Submit your Article

How many cooking gas cylinders does an average Nepali household have? How many of them are empty, how many are in use and how many are full? How many of them are safe for use and how many are unsafe—and need scrapping?

What percentage of cooking gas consumers have some knowledge about safety precautions they should take while handling the flammable material? Do they have fire extinguishers in their houses? Do they know how to use the extinguisher?

Thursday’s gas cylinder explosion at a momo shop in Kamalpokhari has once again given rise to a slew of difficult questions regarding the safe handling of cooking gas cylinders at the household level. 

These questions make sense because cooking gas cylinders and gas stoves have become a part and parcel of an average Nepali household. Leave the cities, it is not uncommon to find gas cylinders and stoves in far-flung areas of the country.

It is quite possible that an average Nepali household has more than one gas cylinder (filled) because supply-related obstructions of the past have taught us to have a cylinder or two for rainy days. 

Imagine more than one cylinder at almost every house in a city with high population density. Add to it a general lack of awareness on safety measures that one should take while handling gas cylinders and stoves. 

The scenario sends a chill down the spine, doesn’t it? It should. 

Of course, the consumer should know about safe handling of gas cylinders and stoves. But the buck does not stop there, and it should not. The onus is on the Nepal Oil Corporation, the sole importer and supplier of petroleum products throughout Nepal, as well as other relevant government authorities to inculcate in the consumer a safety culture pertaining to the use of gas cylinders and stoves. 

The momo shop gas cylinder blast, in which around 12 people sustained injuries, also harks back to a promise our political leadership made some years ago, to supply cooking gas in the consumers’ kitchens through a pipeline. The big talk at that time was that all you have to do is turn on the pipe and the gas will flow (provided you have paid the bill, of course). 

While much water has flown down our rivers since then, the gas is yet to come through the gullible Nepali people’s pipelines. 

In summary, both the government and the consumer should learn lessons from the Kamalpokhari blast and do their bit to lessen the risks of such blasts. 

In the long run, the political and bureaucratic leadership of a country with considerable hydropower potential should switch from dirty and costly fuels to clean and green energy if it is indeed serious about achieving national progress and prosperity, and bringing happiness to the masses. 

Addressing the House of Representatives on Thursday, Pushpa Kamal Dahal, the leader of the main opposition party, the CPN (Maoist Centre), started his speech by expressing dissatisfaction at the absence of Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli and senior leaders from the ruling party, the CPN-UML. 

Dahal remarked that, as per parliamentary traditions, when a leader of the opposition addresses the House, it is customary for the leader of the largest party and the Prime Minister, to be present. While Nepali Congress President Sher Bahadur Deuba arrived a bit late, Prime Minister Oli was notably absent.

During an hour-long speech, Dahal voiced his concern regarding the government’s recent decision to issue multiple ordinances. He questioned the constitutional validity of such ordinances as they were brought forward just six before the Parliament was due to convene. 

The former prime minister accused the government of taking a shortcut in issuing ordinances and claimed that it demonstrated a lack of proper intention and transparency. He raised questions about the necessity of such ordinances, especially considering that the ruling parties had previously boasted of their strong mandate and two-thirds majority. 

Dahal expressed skepticism over the recent ordinances related to land reforms. He questioned whether the new land-related ordinances would ease the process of granting land rights to marginalized communities, including Dalits, indigenous people, and squatters. He warned that the amendments might complicate matters rather than solve them. Dahal also highlighted the discrepancies between the government’s actions and the promises made regarding land rights, emphasizing that the new policies appeared to favor the wealthy and urban elites over the rural poor.

“These amendments seem to benefit the land mafia and real estate developers, while leaving the poor and marginalized people struggling for their basic rights,” he noted.

A significant portion of Dahal’s address was dedicated to the government’s social media regulation bill. He said that while he had long been aware of Prime Minister Oli’s intentions regarding social media regulation, the tacit support of other ruling parties, especially the Congress, to the controversial bill was alarming.

He questioned Congress’s alignment with the government’s move and said, “I know Oli’s intentions, but how can you support such a bill now? Yesterday, you stood against such measures, and today you are supporting them.” He asked the Congress leaders if they really want a country where a citizen is barred from asking questions, from holding government to account.

