Submit your Article

Nepal has initiated a significant endeavor to incorporate Artificial Intelligence into its national strategy with the introduction of the National AI Policy 2025. This policy serves as a foundational document for fostering AI innovation and governance, with the goal of transforming Nepal into an AI-centric nation, in line with the swift technological progress observed worldwide. Despite the policy’s forward-looking aspirations, it reveals critical deficiencies in implementation, funding and ethical regulation, which may influence its actual effectiveness.

AI has transitioned from a futuristic idea to a transformative force that is redefining industries, governance and interpersonal relationships on an unparalleled scale. Its ability to improve public administration and revolutionize healthcare highlights AI’s documented potential for driving economic and social change. As a developing country aiming for digital inclusion, Nepal has much to gain from the responsible integration of AI technologies. The government's acknowledgment of AI as a vital element for national advancement is praiseworthy. However, the mere creation of a policy does not signify readiness. The effectiveness of a policy is determined by its execution, which presents Nepal with its most significant challenge.

A key feature of the policy is the creation of an AI Supervision Council and a National AI Center, both designed to manage AI governance, research and ethical issues. Furthermore, the government has established the AI Regulatory Authority, a new entity tasked with ensuring adherence to AI regulations, promoting transparency and establishing governance standards for AI. According to the policy, the AI Supervision Council will be under the Minister for Communications and Information Technology and include representatives from the academia, private sector and the civil society to guarantee that AI is developed and utilized responsibly. This institutional framework represents a positive advancement, aiming to prevent unchecked AI development. Nevertheless, the document lacks clarity regarding the specifics of regulatory enforcement. Who will be responsible if AI systems inflict unintended harm? What strategies will be implemented to address AI-generated biases in a nation with low digital literacy? The absence of definitive actions to tackle these critical issues may undermine the policy’s effectiveness.

One of the significant challenges facing AI adoption in Nepal is its vulnerable digital infrastructure. In contrast to leading global AI nations that benefit from advanced data centers and high-performance computing capabilities, Nepal continues to experience unreliable internet connectivity in numerous regions. The policy does stress the importance of developing AI infrastructure, which includes creating cloud computing platforms and national AI databases. It underscores the necessity for high-performance computing (HPC) facilities and AI-capable data centers to bolster research and development initiatives; however, it lacks specific details regarding the funding for these projects. This raises the critical question: where will the financial resources originate? While the policy mentions public-private partnerships (PPP), it fails to provide clear incentives to draw in investment. In the absence of a dedicated budget or a financial strategy, Nepal risks repeating the familiar pattern of policies that appear promising in theory but struggle to be implemented effectively.

A significant challenge facing the country is the limited availability of professionals skilled in AI. The policy advocates for the integration of AI curricula in universities and vocational training institutions, a step that is both essential and timely. The policy emphasizes that “AI education will be incorporated into the national curriculum at various academic levels to cultivate a sustainable AI workforce.” However, educational reform is a long-term strategy. Nepal must also consider immediate solutions such as international partnerships, AI boot camps and specialized training programs for current  professionals. Without a competent workforce, the aspirations for AI innovation and governance will remain unfulfilled.

While the advantages of AI are considerable, its associated risks must not be overlooked. Worldwide discussions on AI governance focus on ethical deployment, bias reduction and data privacy. Nepal’s AI policy recognizes the significance of ethical AI but falls short of providing a comprehensive framework for responsible implementation. Challenges such as misinformation from deepfakes, AI-enabled surveillance and algorithmic bias necessitate rigorous oversight, especially in a nation where digital rights protections are still developing. The lack of clear data protection measures is a notable gap. Although “the government aims to establish a Data Protection Act to regulate AI-related data collection and processing,” there is scant mention of how these regulations will be enforced. For AI to gain public trust, it must be accountable, and such accountability requires a legal framework that is currently absent in Nepal’s policy.

One of the most encouraging elements of the policy is its acknowledgment of AI’s potential across various sectors, such as healthcare, agriculture, energy and tourism. AI-enhanced healthcare solutions could extend medical services to underserved regions, while predictive analytics in agriculture may improve crop production. The policy outlines that “AI applications in agriculture will encompass automated irrigation systems, pest management solutions and climate monitoring technologies to boost productivity.” However, the successful implementation of AI across sectors hinges on robust collaboration among government entities, the private sector and academic institutions. While the policy expresses optimism, it lacks clarity on how these partnerships will be cultivated and does not address the possible resistance from traditional industries concerned about AI-induced changes.

A significant concern is whether Nepal’s AI policy is in line with global best practices. Given that AI is a global technology, Nepal must avoid developing its AI ecosystem in a vacuum. The policy would be strengthened by clear commitments to align with international AI governance standards, such as those established by the OECD and UNESCO. Although the policy states that "Nepal will engage with international AI governance bodies to align its regulatory framework with global standards," the absence of specific actions could lead to regulatory inconsistencies and hinder Nepal's integration into global AI markets.

