Submit your Article

The 70th anniversary of the establishment of bilateral relationships between Nepal and China is an important milestone for both nations but it is obvious to say that Nepal has been benefitting the most from this relationship.

Over the years, Nepal proved to be a reliable and trusted partner for Beijing and it is worthy to observe that Kathmandu was able to forge a strong relationship with China without putting its own strategic interests in jeopardy. Co-habiting a space hemmed between India and China, while it can bring multiple advantages, can also be a tricky endeavor.

Balancing off different interests and trade-offs between New Delhi and Beijing requires high skills in navigating foreign diplomacy without forgetting in the equation, the role of the United States that, with the exception of the incumbent administration in Washington, has also been a strong and important partner for Kathmandu.

Thanks also to the presence of different communist parties in the country, Beijing has been able to assert its influence and it is remarkable how swiftly China has been capable of boosting not only its development assistance but also its soft power in Nepal.

I often read mesmerizing reports from reporters invited to China to observe firsthand and then report and explain back home the huge improvements in the lives of Chinese citizens over the last 30 years, enhancements that have been accompanied by a turbo state-led capitalism that supported China’s rise. I have a huge admiration for China’s history and ancient civilization while as someone who grew up in the West, I have also a critical view of certain policies and positions taken by Beijing.

I never expected China to turn itself into a democracy but at the same time, I do not have an uncritical view of some of its approaches related to human rights and freedom of expression. Yet I always had a strong desire to try to understand the nuances of certain policies because in politics as well as in governance, we cannot simplify everything through “white and black” lenses and this is particularly true for a complex country like China.

Because understanding the ways the Chinese Communist Party works and the multilayered governance structure of its political and administrative systems are complex endeavors that require a lot of expertise.

In short, observing and trying to make sense of what is happening in China is indeed a fascinating thing and I do believe that the West should make a much bigger effort at grasping the nuances of China’s political system.

Nepal, despite its links with India, has managed, quite successfully, at building important bridges with China. At the same time, even in relation to the Road and Belt Initiative, Beijing’s flagship global program, Nepal has been able to push back with due respect and smartness. At the same time, the civil society of Nepal has been able to forge stronger relationships with peers in China and slowly a stronger knowledge of the country is emerging and this is a good thing.

Yet, I do feel that members of the press corps and activists should also develop a more holistic understanding of China. I never believed that a paradise on Earth exists, a nation capable of embodying perfection in all its spheres of life where no problems exist. This not only applies to China but also Europe, Australia or the United States of America or any other nation.

As a European, I can be proud of our democratic credentials and freedom of speech I can enjoy back home. I can also certainly assert that the EU has also been struggling with double standards and I wish the Europeans could always walk the talk in matters of upholding human rights domestically but also in their foreign policies. So, I do not take it easily to criticize the second biggest power on Earth, especially when China has been doing a lot for the nation that has been hosting me for many years.

Yet, as Nepal’s consciousness of India has matured over the years because the citizens of the former know very well the mindset, culture, politics and foreign policies of the latter, I do believe that slowly a more “complete” view of China will emerge.

From Beijing’s perspective, this inevitable evolution of views is not necessarily a negative thing because real partnerships require the space also to vent some criticisms or simply different perspectives. As China might sometimes vent its frustrations toward Kathmandu, it is normal that Nepal can be in a position to question certain policies and positions taken by Beijing, not out of disrespect, but simply out of sincere and trustworthy commitment to make the bilateral relationship stronger. This would happen because the rapport between the two will be enhanced when the interests of the smaller partner are better addressed and the latter becomes more assertive.

Nepal learned how to navigate its relationships with its south neighbor, developing a sense of self-confidence in also pushing back whenever needed. At the end of the day, such a level of candid approach might annoy New Delhi but at the end of the day, India knows that the relationships are stronger when both parties feel comfortable at expressing each other even if the positions are different.

Eventually, the same would happen with the northern neighbor. This would represent a new level of relationships between China and Nepal that, rather than being one-sided, are more mutually beneficial because they are more balanced.

Finally, I want to take an appreciative view of what China has been doing for Nepal. With the exception of the Ring Road work that I believe has been poorly designed (see the number of lethal accidents that have occurred so far since the revamped partial motorway has opened from Koteshwar to Kalanki), China has been playing a huge and very generous role in supporting Nepal.