He accused the government of trying to move forward in an authoritarian manner and intentionally causing distress to the citizens. He added that the government’s political retribution and the misuse of state power had become commonplace

In an attempt to defend himself from allegations related to the controversial ‘Shera Durbar’ incident in Nuwakot, Dahal challenged the government to investigate his possible involvement. “If I am involved in the Shera Darbar case in any way, let the investigation begin,” he said. He further claimed that the government was using the issue to tarnish his reputation, with an aim to find some link, no matter how tenuous, to attack him and his party.

 “The government has been working hard to frame me in this case,” Dahal said.

The case involves the alleged illegal possession of land in Nuwakot, which is thought to have been occupied by Dahal’s former private secretary. Following a prolonged investigation, the Central Investigation Bureau (CIB) of Nepal Police has concluded that the land should be returned to the government.

Dahal also accused the government of causing hardship to the citizens. He expressed frustration over the government’s tendency to press serious charges even in situations where a simple resolution could have been found. “In situations where things could be settled through discussions, citizens are being shackled and dragged from one district to another, with severe charges being placed. Is this arrogance of power, or fear of the people?”

He also accused the government of trying to move forward in an authoritarian manner and intentionally causing distress to the citizens. He added that the government’s political retribution and the misuse of state power had become commonplace.

He linked this to the incident involving the Pathibhara Cable Car dispute, where the police had fired shots, and the introduction of the social media regulation bill, which he argued was an attempt to legally control freedom of expression. “What is this? Are you above the people’s sovereignty? Are you above the constitution? Are you the masters and the citizens your slaves?”

Further criticism was directed at the government’s treatment of Rabi Lamichhane, the leader of the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), who was suspended from Parliament despite being released on bail by the court. Dahal raised concerns about the political motives behind Lamichhane’s suspension, accusing the government of orchestrating a political revenge campaign.

He addressed the Speaker of the House, requesting a re-evaluation of Lamichhane’s suspension, calling into question its fairness and constitutional grounds. “Even after being released on bail, how can Lamichhane’s suspension be justified? We need to reconsider this issue in light of the constitutional principles of justice,” he urged the Speaker.

Dahal emphasized that the current government’s strength was evident when it came to pursuing political revenge. He argued that the opposition leaders were being unfairly painted as villains despite the lack of evidence.

Lawmaker Sobita Gautam from RSP also expressed regret over the decision to suspend Lamichhane and urged for a swift correction of the decision. “My party and I deeply regret this decision, and I request the Parliament Secretariat to correct it as soon as possible,” Gautam said. “I humbly request that the suspension be revoked.”

“Parliamentary rules have provisions for suspension only if an MP is sent to jail by a court. But the suspension notice was posted without a court case,” she said. “The law was meant to prevent MPs from being targeted unnecessarily.”

Similarly, Sumana Shrestha, MP from RSP raised concerns about the social media bill, which has been registered in Parliament, and highlighted the growing protests from youth against the bill. She brought the issue to the government’s attention. “Protests have started on social media since yesterday. There is a growing voice against the social media bill the government has registered,” she said. “Will the government listen to this voice? I am raising this issue to attract the government’s attention.”

She also suggested engaging the youth for further discussions on the bill. “Invite the youth and let them discuss. We’ve seen that the bill can pass through this House even if they are pushed. What is content creation? The government has brought this bill without even understanding basic social media matters,” Shrestha said.

The US foreign policy has evolved through key turning points. The Monroe Doctrine (1823) established US dominance in the Western Hemisphere, while the Spanish-American War (1898) shifted it from isolationism to imperialism. World War I (1917) marked the US’ entry onto the global stage, followed by World War II (1941-1945), which solidified its leadership. The Cold War (1947-1991) focused on containing communism, the collapse of the Soviet Union marking the end of a bipolar world. The Vietnam War (1955-1975) was a setback, while the Persian Gulf War (1990-1991) reaffirmed dominance. Post-9/11, the War on Terror reshaped priorities, and more recently, the US pivot to Asia (2011). Return of Donald Trump to the leadership of the US—a world power for two centuries that led a unipolar world for three decades—is sure to create ripples throughout the world.

