Submit your Article

For a long while, I have been thinking about jumping into the world of podcasting. Yet, despite tons of considerations and reflections, I am still torn about it. It is not just about being aware and conscious about the challenges of coming up with a strong product.

A podcast, after all, must be engaging and able to capture the listeners’ attention for a long period. You have to be able to find the right formula, the right contents and the right approach to discuss and deal with certain topics. Moreover, it is also very costly.

There is a financial dimension of creating a product of such type in this digital era that cannot be discounted. Linked to this, there is also a commercial side of the equation, especially if you want to monetize the product to, at least cover, the expenses that its launch and production would entail.

But I found myself undecided and torn. The reason is not really about the technical, financial and administrative aspects of launching a podcast that in no way can I downplay or ignore. There are other sides that I cannot avoid taking into account. These are directly associated with the role that podcasting or, by extension, any related social media-centered news contents have in our society.

The problem is that the vast majority of these contents are not really about journalism. They are just about sensationalism and clickbait.

I was pulled to write about this issue after reading an article on the Kathmandu Post written by Daya Dudraj about how many members of the parliament are literally tormented by pseudo journalists bombarding them with silly and inappropriate questions. A disclaimer here is needed.

I am not myself a journalist and I never seriously thought about formally becoming one even though, I must admit, a few times the idea of formally applying to get this accreditation crossed my mind. But I do love writing and sharing my opinions, reflections and propositions and I believe this is my small contribution to the society and place where I have been living for so many years.

My approach to social media is one casted in hesitation. I never embraced them and only a few years ago I pushed myself into the only professional social media site because, at the end of the day, I need to be pragmatic and enhance my network. Yet I am aware that I am like a salmon fishing against the stream and is at risk of finding itself out of water because the vast majority of people, especially youths, are so much entrenched (and dependent) on social media.

If you are good at them and if you are skillful enough, you can amass tons of viewers, your contents can spread and become known. You become trendy and possibly, there is a good chance you can also make some good money out of it. Yet social media can be seen as a sort of shortcut to fame and celebrity.

As such, getting recognition from these tools might not lead anyone far in the long term because ultimately you always have to put in hard work to succeed. And in this world where becoming viral is the most important thing, it is quite tough to understand and decipher not only the truth from falsehood. But it is not just about differentiating between white and black, lies from facts.

It is much more complex especially when there are so many people online aiming to offer a public service in the form of news sharing and news telling.  But the problem is that for most of the cases, like the ones shared by Dudraj in his article, we are not at all talking about public service. 

If done professionally and ethically, journalism can be described as the soul and essence of doing public service. This kind of journalism is really different in its aims and overarching purpose. It is about reporting facts and different perspectives and opinions, directly contributing to a serious conversation about things that matter to the society. And with social media-based products, it is also hard to distinguish professionalism from mediocrity or just utterly abysmal work.

Unfortunately, journalism is not only having a tough time but it is facing an existential crisis and artificial intelligence is going to make it worse. People, including youths, do not make any more of that investment in time, energy and yes, attention that good journalism would expect from its users.

It is granted that, at the base, there is a reading crisis because people are more and more hooked to their smartphones even though their real impact is making all of us dumber. In such a scenario, swarms of improvised content creators are vying for our attention by offering products that, though viral oftentimes, are mediocre at best. Certainly, there are also good productions out there but it is hard to differentiate them from the waves of low-quality ones.

It is clear that traditional media need to adapt and adjust to survive.

One of the most, if not the most authoritative media outlets in the world, the New York Times, has embedded videos in its work where journalists tend to summarize, also through self-made short videos, their articles. But replicating this model is not feasible for most of the news outlets in crisis-ridden countries. 

Yet should quality-focused media in a country like Nepal only aim at survival? Isn’t their function and role in our society so important that a top national priority should be finding ways to let them thrive and enrich our social fabric through conversations?

I have no doubts that the answer to these questions should lead to a major reckoning, including on what the state can and should do, even when the national economy is not so healthy, to help turn around this situation.

Schools at all levels should have an equally important role in instilling the habits of reading news (and non-school textbooks) to their students. When teachers themselves have lost the habit of reading quality news and simply have no clue about what an opinion essay is about, then we really have a problem. The family should also play a very important role but it is getting harder and harder to find parents equipped and invested in helping their children understand how essential it is to spend time reading news.

We might not realize now the losses we will face if media outlets disappear. At least, out of this grim scenario, amid a sea of low-level contents, there is a silver lining: the fact that people are still interested to know what is happening. While there was a high degree of indifference on national politics before the Sept 2025 uprising, the scenario has changed now.

People want to know what the new federal government is doing and amid the various controversies and some positive developments brought by the Balen Shah Administration, it is paramount that citizens can be able to turn to credible, trustworthy media. New ways of reporting and making news must raise their bar and be able to meet the standards that good journalism requires but then we need to face some existential questions.

Can the new government do something about this situation? Can global philanthropy step in and be supported so that it will be easy for local newspapers and media outlets to benefit? Can schools and families realize that they are failing on one of their most important missions, educating the future generations on how to form personal opinions, an essential pillar of any functioning democracy, without which our society could literally crumble? Most importantly, are each of us, as members of the society, ready to step up and do something?

We might not realize but our future is really at stake. Supporting journalism in Nepal and elsewhere should become a top priority on a par with fighting climate change and ensuring that AI does not destroy our lives.

Have the people of South Asia ever been asked about their feelings on regional cooperation and integration? Every time the Yusof Ishak Institute (ISEAS), one of the most prominent Asian think tanks focused on international relations, releases its annual State of Southeast Asia Survey Report—the latest edition of which was issued just weeks ago—this is the question I inevitably find myself asking.

