event, a simple look into Nepal’s history with majoritarian governance backed by the military, be it in 2005 or prior to 1990, should inform one of the possible prospects ahead. 

However, there’s another noble option to executive governance—one preferred by the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) and the RPP—through a directly elected Prime Minister. This appeals to ensure “effective” governance whilst shielding themselves from abovementioned critiques. It must be noted that the only modern example of such a system was in Israel, from 1996 to 2001, when they abandoned it. This system maintains the current structure of government, wherein every voter would likely just have an additional ballot for a prime ministerial candidate. This system would similarly have a legislative majority or minority Prime Minister. Although proponents of this governance structure might assume outright majorities to deliver “effectiveness”, this system is likely to render further political clutter than we currently have. Voters are likely to split ballots—more so than a direct presidential election—where legislators represent local concerns and the Prime Minister is to deliver broad governance mandates. There is empirical evidence to support this, and this was also the primary reason Israel abandoned it in the first place. A minority Prime Minister is fundamentally inept to deliver “effective” governance as proponents promise, whereas the presence of a head of state further raises questions on stability in the face of government deadlock—compromising when the head of state needs to interject to possibly replace the Prime Minister.

However, as in the presidential case—let’s assume the Prime Minister commands a legislative majority for their entire term. The Prime Minister is stable for the entirety of their term and can work “effectively”. However, even in this quixotic scenario—a head of state, whomever it might be, will co-exist alongside the Prime Minister as it does now. A majoritarian Prime Minister forces the head of state to reevaluate their boundaries of accountability, as shown by the French fourth Republic or the recent Israeli judicial reform crisis. The head of state must walk an extremely thin line—they can’t enable authoritarianism like Ahmed during the Indian emergency, nor can they impede governance like Mattarella during the 2018 Italian government crisis. 

Nepal’s history of Prime Ministers with legislative majorities and a supposedly symbolic head of state, going back to BP Koirala to KP Oli’s parliamentary dissolution, should stress how thin of a line it is for the head of state. This is of course under an “ideal” scenario, where the legislative majority lasts throughout the parliamentary term.   

My critique of these respective systems isn’t meant to invite gloom—but rather encourage honest discourse instead of political jingoism. It is completely fair to propagate for either of these systems, but political parties have been given far too much leeway to preach “effectiveness” and direct democracy without a framework of how it would actually work in practice. Nepal needs democratic stability and instead of contributing toward parliamentary maturity, every time a party is in opposition, their campaign is to upend parliamentary democracy altogether. 

Parliamentary democracy might appear messy and unstable—but the alternative cannot be to open another Pandora’s box of experimentation. There might be multiple Prime Ministers in a parliamentary term, divergent coalitions and displeasure over governance but diverting to systems unable to stand such basic scrutiny like above isn’t the solution. Political parties need to get into the nitty-gritty constitutional legalese of alternative systems or stop selling this direct election dreamland once and for all.

The author is a graduate student in economics at the University of South Florida

It is all set, but both sides have yet to officially announce the upcoming visit of Nepal’s Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli to India. Reports indicate that the visit is scheduled for 16–17 September 2025. In this connection, Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri is arriving in Kathmandu on Aug 17 for a two-day visit.

High-level diplomatic visits are held at mutually agreed times through diplomatic channels. When it is realized that high-level engagements are necessary, such sojourns are arranged in mutual consultation. It is worth noting that there are frequent high-level visits between the two countries. Since May 2014, there have been 17 exchanges at the level of Head of State or Head of Government. These visits occur as per requirements, and there has been no gap in the highest political communication between the two countries.

Political relations 

Nepal-India relations are underpinned by shared cultural and societal cohesion. Looking back over the seven decades of friendship between the two countries, political relations have always been maintained, even though some hitches and glitches have appeared. Even in the hardest times, there has been no disruption of the highest level of communication, which stands as a symbol of deep relations.

High-level meetings between the heads of government also take place on the sidelines of different multilateral and regional forums. On April 4, Prime Minister Oli and Indian Prime Minister Modi met during the sixth Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC) Summit in Bangkok. Prime Minister Oli described the discussions as meaningful and constructive.

PM Oli and PM Modi also met on the sidelines of the 79th session of the UN General Assembly on 22 Sept 2024. The two leaders reviewed the bilateral relationship between India and Nepal and expressed satisfaction at the progress made in diverse sectors, including development partnership, hydropower cooperation, and people-to-people ties.

In Nepal, visits of the head of government to India have often been overstated, over-judged and over-concerned. This is unnecessary. Frequent communication at the highest level means that visits alone are not always the sole indicator of a smooth relationship.

