Submit your Article

Former President Bidya Devi Bhandari’s nine-day visit to China has been interpreted differently by various sections of the society. Much of the commentary and analysis was based on reports in the Nepali media often lacking objectivity or verification. This tendency, with a few exceptions, remains a characteristic of Nepal’s media landscape.
Before delving into her high-level visit to Beijing and Gansu province accompanied by leaders of the CPN-UML and a Minister of the Government of Nepal, it is worth recalling who Bidya Devi Bhandari is. She served two terms as the president of the Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal, becoming both the country’s first female president and a founding president of the republican era. During her tenure, she faithfully upheld the Constitution and acted as a guardian of national interest, always prioritizing sovereignty and integrity without compromise.

In Nepal’s political history, Bhandari has made lasting contributions that are widely recognized. She championed the women’s movement, significantly advancing women’s participation in policymaking, especially in politics. Before becoming the head of state, she was the vice-president of the CPN-UML—the party’s second-highest position. Although she entered the presidential office carrying her party’s legacy, she fulfilled the responsibilities of her high office with dignity and neutrality.

Now, let us return to the core issue: the nature of her visit to China. She visited the northern neighbor in the capacity of a former head of state, not as a CPN-UML leader. Contrary to reports in Kathmandu, she was not invited by the International Department of the Communist Party of China (IDCPC), but rather by an organization named the Chinese Association for International Understanding. However, it is true that the IDCPC facilitated the visit. During her stay in Beijing, she addressed a gathering of political parties from China’s neighboring countries as a guest speaker. She understandably presented herself as both a former head of state and a former vice-president of the CPN-UML, which is appropriate and does not harm anyone. After all, political leaders carry their legacies.

In Gansu, she delivered a statement on China’s Global Civilization Initiative (GCI), announced by President Xi Jinping in 2023, at a high-level political party meeting. China is a civilizational state with a recorded history of more than five thousand years. The revival of such a legacy is a proud moment for any nation. During her visit, Bhandari met with Chinese Vice-president Han Zheng in Gansu and held a meeting with Liu Jianchao, Minister of the IDCPC, in Beijing. In both meetings, she presented herself as a leader of Nepal’s communist movement and a former president. She also met Ji Bingxuan, vice-chairman of the Standing Committee of the 13th National People’s Congress and president of the Chinese Association for International Understanding. Their exchanges focused on goodwill and matters of mutual interest.

While she was participating in programs in Beijing, a wave of speculations and conspiracy theories flooded the media in Kathmandu. Much of the reporting misrepresented the nature of her engagements, fueling unnecessary political tensions. Upon the delegation’s return, Minister Damodar Bhandari held a press briefing to clarify the purpose and outcomes of the visit. He explained that the visit focused on strengthening bilateral ties and covered various issues, including trade, culture, civilizational linkages and people-to-people relations. Understandably, discussions also included party-to-party relations between the CPN-UML and the CPC.

These were the key diplomatic engagements of former President Bhandari during her visit to China. Everyone has the right to interpret the underlying messages, but interpretations must be based on facts and coherence with the agendas of the visit.

Let’s fairly evaluate the visit.

First, no Chinese leader said that Nepal’s communist parties must unite before the 2027 elections, as some Nepali media outlets inaccurately reported. Chinese officials are careful not to interfere in domestic political matters. They consistently emphasize political stability as a prerequisite for development and prosperity. When engaging with Nepali leaders, they often share their own historical experiences of national humiliation and urge Nepali counterparts to maintain stability and pursue development with patience and vision.

Second, Chinese leaders generally welcome guests with honor and respect—more so for someone like Madam Bhandari, who is both a former head of state and a figure with a strong communist legacy. The respect she received should be interpreted as respect for the people of Nepal and its leadership. There is no evidence to support the claim that China is projecting her as the next president of the CPN-UML or facilitating her return to active politics.

Third, some reports suggested that Minister Liu said Madam Bhandari was the only leader capable of uniting Nepal’s communist parties. This was another misrepresentation. While Minister Liu did praise Bhandari, he did not suggest that she was uniquely trusted by China to reunite the leftist forces. This claim is part of a deliberate effort to circulate misleading narratives.