As a European who strongly believes in the process of regional integration as demonstrated by the EU, I cannot stop thinking about how much better off South Asia as a whole would be if a stronger regional integration process existed. The fact that India and Pakistan do not get along, and the persistent state of tension between the two nations, has long been seen as a structural impediment to deeper regional cooperation. 

Realistically speaking, it is undeniable that the nature of this semi-permanent hostility between Islamabad and New Delhi is genuinely problematic for fostering what remains an unfinished and very incomplete process of bringing the nations of South Asia and their people closer together.

Yet at the same time, it has also become something of a convenient excuse to stop thinking about regional cooperation altogether.

Acknowledging the improbability of a political reset—one that might resuscitate the near-moribund South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC)—should not foreclose a pan-South Asian conversation about it.

The interests of the people of the region, especially its youth, may at this moment be overtaken by more pressing daily concerns such as the fight against corruption or the pursuit of a more equitable economy. But they could, once again, become galvanized around the tangible gains of a stronger, more united South Asia. The current impasse, caused by the fraught India-Pakistan relationship, should not be a barrier to imagining what deeper cooperation—and perhaps, one day, even integration—might look like across the region.

So is there anything the current chair of SAARC—which, owing to the dysfunction of the regional cooperation process, remains Nepal—could do? It is true that the Balen Shah administration is wholly focused on internal reforms. But from a practical standpoint, not merely a symbolic one, Kathmandu could and should invest in reactivating a conversation about a more cooperative and potentially more united South Asia.

At this juncture, symbolism matters enormously, and this is where Shishir Khanal, Nepal’s new Foreign Affairs Minister, could make his mark. Imagine the following scenario. It is early morning, and preparations at the central campus of Tribhuvan University are underway to host the inaugural Future of South Asia Lecture, organized by the Department of International Relations and Diplomacy (DIRD). The keynote speaker is not the Secretary General of SAARC but Minister Khanal himself, who uses the occasion to lay out the government’s vision for reactivating the regional cooperation process.

Rather than confining the discussion to SAARC, it might make more sense to think beyond traditional frameworks and focus on what could be achieved if the nations of the region worked more—and more effectively—together.

To be clear: I am a supporter of SAARC. I am, in fact, more enthusiastic about a holistic regional process than about placing too much weight on minilateral mechanisms among select member states. Trilateral arrangements such as those between India, Nepal, and Bangladesh, or quadrilateral initiatives like the Bangladesh-Bhutan-India-Nepal (BBIN) framework to boost sub-regional transportation, are practical and worthwhile. But can these formats truly substitute for the more structural, overarching, and ambitious process that encompasses all SAARC nations?

There is considerable evidence that when nations work together, their economies grow substantially—and the benefits extend well beyond trade to encompass the many dimensions of cooperation that deepen people-to-people ties.

Yet reactivating the public imagination around regional cooperation solely through the lens of SAARC may not be effective, given the objections many would raise—chief among them, the lack of political will in New Delhi to even utter the word ‘SAARC’.

Focusing on the vision rather than the vehicle to achieve it can be a smart way to navigate, for now, what is perceived in New Delhi as a taboo subject. Minister Khanal could use his address to articulate a long-term dream for the region—one in which people’s mobility is greatly enhanced, doing business across South Asian borders is seamless, and a new generation of young people can participate in a pan-regional student exchange program.

In the second part of his speech, Minister Khanal could sketch out practical confidence-building measures to restart the dialogue on regional cooperation. As I have argued before, Nepal could convene a regional summit outside the purview of SAARC, inviting all South Asian leaders to Kathmandu for a frank conversation on concrete ways to work together. Even if India or Pakistan declined, others might still attend.

This requires audacity, but that is precisely why Prime Minister Shah chose to seek national office.

In this imagined lecture, Minister Khanal could announce that Kathmandu will prioritize both a national and a regional conversation on cooperation—branded as the “Nepal for South Asia” Initiative: the most ambitious foreign affairs undertaking Kathmandu has ever conceived.

Beyond the bold announcement of a regional summit, the initiative could encompass a range of complementary activities: an annual South Asia Essay Competition for students; a fellowship program for young scholars from across the region to spend a year in Kathmandu, hosted by local think tanks, working on South Asian issues; a master's and PhD program in South Asian Studies run by DIRD; a People-to-People South Asian Summit bringing together civil society voices from across the region; and, perhaps most significantly, the first-ever State of South Asia Survey Report—gauging what the people of the region actually think and feel about their shared future.

Minister Khanal should also encourage SAARC’s current leadership to do more to highlight the bloc's ongoing activities. SAARC is on life support, but it is not dead. Its institutions—regional research centers and thematic initiatives—are not entirely paralyzed, but they need support, even moral support. Reactivating a conversation about South Asia could also help build incremental trust between India and Pakistan, one step at a time.

Nepal can take the lead in restarting the project of regional cooperation. SAARC as an institution may eventually be rebooted, rebranded, or superseded by an entirely new pan-South Asian mechanism. What matters now is beginning the conversation.

The stakes are too high, the potential too vast, and the benefits of a cooperative South Asia too significant to let timidity prevail.

Will Minister Khanal and the Balen administration play bold, or will they retreat into a focus on purely national priorities? Perhaps the new government in Kathmandu should not forget that Nepal’s national interests are inextricably rooted in a prosperous and more united South Asia.

