Submit your Article

Recently, former Prime Minister and President of the Nepali Congress (NC) Sher Bahadur Deuba, along with Dr Shashanka Koirala, the son of BP Koirala, visited BP Koirala’s ancestral home in Biratnagar. This house is more than just a physical structure; it stands as a symbol of Nepal’s long and arduous democratic struggle, embodying the resilience, vision and sacrifices of one of the nation’s most revered leaders. Given its immense historical significance, I had expected that Deuba, as a leader of the party that BP Koirala formed, would acknowledge its value and push for its preservation as a national museum. Unfortunately, that did not happen.

Despite its crucial role in Nepal’s democratic history, BP Koirala’s home remains neglected, with no concrete efforts from the government or political leadership to conserve it. This is more than just the deterioration of an old building; it is an alarming disregard for Nepal’s democratic legacy. Preserving BP Koirala’s home is not merely about safeguarding bricks and mortar—it is about honoring the struggle for democracy and ensuring that future generations comprehend the sacrifices made for Nepal’s freedom and progress.

BP Koirala, Nepal’s first democratically-elected Prime Minister, was a towering figure in the nation’s political evolution. A staunch advocate of democracy, socialism and nationalism, his ideals laid the foundation for modern Nepal. His Biratnagar residence, where he spent crucial years of his political career, bore witness to key moments in Nepal’s democratic journey. It was within these walls that historic discussions, revolutionary ideas and strategic planning took place, all of which played a significant role in Nepal’s transition away from autocracy. The house, therefore, is not just a relic of the past; it is a living testament to the democratic aspirations of the Nepali people.

Despite its historical and cultural significance, neither the government nor the party has made any effort to make it a museum. There has been no substantial governmental or institutional effort to preserve it, a situation that reflects a broader issue in Nepal: the failure to institutionalize historical memory. Around the world, nations take pride in preserving the residences of their national leaders, converting them into museums and cultural centers to educate future generations. India, for example, has meticulously preserved Mahatma Gandhi’s Sabarmati Ashram, which serves as both a museum and an educational center. Nelson Mandela’s former residence in South Africa stands as a monument to his struggles and achievements. Nepal, too, must recognize the value of its historical landmarks and act swiftly to preserve them before they are lost to neglect and decay.

Transforming BP Koirala’s home into a national museum would serve multiple purposes. Firstly, it would provide an educational space for citizens, particularly young Nepalis, to learn about Nepal’s democratic history. Schools and universities could utilize it as a learning center, offering invaluable insights into BP Koirala’s ideology and Nepal’s political evolution. Secondly, it would serve as a significant cultural and historical attraction, drawing both domestic and international visitors interested in Nepal’s democratic struggles. Thirdly, it would act as a unifying symbol for the nation, reminding both political leaders and citizens of the fundamental values of democracy, integrity, and principled politics.

To make this vision a reality, the government must take immediate action in collaboration with the party and civil society. A dedicated trust should be established to transform BP Koirala’s home and curate exhibits that showcase his writings, personal artifacts, photographs and audiovisual archives. Additionally, an interactive section could be incorporated to allow visitors to engage with his speeches and ideas through modern, immersive technology. Such efforts would not only preserve the house but also revitalize public interest in Nepal’s democratic heritage.

Nepal cannot afford to let its history fade away through negligence and apathy. The legacy of BP Koirala is too significant to be forgotten. Preserving his home as a museum would be a fitting tribute to his contributions and a reaffirmation of Nepal’s commitment to democracy. The time to act is now—before history crumbles before our eyes.

As a dedicated member of the Nepali Congress, I urge the leadership of our party to take decisive steps toward this cause. With the party currently holding power in the government, there is no better opportunity to take concrete action. The government should initiate the process of acquiring BP Koirala’s home and officially recognizing it as a national museum. This would not only honor BP Koirala’s contributions but also serve as an enduring reminder of Nepal’s democratic journey.

Beyond preserving our democratic legacy, Nepal must also focus on strengthening its global identity. Our country is renowned for its breathtaking mountains, its status as the birthplace of Gautam Buddha, the historical significance of Goddess Sita, and its deep spiritual importance for Hindus around the world. These are core elements of Nepal’s identity, and the government must prioritize the development and promotion of these aspects. Just as we must preserve our democratic history, we must also leverage our cultural and religious heritage to bolster Nepal’s global standing.