Fourth, Madam Bhandari is not only a former president but also the spouse of Madan Bhandari, the architect of People’s Multiparty Democracy (PMD)—the guiding principle of the CPN-UML. Chinese leaders hold great respect for the late Madan Bhandari and are closely familiar with the PMD framework. Their respect for Madam Bhandari is naturally linked to her late husband’s ideology, which sought to creatively reorient Nepal’s communist movement.

Fifth, the issue of who will be the next president of the CPN-UML is entirely an internal matter of the party. It is neither dictated by Beijing nor influenced externally. KP Sharma Oli is the current president of the party and the Prime Minister of Nepal. He leads both roles with strength and stability. Oli has never faced a leadership challenge within the party. He is seen as the leader who protected and revived the party during difficult times. If and when he decides to step down, he will identify a suitable successor. Should Madam Bhandari re-enter active politics, it will only be with Oli’s endorsement.

Therefore, let us refrain from circulating fabricated plots. Let us respect our neighbors and avoid unnecessarily dragging them into our internal affairs. Let us show our leaders some respect and avoid fueling divisions.

The Office of the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers (OPMCM) has expressed serious concern over the deployment of staff beyond the approved quota at the Immigration Office at the Tribhuvan International Airport (TIA). The issue has come under scrutiny following a complaint filed with the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA), alleging that the Ministry of Home Affairs has appointed more personnel than the sanctioned positions in several departments, including immigration.

According to an OPMCM source, the practice of leaving some positions vacant while overstaffing others has disrupted service delivery. The complaint to the CIAA calls for a thorough investigation and strict action against those responsible. The Prime Minister’s Office has warned that those involved could face departmental action, be issued warnings or even punished under anti-corruption laws.

In a letter to the Ministry of Home Affairs, the OPMCM cited provisions under various laws, including Section 18(A) of the Civil Service Act 2049, which governs deputation of civil servants. Sub-section 3 of the same clause mandates that if a civil servant is deputed against the stated legal provisions, the officer responsible for the posting must repay the salary and allowances from their own pocket and face departmental action. Furthermore, Section 15 of the Governance (Management and Operation) Act 2065 requires timely decision-making, and Section 17(B) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 2059 stipulates penalties for causing harm through indecision or negligence.

The Prime Minister’s Office also reminded the Home Ministry that deploying staff without adherence to the decisions of secretary-level meetings constitutes a breach of existing laws. It has issued an ultimatum to provide a full list of personnel working beyond the approved staff quota.

Additionally, the PMO has directed the Home Ministry to align staffing strictly with the sanctioned positions within seven days. “I urge you to immediately provide the list of institutions operating with excess staff and the names of such personnel, and to ensure staff deployment is strictly in accordance with the approved quota within seven days, with updates submitted to this office,” the letter goes.

The PMO has further warned that it will initiate legal proceedings under the Governance Act if the directive is not followed.

The Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) has filed a corruption case against former Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal and 91 others in connection with the Patanjali land scandal. The move has ignited a debate over whether the CIAA has the constitutional authority to investigate cabinet decisions, with legal experts and political analysts sharply divided.

Nepal’s party, the CPN (Unified Socialist), along with several opposition groups, has denounced the case as politically motivated. Many suspect that Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli may have influenced CIAA Chief Prem Kumar Rai to target Nepal, one of Oli’s most vocal critics, under the pretense of a corruption probe. The rift between the two leaders has been widening since the party’s split in 2021

Public reaction has been swift and skeptical. From social media to teashop gossip, many see this as an attempt to weaken the Unified Socialist and lure away its lawmakers. If successful, such a maneuver could boost the CPN-UML’s numbers in the House of Representatives, potentially pushing the Nepali Congress into second place.

But the greater concern is the deepening erosion of public trust in state institutions.  This growing distrust poses a more serious threat to Nepal’s democratic order than the revival of monarchist sentiment.

Like many state institutions, the CIAA is losing legitimacy due to a flawed appointment process, selective investigations, and a deferential attitude toward the political elite—all of which compromise its constitutional autonomy. At the heart of the problem lies the method of appointing the CIAA’s leadership.

