Submit your Article

Picture yourself standing in the middle of a hillside settlement and the ground beneath you is quivering. In an instant, houses around you start to crumble, people are trapped beneath mounds of bricks and stones, and there are clouds of dust everywhere. This senario became a reality when a 7.8 magnitude earthquake hit Nepal on 25 April 2015, killing almost 9,000 people and leaving millions of people homeless and hopeless. From the general public view, this was a complete catastrophe. When we go deeper into this story, however, we see parallels between how a country recovers from an earthquake and how the economy rebounds from a market crash or financial crisis. We can create a better financial system by carefully examining these similarities and applying the lessons learned from the disaster, which some of the prospects will be covered in this article.

How are quakes and economic crises similar?

The majority of us already know that an earthquake does not necessarily finish when a shake does. After the main event, smaller earthquakes, often known as aftershocks, may continue for weeks, months, or even years. For example, the 2015 Gorkha earthquake in Nepal was followed by hundreds of lesser quakes or aftershocks. The 7.3-magnitude earthquake that happened a week following the big one is the best illustration of this phenomenon. On a similar basis, the financial crisis also takes time to settle, as it also has lots of repercussions in both the short term and the long term. The global financial crisis of 2008, for instance, left the world with a number of financial aftershocks, including but not limited to a spike in the unemployment rate, hardship in clearing debt and loans by many poor nations, and a lack of confidence among the world’s biggest investors in the financial market. 

This pattern of market crashes or financial crises is similar to Omori’s law in geophysics. According to Omori's law, which is used in seismology, smaller aftershocks of larger earthquakes gradually become less frequent but never entirely cease. Smaller aftershocks following major financial crises also don't fully resolve in the field of economics. Even after more than ten years, secondary market crashes or long-term unemployment can be observed. We can anticipate and even mitigate the effects of financial crises or market crashes by comprehending the mathematics of earthquakes and their aftershocks.

For example, Nepal’s tragic earthquake in 2015 caused a great deal of chaos and instability, but with careful planning, community togetherness, and adaptation, the disaster was eventually turned into an opportunity. The same concepts may be applied to financial systems, as the market can rebound with careful preparation and adaptation.

Lessons from Gorkha earthquake

Nepal lies in the Himalayan fault line, high-risk seismic zones. So, it is most vulnerable to earthquakes. Retrospecting the 2015 earthquake of Nepal, it poses hardship to the nation in the short term and strength and lessons for the long term. In the capital of the nation, Kathmandu, which has been suffering with pollution and unplanned urbanization, the poorly built houses fell apart, but in the rural areas, the traditional houses stood strong as they were made with traditional and native materials. So, they flexed rather than cracked.

This lesson applies to financial systems. Countries with inflexible economies—those that rely too heavily on a single industry or on foreign aid—are analogous to badly built structures. When a crisis occurs, these systems disintegrate. So, Countries can improve their tenacity to financial shocks by diversifying their income sources and embodying flexibility into their economic policies. 

In Nepal, remittance accounts for almost 25 percent of its total GDP, which clearly shows the nation's heavy dependence on remittance for revenue generation. Whenever global markets fall, remittance flow may decline, weakening Nepal’s economy. In order to fight against this chaos in the near future, Nepal should increase its investment in agriculture and ecotourism and foster small-scale businesses to generate revenue. This attempt can help to reduce a nation's reliance on a single income source.

Tracing financial ‘seismic zones’

Seismology divides Nepal into seismic zones to identify places that are most vulnerable to earthquakes. Similarly, we might classify economies as financial risk zones. Low-income countries with inadequate resources fall into the “high-risk zone” for financial crises. Wealthier countries with diverse economies are considered “low-risk zones”.

For instance, during the Covid-19 pandemic, Nepal’s economy was at sixes and sevens because of its heavy dependence on remittance and tourism, but some countries that have diverse sources of generating revenue, such as Germany, fared better in such a crisis. Therefore, just like how architects design stronger and more durable buildings in high earthquake-prone zones, policymakers and economists should concentrate on strengthening financial buffers in economically weak or challenged nations. 

These buffers could include developing a wide range of economic opportunities, like developing emergency reserve funds for disasters, buttressing exports, and developing market-fluctuation-resistant industries.