When Donald Trump came to power in 2017 as the 45th POTUS, he was quite an outsider, lacked an organized transition team and even faced demonstrators, who shouted ‘not my president’. His first term was characterised by two impeachments by Democrats-led House and investigations Trump terms witch-hunt. After a gap of four years, Trump has returned to White House as an experienced and much organized leader. Which of his election promises will get implemented is yet too early to predict, but some hints are visible.

National interest first

So far, countries are formed on common agendas, and existence of common enemies shape national unities and alliances. What seems special is, Trump-led America is more likely to focus on the economy, reducing financial losses in the name of alliances and international cooperations. To safeguard American national interests, a Trumpian doctrine may evolve over the years, which believes in each ally spending for its security. Trumpian doctrine may emphasize the use of economic and other measures to discipline any country or region, as seen with its signals to Greenland, Canada, Panama, Mexico and Columbia. 

Two centuries past, the Monroe doctrine survives in new and wider forms. The Soviet Union’s Brezhnev Doctrine (1968) justified military intervention in socialist countries to maintain communist rule, while Japan’s Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere (1930s-1940s) aimed to expand its control over East Asia. Italy’s expansionist policies under Mussolini also sought regional dominance, particularly in the Mediterranean and North Africa. India’s ‘Look East’ and ‘Act East’ policies focus on strengthening ties with Southeast Asia and countering China’s influence. Russia’s Eurasian Doctrine similarly asserts dominance over former Soviet republics, echoing the Monroe Doctrine’s regional focus. 

The US has a history of withdrawing from international institutions like UNESCO and WHO, and threatening to withdraw from conventions and protocols related to climate change, global warming and carbon emissions. For decades, economic benefits have remained a central element of US foreign policy.  Look how it played a leading role in the formation and promotion of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the World Trade Organization, shaping global trade rules and norms. But it is not difficult to understand that the US considers trade liberalism as a means, not a principle. Throughout both GATT and WTO history, the US has frequently used trade threats or sanctions to achieve its goals, such as imposing tariffs, export restrictions or launching formal complaints at the WTO. See, during trade disputes with countries like China, how the US has threatened or imposed tariffs on a wide range of goods. Trump is not an outlier in this aspect.

Foreign policy

As elsewhere, the American foreign policy has been guided by national interests. If the US made adjustments like alliance with or against Great Britain, Russia, Germany and Japan, they were based on calculated risks and benefits. Look how successfully the US has created alliances with one-time foes Germany, Japan and Italy, against the Soviets, and again attracted members of former Soviet-led Warsaw Pact in NATO, operating mainly against Russia.

American foreign policies have proved pragmatic, and their implementation sharp. As proposed by Henry Kissinger, the US normalized relations with China in the 1970s to counterbalance the Soviets, strategically isolating the Soviet Union. It was a way to gain leverage in the Vietnam War and to reshape US influence in Asia, recognizing the long-term economic and diplomatic potential of engaging China. By opening relations, the US wanted to foster global stability and influence China’s integration into the global order.

Looking at American history of u-turning foreign policies, Trump’s reluctance to wage wars and efforts to global peace are a continuity. Trump’s meeting with the North Korean leader Kim Jong Un demonstrated the former’s ability in making friends of foes. The meetings took place at a time when the North’s historical friend China had consistently called for the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, aligning with the United Nations Security Council sanctions on North Korea, and asked it to participate in multilateral talks such as the Six-Party Talks.

Trump initiated the process of withdrawing US forces from Afghanistan. In February 2020, the Trump administration signed the Doha Agreement with the Taliban, which outlined the conditions for the US withdrawal. On Iran, while Trump maintained a tough stance and withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal, he also repeatedly suggested he was open to negotiations and even expressed a desire to meet with Iran’s leadership. His administration pushed for a new, more comprehensive agreement, but Iran rejected talks unless sanctions were lifted first. 

Trump was skeptical of military interventions, especially in the Middle East, questioning the value of US presence in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. His “America First” policy focused on reducing military footprints abroad, emphasizing diplomatic solutions over foreign entanglements and long-term military campaigns.