I recently read of plans that China will build a bone marrow transplantation facility at the BP Koirala Memorial Cancer Hospital in Bharatpur, Chitwan.

There are also discussions on important expansions at Civil Service Hospital in Kathmandu, a hospital entirely built by China that, since its start of operations, has already seen important upgrades. These are key infrastructure projects for Nepal, very tangible initiatives at direct benefit of local peoples. At the same time as Nepal is proceeding to graduate from the category of least developed nations, would it not also be essential for Kathmandu to start doing something to help China? I do understand that this might look like a ridiculous proposition but instead I do believe that Nepal is about to reach the point where it can also show gratitude to its northern neighbor.

As Kathmandu tries to learn more about the almost unimaginable improvements in the lives of Chinese people and how Beijing has been prioritizing the right to development, Nepal can also show its templates and success stories. For example, how the nation halved its poverty and levels of social exclusions and how its political system, despite its own issues like instability and corruption, proved to be indispensable for such progress. Nepal could also do much more in promoting its culture and way of dealing with internal problems and differences and why not establish an exchange program where hundreds of Chinese students come here to learn about the country?

If millions of Chinese students have flocked to the USA, why not have some of them also learn Nepal’s way to development and prosperity? Frankly speaking, the university system in Nepal, while having its own share of challenges, also counts with some best practices. Higher education is just one area where Nepal could do something to reciprocate China’s generosity.  Without a doubt, there are many other areas where Nepal can do its bits to show that it is not taking China’s generosity for granted.

Senior leader of the Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP) and member of House of Representatives, Pashupati Shumsher Rana, remains one of Nepal’s most prominent voices advocating for the restoration of a ceremonial monarchy. In conversation with Kamal Dev Bhattarai & Pratik Ghimire, he reflects on the current state and future of the royalist movement, the challenges within his party, and the broader political landscape. From his critique of the government’s governance and integrity to his insights on foreign policy, Nepal’s geopolitical balancing act, and relations with global powers, Rana offers his kind of perspective. Rana says it has always been his desire that this country should prosper, that its people should be able to get what they’ve always deserved. “And for that, my life, my abilities, my everything is committed to that,” he says whatever he can do for the people and the country, this is what he’ll always do. Excerpts:

Why has the royalist movement become weak?

I think the movement to restore an ornamental monarchy is something that is a part of not only our party’s expression but for a wide sector of the public. To maintain any movement of this kind, you need persistence. You need effort of every kind. You need finance. You need a wide spectrum of people coming in and sustaining a movement of this kind. And I think we’re all working towards that. On the first day of the movement, we had nearly 200,000 people out in the streets. But sustaining such a movement is extremely difficult. We’re working on ways and means on how to get it going again and our beliefs continue. We believe that if there is an ornamental monarchy on the model of the British one, not powerful, not capable, but giving dignity and glamour to the country, that would be something that’s worth doing.

Some people with extremist views were also in the royalist movement. Do you think  their involvement affected the movement? 

That part of the story, I mean what they do is up to them. We believe that there should be a peaceful movement, that it should be successful on the means of in the modes of democratic dignity. You cannot have a wild movement. You cannot have one that has no limits, that carries destruction in its weight and all that. We have beliefs and we hope and we’re working hard towards creating and sustaining such a movement. 

Where do you see the future of the royalist movement? 

This doesn’t succeed at one go. You have to keep on trying. And gathering such a group of such large numbers and people and keeping them in Kathmandu is a very difficult task. But the party is working on it. We are trying to build as much support as we can and I think we will achieve it one day. 

We saw many youths at the royalist movement but those who are leading the group are of the older generation. Do you think integrating youths in the leadership may help in sustaining the movement? 

The central committee of our party has, in the last three, four months, appointed nearly 20 people below 40 and we are trying to address the concerns of the youth in every way possible. We believe that the future belongs to young people. So we will move forward to gathering as much of the youth as we can.

We see many conflicts inside RPP. What’s your take on this?