Global examples of resilience

Nepal’s experience isn’t unique. In 1995, the Kobe earthquake hit Japan, causing $100bn worth of damage, but at the same time it also sparked a novel approach in constructing earthquake-resistant buildings. Similarly, Japan’s economy recovered fast thanks to solid government planning and community backing.

In economics, the 1987 worldwide stock market meltdown, sometimes known as Black Monday, demonstrated how concerted effort might calm a crisis. Governments and central banks around the world responded with policy measures, like interest rate cuts, to prevent the crash from creating long-term damage.These instances share a common thread: resilience, whether dealing with natural or economic calamities, stems from planning, flexibility, and community support.

Roadmap for future

Nepal’s recovery from the 2015 earthquake reveals important lessons about building strong economies. Engineers are already designing structures to wobble rather than collapse during earthquakes, and legislators may create financial systems that bend but do not shatter.

This entails planning for any type of repercussion, whether physical or economic calamity. To summarize, countries can transform crises into opportunities by diversifying their revenue streams, investing in early warning systems, and offering aid to communities.

The next time the ground shakes—whether from tectonic plates or financial markets—Nepal’s story will remind us that resilience means more than just survival. It's about recovering strength and preparing for what lies ahead.

As Jan 20 approaches closer and President-elect Donald Trump prepares to return to the Oval Office in the White House, states are sensing terrible tremors in foreign policy around the world. Trump’s ‘Truth Social’ diplomacy is already creating huge shocks in foreign policy and multilateralism even before he assumes the oath of office of the presidency. Trump is arguably the only president in American history to be equally admired and despised both within and outside the country. Most of Trump’s detractors blame that his MAGA (Make America Great Again) movement is a trivial insignia of nationalistic vanity rather than being a patriotic big headedness. Trump, however, has been irrefutably successful in synonymizing ‘Trumpism’ and ‘Republicanism’ and shrewdly synthesizing it into ‘Populism’ in US politics.

The President-elect has declared that he will impose heavy tariffs on all exports from China, Canada, Mexico, and the BRICS countries, including tech and EVs. China, on the other hand, has announced a ‘zero-tariff’ policy for small states, particularly LDCs. Trump’s “great wall of tariff” may lead to crucial tensions in the tech, trade, and diplomatic affairs between the US and China under Trump 2.0, which would have global repercussions. Many Americans may still be unaware whether the ‘blanket tariff’ that could raise inflation is actually an American ‘policy’ or just a ‘threat’, put forth as a negotiating tactic that the president-elect is likely to impose on its major trading partner, close neighbors, and longstanding allies. Besides, the linkage between the taxes that Americans pay and the tariffs that the Trump administration is likely to impose on foreign exports should be understood by the general public.

Trump has avowed of taking back Panama Canal, controlling Greenland, and has urged Canada to join the US as its 51st state in a Christmas message under his ‘Truth Social’ discretion. Panama Canal is a waterway in Panama that connects the Atlantic Ocean with the Pacific Ocean, which was built by the US and handed over to the Panamanian government nearly 25 years ago. Greenland is a sovereign territory of Denmark, while Canada is a G7 member and NATO ally. The chances that Trump would again raise the issue of the origin of Covid-19 towards China cannot be denied, which could widen the trust gap between the US and China.

Trump made immutable mistakes by emboldening some of its adversaries including Iran, North Korea, Venezuela and Turkey, among others, during his first term as the US president. His adversaries have become skeptical of his emotional intelligence and diplomatic avenues due to his frequent use of coercive and irrational language through his erratic tweets during his first term. He is now annoying US allies and key partners, which could bring irrevocable debacle in US foreign policy. Trump is, perhaps, assuming that the Nixon-Kissinger model of the “Madman Theory—act mad and other countries won’t dare trifle with you”—could work for him too.

In his dealing with North Korea, Trump applied the “Kernel of idea” from Madman Theory, possibly to give the impression that he was “irrational and volatile” so that North Korea would less likely provoke the US in fear of potential consequences. Madman theory sometimes may go truly furious in case of action and consequences if the strengths and strategies of the adversaries are undermined.