Prompt actions

What makes Trump’s second term special is the prompt implementation of new policies. Within 24 hours in the Oval Office, among other measures, Trump has ordered to withdraw from the WHO and the Paris Climate Agreement, to try and limit automatic birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants, to deport illegal immigrants, to change the name ‘Gulf of Mexico’ to ‘Gulf of America’, to revoke an executive order signed by Biden aimed at reducing the risks from artificial intelligence and to recognize only ‘two sexes, male and female’.

Within days, deportation of illegal immigrants began. Look how Trump ordered to take tariff measures when Columbia refused to take deported migrants, and ultimately made it cooperate with the US. International adjustments were seen even before Trump assumed office. Israel-Hamas ceasefire, and change in Zelensky’s tone are some examples. Trump wasted no time in handling gender issues, simply barring transgenders from military service.

As a response to changing US policies, most of the world is likely to make relevant adjustments. We are set to bear the brunt of freezing of US funds for 90 days and expulsion of illegal Nepali immigrants. In the end, what matters is not ‘right and wrong’. It is all about success or failure. If the US under Trump makes disproportionate economic, technological and military advances, Trumpian doctrines can become a norm, in America and beyond. 

The author is a professor at Tribhuvan University

In a democracy, freedom of speech, a fundamental right, allows individuals to scrutinize and comment on government actions. However, the act of governing is far more complex than merely facing criticism. Governance, especially in challenging times, requires far more than addressing public grievances; it requires leadership, skill and unwavering commitment.

The current government of Nepal, led by Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, is a coalition of the two largest parties in the Parliament with a two-third majority. This government has faced both support and significant backlash, from within the country and beyond. All this is very natural as leaders are under the microscope in a democracy.

While the government as a whole is often scrutinized, one figure stands out—Minister for Foreign Affairs Arzu Rana Deuba. Her diplomatic skills, leadership and ability to handle sensitive negotiations have earned her respect both at home and abroad.

She has demonstrated a deep understanding of international relations. Her speeches in national and international forums reveal a leader, who not only speaks knowledgeably but also acts with clarity and confidence. From engaging with neighboring countries to participating in multilateral discussions, she has consistently represented Nepal with dignity and insight. Her ability to build and sustain relationships with global counterparts has positioned Nepal in a more favorable light internationally.

One of her most commendable actions came when she intervened in the case of Bipin Joshi, a Nepali citizen in Hamas’ captivity. Deuba’s constant engagement with her counterparts in Israel, Qatar and Egypt played a key role in making the negotiators keep in mind the only Nepali, who is held hostage. Her swift response and diplomatic outreach not only demonstrated her commitment to protecting Nepali citizens abroad but also highlighted her ability to act decisively in crisis situations.

Beyond this, Deuba has made significant strides in strengthening Nepal’s relations with its neighbors and the international community. Her official visit to China was an important step in ensuring Nepal’s active participation in global economic and infrastructural projects. Her ongoing efforts to maintain cordial relations with India have also not gone unnoticed. 

Her recent trip to Bangkok, though officially for personal medical reasons, may have included meetings with Indian officials to facilitate Prime Minister Oli’s visit to India as soon as possible. If so, it would be yet another example of her deft handling of foreign relations and her proactive approach to improving ties with Nepal’s southern neighbor.

Her leadership extends beyond diplomacy as she has been an advocate for the rights of Nepali expatriates, ensuring their concerns are heard in the government’s policy decisions. Her efforts in highlighting the Nepali migrant workers’ issues at international fora have earned her praise from labor organizations and advocacy groups alike. Furthermore, her work in advancing gender equality and empowering women has made her a role model for women aspiring to enter politics and diplomacy.

Even as the government continues to face its share of criticism, Deuba has managed to navigate the complexities of foreign policy deftly, making significant strides for Nepal on the global stage. 

In times of political uncertainty, leaders like Deuba remind us that effective governance is not only about managing domestic affairs but also about strengthening a nation’s position in the global community. She has earned the respect and admiration of many, both at home and abroad. Her tenure as Foreign Minister is a testament to her capacity to lead with dignity, skill and a sense of responsibility. Her work deserves recognition, not just for the immediate successes but for the long-term impact she is poised to have on Nepal’s foreign relations.

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