The government has invited public input on the AI policy, which is a positive indication of its openness to refining its strategy. However, effective engagement necessitates widespread participation, extending beyond policymakers and experts to include civil society, businesses and the general populace. Nepal’s AI initiative should evolve into a national movement that harmonizes innovation with inclusivity, security with accessibility and ambition with practicality.

The National AI Policy 2025 represents a positive advancement, yet its effectiveness will depend on its ability to move beyond mere statements. Nepal has the chance to establish a distinctive approach to AI integration, but this requires a focused effort to tackle issues such as infrastructure shortcomings, funding limitations, workforce deficiencies and ethical dilemmas. AI should be viewed not only as a means of technological progress but also as a societal catalyst that, when handled appropriately, can drive Nepal forward. The primary challenge ahead is to ensure that this policy leads to real, measurable outcomes rather than becoming just another unfulfilled initiative.

The author is the founder of ‘Teach Me AI’

A hero to a villain is the one to be feared

A story of hate, a story of rage, a story needed to be heard

A hero broken by the world sets out for revenge

The false justice chased by the hero is soon to come out

Once the threat is gone a sharp knife is felt in the spine

The knife not as much pain as the face that lay behind

The starry night he sees that now seem so bleak 

He lays there in a bloodied floor thinking what did he achieve?

Sadness turns to anger, love turns to hate

A pawn in the game has now become aware

A hero once praised by all is now feared 

A villain is never born he is made by another

The darkness that crept within can’t be controlled no longer

In this tale old as time the story has been revealed

The villain now so much despised in this story, was a hero in another

Now that he sits on the throne with all the peasants at his feet

The smile the smirk makes his face anew

He sees a knight, a pawn with might is to be revered

He sees himself, a hero before was broken

Soon to realize the vicious cycle that has been awoken

Arnav Shrestha

A Level

LA College

If we analyze the current curriculum up to the secondary level, we observe a wide range of subjects, including literature, physics, chemistry, biology, social education, moral education, grammar, and health. However, there is a noticeable absence of any focus on the fundamental laws of the country. As a result, students graduating from secondary education often lack fundamental knowledge about legal provisions that directly impact their lives.

This gap becomes particularly evident when individuals enter the workforce. In the context of Nepal, after completing secondary education (+2), many students either enter the workforce or continue their studies while simultaneously working. At this stage, alongside technical knowledge in their chosen field, understanding essential legal provisions becomes vital. Many young individuals, while pursuing further education or engaging in part-time employment, are unaware of crucial legal aspects such as labor laws, taxation, civic code, consumer rights and others. This lack of awareness can make them vulnerable to exploitation.

For instance, knowledge of labor laws is crucial for employees to ensure they are not exploited. Without an understanding of the minimum wage rate, overtime pay, or occupational safety provisions, employees may face underpayment or unsafe working conditions.

Similarly, awareness of basic taxation rules is important. A lack of understanding of taxation, especially provisions like Tax Deducted at Source (TDS), may lead to unjustified deductions from their salaries in the name of tax.

Further, for aspiring entrepreneurs, understanding laws related to business operations is equally important. Basic knowledge about company registration, VAT requirements, applicable tax rates, and available concessions can significantly impact the success of their ventures. Additionally, individuals should be aware of consumer rights and civic responsibilities to ensure that they can effectively exercise their rights and fulfill their duties as responsible citizens.

The question arises: How and when should basic legal education be imparted to the general public? A practical and effective solution would be to modify the existing curriculum to include foundational legal education. Teaching students about fundamental laws, such as labor rights, taxation, consumer protection, and civic duties, at an early stage would equip them with life skills essential for navigating adulthood.

I feel that, the curriculum can be modified as follows, 

Introduction of basic legal studies

Introduce a dedicated subject or module on ‘Civic and Legal Education’ from middle school onwards, covering topics such as fundamental rights and duties, labor laws, taxation, consumer rights, and cyber safety.

Interactive teaching methods

Beyond theoretical knowledge, case studies, role-plays, and real-life scenarios to make legal education engaging and relatable can be incorporated. This could simulate real-world scenarios where students could learn about employment contracts, tax calculations, and workplace rights, providing them with hands-on experience.

Integration with existing subjects and technology driven learning

Embed legal concepts within existing subjects like social studies and economics to ensure a holistic understanding and developing digital platforms or apps to provide accessible and interactive legal education for students and the general public could also aid. 

By implementing these modifications, students will be equipped with the knowledge and skills to protect their rights and fulfill their responsibilities as informed citizens.  Law should not be treated solely as a subject for professional legal degrees but as a fundamental area of knowledge for every individual. A basic understanding of the country’s laws can empower citizens, foster responsibility, and create a more informed and participative society. Such an initiative would not only reduce instances of exploitation but also foster a culture of legal awareness, accountability, and social justice, contributing to the nation’s overall progress.