Nepal requires India’s cooperation to realize the national aspiration of “Prosperous Nepal, Happy Nepali” set by Prime Minister Oli. Encouragingly, Prime Minister Modi has praised this aspiration and pledged India’s support to help make it a reality.

Pending issues

Pending issues between Nepal and India should be addressed amicably through diplomatic negotiations—a sentiment reiterated by both Prime Minister Oli and Prime Minister Modi.

The bilateral mechanisms have been consistently active in addressing these issues. Some matters, such as boundaries and water resources, require time to resolve. Certain issues have persisted for decades, inherited from history. Nonetheless, both leaderships should ensure that bilateral relations move forward progressively.

In the Eminent Persons Group (EPG) Report, the Indian side has maintained that it will be accepted at an appropriate time. If Nepal continues to receive this response, it should avoid raising the issue unilaterally too frequently. Established in January 2016 at the highest political level, the EPG was tasked with reviewing agreements and treaties, including the 1950 Nepal-India Friendship Treaty. It had finalized its report in 2018.

On issues like border management, both governments remain engaged and committed to resolution through diplomatic dialogue. Political leaders should provide strategic direction, but implementation should be carried out efficiently by technical and bureaucratic levels. Currently, India and Nepal operate more than 40 bilateral institutional mechanisms covering the full spectrum of relations, and these should meet regularly to resolve pending matters.

In recent years, India’s economic support to Nepal has increased. Physical and digital connectivity has expanded through the construction of border roads, integrated checkposts, transmission lines and petroleum pipelines. Major power sector milestones include the finalization of the Long-Term Power Trade Agreement, the trilateral power trade agreement between India, Nepal and Bangladesh, and agreements for the development of hydropower projects in Nepal by Indian developers, such as the 480 MW Phukot Karnali and the 669 MW Lower Arun. Key connectivity projects now facilitate Nepal’s access to sea lanes of transport and commerce.

Neighbors first

Nepal is a priority partner of India under its “Neighborhood First” Policy. In every form of support extended to Nepal and in every high-level meeting, the Indian side invokes Prime Minister Modi’s Neighborhood First policy, which also applies to India’s other neighboring states.

In this spirit, PM Modi visited the Maldives on 25–26 July 2025 as the Guest of Honour at the celebrations of the Maldives’ 60th Independence Day. During the visit, he reiterated that India has supported and will continue to support infrastructure development projects aligned with the priorities of the Maldivian people. Similarly, Sri Lankan President Anura Kumara Dissanayaka visited India on 15–17 Dec 2024. The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) stated that Sri Lanka is India’s closest maritime neighbour in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR) and holds a central place in the Prime Minister’s vision of SAGAR (Security and Growth for All in the Region) and the Neighborhood First policy.

In Kathmandu, Indian Ambassador Naveen Srivastava and his team have maintained warm diplomatic relations with the Government of Nepal and all major political parties. Ambassador Srivastava’s tenure has been marked by constructive diplomacy and mutual respect, helping to address and set aside earlier perceptions regarding external involvement in Nepal’s internal matters.

It appears that India has, of late, renewed its understanding with the Oli-led government in Nepal, reflecting a recognition of its shared responsibility toward a close and valued neighbour. Consequently, Prime Minister Oli’s visit to India has been scheduled, with several important agreements expected to be signed during the visit. 

Reportedly, Prime Minister Modi will visit Nepal thereafter. There is hope that this much-anticipated exchange of visits will mark a fresh chapter in bilateral relations, paving the way for a “new normal” of constructive engagement and mutual trust.

The 70th anniversary of the establishment of bilateral relationships between Nepal and China is an important milestone for both nations but it is obvious to say that Nepal has been benefitting the most from this relationship.

Over the years, Nepal proved to be a reliable and trusted partner for Beijing and it is worthy to observe that Kathmandu was able to forge a strong relationship with China without putting its own strategic interests in jeopardy. Co-habiting a space hemmed between India and China, while it can bring multiple advantages, can also be a tricky endeavor.

Balancing off different interests and trade-offs between New Delhi and Beijing requires high skills in navigating foreign diplomacy without forgetting in the equation, the role of the United States that, with the exception of the incumbent administration in Washington, has also been a strong and important partner for Kathmandu.

Thanks also to the presence of different communist parties in the country, Beijing has been able to assert its influence and it is remarkable how swiftly China has been capable of boosting not only its development assistance but also its soft power in Nepal.

I often read mesmerizing reports from reporters invited to China to observe firsthand and then report and explain back home the huge improvements in the lives of Chinese citizens over the last 30 years, enhancements that have been accompanied by a turbo state-led capitalism that supported China’s rise. I have a huge admiration for China’s history and ancient civilization while as someone who grew up in the West, I have also a critical view of certain policies and positions taken by Beijing.

