Submit your Article

The Supreme Court (SC) took over four years to deliver its verdict on the controversial appointments of constitutional office bearers in 2020 and 2021. Lawyers had challenged the appointments, arguing that bypassing parliamentary hearings and using ordinances violated the constitution. However, the SC ultimately upheld the appointments, with a 3-2 majority in the five-member constitutional bench. Chief Justice Prakash Man Singh Raut and Justice Nakul Subedi dissented.

A total of 52 appointments—20 through ordinance and 32 without parliamentary hearings—were made in two batches. While ordinances may be justified in the absence of Parliament, appointments made while the legislature was functional had raised serious concerns.

The verdict has drawn public criticism, further eroding trust in the judiciary. Justice Sapana Pradhan Malla called for self-reflection over the prolonged delay, but the full bench remained unmoved.

Politically, the ruling is a victory for former Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, who faced backlash for these appointments during a time of parliamentary dissolution and street protests. However, the verdict’s practical impact is minimal. Even if the SC had nullified the appointments, most office bearers have nearly completed their tenures. This suggests the judiciary may have sought to avoid a direct clash with the executive.

The ongoing Central Working Committee (CWC) meeting of the Nepali Congress (NC) is unlikely to bring major political shifts. Party President Sher Bahadur Deuba remains committed to the alliance with CPN-UML and shows little urgency in convening the long-demanded general convention.

Prime Minister Oli continues to reassure NC that he will transfer power to Deuba as agreed. Yet, doubts persist in diplomatic and political circles—will Oli honor his word, or will he extend his rule by aligning with the Maoists?

Despite internal calls for the CWC to meet more frequently, Deuba has delayed proceedings. While leaders criticize the government’s performance, few advocate exiting the coalition. Senior leader Shekhar Koirala, however, has demanded an explanation for the UML alliance.

NC leaders are also concerned about the 2027 election, mainly about the electoral alliance. While grassroots members are against forging any electoral alliance with the Maoists, top leaders view it as a strategic necessity to counter UML. The big question remains: Will NC or UML partner with the Maoists, or will the elections proceed without alliances?

Also, with Deuba’s retirement approaching, succession battles are intensifying inside the NC. The party’s internal dynamics, and Deuba’s eventual successor are under close scrutiny. 

Former President Bidya Devi Bhandari has rejoined CPN-UML, vowing to uphold the ideology of her late husband, Madan Bhandari, who advocated for Nepal’s communists to adapt to multiparty democracy.  Senior leaders are divided on this issue. Some argue that Bhandari’s re-entry is justified, while others say that it is inappropriate for a former head of state to rejoin party politics. Another question is: Will she become a prime minister in the future? If UML emerges as the largest party and she secures the leadership, the possibility cannot be ruled out. To avoid the criticisms, Bhandari has asked the Ministry of Home Affairs not to provide her any facilities except the security personnel.

The Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), once a rising force, now faces turbulence. Chairperson Rabi Lamichhane remains embroiled in a cooperative fraud case, leaving the party scrambling for a leader. While second-rung leaders vie for prominence, they have managed to keep disputes under wraps. The party continues to disrupt Parliament, demanding Home Minister Ramesh Lekhak’s resignation over his alleged involvement in the visit visa scam, but its momentum is waning.

A clash between lawmakers and bureaucrats has erupted over the Civil Service Act’s cooling-off period provision. Lawmakers rejected the clause, citing concerns over politically motivated appointments undermining governance. However, bureaucrats reinserted it into the draft, an audacious move that has drawn Speaker Dev Raj Ghimire’s scrutiny. An investigative panel may be formed, with the National Assembly yet to weigh in.

CPN (Unified Socialist) faces turmoil after corruption charges were filed against Chairman Madhav Kumar Nepal. Party leaders, including Ram Kumar Bhakti, openly demand his resignation, arguing his continued leadership tarnishes the party’s image. Yet, Nepal clings to power—an unusual move amid legal troubles.

Inside Parliament, critical bills, including education and police reforms, are being prioritized. The government faces pressure to pass the education bill swiftly, following protests by teachers earlier this year.

With the rise of generative AI in research and education, a question keeps coming to mind: How is the way we understand knowledge changing as AI becomes a bigger part of our daily learning and work? This is not just a question for academics or tech experts; it affects everyone who relies on knowledge to make decisions, express ideas or contribute to their communities. We are at a point where the very act of knowing is changing—not just how we know, but who we consider to be the "knower." When a machine writes an article, summarizes a book, or helps design a curriculum, what role does the human thinker still play?