Sudiksha Timalsina

CAP III, The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Nepal

The Ozone layer knows no political boundary—nations do. Yet, it is the only common roof beneath which life flourishes. This roof is decaying, getting weak enough to filter out lethal rays of the Sun, contributing to global warming. The effects are evident: melting of the snow-capped mountains, rising sea levels, and deteriorating climatic conditions on Earth. That is inviting an adverse change in the ecosystem.

While political interests of nations may vary, they should not outweigh the cost of environmental degradation, which affects all life. There is no denying the fact that the developed nations in their race for industrialization have always been the major contributors to the emission of gases that deplete the ozone layer. From mining Bitcoin to constructing a skyscraper, the price has been paid heavily by the environment. This underlines the need for strong global policies and accountability to reduce further environmental damage. Given what we have seen so far, recent developments in international politics in the wake of Trump’s executive order to withdraw from the Paris Agreement raise common concerns since the environmental crisis is a global one.

Donald J. Trump was sworn in as the 47th President of the United States on 20 Jan. Upon his swearing into office, he has signed a number of executive orders that have become the subject of heated debate over the policies set for his term.

Views remain sharply divided on particularly those orders which portend grave implications for withdrawal from international obligations. However, Trump’s policies were expected generally to be mired in controversy, based on cardinal principles of the “America First” policy that he put forward during his first tenure as the 45th president of the US. As a nation, national interest plays a central role, often at the expense of international obligations. The emphasis on national interests in the administration’s policy is a reflection of the “America First” principle that marked Trump’s presidency, where domestic interests were placed above international commitments.

International political practices, from the ethical point of view, should surely rest on the very basic principle of acknowledging “inevitable interdependencies while also protecting sovereign rights” a principle the US seems unconcerned with. The question thus arises whether a nation like the US, long believed to be an inspiration for humankind’s greatest problems, actually should step aside from international commitments.

The Paris Agreement, which was adopted in 2015, was negotiated at the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP21) in Paris, France. The Paris Agreement is a legally binding international treaty on climate change. In 2016, it was opened for signature, and with great enthusiasm, almost every nation including the United States, signed the agreement. In addition, the main goals of the Paris Agreement are to Limit Global warming by reducing the temperature below, boost adaptation, fund developing nations, ensure transparency, and review progress every five years.

Similarly, Article 3.1 of the United Nations Framework Convention UNFCCC and Article 2 of the Paris Agreement articulate this principle of “Common but Differentiated Responsibilities” clearly. Supported by developing nations, CBDR recognizes that climate change is indeed a problem of the world, while responsibility for its resolution lies with each country’s history of GHG emissions and existing resources. Poor countries insist that developed, industrialized countries like the United States need to bear the burden of carrying a larger load given their historical responsibility and availability of superior resources and technology. The Paris Agreement represented an outstanding opportunity for the United States to demonstrate commitment and leadership, given that it is one of the world’s largest carbon emitters. However, its withdrawal in 2019, rejoining in 2021, and the decision to withdraw from the agreement again in 2025 shows unconformity in International Environmental Policies.

Article 28 of the Paris Agreement provides that the signatory state may withdraw by sending a written notification to the depositary. Based on this, Trump signed executive orders to begin the process of withdrawal from the agreement. Therefore, there is no legal obligation of the United States to adhere to the agreement commitments but under moral grounds, it has failed to prove its global leadership.

Despite the US’s reluctance to follow through with international agreements, the country has a domestic legal regime and regulations dealing with environmental concerns such as climate change, air, and water pollution, and resource depletion with inter-agency cooperation between the federal government and the states as well as local government entities. Therefore, we should not be judgmental regarding the United States' concerns with environmental crises. However, its withdrawal from the Paris Agreement suggests that though the US might be effective in responding to environmental crises within its national boundary, it is reluctant when it comes to global cooperation.

US environmental aid to Nepal ends after the US exits the Paris Agreement. Nepal, a Himalayan country one of the most vulnerable to environmental crises, pleads the principle of Common But Differentiated responsibility (CBDR). In her oral pleadings at the ICJ, Foreign Minister Arzu Deuba Rana advocated the principle following the request for an Advisory Opinion from the states on climate change. “We are bearing the brunt of the impacts of climate change in a disproportionate manner,” said Rana Deuba. “We have been penalized for the mistakes we never made, for the crimes we never committed.”

The United States’ withdrawal from the Paris Agreement is a “selfish move against a shared responsibility” that underlines the tension between National economic priorities, political ideologies, and global environmental obligations. While the withdrawal does not create any legal obligation, it does raise moral questions about US leadership and foreign policy. Whether driven by ignorance or reluctance, the decision has profound implications for the global fight against climate change.