By taking action now, Nepal can ensure that both its democratic and cultural heritage are preserved and celebrated for generations to come.

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

An angry White House clash between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Donald Trump divided the US president’s fellow Republicans and dimmed prospects that Congress will approve any further aid for Kyiv in its war with Russia. On Saturday, Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski said there were “whispers from the White House that they may try to end all US support for Ukraine... I am sick to my stomach as the administration appears to be walking away from our allies and embracing Putin, a threat to democracy and US values around the world.”

Other Republicans who had long supported Ukraine lashed out at Zelenskyy after Friday’s exchange, in which Trump and Vice-president JD Vance berated the Ukrainian leader before the world’s media, accusing him of disrespect. Senator Lindsey Graham called for Zelenskyy to change his tune or resign, just hours after attending a friendly meeting between Zelenskyy and a dozen senators.olo

“What I saw in the Oval Office was disrespectful, and I don’t know if we can ever do business with Zelenskyy again,” Graham, a close Trump ally, told reporters as he left the White House after the clash, which drove relations with Kyiv’s most important wartime ally to a new low. “He either needs to resign and send somebody over that we can do business with, or he needs to change,” the South Carolina senator said.

Senator Bill Hagerty of Tennessee, who was ambassador to Japan during Trump’s first term, posted on X: “The United States of America will no longer be taken for granted.” But even as most Republicans rallied behind Trump and Vance, some joined Democrats in defending Ukraine.

New York Representative Mike Lawler, in a post on X, called the Oval Office meeting “a missed opportunity for both the United States and Ukraine—an agreement that would undoubtedly result in stronger economic and security cooperation.”

Representative Don Bacon, a moderate Republican from Nebraska, threw his support behind Kyiv. “A bad day for America’s foreign policy. Ukraine wants independence, free markets and rule of law. It wants to be part of the West. Russia hates us and our Western values. We should be clear that we stand for freedom,” he said in a statement.

Neither of the Republican lawmakers criticized Trump or Vance.

Minerals deal

Zelenskyy was in Washington to sign an agreement to jointly develop Ukraine’s rich natural resources with the United States. The Ukrainian leader had seen the meeting with Trump and Vance as an opportunity to persuade the US not to side with Russian President Vladimir Putin in his war with Moscow’s smaller neighbor. Instead, Zelenskyy was told to leave and the agreement was left unsigned.

Kyiv’s backers had hoped the deal would help win more support from Trump’s Republicans—who hold slim majorities in the Senate and House of Representatives—for future aid. Congress has approved $175bn in assistance since Putin launched his full-scale invasion three years ago, but the last measure passed in April, when Democrats controlled the Senate and Democrat Joe Biden was in the White House.

Even then, congressional Republicans slow-walked the bill under pressure from candidate Trump, who has been skeptical of further military aid to Ukraine, leading to delays in delivering weapons that put Ukrainian troops on the back foot in the battlefield. If Trump, the party leader, had skin in the game and was promoting a “very big” minerals deal he had negotiated, analysts said, it would likely have rallied Republican support for Ukraine aid.

Some Republicans who have advocated for assisting Ukraine said they hoped relations could be rebuilt. Representative Michael McCaul, chairperson emeritus of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said he still hoped for a real and lasting peace that ensures Ukraine would be free from further Russian aggression.

“I also urge President Zelenskyy to sign the mineral deal immediately,” the Texas lawmaker posted on X. “It will create an economic partnership between the United States and Ukraine. It is in both of our interests to get this deal done.”

Reuters

Ramesh Gautam, in his early thirties, was living a fast-paced life juggling multiple responsibilities. A teacher by profession, he had recently ventured into the restaurant business using his family’s savings, all while raising his young daughter. The mounting stress from his professional and personal life soon became overwhelming, leading him to turn to alcohol as a coping mechanism. He began drinking heavily, returning home late at night, and rushing to school the next morning while still battling hangovers.

“I noticed I was becoming more irritable, struggling to sleep, and missing out on precious time with my daughter. My parents began to lose faith in my ability to manage the business, and my performance at school started to suffer,” Gautam recalled.

It was during this challenging phase that his cousin, a Pranic Healer, suggested he try Pranic Healing to address his struggles. Taking her advice, Gautam began attending sessions three times a week, each lasting about 45 minutes, for several weeks.