I would like to imagine the closing words of Minister Khanal’s address: “Nepal can pursue its national goals of prosperity, inclusivity, and wellbeing by freeing our politics from corruption and bringing people closer to decision-making through a new compact of good governance. Yet our future—our destiny—is also inextricably tied to our sisters and brothers across South Asia. Engaging our regional partners is not only an economic imperative. It is a moral duty to build a stronger, more connected, and more united South Asia.”

What will happen after the March 5 elections? This is a question I find myself constantly reflecting on. Let us imagine the best-case scenario. Voting proceeds smoothly, with only minor incidents of violence. No major security threats emerge, and people are able to exercise their franchise freely and in a positive spirit.

As for the outcome, I am not overly concerned about who wins or about the usual maneuvering that accompanies government formation. Perhaps a new generation of politicians will emerge victorious, and citizens will witness the dawn of a different era in national politics. Maybe one party will secure a clear majority. Or perhaps a coalition of reformed forces will come together around a progressive, transparent, and effective governing agenda.

What truly interests me, however, is what happens next: how people, especially the youth, will act in the weeks and months following the vote? Will young people sustain the political engagement that was ignited after the Sept 2025 uprising? Will citizens discover new ways to follow, shape, and contribute to national conversations as new policies are introduced by the federal government?

A new era in politics cannot rely solely on a more honest and effective class of politicians. Of course, having capable and principled representatives in Parliament would make a tremendous difference, even if it is wise to keep expectations realistic. After all, transforming people’s lives is far easier said than done. That is precisely why sustained public engagement will be so crucial.

Staying informed and consistently following politics requires effort. I have met brilliant young people, members of what society broadly calls Gen Z, who avoided news altogether before the September uprising. But how can one participate in a national rebuilding project while ignoring political developments and issues of national importance?

Reading the news, including thoughtful opinion pieces, is foundational to building a deep attachment to the country’s development. Some may raise eyebrows at the idea of attributing such importance to newspapers, whether online or in print. Yet it is undeniable: being informed and understanding issues is essential for forming meaningful opinions. Taking the time to read carefully, to engage with analysis, can make a real difference.

For me, investing time in these habits is the first step toward building the knowledge and expertise that any young citizen should cultivate if they wish to have a say in how the country is governed.

Is it easy? Is it quick? Certainly not. It takes commitment to build such routines. I sometimes struggle myself, especially as I spend significant time reading international news. But the effort is worthwhile.

Reading, however, is only the beginning. There are many other ways to nurture civic engagement.

Engagement can take more informal forms: open-minded conversations within circles of friends, watching debate programs with genuine curiosity, or attending public discussions. These are important. But if we truly aspire to build a Naya Nepal, we must also think beyond conventional approaches.

Schools and colleges could establish discussion clubs where students gather regularly to deliberate on complex issues with openness and respect. Everyone agrees that politics should be cleaner and less expensive. But what are the practical solutions? What lessons can we draw from other countries? What best practices already exist?

Seeking solutions is not boring. One may not be interested in every issue, but we need a new generation of citizens who consciously decide to develop expertise for the broader benefit of society.

Informal communities of practice focused on specific themes could also play a role. Youth organizations, informal clubs, or civic groups could create spaces where participants commit time and effort to deepen their understanding of public-interest issues.

While many young people have recently joined politics, others have chosen not to take that leap, even if tempted. Some remain indifferent. Others feel disillusioned by events following the September uprising. What matters most is that those who felt a spark after the bloodshed—those who wrote their first op-eds or spoke out publicly for the first time—continue their journey of civic engagement.

The country cannot afford to revert to old patterns, where power is delegated through the ballot box and citizens retreat into indifference, tolerating malpractice with a resigned “ke garne” attitude. Ideally, the nation should embrace a new way of doing politics, one grounded in active and direct participation. A culture where reasoned deliberation at local levels complements the electoral system.

Such transformation will not happen overnight. It will unfold gradually, in phases. What truly matters is the willingness of young people and society at large to remain committed with an open mind.

A new political culture rooted in consistent civic engagement cannot emerge unless we adopt an attitude focused on solving problems rather than competing for power and positions. With openness, those already engaged in public discourse can continue building their knowledge and envision pathways to step forward and contribute more meaningfully.

It is equally important to find ways to bring into the civic space those who have not yet found an outlet for their voice, or who are simply overwhelmed by daily struggles.

Among the 10-point agreement signed by the representatives of the GenZ and the Federal Government, one of the most exciting is the creation of the GenZ Council.

Setting up such a body offers the biggest opportunity to establish a more direct, participatory and deliberative form of democracy in the country, enabling the new generations of citizens to have a direct say in how Nepal is run. But it is going to be vital to design this new body in the right way, ensuring that this will be an institution that is effective and meaningful rather than being tokenistic.

First off, let’s start with what the GenZ Council should not aspire to become. The country already has the National Youth Council that is neither particularly effective nor truly representative. To be fair, this body was never intended to become a platform to give youths a voice and amplify their demands.

Rather, it was created to promote youth empowerment through programs and initiatives. This is why the GenZ Council should demark and distinguish itself and should resemble a chamber or assembly, a permanent forum for discussions and deliberations by the youths and for the youths of the nation.

Therefore, it would be much more appropriate to design it as a “GenZ Assembly”, an institution that cannot only complement but also strengthen the current parliamentary system in place. Ideally, this new body should embrace key principles of deliberative democracy where citizens rather than just those elected have a real say.

For this reason, the GenZ Council should free itself from the cumbersome burden of elective politics. As we do know, liberal democracy based on elections has a lot of problematic issues and must be supported by more direct forms of deliberative mechanisms. Consequently, it is also important that the new GenZ Council shuns party politics. Its members would be individual youths acting and importantly, deliberating on their own, without any political affiliation.