Trump has abandoned a number of multilateral alliances, such as the Paris Climate Agreement, the Iran Nuclear Deal, and the nuclear missile accord with Russia during his first term. As a result, the US dramatically lost credibility, reputation, reliability and trust of its allies. The US is likely to witness more severe forfeiture under Trump 2.0 as he has threatened to walk-out from NATO and other significant multilateral alliances.

The main concern, however, may be whether these unusual strategies truly fall under modern US foreign policy? Do rational Americans want a military confrontation (or colonial war) in any part of the world under the monologue of neo-colonialism or political hooliganism?

From an American perspective, Trump is accomplishing American goals, such as economic growth, immigration control, border security, and nationalism. Enhancing American security and economic interests are truly a nationalistic idea. The interests of the US, however, are global. America firmly believes in globalism, liberalism, open world economy, and multilateralism. America is not just a country in the North American continent; it is a responsible global power. America is the world's most powerful nation not just because of its economy, strong domestic institutions, technology, or military might, but also because of its pragmatic foreign policy, soft power, visionary engagement in multilateral organizations, and trustful allies and partners. America’s masculine foreign policy, unwavering hold on global leadership, and distinct legacy have made it a great power. American security is said to be characterized by its emphasis on democracy, multiculturalism, multilateralism, and international law.

By the end of World War II, the US was still the most powerful country in the world, controlling over 35 percent of the world’s production, and it had the ability to (re)shape the world according to its wishes.  American values abroad are gradually waning. Is America on the verge of decline? What will be the American position in the years to come, question many critics?

When we examine the precise causes and consequences of the rise and fall of great powers or various empires, constricted ideas or disparities in development have resulted in power struggles. Their power primarily centered on the conflict between their militaries’ ascent and social forces, ethnic nationalism, economic development, colonial and hegemonic behavior. Additionally, power struggles have led to the extinction of empires following the annexation of such power.

Presumably, with a limited global presence and an isolationist foreign policy, America cannot sustain its position as a major power in the long run. The absence of US leadership in the world would leave ample ground for its adversaries to create more challenges or trouble for it. America is the only multicultural nation in the world where people from all over the world dwell or aspire to dwell. While America is winning the hearts, minds, and spirits of tens of millions of people worldwide, Trump's massive deportation plan would certainly weaken its soft power and essence of multiculturalism.

However, Trump’s initiative for peace in the Korean Peninsula and last-minute decision to withdraw the order to strike Iran in his first term must be admired. Trump’s decision to fire his “hawkish” National Security Advisor John Bolton during that situation suggests that he opposed war in the Korean Peninsula and the Middle East. Reportedly, Bolton was aggressive in pushing war and later advised then President Trump to employ the ‘Libya Model’ of unilateral denuclearization for North Korea and the ‘Iraq Method’ for Iran. Trump is said to have rejected both the outrageous prospects and avoided the war. Trump instead emphasized the ‘New Method’ for peace negotiations. He is expected to use that ‘New Method’ in his second term to bring peace around the world, although what that ‘New Method’ is still not known. Optimistically, it can be asserted that Trump does not want war. Yet the crucial concern is- does Trump want absolute peace and wish to preserve an essence of stable global order?

The president-elect has pledged to put an end to the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine. He is expected to advocate for a similar course of action to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict and establish enduring peace in the Middle East.

Whether Trump truly wants absolute peace and steady international order, he needs to start peace negotiations from Beijing. To date, the legitimacy of Pyongyang and Kremlin peace negotiations has been contingent on how smoothly Beijing’s trade operates. Thus, Trump must first make real headway in settling the trade and tariff issues pertaining to China. Similarly, the US-North Korea and US-Iran negotiations must be conducted sensibly through diplomatic and political channels, else North Korea and Iran could rise as strong contenders not only to the US allies in the Korean Peninsula and the Middle-East, but also to the US itself.  