I never expected China to turn itself into a democracy but at the same time, I do not have an uncritical view of some of its approaches related to human rights and freedom of expression. Yet I always had a strong desire to try to understand the nuances of certain policies because in politics as well as in governance, we cannot simplify everything through “white and black” lenses and this is particularly true for a complex country like China.

Because understanding the ways the Chinese Communist Party works and the multilayered governance structure of its political and administrative systems are complex endeavors that require a lot of expertise.

In short, observing and trying to make sense of what is happening in China is indeed a fascinating thing and I do believe that the West should make a much bigger effort at grasping the nuances of China’s political system.

Nepal, despite its links with India, has managed, quite successfully, at building important bridges with China. At the same time, even in relation to the Road and Belt Initiative, Beijing’s flagship global program, Nepal has been able to push back with due respect and smartness. At the same time, the civil society of Nepal has been able to forge stronger relationships with peers in China and slowly a stronger knowledge of the country is emerging and this is a good thing.

Yet, I do feel that members of the press corps and activists should also develop a more holistic understanding of China. I never believed that a paradise on Earth exists, a nation capable of embodying perfection in all its spheres of life where no problems exist. This not only applies to China but also Europe, Australia or the United States of America or any other nation.

As a European, I can be proud of our democratic credentials and freedom of speech I can enjoy back home. I can also certainly assert that the EU has also been struggling with double standards and I wish the Europeans could always walk the talk in matters of upholding human rights domestically but also in their foreign policies. So, I do not take it easily to criticize the second biggest power on Earth, especially when China has been doing a lot for the nation that has been hosting me for many years.

Yet, as Nepal’s consciousness of India has matured over the years because the citizens of the former know very well the mindset, culture, politics and foreign policies of the latter, I do believe that slowly a more “complete” view of China will emerge.

From Beijing’s perspective, this inevitable evolution of views is not necessarily a negative thing because real partnerships require the space also to vent some criticisms or simply different perspectives. As China might sometimes vent its frustrations toward Kathmandu, it is normal that Nepal can be in a position to question certain policies and positions taken by Beijing, not out of disrespect, but simply out of sincere and trustworthy commitment to make the bilateral relationship stronger. This would happen because the rapport between the two will be enhanced when the interests of the smaller partner are better addressed and the latter becomes more assertive.

Nepal learned how to navigate its relationships with its south neighbor, developing a sense of self-confidence in also pushing back whenever needed. At the end of the day, such a level of candid approach might annoy New Delhi but at the end of the day, India knows that the relationships are stronger when both parties feel comfortable at expressing each other even if the positions are different.

Eventually, the same would happen with the northern neighbor. This would represent a new level of relationships between China and Nepal that, rather than being one-sided, are more mutually beneficial because they are more balanced.

Finally, I want to take an appreciative view of what China has been doing for Nepal. With the exception of the Ring Road work that I believe has been poorly designed (see the number of lethal accidents that have occurred so far since the revamped partial motorway has opened from Koteshwar to Kalanki), China has been playing a huge and very generous role in supporting Nepal.

I recently read of plans that China will build a bone marrow transplantation facility at the BP Koirala Memorial Cancer Hospital in Bharatpur, Chitwan.

There are also discussions on important expansions at Civil Service Hospital in Kathmandu, a hospital entirely built by China that, since its start of operations, has already seen important upgrades. These are key infrastructure projects for Nepal, very tangible initiatives at direct benefit of local peoples. At the same time as Nepal is proceeding to graduate from the category of least developed nations, would it not also be essential for Kathmandu to start doing something to help China? I do understand that this might look like a ridiculous proposition but instead I do believe that Nepal is about to reach the point where it can also show gratitude to its northern neighbor.

As Kathmandu tries to learn more about the almost unimaginable improvements in the lives of Chinese people and how Beijing has been prioritizing the right to development, Nepal can also show its templates and success stories. For example, how the nation halved its poverty and levels of social exclusions and how its political system, despite its own issues like instability and corruption, proved to be indispensable for such progress. Nepal could also do much more in promoting its culture and way of dealing with internal problems and differences and why not establish an exchange program where hundreds of Chinese students come here to learn about the country?

If millions of Chinese students have flocked to the USA, why not have some of them also learn Nepal’s way to development and prosperity? Frankly speaking, the university system in Nepal, while having its own share of challenges, also counts with some best practices. Higher education is just one area where Nepal could do something to reciprocate China’s generosity.  Without a doubt, there are many other areas where Nepal can do its bits to show that it is not taking China’s generosity for granted.