But what does the word “deliberation” mean in the context of GenZ Council? To start with, we are not talking about binding deliberations. Deliberations can be seen as detailed propositions that, following a rigorous process of debate based on expertise and knowledge, would be voted by the members of the council. Ensuring that voting will only happen after a clear process of logical discussions is paramount.

How could this work in practice? Let’s take as an example, a possible deliberative process around the pros and cons of lowering the minimum marriageable age. Each member of the GenZ Council would have the right to table a motion, in practice, a policy idea, that, in a follow up step, would be analyzed and discussed mandatorily. In our example, a member would propose a change in the current law related to the minimum marriageable age. 

Similar and connected motions could be clubbed together in a holistic fashion and discussed. After these first two initial phases, submission of a motion and its initial discussion, a first round of voting would occur where the members would decide to bring this motion forward.

What does it mean?

If a motion is voted to be brought forward, it will be further discussed, elaborated and deliberated in the form of a proposition, basically a proposal that at the very end will be finally voted by all the members. In this final stage of the deliberative process, members of the GenZ Council will have to vote if, to them, it makes sense or not to lower the minimum marriageable age.

Finally, a proposition that is voted favorably will be submitted to the federal government in the form of a recommendation that would have to either accept or reject it. The federal government would commit to officially respond in written form and also officially to each of the recommendations sent by the GenZ Council in the House of Representative, the lower chamber of the Parliament. The Federal Government should also include mandatorily explaining why some of these might have been rejected.

In future, the propositions voted by the GenZ Council could be made even mandatory but this would require more time for the country to fully understand and welcome deliberative democracy practices, basically accepting the idea of a new form of more participatory decision making.

In the immediate, the GenZ Council could also have the authority of providing feedback to each bill being formulated by the legislative. A key aspect would be how to ensure a fully representative and inclusive representation of the youths in the Council. In the field of deliberation, sortition (lottery) is a key aspect.

At first instance, it might appear as something bizarre and strange but around the world, it is how deliberative democracy happens also by taking advantage of software programs designed for the purpose. A pragmatic approach could be used to establish the Council for the first time, one that will not entirely rely on sortition. The Federal Government would nominate 25 percent of its members based on certain criteria. We can imagine this as a sort of quota that would ensure the participation of the current leaders of the GenZ movement where all major groups are included. Ideally, each Provincial Government or Assembly could also appoint a quota but this is tricky and would make things complicated also because of network/patronage related issues.

Then what about the remaining 75 percent seats? They should be allocated in an open and transparent way. As daunting as it might sound, all youths could apply but how to do so? One option would be to use sortition for all these remaining 75 percent of the seats. A second option would see that 25 percent of these seats be decided on  merits based while the other 50 percent remaining seats would be allocated through lottery.

In short, this system would imply that everyone that applies to be in the Council would stand a chance of being part of it. It will be certainly paramount that a quota system with a proportional representation of disadvantaged groups will also be guaranteed. Another key question is how long should its members remain in the council? A balance between not too short and not too long tenure must be struck. Members of the council should stay in power for one year or 18 months and they would not again be eligible to be part of the council in future.

A two-year cycle could also be envisioned but it is going to be essential to ensure that “space” for participation” opens up recurrently otherwise we would be at risk of institutionalizing a new elite of youths. What about the complex logistics of the meeting?

There could be at least three meetings in person and then have mandatory periodic online sessions where every citizen could assist and watch and possibly, have the opportunity of providing also some suggestions for the members. This aspect is important because it would enable other youths to feel connected and have a role. Participating in the Council should be a voluntary undertaking even if it is a time-consuming one.

At the most, a very basic monthly allowance (a sort of reimbursement) for its members could be entertained plus the transportation and lodging costs for those coming from outside the Kathmandu Valley for its in person sessions. The GenZ Council, if designed and implemented right away, can be a transformative democratic tool that could inspire better, more inclusive forms of decision-making.

A revised constitution could make it a constitutional body even without going to the extent of granting it with binding decision powers that the legislative and executive powers will have to respect. As the time is running short, the first iteration of the GenZ Council will be far from being perfect also because its design could be made through a more open process. Yet what at the end will count is that at least this new body that is being shaped could emanate hope that youths of this country can have a truly meaningful role in the way decisions are taken.

If China wants to promote a new world order based on cooperation, respect and the rise of the Global South, then the optics at Tianjin’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit did not help. “We should advocate for equal and orderly multipolarisation of the world, inclusive economic globalisation and promote the construction of a more just and equitable global governance system,” President Xi Jinping of China said.

And yet, looking at the group picture of all the world’s leaders attending the conclave, I could not help but feel some form of sympathy for United Nations Secretary-General Guterres. He was relegated not at the center of the group, close to the host, President Xi. Rather you could notice him on the far right, the last person in a long row, very far from the real fulcrum of power projection during the ceremony.

I found this quite disrespectful for the United Nations and the role that they have been playing to promote multilateralism. This is especially true if you look at the track record of Guterres, an old style European socialist with a progressive mindset, who has always been trying to highlight the role of the Global South. The Global Times, the most influential English language media of China and the global megaphone for the Chinese Communist Party, wrote in its editorial the following: “President Xi pointed out that this summit carries the important mission of building consensus, unleashing cooperation momentum, and mapping out a blueprint for development.”