Iran asserts that it is a powerful country (more so than Iraq was) and has the ability to retaliate for any strikes against the US allies. Tehran has maintained good relations with the Kremlin, Beijing, and Ankara, which could make Washington feel weaker than all the former four combined. North Korea is equally marshaling the clout of missile and nuclear technology and showcasing to Washington that Pyongyang is not alone in world politics, as it has been strongly backed up by Beijing and the Kremlin. North Korea and China are “as close as lips and teeth, communist brothers in arms…,” as Mao Zedong put it. Strategically, Pyongyang and Tehran assume that they both are as strong as Washington. While the US, under Trump 2.0, is likely to create a huge gap of trust with its allies and multilateral communities, its adversaries could take advantage of gradually waning American strength.

Chinese people are reportedly very appreciative of Donald Trump's China policy, despite the fact that it was largely humiliating; this could have led to China taking a more focused approach to accomplishing its economic, technological, and diplomatic and foreign policy goals. Since China’s opening up, the US and China have maintained good trade relations despite their long standing political rivalry. President-elect Donald Trump is anticipated to play a statesmanship role in fostering friendly, vibrant, and harmonious US-China ties, much like President Richard Nixon did in establishing US-China diplomatic relations in the past.

In the face of experiencing two near-death experiences during his election campaign, Trump's tremendous resilience must be cherished. Trump has become more composed, brave, and strong following these failed assassination attempts. He resembles a deceased man who has miraculously come back to life. The way he has got a new life, the similar way he is expected to bring peace, hope, natural life, and aspirations to people around the world with a greater generosity and wider spirit. The rest of the world would be incredibly grateful to Trump if he could, as he previously declared, put an end to the ongoing international conflicts and promote amicable US-China relations. Essentially, if President Trump played a sensible role in bringing international peace, stability, and balanced order, the entire world would applaud him, perhaps not only in this generation but also in the generations to come.

Taking into account sensible geo-location, highly unstable global geopolitical situation, vulnerable digital space, and the magnitude of AI threats, Nepal's security architecture has specific limitations. For Nepal, the conventional idea of security might not be operational. Therefore, it is imperative that Nepal adopt a practical security strategy that involves increased trust, strategic partnerships, and techno-economic cooperation with both its immediate neighbors and other global powers. The most crucial matter is that Nepal should be aware of the geopolitical rivalry between China and India or the US and China and logically implement a policy to balance relations with them.

Nepal should be ready to handle any fallout from occupation of Taiwan, which might result in a massive ‘crossfire’ between China and the US that could directly affect Nepalese security and sovereignty. Nepal would have suffered greatly on all fronts—politically, economically, digitally, physically, and psychologically—if it had not been able to diligently manage the geopolitical balance between the competing superpowers. For Nepal, the most important foreign policy choice would be whether to align with one or remain neutral, while the main concern would be how Nepal could balance between them and defend itself in that circumstance. Both the options, however, would be costlier to Nepal. Perhaps neither China nor the US would ensure Nepalese security in that critical situation. China would accuse Nepal of failing to participate in its Global Security Initiative (GSI) on time, while the United States would accuse Nepal of dwindling to participate in the Indo-Pacific Strategy (IPS) or State Partnership Program (SPP) in advance. Yet, both the superpowers have made an effort to persuade Nepal to support their cause through the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) to some extent.

Nonetheless, Nepal must assess realistic foreign policy and promote techno-economic cooperation by initiating a ‘better relationship initiative’ with all the major powers, including its immediate neighbors. This could help to alleviate all of those persistent domestic and international challenges and to achieve foreign policy goals. Essentially, Nepal should practice time-sensitive policy to reduce the ‘trust deficit’ with its immediate neighbors and other powers, which could strengthen bilateral relations and raise the possibility of applied security and stability.

The author is a techno-geopolitical analyst and geostrategic thinker

Jimmy Carter, the 39th president of the United States, passed away at the age of 100, leaving behind an enduring legacy as a humanitarian, advocate for peace, and champion of human rights. His life was a testament to humility and service, symbolizing the principles of a true humanitarian. Carter’s most significant contributions came after his presidency, proving that former leadership roles can be harnessed for greater societal good.

In contrast to many global leaders who cling to power until their last breath, Carter chose a different path. In Nepal, politics is often seen as a lifetime occupation, with leaders reluctant to step away from the political stage. Carter, however, demonstrated that one's impact can extend far beyond the tenure of an official role. Despite facing numerous challenges during his presidency—including the energy crisis, Soviet aggression, and the Iran hostage crisis—he remained steadfast in his principles and commitment to service. His post-presidential work earned him global admiration, not just as a former US president but as a global humanitarian.

