Submit your Article

Nepal, compared to other South Asian countries, has taken a giant leap in recognizing sexual and reproductive rights through various levels. While the progress is not yet sufficient, it has certainly hit the ground running. Article 38(2) of the Constitution of Nepal 2015, has guaranteed the right to safe motherhood and reproductive health. In Nepal, access to safe abortion services is regulated under the ‘Safe Motherhood and Reproductive Health Rights Act’ (SMRH Act) of 2018. This Act decriminalizes abortion and provides legal provisions for women to access safe abortion services. The SMRH Act allows for abortion on several grounds, including cases where the continuation of pregnancy poses a risk to the life or physical or mental health of the woman, cases of rape or incest, fetal abnormalities, or when the pregnancy is a result of contraceptive failure in married couples. Abortion is permitted up to 28 weeks of gestation in cases where the woman's life is in danger, and up to 12 weeks of gestation for other reasons. In certain circumstances, with the approval of a medical board, abortions can be performed up to 28 weeks. Aborting female no longer requires spousal/parental/judicial consent and that somehow releases the air of objectivity for authorization. That being said,  given the societal structure, the traditional norms and values override this legal provision, as many women still seek parental/spousal authorization for abortion. Therefore, despite laws in place, the musical chair of de-facto authorization for abortion continues.

Third-party authorization is a requirement imposed by law or policy, or in practice, that a party other than the woman, girl, or other pregnant people must authorize an abortion where other applicable legal requirements for lawful abortion have been met. The specifics of third-party consent laws vary from country to country and sometimes even within different regions or states of a country. Over the years, women’s reproductive autonomy was/has been heavily controlled by the third party, namely parents, spouses, and the judicial authority. The deep-rooted patriarchy in Nepal still challenges a woman’s right to reproduction despite laws prohibiting it. The Safe Motherhood and Reproductive Rights Act 2017 does not require third-party authorization for abortion, although the practices in Nepal direct otherwise. Given the situation that values, culture, and tradition drive Nepali society, the decision in these matters seems to be collective rather than individual.

From a legal perspective, there is a glimmer of hope that the woman’s body autonomy has been respected. Not only the Safe Motherhood and Reproductive Rights Act 2017, but various international legal instruments have also mandated women's autonomy. International instruments like CRC/Cedaw stress that the state should repeal laws and regulations that impede rural women’s access to SRH. The following has also been supported by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v Casey, where the Court determined that spousal notification requirements are unconstitutional and placed an undue burden on women’s  liberties. While many believe that judicial authorization for abortion is paramount, Rwanda in 2019 removed judicial authorization requirements for abortion, thereby permitting women over the age of 18 to access abortion without judicial authorization.

States must respect the right of individuals to make independent decisions about their sexual and reproductive health, including whether to have an abortion. The Supreme Court of Nepal seemed very welcoming in respecting women's reproductive autonomy. The Court in the case of Achyut Kharel v Council of Ministers adjudged that a spousal consent requirement for abortion would violate women’s human rights under international law and Nepal’s constitution. Further, in regards to reproductive autonomy, the Supreme Court of Nepal, in the Lakxmi Dikta v Government of Nepal, stated that the right to decide on the number and spacing of one’s children is an essential component of sexual and reproductive rights and reproductive autonomy, and that restrictive abortion laws violate these rights. It also stated that information on the right to decide freely on the number and spacing of children must be included in basic education to fully empower women to exercise this right. 

While such landmark decisions have ensured women's reproductive autonomy, patriarchal lineage continues to impact women’s economic autonomy, often compelling them to seek consent of men even for minor decisions.

Financial resources and social support play a significant role in women’s ability to make informed reproductive choices, including decisions about pregnancy and abortion. Access to economic resources can be substantial, often combined with social support, for women’s ability to access abortion-related information and services. In Latin American countries, in places where abortion is illegal, access to financial resources and emotional support is essential for women to safely access medically supervised abortions in secret clinics. Access to safe and legal abortion services often requires financial resources. In some cases, individuals may choose abortion due to the inability to afford prenatal care, childbirth, or raising a child. Financial constraints can make abortion a more practical option for individuals who are not prepared to bear the costs associated with pregnancy and parenting. However, in Nepal, the situation is more complicated due to the heavy economic dependency of women on men.