On the one hand, this technology opens up new possibilities. A student in a remote village in Nepal can now access summaries of global literature, translate complex theories into Nepali or get help writing a research paper—all at the click of a button. Generative AI can be a powerful tool for breaking down barriers of language, access and time. On the other hand, there’s also the risk that we may stop thinking for ourselves, relying too heavily on a tool that reflects patterns, not true understanding. In a world where so much is automated, what happens to reflection, to critical thought, and to the slow and sometimes uncomfortable process of finding our own insights?

As I struggled with these questions, I found some guidance in Eastern philosophy. While ancient texts didn’t predict AI or digital tools, they did take the question of knowledge very seriously. In the Eastern tradition, knowledge (jñāna) is not just about gathering facts. It’s something that transforms us, something that reveals the self, the world, and the relationship between the two. Importantly, it is always tied to ethics. One does not seek knowledge simply to win arguments or impress others; knowledge is pursued to live rightly, act responsibly and move closer to truth and liberation.

This is especially relevant now as generative AI begins to influence how we write, research and think. The Upanishads tell us that the student should not just ask, “What is this?” but also, “Who am I?” It’s a question of identity, intention and inner clarity. When I use AI to write a paragraph or generate ideas, I try to stay aware of what part of me is involved. Am I using the tool to clarify my thoughts or to avoid doing the hard work of thinking? Am I driven by curiosity or by convenience? These may seem like philosophical questions, but they have very practical implications. Imagine a college student in Kathmandu working on their assignments. With AI, they can generate drafts in minutes, find sources and even correct their grammar. But if they stop reading, stop questioning and simply copy what the machine offers, they may submit a polished assignment—but miss the point of education entirely.

The machine can assist, but it cannot reflect. It cannot care. It cannot ask, “Is this meaningful to my society, my values, or my life? Eastern philosophy offers a helpful metaphor here: the yantra or instrument. Tools are nothing new. Humans have always used tools to extend our abilities—whether it’s the plough in agriculture, the loom in weaving or the telescope in astronomy. What matters is not just the tool, but how we use it, and for what purpose.

The Bhagavad Gita reminds us that the right action must be performed without attachment to the outcome, guided by clarity and duty—dharma. In today’s world, AI is a new yantra, but it requires the same discipline. We must ask: is it helping me fulfill my role as a student, researcher or a citizen? Or is it just making things easier at the cost of meaning? This doesn’t mean we should fear technology. Far from it. Used wisely, generative AI can become a partner in learning, a bridge across educational gaps and a tool to preserve and even regenerate local knowledge.

Imagine AI trained to document indigenous languages in Nepal or to translate oral histories into written texts. Imagine teachers using AI to create personalized learning experiences for students from different backgrounds and needs. These are exciting possibilities—but they can only become a reality if we use them with care, ethics, and awareness.

 In Eastern philosophy, ethics is not separate from knowledge. Truth (satya) is not just about factual correctness; it is about aligning what we know, say and do. When we conduct research with the help of AI, it still matters that we acknowledge our sources, credit others and question the biases embedded in the tools we use.

It still matters that we ask: Does this help society? Does it deepen understanding? Or am I simply using a machine to do my work for me? This brings us back to the idea of rethinking how we understand and interpret knowledge. Perhaps the real shift is not just technological—from books to machines, from human writers to AI—but ethical.

It is a turn toward remembering that knowledge is not neutral. It shapes lives, it holds power and it demands responsibility. In this light, AI is neither a savior nor a threat. It becomes a mirror, reflecting our habits, assumptions and goals. And it asks us: What kind of knowers do we want to be?

In a country like Nepal, where tradition and modernity often walk side by side, we have a unique opportunity. We can engage with new technologies not blindly, but with the wisdom of our philosophical traditions.

We can teach students not just how to use AI, but how to think with it—critically, ethically and reflectively. We can build an academic culture that values not just output, but insight. In the end, Eastern philosophy doesn’t reject tools. It simply reminds us: We must be worthy users of them.

The United States government has granted a special exemption to allow the continuation of the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) Compact in Nepal, permitting ongoing development projects to proceed despite a broader freeze on American foreign aid programs.

Millennium Challenge Account-Nepal (MCA-Nepal), the agency responsible for implementing the compact, issued a statement on Wednesday confirming and welcoming the US decision. The $500m American grant aims to upgrade Nepal’s electricity transmission infrastructure and improve key sections of the East-West Highway.