His cousin worked on his aura and chakras—without any physical contact or medication—using Pranic Healing techniques. After a few sessions, she introduced Pranic Distance Healing, allowing Gautam to receive healing energy even while at home.

“I started thinking more clearly and became more mindful of how my decisions impacted different aspects of my life. My business began to expand, and I made the decision to quit alcohol. One night, I was at my restaurant with friends until 2 a.m., and for the first time, I was able to say no to alcohol without feeling the urge to drink. That was a turning point for me,” Gautam shared.

Pranic Healing is an ancient science and art that utilizes Prana (life energy) to heal the body and emotions. It addresses a wide range of physical ailments, such as migraines, diabetes, asthma, high blood pressure, arthritis, and even chronic conditions like cancer and heart disease. It also helps with emotional and mental challenges, including stress, addiction, phobias, depression, low self-esteem, ADHD, and autism.

The practice is based on the concept that every individual has an energy body composed of chakras, auras, and meridians. When illness occurs, certain parts of this energy body become imbalanced. A Pranic Healer works to remove diseased energy and replenish the affected areas with fresh Prana, facilitating healing. Notably, Pranic Healing is a no-touch, no-drug system and can even be applied remotely.

Modern Pranic Healing was systematized by Master Choa Kok Sui in 1987. A chemical engineer, businessman, and spiritual teacher, Master Choa authored over 20 books on the subject. Today, Pranic Healing is practiced in more than 120 countries worldwide.

In Nepal, Pranic Healing gained traction in the early 2010s. The Pranic Healing Yoga Nepal Trust now offers healing services, meditation sessions, and spiritual courses. To date, over 3,000 students have learned Pranic Healing in Nepal, with more than 50 becoming certified professionals. The country now boasts over 14 Pranic Healing centers, and practices like Twin Hearts Meditation—a powerful technique developed by Master Choa—have reached over 10,000 people in Nepal.

It’s important to note that Pranic Healing is not a replacement for modern medicine but rather a complementary practice. Pranic Healers do not interfere with medical treatments, and many doctors themselves incorporate Pranic Healing into their work.

For those facing health or mental health challenges, Pranic Healing offers a holistic approach to healing. Additionally, individuals interested in spirituality and self-improvement can explore courses like Achieving Oneness with the Higher Soul and Arhatic Yoga. Beginners can also enroll in a two-day Basic Pranic Healing course, where they can experience healing, learn to sense auras and chakras, and witness the transformative power of this practice firsthand.

Gautam’s story is a testament to the potential of Pranic Healing to bring about profound personal transformation, offering hope and healing to those seeking balance in their lives.

The ripples of the Trump administration's decision to freeze USAID under the pretext of misuse and abuse have caused turmoil across the world. As US government officials proclaimed on multiple occasions, “USAID funded an atheism expansion project in Nepal,” narratives colored with religious conversion and secularism are snowballing across Nepal. There is extraordinarily more to the funding debacle than meets the eye.

Originally for religious freedom

In 2021, the United States Department of State Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL) announced a Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) for ‘DRL FY20 IRF Promoting and Defending Religious Freedom Inclusive of Atheist, Humanist, Non-Practicing, and Non-Affiliated Individuals’. The amount of $500,000 would be awarded to projects that support religious freedom in two or three countries in the regions of South/Central Asia and the Middle East/North Africa. An overview of expected outcomes from the projects: increased availability of mechanisms for atheists and nonbelievers; increased capacity among members of atheists; increased awareness of religious pluralism. In principle, DRL presupposes these groups experience discrimination, abuses and harassment.

Because it was an open competition award, any country from the two specified regions was entitled to apply. Perusal of the NOFO details as spelled out by the State Department does not suggest “expansion” of atheism per se. Linda Qiu ingeniously called out the misleading statement by speaker Mike Johnson, “$100m on initiatives like expanding atheism in Nepal”. It was Brian Mast (Republican Congressman) who first brought Nepal’s issue to Congress hearing in March 2024 and February 2025, subsequently in an interview, and repeatedly framed the ‘religious freedom’ grant along the lines of ‘promotion or expansion of atheism’. In this particular context, authority bias was apparent—because high-ranking officials said it, it must be true. Qiu has debunked it with fact-checking; the half a million dollars in funding was the initiative of the State Department, not the USAID.