This is the prime reason the abortion decision is influenced by the third party’s consent. There is a robust economic dependency of women towards men in rural settings and the decision can barely be taken against a man’s will. Economic disparities and poverty can significantly impact women's access to safe abortion services, particularly for those from low-income backgrounds. Financial constraints, including costs associated with transportation, medical fees, and post-abortion care, can pose significant barriers to obtaining essential reproductive healthcare. Additionally, ensuring access to safe abortion services for women under the age of 18 presents a unique set of challenges that require careful consideration of their best interests. While the SMRH Act may not explicitly require parental consent for minors seeking a safe abortion, it is essential to ensure a balanced approach that prioritizes the well-being of young women in these situations.

Gender inequality often intersects with socioeconomic conditions, making it daring for women to exercise their reproductive rights, including access to safe abortion services. In patriarchal societies like Nepal, many decisions run on the consensus of the male members of the family, and thus females, especially young girls, have limited decision-making power, making abortion decisions on coercion or pressure. Nevertheless, with a focus on policy-level work and reduced economic dependency on men, alongside the protection of women's rights, the de facto third-party authorization for abortion in Nepal comes to an end, validating the provision of de jure prohibition on third-party authorization for abortion.

Have you noticed Bollywood actors like Rakul Preet Singh, Bhumi Pednekar, Kriti Sanon, Shilpa Shetty, Malaika Arora, and Janhvi Kapoor promoting ‘ghee coffee’? This trend is gaining attention among the new generation for its touted health benefits. Not only in India, but ghee (or ‘ghyu’ in Nepali) is also becoming popular in the Western world as well.

Ghee, once dismissed by the Western oil industry as unhealthy, is now being praised for its incredible nutritional and spiritual benefits. The oil industry had heavily promoted their unhealthy oils in the large South Asian market, leading to a campaign against ghee. Many of us believed them and switched to so-called ‘banaspati’ ghee and other oils made from seeds.

However, unlike ghee, many modern oils, like hydrogenated fats and seed oils, have been linked to health issues. These oils, often genetically modified and heavily processed, can contribute to inflammation, heart disease, and other health problems. They lack the nutritional profile of ghee and have been criticized for their negative impact on overall health.

For centuries, ghee has been an integral part of South Asian kitchens and Ayurvedic medicine. It’s time to reclaim and celebrate this ancient treasure that our ancestors valued so highly.

The International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) has played a significant role in reviving the use of ghee within the framework of a sattvic diet, which promotes physical health and spiritual well-being.

Ghee, also known as clarified butter, boasts numerous health benefits. It is packed with healthy fats essential for brain health and hormone production. These fats provide quick energy and help absorb fat-soluble vitamins like A, D, E, and K. Ghee stimulates stomach acids, aiding digestion and nutrient absorption. Its composition makes it easy to digest and beneficial for gut health.

Being free from lactose and casein, It has been used in Ayurvedic medicine for its anti-inflammatory properties, helping reduce inflammation and promoting overall well-being.. When consumed in moderation, ghee can support heart health by increasing good cholesterol (HDL) levels. It has been used in Ayurvedic medicine for its anti-inflammatory properties, helping reduce inflammation and promoting overall well-being.

The butyrate in ghee supports gut health, crucial for a strong immune system, helping the body resist infections and diseases. Ghee’s moisturizing properties make it a favorite in traditional beauty treatments, keeping skin soft and supple and nourishing the hair.

In the past, Western experts told us that ghee was unhealthy, leading many to switch to hydrogenated fats and genetically modified oils. Now, those same experts have studied and realized the value of ghee. It’s ironic that after discarding our traditions for so-called modern alternatives, we are now being advised to return to what we once knew.

It’s easy to make ghee at home. It can be done using fresh cream or high-quality butter. If you want to use fresh cream, you can use cream bought directly from the supermarket or collect it from the top of boiled milk over several days. If you are using butter, I recommend you use unsalted butter.

Using a hand whisk, electric mixer, or traditional churner, churn the cream until it separates into butter and buttermilk. Rinse the butter under cold water to remove any remaining buttermilk. Place the butter in a heavy-bottomed saucepan. Turn the heat to medium to melt the butter. Once melted, reduce the heat to low.

Let the butter simmer. It will start to bubble and foam. The milk solids will begin to separate and sink to the bottom, while the clarified butter (ghee) rises to the top. This process takes about 15-25 minutes. Stir occasionally to prevent the milk solids from sticking to the bottom of the pan and burning. As the butter continues to simmer, it will turn a golden color and develop a nutty aroma. Be careful not to let it burn. The ghee is ready when the milk solids at the bottom have turned golden brown.

Remove the saucepan from the heat and let it cool for a few minutes. Then, strain the ghee through a fine mesh strainer or cheesecloth into a clean, dry glass jar to remove the milk solids. Let the ghee cool to room temperature before sealing the jar. Store it in a cool, dark place. Ghee can be kept at room temperature for several months, or you can refrigerate it for longer shelf life.