Chiefs and commissioners are often chosen based on political allegiance or their willingness to offer bribes for the position. Such practices fatally compromise the agency’s independence.

As a result, the CIAA is frequently accused of targeting “small fish” while ignoring large-scale corruption involving high-profile figures. Its track record in major cases is dismal, with many prosecutions falling apart due to poorly prepared charges at the Special Court.

Had the CIAA built a reputation for fair and rigorous investigations, the current case against Nepal might not have provoked such intense skepticism.

This isn’t just about one institution. Across the board, Nepal’s key democratic institutions are rapidly losing public confidence. The recent delay in appointing the Governor of Nepal Rastra Bank is a case in point, which was marked by indecision and political bargaining at the highest level.

Meanwhile, the judiciary’s credibility continues to decline. One controversial verdict after another has led many to question the impartiality of the courts. Just two weeks ago, the Janakpur high court acquitted former Nepali Congress lawmaker Mohammad Aftab Alam in connection with the 2008 Rautahat blast and subsequent killing of those injured. 

Despite strong testimony from legal experts, witnesses, and journalists implicating Alam, the court found him not guilty. Such rulings fuel public despair and reinforce the perception that justice in Nepal is hostage to politics and impunity. 

The executive branch fares no better. Public trust in the government is at an all-time low, driven by repeated accusations of corruption, opacity, and indifference to citizens’ concerns. One glaring example is the unwillingness of the Prime Minister and ministers to disclose their property details more than a year after the current NC–UML coalition took power.

If Nepal’s political parties are serious about defending the current system against royalist and other anti-democratic forces, they must begin by restoring faith in public institutions. That starts with overhauling the deeply flawed appointment process. Too often, constitutional bodies are staffed not by competent, independent professionals but by political loyalists and former bureaucrats with party affiliations.

These appointees remain beholden to the leaders who installed them, rendering institutions ineffective and subservient. Far from being autonomous, many constitutional bodies now operate as extensions of the executive. The judiciary is no exception.

Over the past two decades, political interference in the justice system has become so normalized that ordinary citizens can identify the political leanings of Supreme Court justices based on their past affiliations. This perceived bias has severely undermined the legitimacy of court rulings.

Both the judiciary and legislature operate in the shadow of partisan influence. Other institutions, including the Nepal Police, Nepal Army, and various regulatory agencies, are also viewed as corrupt and politicized

Because political parties remain at the center of power, the impetus for reform must come from them. Yet history shows a troubling pattern: when prominent political figures are implicated in corruption, their parties work to weaken or discredit oversight bodies. This has been the case since the early 1990s, when the CPN-UML resisted unfavorable court rulings, followed by the Nepali Congress in the 2000s.

After 2006, the Maoists and Madhes-based parties attacked the credibility of state institutions, and now, newer parties like the Rastriya Swatantra Party publicly challenge investigations and court decisions. This persistent trend has done lasting damage to the credibility of Nepal’s democratic institutions.

Political parties often proclaim their commitment to democracy, but that commitment must be judged by actions—not words. True dedication to democratic values requires strengthening institutional integrity, not undermining it for short-term political gain. On this front, Nepal’s political leadership has repeatedly failed.

Public faith in the current political class is near collapse. To address this deepening crisis, Nepal urgently needs principled, accountable leadership at all levels—federal, provincial, and local. These leaders must ensure that public institutions function independently, deliver on their mandates, and operate without political interference.

Today, state institutions are widely seen as corrupt, politicized, inefficient, and disconnected from the public. If political parties genuinely wish to safeguard the political system, they must embrace a long-term, systemic reform agenda rooted in the spirit of the 2015 Constitution.

Although the Constitution enshrines the separation of powers, genuine institutional reform has yet to follow. Nepal does not need a constitutional amendment, but it does need a comprehensive review aimed at strengthening the architecture of democracy. Only then can the country’s political system hope to survive and thrive.

The Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) has filed a corruption case against 18 individuals, including Nepal Telecom’s Managing Director Sangita Pahadi. The case has been forwarded to the Special Court. The CIAA alleges irregularities involving Nepal Telecom’s billing system, maintenance fees, and other financial discrepancies that have caused a loss of Rs 330m to the state.