China is the second most powerful nation in the world with one of the most fascinating civilizations. Over the last two decades, it has greatly consolidated its rising status of a global power, a position that is now undeniable as Beijing is directly challenging Washington. With what is happening at the White House under a president who is, simply and plainly speaking, unfit to lead the highest office of the country that happens to also be the leader of the so-called Free World, it is natural that China is exploiting the situation.

In a certain way, it is positive for the world to have a truly multilateral order in place where countries like China, India, Indonesia, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia, Mexico and Brazil, just to mention a few rising nations, can take a leading role. I must say that leading always implies a huge responsibility and I wish that democratic principles and respect for human rights that, let’s not forget, are universal and not a western construct, could be applied to everything and everywhere. Unfortunately, it is not the case. Yet despite the differences, nations can talk and dialogue with each other even if they disagree. The use of the force should always be the very last resort and territorial conflicts should not find space in our times.

Yet Russia continues with its aggression in Ukraine and it seems disinterested in any real peace initiatives. In this scenario, it is a good thing that India and China are finally back to talking to each other and are trying hard to reset their bilateral relationships. I would wonder if the same speed of reconciliation and re-approchement between Delhi and Beijing had occurred if Kamala Harris were in the White House.

Probably the answer is yes because it is inevitable that both nations must learn to co-live in the same region but not at this velocity and depth. “Right choice for India, China to be ‘friends’, President Xi told PM Modi of India with the latter also stressing the importance of cooperation between the two countries. “We are committed to take forward our cooperation based on mutual trust, respect and sensitivity,” were the words of Modi.

Together, these two nations can truly inject a new impetus to global cooperation led by the South but as I was saying, aspiring to lead the world comes with big responsibility. President Xi is correct at deploring, as he did in his speech at the SCO, a unilateral world order where someone can bully others. This is what the White House has been doing not only against China and India but also with the Europeans and Canadians, the closest allies of the USA.

Over the past decades, China has been supporting a multitude of infrastructure around the world through its Belt and Road Initiative. This is something extremely positive even though there have been many concerns, some of which valid while others blown out of proportion, about the sustainability of the loans coming from Beijing.

Something Nepal has been fully aware of, as Kathmandu has been negotiating with its northern neighbor with due respect but also self-confidence and readiness to defend its national interests. It is apparently clear that with the void being created in Washington, China can assert itself and project its strengths, confidence and a new vision of the world. But Beijing should do more on a global level, building stadiums, hospitals, legislature building and railways is not enough.

Can President Xi assert his influence to nudge President Putin of Russia to truly seek to put an end to the war in Ukraine? Can China reassure its partners in the West that its long-sought process of reunification with Taiwan would only happen peacefully and without the threat of use of force?

Barring a few nations, no one is disputing the one-China policy but the current status quo is better than potential bloodshed in the South China Sea. In addition, many western nations have serious concerns about China’s campaign of overt and covert influence in their democratic systems.

I am at risk of being hypocritical here because, critics might say, this is exactly the same playbook that the Americans—and to a lesser extent—the Europeans have been using since the end of the second world war and certainly we cannot erase from history the scourge of colonization. As President Xi reminded the world from the stage of Tianjin that China is no more ready to accept double standards, he must himself set the high standards.

The Global Times reported that the Chinese president, during his meeting with UN SG Guterres, said that “history has revealed that multilateralism, solidarity and cooperation are the right answer to global challenges”. Therefore, it would be a great gesture for China to uphold a new world order by elevating the role of the United Nations, including by proposing new initiatives that can truly create a level playing field.

An example of good leadership on the part of China was seen during the recently held World AI Conference in Shanghai where the host nation proposed the establishment of a global AI body. This is what Guterres has been trying to promote for years and China could be a true force for good to counter the hegemonic model of AI development that the Trump administration is pursuing.

As a European living in Asia, I wish the EU could stand up on its own more strongly and promote its approach that while, far from being perfect, it is centered on the respect for human rights and democracy. Meanwhile, the rise of China and India are inevitable and should be welcome

In this context, with President Xi encouraging nations members of SCO “to oppose the Cold War mentality and bloc confrontation,” China is embracing a morally correct position. Yet will the big “dragon” further assert itself in a way that will truly respect and listen to other nations, especially those with a different political system from its own and search for a real “win-win”? Will Beijing truly espouse the UN as a global institution to co-lead the new form of multilateralism that is emerging?

Guterres, who strongly believes in the role of the Global South, should become a central ally to China’s new aspirations and vision of the world. And finally, let’s admit that the optics of that picture in Tianjin were bad.

There have been numerous generalizations, and with them, many misunderstandings regarding the crucial factors that underpin elitism in Nepal.

Undoubtedly, caste and land, and language, considering also the extent to which they have always been inextricably interlinked with each other, have continuously been predominant factors. Throughout the history of Nepal, these have been consistently key elements acting as springboards for individuals and groups with homogenous features to cement their prerogatives and privileges within the society.

Yet, a certain degree of privilege and the status coming with it do not automatically make someone part of the ruling elite. And, certainly, there has been a paucity of studies that try to go beyond such analysis of established societal dynamics and attempt to understand different dimensions of power creation that can lead to the exercise of real decision-making at the highest echelons of power.

Therefore, there is an opportunity to analyze how elites are created and shaped in Nepal from different perspectives. In this line, a novel line of inquiry is emerging. It focuses on the nexus between the influences exerted by foreign powers in Nepal and the hidden dynamics and consequences triggered by them over those who have been ruling the country.

This new approach tries to answer the following question: could be possible that foreign powers that, since the early days of Nepal’s formation till now, have been holding a very relevant role in shaping national politics, have a unique sway and impact over the underlying and hidden processes of elite formation, defined as those members of the society truly exercising power?