The wisdom of our ancestors teaches us that ghee is not just a cooking ingredient but a symbol of health, spirituality, and cultural heritage. It’s time we embrace and celebrate ghee—not because Westerners now endorse it, but because it’s a part of our rich tradition that has stood the test of time.

The author is a UK-based R&D chef

Amid speculations about New Delhi’s response to Nepal’s new coalition government under KP Sharma Oli, a warm reception extended to Nepal’s Foreign Minister, Arzu Deuba Rana, by the Indian government in Delhi is being perceived as a positive gesture. This visit closely followed Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri’s visit to Nepal, signaling India’s priority in maintaining strong ties with its neighbor. High-level exchanges like these are often seen as manifestations of friendly relations and a growing understanding between the parties involved. Foreign Minister Rana’s India visit underscores the commitment of both nations to strengthening their bilateral relationship.

India’s response to Foreign Minister Rana’s visit has been interpreted differently by various observers. While some have provided subjective analyses, others have attempted to uncover the strategic implications. Regardless, diplomatic interactions like this are open to multiple interpretations. However, those who are trying to narrate a bad story aiming to destabilize bilateral relations, should be overlooked. Conspirators are everywhere, they should be condemned.   

This article aims to highlight Nepal-India relations, particularly in the context of recent high-level exchanges between the neighbors. It will focus on Kathmandu-New Delhi relations through the lens of KP Sharma Oli’s foreign policy and its approach to neighborly relations.

The importance given to Nepal’s Foreign Minister in India is a reflection of the importance given to the new government of Nepal formed under KP Sharma Oli. This gesture also honors the sentiments of the Nepali people. But the gestures should lead to some concrete action, for which we should wait for a few weeks (at least). Prime Minister Modi and his team are aware that Arzu Deuba Rana is the wife of former Prime Minister and a waiting Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba. They also know that Arzu herself is a leader of the Nepali Congress. In that sense,  Delhi’s response to her might have comprised such mixed posture. But, this time as a foreign minister of Nepal, she was perceived as a representative of the government of Nepal and, by extension, Prime Minister Oli. So, there’s a need to be cautious about possible efforts to create misunderstanding within the coalition by misinterpreting the visit.  

During her meetings with Prime Minister Modi, Foreign Minister S Jaishankar, and other Indian officials, Minister Rana raised several key issues. These discussions covered bilateral relations, development cooperation and economic collaboration. It is important to note that this visit was not heavily loaded with agendas but rather aimed at setting a positive tone in bilateral relations at a time when Nepal’s new ruling coalition has just taken charge. 

Minister Rana’s visit has set the tone for further discussions and future high-level visits. This diplomatic engagement also paved the way for an upcoming meeting between Nepal’s Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Such interactions are expected to address and resolve longstanding issues, fostering trust and understanding between the two nations. It should be remembered here that Oli and Modi have been maintaining close contact and sharing thoughts on issues of mutual interest.  

During the visit, Minister Rana formally extended an invitation from Prime Minister Oli to Prime Minister Modi to visit Nepal, to which Modi responded positively, indicating that he will visit Nepal in appropriate time. This development is significant, marking the potential for reciprocal visits between the two leaders.

In building relations, the chemistry of the leaders and approach to the issues are also important. This is where the foreign policy approach of Prime Minister Oli comes in.   

Prime Minister Oli’s foreign policy has been shaped by Nepal’s geographic location between its powerful neighbors, India and China. He has consistently prioritized maintaining a balanced and fair relationship with both countries on the basis of the principle of “sovereign equality.”  His well-known assertion that “countries may vary in size, but all countries are equal in terms of sovereignty” encapsulates a core tenet of Nepal’s foreign policy and continues to guide the nation’s diplomatic engagements. This approach, in  a way, aligns with India’s “Neighborhood First” policy and China’s “Peripheral Diplomacy,” both of which emphasize the importance of fostering good relations with neighboring countries.

Prime Minister Oli has emphasized that Nepal’s strategic location should be viewed as an opportunity for development rather than a challenge. He has also expressed appreciation for India’s leadership in global initiatives, such as campaigning of Global South, demonstrating the alignment of interests between the two nations. Throughout his previous tenures, Prime Minister Oli has remained committed to prioritizing Nepal’s national interest, navigating the complex geopolitical landscape with a focus on fairness and balance. In his fourth term as Prime Minister, Oli has, once again, openly requested both India and China to support Nepal’s development endeavors.  