Nepali leaders could greatly benefit by emulating Carter's qualities: resilience, integrity, dedication, and adherence to personal principles. Carter provided a clear vision and skillset to create meaningful change even after leaving office, a lesson Nepali politicians should adopt.

Carter was not widely popular during his presidency, particularly when he sought re-election. The American public doubted his leadership during tough economic times. However, his unwavering resolve to serve humanity became his hallmark. Through the Carter Center, he addressed global challenges, including health care, democratic governance, and human rights. Even in declining health, he continued his mission to improve lives worldwide, exemplifying hope and resilience.

Nepali leaders, by contrast, often fail to contribute meaningfully outside the political arena. This stems from an identity crisis and an egoistic mindset that prevents them from engaging in other areas of service. Nepal has many academically and professionally capable former leaders who could contribute to nation-building through education, economics, or social initiatives. Yet, few follow Carter’s example of using their experience to serve the greater good.

Carter’s simplicity and discipline stand in entirely contrast to the materialism and extravagance that characterize many Nepali leaders’ lifestyles. His unwavering integrity, commitment to peace, and belief in human rights shaped his legacy. Nepali leaders often foster corruption and social inequality through their pursuit of luxury and power. Carter, on the other hand, will be remembered not for his presidential power but for his modest, principled life. The current fragility of Nepali society—marked by political dilemmas, misinformation, and populist agendas—calls for leaders who prioritize unity, social harmony, and fact-based solutions. Nepali leaders must abandon political biases and work towards strengthening democracy, ensuring justice, and promoting economic prosperity.

Carter came to office in 1976, offering a fresh alternative following the Watergate scandal. His administration emphasized transparency, human rights, environmental conservation, and historic achievements like the Camp David Accords, a historic peace agreement between Egypt and Israel. However, economic struggles and international crises overshadowed his presidency. Despite these setbacks, Carter never wavered in his honesty and commitment to his principles.

One of Carter’s most profound statements reflects his philosophy:

“I believe that anyone can be successful in life, regardless of natural talent or the environment within which we live. This is not based on measuring success by human competitiveness for wealth, possessions, influence, and fame, but adhering to God’s standards of truth, justice, humility, service, compassion, forgiveness, and love.”

Carter’s dedication to doing even small things with consistency and humility made him a leader for the people rather than for a party. Nepali leaders can learn from his legacy that serving the people and pursuing greater causes outweigh political ideologies or party loyalties. Jimmy Carter’s life is a reminder that leadership is not confined to holding office but is defined by one’s actions and principles. Nepali leaders must focus on building a legacy that future generations can admire. This is the time to act—to strengthen Nepal’s democracy, foster social justice, uphold the rule of law, and pursue economic prosperity. By embracing Carter’s values of service, humility, and integrity, Nepali leaders can transform their country into a more just and prosperous society. 

President Jimmy Carter exemplified humility, integrity, and a committed dedication to public service, with his most impactful accomplishments occurring after his presidency. Through his efforts to improve global health, uphold human rights, and promote peace, he demonstrated that true leadership extends far beyond the confines of political office. Unfortunately, many Nepali leaders remain fixated on retaining power and struggle to contribute meaningfully outside the political sphere, often constrained by personal ego. By embracing Carter's values of simplicity, resilience, and service to the greater good, Nepali leaders could strengthen democracy, foster social harmony, and build an enduring legacy that inspires many generations to come. The question remains: Will they rise to the challenge?

It has been more than six months since Nepal’s two major political parties, the Nepali Congress (NC) and the CPN-UML, pledged to make amendments to the 2015 constitution. However, despite their promises, tangible progress remains elusive. A few weeks ago, they announced plans to form a two-party mechanism to address constitutional amendment issues. Yet, this initiative appears stalled, with little to no significant development.