The other defendants in the case include Sunil Paudel, Pratibha Shrestha, Hemprabha Rampratap Karn, Nawal Chaudhary, Rajendra Shrestha, Jhabindra Lal Upadhyay, Devendra Khatiwada, Binita Shrestha, Amul Pradhan, Rajiv Kumar KC, Muktiprasad Aryal, Santosh Kumar Shrestha, Parmatma Bhattarai, and Shailesh Shrestha. Additionally, foreign nationals Long Yang and Hong Wei, along with the Chinese company AsiaInfo Inc, have also been named as defendants.

During the investigation, statements were recorded from former Chief Secretary Baikuntha Aryal, government employees including two joint secretaries, and members of the Nepal Telecom Board of Directors. However CIAA has decided not to file charges against 24 individuals who were under investigation in this case. No case has been filed against former Chief Secretary Aryal, former Secretary of Communications and then Chairperson of the Board, Hari Prasad Basyal, Bhupal Baral and Uttarkumar Khatri, both then Joint Secretaries and board members of Nepal Telecom, as well as board member Shankar Lamichhane.

Also exempt from prosecution are Company Secretary Rajendra Aryal, then Managing Director Dilliram Adhikari, then Technical Officer Bhanuraj Shrestha, former Director Radhakrishna Dhungel, and then Deputy Managing Director Minu Pradhan. Other individuals not charged include former Directors Sabina Maskey, former Managers Hari Dhakal, Gangasagar Matanche, Kumar Prasad Khatriwada, Prakash Manandhar, Subodh Rimal, Shobhan Adhikari, and Anup Regmi. Similarly, no case will be filed against former Deputy Managers Maniraj Poudel, Sudipraj Ghimire, Saroj Pradhan, Santosh Bhandari, and then Senior Engineer Prayag Khadka.

In Dec 2022, Nepal Telecom signed a contract with the company AsiaInfo, under which the company was to receive over Rs 3bn over five years—approximately Rs 650m annually. On 8 Jan 2023, the board of Nepal Telecom decided to sign a four-year Annual Maintenance Contract (AMC) with AsiaInfo, the company that had been providing billing system services. The board also approved a proposal to extend the contract for an additional year if necessary. Although the board had also decided to initiate a new tender process at that time, no such process has begun to date.

A billing system is essential for operating telephone and internet services. When one user calls another, the billing system processes the connection. Without sufficient balance, the billing system restricts the service.

Nepal Telecom has been using the current billing system since 2012. Although the system is supposed to be upgraded every eight–nine years, it has been in use for over a decade. This has led to several problems such as calls not connecting, service interruptions, and calls getting dropped mid-conversation. Service disruptions have been frequent in Nepal Telecom.

Over the past few years, various studies and investigations have highlighted significant flaws in Nepal Telecom’s billing system and recommended switching to a new one.

When the Sher Bahadur Deuba-led government was formed, Baikuntha Aryal became the Secretary of the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology in July 2021 and also assumed the role of chairperson of Nepal Telecom’s board. To appoint Sunil Paudel as MD of Nepal Telecom, the company’s “Managing Director Appointment and Service Directive, 2075” was amended and the former was appointed MD on 7 April 2022. After that, the process to call for a new billing system tender stalled further. The maintenance contract for AsiaInfo’s old billing system was also set to expire on 18 Sept 2022.

A government-formed committee under the Ministry of Communications raised questions about AsiaInfo’s performance and pointed out that service disruptions occurred due to the irresponsibility of the company’s technicians. A major issue started on 13 Jan 2023, but because the following two days were public holidays, maintenance work was delayed. The issue was identified and services resumed only after offices reopened on Jan 17. Despite recurring problems, Nepal Telecom kept awarding additional maintenance contracts to the same controversial company.

At that time, the board of Nepal Telecom approved the proposal to extend the maintenance contract with AsiaInfo for four more years—and an additional year if needed. Since purchases exceeding Rs 600m required approval from higher authorities, the board had to endorse the contract extension file accordingly.