Congress 2.0 misses chance to abandon socialism and embrace liberalism

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose,
By any other name would smell as sweet," said Shakespeare.
But in politics, names matter because they help people understand a party’s ideology, which is supposed to be the guiding principle of any political party. In Nepal, however, almost all political parties seem to have taken Shakespeare’s ‘What’s in a name?’ a little too seriously. Their names promise one ideology, while their actions practice another, making the name less a reflection of their politics and more a convenient disguise for it.
And Nepali Congress is no different, let alone the leftist, or people and leaders love to call themselves communist parties.
Learning from the way the left parties – who have been promoting crony capitalism in the name of socialism – in Nepal over the past decade, many had hoped that Nepali Congress would, during its 15th General Convention, embrace a free, fair and competitive market economy. However, the grand old party (GOP) has once again disappointed.
Whatever its practice may have been, Nepali Congress has always described itself as a democratic socialist party, also as its founding principle. Therefore, although the Congress’s interpretation of socialism is theoretically different from that of the left, there has long been a public complaint that the citizens have felt little or no difference between democratic socialism and leftist socialism. One of the major reasons for growing public distrust of political parties is the vast gap between what they profess and what they actually practice.
With little expectation from the left parties on the issue, the 15th General Convention offered the Nepali Congress an opportunity to reconcile its principles with its practice.
There were two reasons for this.
First, at least through the branding of ‘Nepali Congress 2.0,’ the party had sought, through its special convention six months ago, to present itself as synonymous with transformation and generational change.
Second, Nepali Congress 2.0 has repeatedly claimed that it will not enter electoral alliances with anyone. Since party President Gagan Thapa himself has been vocal on the issue, it should also be understood as an assertion that the Congress is different from the left and will not contest elections in alliance with the left parties.
Over the past three decades, whether competing for power or sharing it, whether as opponents, rivals or political bed-partners, the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist), or CPN-UML, and the former CPN (Maoist), or current Nepali Communist Party (NCP) – broadly speaking the left parties – have been the principal political counterparts of the Nepali Congress. Gagan Thapa had opposed former Nepali Congress 1.0 president Sher Bahadur Deuba largely because of his repeated alliances with them.
There are, of course, royalist forces and the current ruling Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP). But it would be premature to assume that Nepali Congress 2.0 will any sooner form an electoral alliance with them.
Therefore, even if Nepali Congress was not expected to make an ideological leap directly from socialism to capitalism, there was an expectation that the 15th General Convention would bring greater clarity to its economic policy. After all, the party has moved from its traditional guiding or founding principle of ‘Nationalism, Democracy and Socialism’ replacing the term Prajatantra – as it refers king and subjects and gives monarchist reflection – with loktantra – the people’s democracy – in Nepali, while retaining the same three core principles.
The political report presented by President Gagan Thapa itself acknowledges this. It states that the fundamental basis of the Nepali Congress's economic outlook is Nationalism, Democracy and Socialism. It says the democratic socialism developed by party founder and national leader BP Koirala placed not merely statistical economic growth but the life, human dignity, participation and opportunities of ordinary citizens at the center of development. The report says that, while embracing BP’s historic symbol of the ‘farmer ploughing the land,’ the party has now placed at the center of its economic development policy the reality of a ‘young person standing with a passport in hand or looking for opportunities within the country.’
If the report recognizes such a fundamental difference between BP Koirala’s era and today's economic landscape, markets, the character of markets, the role of the private sector and the role of government, then there is little justification for continuing to cling to the same old ‘democratic socialism’.
Unless, of course, the intention is to continue writing ‘socialism’ in the documents, while embracing crony capitalism in practice, just as the left has done over the years. If that is the case, could Nepali Congress 2.0 become even more controversial and alienated from citizens than its previous version?
Regardless of how differently the report interprets socialism, Nepali Congress 2.0 has clearly missed an opportunity. The word ‘socialism’ itself has become discredited in Nepal. Every Nepalis raise an eyebrow when they look at the lifestyles, houses and wealth of socialist aka communist leaders.
This should not, however, be interpreted to mean that accumulating wealth is a crime. In Nepali society, there is already a strange contradiction: making profits through trade and business and accumulating wealth through productive economic activity are often viewed with suspicion, while accumulating wealth through politics without any formal source of income is treated as a sign of greatness.