Nepal is a nation where foreign policy has always been passively exercised in reaction to the desires and moves of bigger and more powerful nations. To some extent, the conduct of foreign affairs by the different elites in power has not been, either by design or by default, aimed at independently exerting the country’s sovereign interests.

Rather, Nepal’s foreign policy has been more focused on responding to the interests that foreign powers have always held over it. It has been shaped to maximize a return not based on its own priorities and strategic interests but rather from how and what bigger international players, such as India, China, the USA, and, during the Rana oligarchy, the British Resident, approached Nepal and wanted from it.

At the same time, the elites in power did also benefit immensely from steering the country’s foreign policy in a balancing act that would not antagonize foreign powers but would be masterfully crafted and leveraged for their own self-interests. Therefore, wouldn’t it be interesting to reflect on how foreign policy conducted by others has determined and continues to influence elite formation in the country?

This is the ambitious task that Gaurav Bhattarai, an Assistant Professor at Department of International Relations and Diplomacy, set to decipher with his latest book, “Nepal’s Power Elites: Rajahs, Ranas and Republic,” due to be published in the first week of August.

The book is a bold attempt at understanding the elevation to power through the prism of foreign policy. “Elitism cannot be fully grasped without recognizing the profound influences of distant hands”, Bhattarai explained to me in our conversation.
Throughout a series of online interviews and exchange of emails, Bhattarai shared with me that normally the focus is on pinpointing the oversized influence that foreign powers have always held in shaping national politics.

But, according to him, we have been missing something important to better understand the elite’s formation and their related power dynamics in Nepal.

“In the grand narrative of the evolution of the Nepali statecraft, the role of British residency, Indian independence leaders, and a plethora of regional and international factors emerge as more than scanty background details—it is the very plot that drives the story of elite power structure”.

“In line with this insight, I argue that any understanding of elite status in Nepal is incomplete without an acknowledgment of these external forces”, Bhattarai wrote me in the e-mail. Elite is a loose concept, open to different interpretations.
The theories formulated in the nineteenth century by Vilfredo Pareto, Gaetano Mosca, and Robert Michels in Europe, or C Wright Mills in the US, and Sanjaya Baru in India elucidating the key elements and factors of elite making cannot simply be re-contextualized and adapted to Nepal according to Bhattarai.

To understand how the different elites across the different phases of Nepal’s model history, each with its unique features, formed and assumed power in the country, we need to go beyond the socio-religious aspects of the nation that have inevitably been conductors and enablers of access to power.

Foreign policy can turn out to be a very relevant area that deserves to be studied in order to decipher the formation of elites in Nepal. This undertaking should not only be analyzed from the ways foreign powers exercised it to influence and, in many instances, indirectly control power. Certainly, this aspect cannot be underestimated. “External forces have not only enabled but at times also constrained the power and influence of Nepali elites throughout history”, I was told in our conversation.
So in “Nepal’s Power Elites: Rajahs, Ranas and Republic”, Bhattarai analyzed to full extent “how foreign influences have shaped, bolstered or even undermined the authority of the ruling class”.

There is also another side of the coin, and this is really an important point that Bhattarai makes. According to him, the different elites holding decision-making authority in the country have themselves exploited the perceived influence of foreign nations in the country for their own interest.

In essence, the Shahs, then the Ranas, and then again the Shahs during the Panchayat and even the political class of the post-2008 Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal, have all consistently taken advantage of their access to foreign powers.
Each of them had different dynamics and unique features, and each asserted its powers in a unique context. And yet, the study conducted by Bhattarai is centered on the fact that all of them had one common denominator: the support received by foreign powers, without whom their own survival in power could have been jeopardized.

The members of the elites in power throughout different phases of Nepal’s modern history, have always shared something in common. They all misappropriated and misused, their prerogatives in dealing with foreign powers exercising their own influence over the country, to legitimize, cement and consolidate their own status and grip on the decision-making.
“Elites have leveraged their ‘monopoly’ or their exclusive access to foreign policy to justify their power”. “By engaging with missionaries, colonial powers, residents, envoys, ambassadors, and international organizations in different eras, they positioned themselves as the architects of Nepal’s modern history,” Bhattarai said.

What we think of national interest, which is often proclaimed with high rhetoric by politicians even these days, is actually the interest of elites whose members strive to preserve by leveraging their decision-making in the realm of foreign policies through their access to foreign actors.

Power has been exercised by elites not in the interest of the people but to further strengthen the elite itself, and Bhattarai’s scholarly research is an effort at understanding “how elites have ably used foreign policy to consolidate their authority”.
“In this book, I seek to advance beyond the existing debates in International Relations by exploring how the priorities, preferences, and behaviors of individual decision-makers impact foreign policy decisions. By examining these individuals’ actions, we may gain insights into the structural constraints they face and the norms that shape their positions,” explained Bhattarai. To better comprehend these patterns and dynamics, the publication tries to answer an important question:
“How do we measure their agency within the web of constraints they are bound by, and in what ways do we distinguish between genuine influence and the illusion of power within the broader political machinery?”.

“This question challenges the very concept of elite status and prompts us to reconsider how we understand leadership, authority, and influence in the realm of foreign policy decision-making”.

In essence, Bhattarai tries to explain how the domain of foreign and its interactions with national elites in different phases of Nepal’s modern history have shaped not only the country’s own political trajectories along the years but also enabled the rulers of the time to exert their power over the nation.
Normally, we explain and justify foreign policies through the angle of national politics. After all, foreign affairs are at the service of nations’ interests and priorities. The case of Nepal is different. Foreign powers did abuse and continue to abuse their own influence over the nation’s destiny.