Misplaced funding

The Humanist International (HI) group secured the award of $500,000 and in the documents obtained by lawmakers in the US, it was discovered that the group intended to use the funding in Sri Lanka and Nepal. Michael T McCaul (chairman of the US Foreign Affairs) has expressed deep concern and dissatisfaction over the funding, as it is against the US Constitution to promote any religious ideology overseas. It is profoundly insulting for him that the State Department decided to entrust HI, whose CEO pushes for anti-Catholic agendas—an organization with anti-religious objectives. Whereas McCaul accuses the department of exercising their creativity in the name of religious freedom and criticizes one key project implementer for keeping details a secret, the department blames the HI for being untruthful.

Of course, the atheism project that Hl designed to implement in Nepal is at odds with the religious freedom project that the State Department envisioned to fund. To be sure, such a discrepancy is a result of the department’s failure to do due diligence. Was this a case of organizational corruption or what MaCaul calls a blatant favoritism on the part of the department? In any case, the State Department should be accountable, more than anyone else, for the administrative lapses and its impractically misplaced project. Because of such a laxity, the already-present preconceived notion or Hindutva propaganda is being reinforced: behind the introduction of secularism in Nepal was international development aid from the US and other Western powers.

Anti-secularists unleashed

The USAID fiasco and atheism grant have activated anti-secular forces in Nepal. Despite the assurance of Dean R Thomson, US ambassador to Nepal, last March 2024, the chairman of Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP), Rajendra Lingden, harped on the ‘atheism funding’ issue in one of the latest parliament sessions in February 2025. He unabashedly misled the parliament by conflating atheism, religious conversion and secularism. It was indisputably a well-colluded or calculated move to obscure the issue and undermine secularism. Not surprisingly, another member of RPP, Gyanendra Shahi, in one press meet, echoed the claims of Lingden verbatim, as all the pro-Hindu kingdom forces are predisposed to.

The end of the Hindu kingdom must have been such a huge blow to the RPP and its supporters that it has severely or interminably affected their ears. Any debate, utterances or conversations on secularism fell in their impaired ears, it is translated into religious conversion; hard of hearing, lately they translated atheism into secularism and religious conversion. It is high time the rankled anti-secularists learn that atheism, secularism and religious conversion are conceptually disparate regardless of religion being an overlapping element in them.

Neither the State Department NOFO document nor US officials (Brian Mast, Mike Johnson, and others) spelled out the term ‘secularism’ or ‘religious conversion.’ Seeking to prove that external powers (USA) funded religious conversion and secularism is an expedient method at anti-secularists’ disposal to weaken the legitimacy of secularism in Nepal. Little do they realize that this project of atheism was part of the Biden administration (2020-2024), and Nepal cemented its secular identity in 2007 and subsequently in 2015. To reinvigorate the preexisting narrative, the atheism grant example is being invoked or exploited so that the national sentiments against secularism are fueled. Social media platforms are rife with conversations or comments that attempt to render objectivity to such misleading narratives.

On social media platforms, the legendary comedians, the duo of Madan Krishna Shrestha and Hari Bansha Acharya, have been subjected to witch-hunting over atheism allegations, especially by anti-secularists. Because of recourse to a retroactive judgment mode, telefilms or plays they produced decades ago are under scrutiny as if USAID funded them for religion or atheism projects. Fueled by misleading information, some critics, keyboard warriors and social media mobs have ganged up against the duo by blatantly ignoring the nuances of USAID’s grant provided to the few projects throughout their careers. In addition to the duo comedians, Krishna Dharabasi, Kunda Dixit, Amar Neupane and Khagendra Sangraula, among others, are not only facing backlash with vitriolic comments—ad hominem attacks—from cyber warriors, but they are also on the verge of becoming victims of what is called the ‘cancel culture’.

Atheism deserves protection

McCaul laments and criticizes the State Department for not funding any project that tackles persecution of Christian and Muslim minorities in South Asia while spending taxpayers’ money for atheist/humanist programs inconsistent with US law. If a project that ensures freedom of atheists translates into an ideologically charged endeavor, how do supporting Christians and Muslims transcend the similar allegations? Ample evidence from countries has emerged where atheists are targeted; non-religious people are ostracized in India, Colombia, and the Philippines, while atheists and non-believers are imposed death penalties in Afghanistan, Iran, Sudan and the UAE. Thus, should Nepali atheists in the future be victims of such mistreatment, then it definitely calls for intervention in terms of funding from USAID, the State Department or other agencies.