Statements from Prime Minister and CPN-UML Chairperson KP Sharma Oli suggest that a constitutional amendment is not on the immediate horizon. In fact, it may not occur until after the 2027 national elections. Without giving away the specifics, Oli indicated that any potential amendment might only take place in 2030. Regarding the flaws in the constitution, he remarked, “There are some flaws in the constitution which need to be rectified, but it will take place only in 2030 because now we do not have the two-thirds majority required for it.”

The NC has remained notably silent about its position on constitutional amendments. There have been no substantial deliberations within the party, and it is unclear if there is any agreement between the NC and UML on key issues. Both parties appear to share an interest in reforming the current electoral system to ensure political stability, but dissenting voices from Madhesi and Janajati leaders within their ranks could complicate such efforts.

If the two major parties fail to take the initiative, constitutional amendments are unlikely to materialize. When the NC and UML announced their willingness to amend the constitution while forming the government in July last year, it prompted other parties to clarify their positions. The Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), which did not exist when the constitution was promulgated in 2015, has established a task force led by Chief Whip Santosh Pariyar to determine the party’s stance on constitutional issues. The RSP’s position on governance, federalism, and the electoral system remains ambiguous. The party’s decision not to field candidates for provincial assemblies in 2022 sparked speculation that it might oppose the federal structure. However, leaders like Pariyar have expressed support for federalism and related agendas.

Meanwhile, Madhes-based parties have begun consolidating their positions on constitutional amendments. These parties are working towards forming a loose alliance to present a unified stance. The first amendment to the constitution in 2016 addressed some of their demands, bringing an end to the Madhes Movement and lifting a four-month-long blockade imposed by India. However, the Madhes-based parties still advocate for further changes to fully address their grievances.

Constitutional amendment was also a key topic of discussion at the recently concluded Central Committee meeting of CPN (Maoist Center), the main opposition. The party has outlined three primary amendments: the introduction of a directly elected president, the adoption of a fully proportional electoral system, and ensuring 50 percent representation for women in state organs. Maoist Chairperson Pushpa Kamal Dahal has championed these radical reforms, which could reshape Nepal’s political landscape if implemented.

The fifth-largest party, the Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP), has also initiated internal discussions on constitutional amendments. The RPP’s agenda includes abolishing federalism, reinstating Nepal as a Hindu state, and reviving the monarchy. These proposals stand in stark contrast to the positions of most other parties and are unlikely to gain widespread support.

Despite these activities among smaller parties, the NC and UML’s lack of substantive discussion on constitutional amendments is striking. For instance, during a recent UML Central Committee meeting, there was no mention of the specific changes the party seeks to introduce. According to UML leaders, the party’s strategy is to prioritize constitutional amendments only after securing a majority in the House of Representatives.

The 2015 constitution is widely regarded as a product of compromise among four major political forces: the NC, UML, Maoists, and Madhes-based parties. While this consensus allowed for the constitution’s promulgation, it has also resulted in ambiguities and areas of contention that require resolution. The UML’s current stance appears to favor amendments tailored to its terms, further delaying the process due to the lack of cross-party consensus.

As Nepal approaches the 10th anniversary of the 2015 constitution, there has been no expert-led review of its implementation. A senior UML leader has emphasized that the government’s priority is to evaluate the constitution’s effectiveness before deciding on amendments. This cautious approach reflects broader hesitations within the NC, where internal dynamics and divergent views prevent the party from supporting UML’s amendment proposals wholeheartedly.

The road to constitutional amendment is fraught with challenges. Beyond the lack of political will among major parties, there are ideological divides that hinder consensus. For instance, the UML’s preference for amendments that align with its agenda clashes with the more inclusive demands of Madhes-based parties and Janajati leaders. Similarly, the Maoist party’s call for radical reforms faces resistance from parties advocating for minimal changes.

Furthermore, the failure to address constitutional issues risks deepening public disillusionment with Nepal’s political leadership. Many citizens view the 2015 constitution as a landmark achievement that needs refinement to better serve the nation’s evolving needs. The lack of progress undermines confidence in the political process and raises questions about the commitment of major parties to democratic principles and governance.

To move forward, Nepal’s political leadership must prioritize dialogue and consensus-building. A comprehensive review of the constitution’s implementation, involving legal experts, civil society, and diverse political voices, could provide a roadmap for amendments that address the nation’s pressing challenges.