In a party which is alive, you will find some degree of dissension. If you look at the CPN-UML, an extraordinary situation, the former president, the person who was president twice, has come back and is trying to create dissension there. And in Nepali Congress, there has always been dissension. And there’s dissension within the CPN (Maoist Center) too. In a party which is vibrant, you will have differences. And the ability to tolerate and manage dissent is something that the leadership must exercise. 

Many parties have already started to aim for the upcoming general election. How is your party preparing?

We’re working hard towards it and I think first of all we have to manage our general conference which is within six months and after that we’ll do full out. You know the preparation of the general conference also, you have to have membership up to the ward level and it automatically creates the situation. But by the time of the election, there must be totally new momentum. We cannot remain at the size that we are. We have to increase it in every possible way. 

Are you going to fight for party president in the general conference?

No, I’m not. 

Are there any chances or talks going on to unite the like-minded parties like yours? 

The Rastriya Prajatantra Party is trying to carry with it all forces that support our ideals. To what extent will succeed in uniting which particular groups remains to be seen. 

How do you evaluate the performance of the current government? 

In short, it’s not up to the mark. You know if you look at the present government or any similar government run by the large parties, the trouble is they don’t have the required efficiency and of all the value of honesty. If within your objectives, you say you do this for the people, you do that for the people, you would achieve these great development goals, but at the core the large parties are more interested in collecting money than anything else. And this country, which has extraordinary possibilities, it is after all in hydropower alone we have magnificent possibilities. In irrigation we have enormous possibilities. Tourism, I think this is the most beautiful country in the world. 

We haven’t been able to advertise it adequately. That’s the only reason it doesn’t grow. And as far as cash crops, Nepal has abundant possibilities.

So it’s a question of exercising the art of government with skill and with honesty so that your objectives towards the people and the country can be realized in reality. But at this stage, I’m disappointed to say that the larger parties are not coming up to those standards and the country is not going where it should.

You have been a long time student of diplomacy and foreign policy. You have also led the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the past. How do you see the challenges of Nepal’s foreign policy right now? 

I think the main challenge for Nepal is that our geography doesn’t change. Whether you talk about the period of Prithivi Narayan Shah or at the time of Jung Badur Rana or during democratic period or in republican days, the basic and fundamental fact is that we are a country with a vast. The second largest power in the world, like China on one side, and India growing at a fantastic rate on the other. And the balancing of the two. So that Nepal’s sovereignty can keep on existing and become strong, as well as developing the country, means you have to balance between the two. And then, on a broader front, there is of course America, the most powerful country in the world. So, if you do not know how to manage the policies vis-à-vis these great powers, then the possibilities that are within Nepal cannot grow. 

In this Donald Trump’s tariff era, how do you see the future of Nepal-US  bilateral relationship? 

Well, whether you like Trump or not, he’s the President of the United States of America, the most powerful country in the world. So you have to deal with that reality and the nature of the person that he is. The fundamental national interests of America do not change whoever runs it. And to be able to balance those national interests along with our national interest is a challenge that we have to perform. 

Prime Minister KP Oli’s long-awaited visit to India now seems likely. Experts say Nepal–India relations have been strained. How do you view the current state of Nepal–India relations?

There do seem to be difficulties, but the Prime Minister has been invited to India. And how he deals and how his government deals is up to them. But the classic fact that Nepal has to deal with is we are between these two great countries and they obviously have their own interests. Nobody’s going to love us because we’re a beautiful country or something like that. Every country carries its policies according to its interest and we must manage our interests vis-à-vis India, vis-a-vis China, vis-a-vis the United States of America with the skill that our forefathers maintained when they contained this country. 

Even at that time, when the British Empire was an empire on which the sun never set, even at that point, Nepal succeeded in maintaining its independence, its cultural integrity. You know, those are the skills. Whether you talk about Prithivi Narayan Shah, whether you talk about Jung Bahadur Rana, whether you can talk about BP Koirala, those are the skills that are required.

In this interconnected and interdependent world, trade is a powerful engine of economic growth. It can significantly contribute to the socio-economic development of Landlocked Developing Countries (LLDCs), like others. But, despite their huge trade potential, LLDCs account for just over one percent of global trade in goods. And this imbalance stems not from a lack of ambition or effort, but from structural barriers. LLDCs face a complex web of challenges, including lack of direct access to the seas, high transit costs, poor infrastructure, long and uncertain transit routes, limited market access, over-reliance on a narrow range of primary commodities, vulnerability to global shocks and climate change-induced disasters.