But as Bhattarai helps us to realize, it is not only a one-way street. His inquiry tries to prove this point by presenting examples from numerous historical episodes and also from his observation of elite-driven foreign policy discourses in contemporary Nepal, be it in the media, seminars, or university.

The book is about the idea and practice of foreign and the way Nepali elites have been using and exploiting the domain of foreign and how, in the name of foreign policy behaviour and foreign policy priorities, they have been fulfilling their own vested interests.

The book also brings to the fore the presence and role of henchmen and interlocutors of all three—Rajhas, Ranas, and Republican leaders of Nepal—in different periods of time, to show how the idea of the foreign has been romanticized and weaponized as rhetoric.

Among them, what tops the list is the discourse of national interest, which, according to Bhattarai, as discussed in his upcoming book, is actually an “elite interest”. The elites in power throughout the history of Nepal till now excelled at preserving their own status and ably used the same foreign powers targeting and influencing them, for their own advantage. And let’s be honest, they have been extremely good and they are still good in this game. 

Last Sunday was SAARC Day, the day in which the promulgation of the SAARC Charter is celebrated. It was an important occasion to remind the citizens of South Asia that they should not lose sight of the high principles behind regional cooperation. The day was even more remarkable because it was the 40th anniversary of the SAARC Charter, an important milestone though unfortunately, only on paper. I am saying so because we all know that SAARC as a regional organization could be seen as, at the best, life support. 

The truth is that SAARC has been on life support for many years. We know that the main reason is the fact that India, the main and most powerful player in the region, does not attach importance to it. 

For Prime Minister Modi of India, the SAARC process is a hindrance, a burden especially because, as we all know, Pakistan is the second biggest nation in the bloc. While such a posture by New Delhi might offer the best way to meet India’s strategic goal both geopolitically and economically, the truth is that the whole region is missing out on a huge opportunity.  By now, there is a consolidated amount of evidence that regional cooperation is effective for those countries who invest in it. 

We do not need to make the case of the European Union that has reached the levels of cooperation and integration almost akin to a confederation of nations. Africa counts on several successful examples of regional integration. While ECOWAS, the regional cooperation architecture made up by western African nations, is not living its best times due to a series of coups in several of its members, there is the East Africa community and there is also the Southern Africa development community.  

No matter the challenges, both communities have made strides in terms of joint initiatives aimed at developing the respective member-states from a shared and common perspective. The picture in Central and South Americas is mixed and more complex but at the moment President Lula of Brazil is portraying himself as a big champion of regional cooperation. One of his most recent successes is the fact that MERCOSUR, a regional trade organization of five nations in South America, signed a groundbreaking trade agreement with the EU.

Closer to South Asia, we have the benchmark of regional cooperation, the ASEAN. As an observer of Asian affairs, I am not particularly fond of ASEAN due to the fact that its members lack ambition in terms of future vision and they tightly control the whole process. Yet, I do recognize not only the potential of ASEAN but also its success story in terms of becoming a platform in which the member-states shape their common interests and, together, reap some benefits from it. I wish only that SAARC could follow some of the steps of all these organizations starting from the perspective of regional cooperation. 

In a process in which nation states collaborate and partner with each other, cooperation among themselves is the first pillar of a much more ambitious political process, regional integration. This complex, daunting end goal where countries would cede their own sovereignty is something that only Europe has been trying to pursue. As we know it is a really difficult journey, one in which sovereign states are voluntarily pulling together bits of their decision-making that are normally decided in the national capitals. 

Coming back to SAARC, we need to be realistic on what it is possible to achieve. Setting aside the highly inspiring journey of integration being undertaken by the members of the EU, SAARC must focus on replicating the ASEAN model where the capitals are fully and only the ones in charge. On the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the SAARC Charter, all the heads of state and governments have issued congratulatory messages. It is a good thing, though symbolic. 

Actually, considering the current status of play in relation to the SAARC, I am even surprised that they actually reminded themselves of the existence of the regional organization. Now it is high time to do something to reactivate the SAARC but, with PM Modi disinterested and disengaged, how to start? First of all, SAARC is not only the Leaders’ Summit which, shamefully, the last one was held in Kathmandu 10 years ago, in Nov 2014. 

It is also an umbrella organizations with a myriad of bodies, institutes and entities that are still operating no matter the challenging environment and lack of support surrounding them. The SAARC Secretariat in Kathmandu should do a much better job at highlighting their work and their undertakings. Doing so would remind the citizens of the region that, no matter the ongoing impasse existing on the top of the SAARC, the institution is still active and works steadfastly toward a shared common future. Yet the secretariat also works under difficult circumstances and, objectively, we cannot expect much from it. 

That’s why there is an opening for leaders like Oli to reintroduce the whole concept of SAARC to the South Asian people. PM Oli, by partnering with like minded heads of state and government, should simply ignore India’s neglect toward SAARC and re-create a new narrative about the strategic importance of this organization. This could become a strategic interest for Nepal, a new cornerstone of its foreign policy. 

To start with, PM Oli should task Foreign Minister Arzu Rana Deuba to take a tour of the South Asian capitals, starting from those keener to reactivate the SAARC process. New Delhi might get or might not get on board but, at this point, what India wants to do with SAARC is quite insignificant. We need a majority of nations from the region ready to promote the ideals of regional cooperation because doing so is in their best interests. PM Oli could, selectively, also embark on a tour of the region, pitching to his counterparts the importance of the SAARC.He could still, under the pretext of the 40th anniversary of the SAARC Charter, give a major speech on why Nepal and other neighboring nations should invest in a common regional architecture. 