In conclusion, Prime Minister Oli’s foreign policy approach, centered on the principles of “amity with all” and “enmity with none,” aims to promote peaceful and cooperative relations with all nations. From the land of Gautam Buddha, Prime Minister Oli has called on the global community to embrace peace and non-violence as solutions to global crises. Nepal, with its rich heritage of peace, stands ready to contribute to global efforts in promoting harmony and understanding.

The recent visit of Nepal’s foreign minister to India should be analyzed by considering these factors.  

Views are personal

CPN (Maoist Center) Chairperson Pushpa Kamal Dahal has long been known for his contradictory statements and actions, a trait that dates back to the insurgency period. Despite entering peaceful politics in 2006, Dahal has struggled to shed this inconsistent personality, often saying one thing publicly while pursuing a different agenda behind the scenes. This pattern has continued even after his recent departure from power, as he has oscillated between claiming to avoid power and making moves to re-enter government.

Dahal’s recent actions reflect his frustration with the collapse of his government and his determination to regain power. After losing the premiership, Dahal initially declared that he would not seek to become prime minister again during the current parliamentary term, which lasts until 2027. However, it is evident that his primary focus has been to dismantle the coalition between the CPN-UML and the Nepali Congress (NC) and position himself for a return to leadership. 

His efforts to create friction within the ruling coalition are apparent in his recent remarks, where he suggested that the meeting between Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Foreign Minister Arzu Rana Deuba might have unsettled UML Chairperson and Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli. Dahal also hinted that the current coalition, formed between two ideologically different parties, would not last long.

During a special session in Parliament on Tuesday, Dahal accused the government of arrogance and heading in the wrong direction. He criticized the government for serving vested interest groups and mafias instead of the people. 

“I was in favor of giving the government all the benefits of doubt during the honeymoon period. I wanted the first debate on the government to take place in the people's court,” he said. “However, after observing the government’s intentions and direction for over 40 days, I have come to the conclusion that the government is heading towards arrogance and in the wrong direction. It is moving towards the madness of numbers and the misuse of power. It is serving vested interest groups, and even more so, the mafias, rather than the people.”

Dahal also expressed regret for breaking the alliance with the NC last March and stated that his party would not remain a passive witness to the government’s misdeeds. Dahal warned that his party would expose and resist the government’s actions in Parliament, reaffirming their commitment to standing against what they perceive as the government’s misuse of power.  

“Many might wonder how such a small opposition can warn and control a two-thirds majority government. Numerically, they may have two-thirds, but the foundation of the government is based on fear, not trust. The way this government was formed, it was exposed to the people right from the beginning and continues to be exposed,” Dahal said. “The people know whose government this is and why it was formed. The government itself is providing the evidence. So, I urge both well-wishers and opponents not to worry about our numbers. To face the people and the opposition, this government needs honesty, which it lacks.”

The Maois chair also accused the current government of trying to suppress the fake Bhutanese refugee scandal and protect other criminals and tarnishing Nepal’s legal, moral, political, and social reputation internationally. 

“By transferring and investigating the capable and courageous police officers who were investigating such a shameful and disgraceful event, what message are you sending to the rest of the world? With the international community watching so closely, where will this shamelessness lead the country’s reputation?” he said.

Dahal also challenged the leaders of both UML and NC, stating that they should not come to him trying to placate him should this alliance face any challenge. 

Despite his public statements of reluctance to re-enter government, Dahal’s actions suggest otherwise. He has already begun fostering alliances with fringe communist parties, positioning himself for future political maneuvering. 

Within the Maoist Center, there is growing skepticism about Dahal’s commitment to staying out of power. Party members have expressed concerns that the party has lost touch with the people due to its continued focus on securing government positions for a select few leaders. During internal discussions, leaders like Deepak Koirala and Suman Devkota emphasized the need for the party to reconnect with the people and move away from its government-centric approach.

UML General Secretary Shankar Pokharel noted recently that Dahal still harbors hopes of rejoining the government within the next six months. Pokharel suggested that Dahal’s fixation on power could hinder efforts to address pressing national issues, including constitutional amendments. 

Despite the challenges, the NC-UML coalition remains stable, with NC President Sher Bahadur Deuba committed to continuing the alliance. However, the government’s failure to deliver on its promises could lead to dissatisfaction within the NC, though this is unlikely to threaten the coalition as long as Deuba supports it.

In the meantime, Dahal’s rhetoric in Parliament and his behind-the-scenes maneuvers reflect a leader torn between his party’s principles and his desire for power. While he warns the government of impending resistance, his actions indicate a readiness to seize any opportunity to regain political influence, even if it means contradicting his public statements.