As a result, their economies remain underdeveloped and vulnerable. In this context, this Program of Action has come with concrete measures for turning landlocked countries into land-linked ones by building infrastructures, investing in smart trade corridors, developing transport and logistics industries, digitalizing trade and customs processes, promoting trade of ICT products and services, deepening regional integration and fostering meaningful partnerships.

With sincere implementation of these measures, LLDCs can harness their trade potentials for inclusive and sustainable development. For this, we need to strengthen cooperation and partnership at bilateral, regional and multilateral levels. We must deliver on the promise to double the share of LLDCs in global trade, expand their service exports, and foster more diversified and resilient economies. We need to implement this Program of Action to bring prosperity to more than 570m people living in LLDCs.

Trade and transit rights of the LLDCs are a moral responsibility of all. They need greater solidarity, enhanced financial and technological support, as well as fair and equitable trade opportunities. Collective push for fairer trade terms and transit regimes is urgent. LLDCs must not be left behind in the global trading system. The Sevilla Commitment, which we adopted in June this year, also recognizes the LLDC program of action and expresses the strong commitment to its full and effective implementation. In this context, this roundtable is instrumental to remind us all for urgent actions with renewed commitment and global solidarity.  

For LLDCs, sustainable infrastructure, seamless connectivity, and unrestricted transit are not optional. They are a lifeline. Indeed, they form the backbone of economic transformation. And, they are essential for our competitiveness. Our progress continues to be hindered by a lack of sea access, remoteness from global markets, high trade costs, delayed transit, limited connectivity, and fragile infrastructure. This is the best forum to discuss these challenges and its innovative solutions. 

To overcome these structural challenges and vulnerabilities, we must invest in integrated and climate-resilient infrastructure that connects regions. We must harness digital technologies to unlock new opportunities. We must create seamless transit systems that are reliable, efficient, and predictable. We need to simplify, harmonize and modernize customs procedures.

‘Prosperous Nepal, Happy Nepali’ is the aspiration of Nepali people. To fulfill this aspiration, Nepal has prioritized sustainable infrastructure, improved connectivity, and seamless transit systems for durable and accelerated economic growth. We are actively expanding and reinforcing cross-border linkages to ensure smooth and uninterrupted transit and trade.

Nepal is committed to deepening partnership with its neighboring countries and beyond in the spirit of economic cooperation, regional integration and shared progress. The Awaza Program of Action recognizes that sustainable infrastructure, robust connectivity, and seamless transit are essential pillars of growth, resilience, and hope in LLDCs.

As we enter the next decade of action, let us renew our collective determination to connect LLDCs—physically, digitally, and economically—to global opportunities. Let us focus on infrastructure, connectivity, and transit as urgent imperatives for equity, inclusion, and shared progress. Let us deliver on the promise. Let us build a future where no states are left behind.

The rapid expansion of digital technology is reshaping the media landscape in deep and profound ways. This shift has already compelled the media industry to transform—not only their newsrooms but entire media organizations. It also demands an overhaul of journalism education, if not a complete transformation.

In Nepal, journalism education has remained alarmingly disconnected from the media industry. It is heavily focused on theoretical aspects, paying little to attention to practical skills. There is already a huge gap between classrooms and newsrooms. Universities are often hesitant to engage with media houses, and media houses, in turn, are not particularly welcoming to journalism students.  

As both a media educator and journalist, I have closely observed the dynamics of both environments. The transformation of newsrooms is well underway, albeit often without clear direction. However, there has been little meaningful discussion about transforming journalism education. Any reform must involve a broad range of stakeholders, including the media fraternity. Given the radical changes in the media and digital landscape, it is high time universities offering journalism programs began revising their curricula. Otherwise, classrooms will turn redundant and irrelevant.