According to MCA-Nepal, the exemption allows for the full implementation of the compact’s critical components, including the construction of 297 kilometers of 400 kV electricity transmission lines and essential road maintenance activities. Contracts have already been awarded for three major 400 kV substations and an 18-kilometer cross-border transmission segment.

While the exact date of the US decision has not been disclosed, the MCC had formally informed Nepal in March that procurement and operational work could not proceed amid an ongoing review of American foreign assistance programs.

The temporary suspension stemmed from a directive issued by former US President Donald Trump, calling for a pause and reassessment of several foreign aid initiatives. The MCC Nepal Compact was among the projects temporarily halted under a 90-day review. Despite the pause, both the US Embassy in Nepal and MCC headquarters had reiterated their continued commitment to the Nepal Compact. Wednesday’s announcement reaffirms that commitment and ensures that key infrastructure projects—seen as crucial for Nepal’s energy security and economic development—will continue without interruption.

Of the total $500m grant, $398m is allocated for transmission line construction, while $52m is designated for road upgrades, particularly along the Dhankhola–Bhaluwang–Lamahi–Shivakhola section of the East-West Highway. MCA-Nepal stated it is working closely with the MCC to finalize procurement processes and accelerate the implementation of all planned components under the compact.

A report titled ‘Discontent to Deliberation: Challenges and opportunities in Nepal’s governance process’, published by Centre for Social Change, has identified that practice of federalism in Nepal continues to generate legal and political conflicts, particularly around the delineation of powers and responsibilities between the levels of the government.

Provincial governance remained at a flashpoint, with repeated disputes over the appointment and dismissal of Chief Ministers. For instance, in Koshi Province, a dramatic series of legal and political maneuvers followed the resignation of Chief Minister Kedar Karki, the report says. His attempt to prevent the appointment of his successor, Hikmat Karki, was challenged in the Supreme Court under Article 76(5), which governs the formation of a new government when no party commands a majority.

At the local level, the promise of decentralized governance was repeatedly tested by disputes over fiscal transfers, budget processes, and intra-governmental coordination. The report says one of the most significant flashpoints occurred in June 2024, when the federal government announced a steep reduction, by almost 26 percent, in fiscal equalization grants to local governments.

Regarding the ethnocultural government, the report says a defining feature of ethnocultural conflict over the past year has been land-related struggles that reflect both class-based and identity-based exclusion. In particular, the case of Swargadwari Guthi tenant farmers from Dang demonstrates the intersection between landlessness, caste, and bureaucratic marginalization.

Nepal’s cultural and religious diversity has become a site of contestation as development projects encroach upon sacred spaces. The Pathibhara (Mukkumlung) cable car project in Taplejung triggered sustained opposition from indigenous Limbu communities, who view the area as spiritually significant.

According to the report, the Language Bill became a flashpoint for identity-based protest in Madhes Province. In January 2025, a bill proposing Hindi as one of the official working languages alongside Maithili, Bhojpuri, and English was introduced in the provincial assembly. Despite the widespread use of languages like Tharu, Magahi, and Urdu in the region, these were excluded, leading to mass opposition from lawmakers and the public. Protesters burned effigies, blocked assembly proceedings, and accused the government of linguistic bias. The bill was withdrawn under pressure, but the episode exposed the limited consultation with affected communities and the volatility of language in identity politics.

Regarding the natural resources and environment governance, the report says that one of the most prominent trends observed in the reporting period was the escalation of community-led environmental movements, driven by mounting ecological violence and failures in state responsiveness.

The events of 2024–25 indicate that natural resource and environmental governance in federal Nepal is marked by high levels of conflict, contestation, and institutional fragmentation. Communities are increasingly asserting their rights, contesting unjust policies, and demanding sustainable and equitable resource management. Yet, systemic weaknesses persist in the forms of overlapping jurisdictions, politicization of resource access, elite capture, and insufficient regulatory enforcement.

The report aims to provide a comprehensive and empirically grounded analysis of how Nepal’s federal system has functioned over the past three years. Drawing on an extensive dataset of governance-related conflicts and cooperation, it examines how constitutional mandates are being exercised and contested in practice, especially within the domains of developmental, political, ethnocultural, and natural resources and environmental governance. The report offers a critical lens into the promises and paradoxes of federalism as a democratic project. It sets the stage for understanding not only the challenges of implementation, but also the stakes involved in navigating this complex system of governance.