The Secretary-General of SAARC, Md Golam Sarwar, in his congratulatory message for the same occasion, listed a series of priorities, a series of major reforms that SAARC should undertake in order to regain its legitimacy and relevance. PM Oli should embrace this cause and promote a wide debate within Nepal about ways to reactivate and reform the SAARC.

Considering that the HQ of the SAARC Secretariat is in Nepal, it should be obvious that Singhadurbar takes a special interest in the issue. PM Oli could also establish an advisory group made up of national experts, including members of the civil society and former diplomats, to chart out the best options for Nepal to become a true champion of regional cooperation not only for its own sake but for the prosperity of the whole region. If PM Oli decides it is worth investing his time and energy for the cause, helping resuscitate the SAARC could become one of his most enduring and important legacies.

Once in a while citizens, accustomed to reading newspapers, find stories about vulnerable groups living in the country. Some of these stories are shockingly dark and depressing.

Through the prism of pain and sorrow experienced by persons who struggle, day in and day out, just to survive, we realize how the quest for equity, equality and social justice looks like an insurmountable climb. Persons living with disabilities are among the most vulnerable, discriminated against and deprived of fair opportunities.

They are often dismissed as losers and taken for granted.

What a mistake, what a pity! It is a mistake and a pity not to acknowledge and recognize persons living with disabilities because, all in all, it’s the whole Nepal that is tremendously missing out.

Missing out on what? The answer couldn’t be simpler.

The nation, by not recognizing, acknowledging and giving visibility to persons with disabilities, is precluding and at the same time, excluding the innate potential and skills of a large group of citizens. These citizens, living with disabilities, are unable to contribute to the national growth of the country.

Nepal is at such a stage of development that it needs the involvement of all its citizenry. Ahead of us, there are big aspirations and goals that have been set by policymakers.

For example, turning the country into a middle economy, a small but dynamic nation that, one day, would be able to attract foreign investments. Rather than having thousands of youths migrating each year to more developed nations, Nepal hopes to retain its best minds and laborious human resources. Yet many groups, among them persons with disabilities, are seen as a burden. They are not recognized for what they could do for the country. This type of status quo, if you think about it, is not just frustrating but also maddening.

If you are a youth living with a disability, you really have less opportunity to shine. Accessibility remains a huge issue, for example. There are plenty of new buildings and constructions but how many of them have ramps? But it is not only about accessibility. The issue is much broader and complex. It is really about a state of mindset that discourages the rise of persons with disabilities or, similarly, citizens belonging to the Dalit community.

But this status quo can change because it can be challenged. And it gets challenges each time that persons with disability are able to showcase their skills, talents and overall capacities.

Fortunately for Nepal, there are also different types of stories about disabilities. Readers of newspapers can also find inspiring reporting about incredible achievements obtained by persons with disabilities.

For example, the recent story written by Ellie Davis for a daily about Nirmala Bhandari, a national adaptive sports athlete but also a strong social inclusion activist, can be inspiring. Without discounting the tragic stories we often read about exclusion and discrimination, there is also another side of the coin.

Today it is important to highlight this different picture, promoting the potential and actual achievements of thousands of citizens, especially the young ones, who live with disabilities. It is important doing so not only because today is a special occasion, the International Day of Persons with Disabilities. It is essential doing so because building alliances with persons with disabilities or persons belonging to other vulnerable groups should be seen as a civic duty.

Alliances are paramount to challenge the status quo and change it for better. While many of us have decided to embrace the cause of climate and biodiversity activism and rightly so, we should not forfeit other important responsibilities. Because the struggle for equity, equality and social justice can only be won together. Only when less disadvantaged citizens, only when the middle and upper class members of the society realize that a lot depends on them can change occur.

But let’s be clear: Dalits or persons living with disabilities do not need tutoring or paternalistic, top-down attitudes. They must be able to lead by showing the way and by helping other citizens to implement the required changes step by step, minute by minute. At the end of the day, we need persons with disabilities to showcase their own leadership.

It is a leadership that, like in the case of Nirmala  Bhandari, is developed through a very painful journey.  We are talking of the highest form of leadership because it is built through a continuous effort and it is founded on inner resilience and endless determination. This is not just the case of Nirmala.

Like her, there are many other youth and adults with disabilities who are doing great. The problem is that only few get noticed and recognized. This is a painful truth.

While we certainly need a much stronger implementation of existing laws and regulations in matters of disabilities and social inclusion, a lot will depend on people’s attitudes and behaviors. The hope is that these gems of leadership, as I said, too often hidden, can shine.

This year’s theme of the International Day of Persons with Disabilities is focused on amplifying the leadership of persons with disabilities. In a recent webinar organized by the South Asia Office of UNICEF, an exemplary group of young disabilities activists from the region shared their own stories. Unsurprisingly there were many instances of discrimination, stories of pain and sorrow. But there was also a kind of different story built out of strengths, grit and determination.

These are examples of hope and leadership that must be greatly amplified. A whole society’s effort is required. In plain terms, it means everyone must do her part to defeat the status quo.

But it also means something else: let’s have a society that by default will unleash the energies, skills, knowledge of persons living with disabilities and the ones of other vulnerable groups.

At the end, let’s also have more citizens who overcame the status quo and got rid of it so that they can write and share more of their successes and achievements not only once in a year. A more inclusive Nepal means a better and richer nation because no talents or skills have been wasted. And it also means that much more real leaders are out there to work for a better society.