Already, multiple factors have put journalism on a downward trajectory. Gone are the days when classrooms were packed with enthusiastic students eager for a future in the media. Today, many colleges have closed media departments, and those still offering media programs are struggling to survive. When I began my career, classrooms were full of students and newsrooms bustling with journalists. Now, my dual profession, teaching journalism in the mornings and practicing it during the day, is at risk .. For the past decade and a half, these two roles have been my main sources of income. 

University curricula must be updated to reflect the realities of a media landscape shaped by information technology. Otherwise, they risk becoming irrelevant. On paper, Nepal’s mass communication and journalism curricula rank among the best in South Asia. From Bachelor’s to MPhil level, they cover a broad range of issues including new media, law, development, history, media studies, political communication, public relations, communications, culture and society, among others. Theoretically, these courses are up to date and relevant. Tribhuvan University’s journalism program, for example, is comprehensive and comparable to top universities of the world. Yet the real problem lies in human resources and practical training.

A lack of quality faculty is one of the most pressing issues. Without specialized teachers, students are receiving only a superficial, or sometimes even inaccurate, understanding of complex subjects. There is a shortage of teachers for core areas such as mass communication theories, intercultural communication, political communication and media research. This is not to say that current teachers are incapable; many are brilliant minds. However, they cannot dedicate time to teaching across multiple institutions. Generation Z students deserve deeper, more relevant media knowledge. While there are competent professionals outside academia, they rarely get opportunities to take classes because universities, which are highly politicized, often prioritize political affiliation over merit.

Another inherent problem is the lack of emphasis on practical training. There are fundamental errors in teaching methods.

Teachers still dominate classrooms with traditional notebooks; at best, some use digital tools like PowerPoint. Although the syllabus includes numerous practical assignments, their actual implementation is minimal. For example, students rarely receive mentorship to develop news stories on current issues, which is an essential skill for immediate employability. While practical assignments exist across courses, they are mostly left unexecuted or are treated as mere formalities.

Universities offer specializations such as radio, television and new media, yet many lack the infrastructure to produce news for these platforms. It was a serious oversight for universities to permit colleges to teach these courses without ensuring the availability of proper technology or requiring them to secure necessary facilities. While university teachers excel at theoretical aspects, they tend to be less engaged with practical training.

Meanwhile, student dissatisfaction with colleges and teachers is growing, though their voices are being suppressed. I have heard from many students that artificial intelligence (AI) tools provide deeper theoretical insights than their classes. Without interactive discussions and practical work, they see little reason to attend classes. They feel attendance, which is linked to final grades, is the only motivation keeping them in class. Such complaints deserve serious consideration, not outright dismissal. 

If colleges and universities lack resources to support practical training, they should collaborate with the media industry to provide students with hands-on experience. However, academia-industry collaboration is confined to signing Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs) with little real cooperation. Neither media houses nor universities engage each other. Despite this, some students independently secure internships and perform well in newsrooms. This is beneficial for media houses facing a shortage of human resources. However, there are issues on the students’ side too. Many university students of journalism show little interest in news reporting and writing. This is not to say Nepal’s media education solely produces journalists, it also opens career paths in advertising, public relation and media research, among others. My point is that the young generation’s enthusiasm for journalism itself is waning.

The purpose of this article is not merely to highlight the existing problems but to spark debate on revamping the media and journalism education in light of the rapidly changing media landscape. Over the past two decades, media courses have focused largely on print, radio and television, covering reporting, writing, editing and publishing. These core skills, but are no longer sufficient. 

The priority now should be on a comprehensive overhaul of journalism curricula to suit today’s media environment. Traditionally, journalism education has centered on news reporting, writing, editing and publishing. These skills are essential, but now must be supplemented. The current media landscape demands new journalistic skills which existing courses fail to address adequately.

The media industry now needs human resources in diverse roles such as social media officers, AI coordinators, video storytellers, revenue strategists, audience engagement specialists and more. Therefore, journalism programs, historically focused on producing reporters and editors, must expand to include these emerging fields created by digital technology. The future of journalism education demands greater innovation, creativity and student-driven learning models instead of the current theory-heavy syllabus. Additionally, AI is poised to revolutionize both newsrooms and classrooms. Given all these challenges, there is an urgent need to revisit and update the existing curriculum. At the same time, there should be debate and discussions on how best to teach journalism in this age of AI which has taken virtually every sector by storm.