Nepali Congress 2.0 has not made it clear whose interests it actually seeks to represent.
At times it appears capitalist; at other times socialist. Such ambiguity may attract liberal left intellectuals, but economy cannot be function dynamically through such an unclear and indecisive policy.
It also appears that Nepali Congress 2.0 has not fully claimed ownership of, or embraced, the liberal economic policies pursued under Nepali Congress leadership after 1991. If the intention is to maintain such a gap between principle and practice, there was little need to elaborate on socialism at all.
If the party intends to continue writing ‘socialism’ in its documents, while doing whatever it wants in practice, it might at least have offered a word of thanks to former finance ministers Mahesh Acharya and Dr Ram Sharan Mahat.
Not only the left but the Nepali Congress itself has consistently criticized and harassed them for their liberal economic policies, alas due to which the country is still not a failure state. And today, there is hardly anyone in the Congress willing to realize that Nepal did not collapse economically even during a decade-long Maoist insurgency because of the economic policies pursued under the duo’s leadership.
This may indicate that the left leaning of democratic Nepali Congress is accelerating.
That does not mean Acharya and Dr Mahat had no shortcomings or that everything they did was correct. Their practical implementation of liberal economic policies also had procedural weaknesses. Those weaknesses could have been corrected and the policy framework taken forward. But the belief that the Nepali Congress can fool the people by using the word ‘socialism’ has rendered even the achievements made under Nepali Congress’s own leadership irrelevant.
Those, who are reluctant even to claim credit for the expansion of the private sector and the employment opportunities created within the country will struggle to convince youth that they can create jobs in Nepal, and that too projecting a youth with passport in his hands.
Had BP Koirala been alive today, what would he say?
Therefore, while Sher Bahadur Deuba has been blamed for the leftward drift of the Nepali Congress due to physical coalition, it would not be unreasonable to say that today's transformed or generationally renewed Congress – Nepali Congress 2.0 – is creating ideologically coalition.
This could also lead to allegations that the political and economic ideological commitment of Gagan Thapa, who was accused of capturing the party through the special convention and now stands unopposed at the 15th General Convention, is left tilted ideologically, which can never become the benchmark for transforming the Nepali Congress.
As the report reads, BP Koirala’s historic perspective, shaped by an era defined by land reform, illiteracy and rural poverty, centered on the ‘farmer ploughing the land’. The basis of BP’s projection of ‘farmer ploughing the land’ was production, and productivity.
However, today's Nepali is primarily a consumer, not a producer.
Yesterday, land was a source of production. Today, land is largely a transactional instrument for quick money. It produces little or no, and creates no employment, but balloons the financial market and help crash the bank and financial institutions. We have already had bad experience of cooperatives and failing of some banks and financial institutions due to land or collateral.
Therefore, socialism alone cannot solve the structural problems of current Nepali economy. Even if the diagnosis of the disease is correct, the disease will not be cured, if the medicine is wrong. Nepali Congress 2.0 has, in that sense, prescribed a wrong pill to the economic ills of today’s Nepal.
The report also states that ‘the state should function not as a trader or owner, but as a fair regulator, guardian of good governance, builder of modern infrastructure and provider of quality public services.'
Of course, the state's role should be narrowed, with the government focusing on policy formulation and monitoring the market to ensure free, fair, competitive and disciplined implementation, while allowing the market to function. Many of Nepal's problems in recent years have emerged because the state or government has become stronger while governance has remained weaker.
Thus, Nepali Congress cannot transform itself by weakening institutions, or helping to weaken them, or refusing to adopt liberal economic policies instead of socialism, which is a cliché.
Ultimately, continuity in ideology without changing the tools will not increase private-sector investment, productivity or employment.
Likewise, ‘private-sector investment,’ ‘productivity’ and ‘employment’ are among the most abused terms in Nepal today. Every political party or every so-called intellectual has memorized them. But none has been able to translate them adequately into practice.
If Nepali Congress genuinely wants the private sector to drive prosperity, it must meaningfully update its economic ideology. Clinging to the word ‘socialism’ alone by redefining it with new terminology or adding explanatory commentary will neither help transform Nepali Congress not Nepal.
(First Published in nepalkhara.com on October 7, 2026 -- https://en.nepalkhabar.com/news/detail/20070/)

समाजवाद फालेर उदारवाद अँगाल्ने मौका गुमाएको कांग्रेस २.०

समाजवादको नाममा पछिल्लो एक दशकमा वामपन्थीहरूले नेपालमा जसरी आसोपासे पुँजीवादलाई प्रोत्साहन गरे, त्यसबाट शिक्षा लिँदै नेपाली कांग्रेसले स्वतन्त्र, निष्पक्ष र प्रतिस्पर्धात्मक बजार अर्थतन्त्रलाई अँगाल्ने आशा धेरैले गरेका थिए। तर यस पटक मुलुकको पुरानो राजनीतिक दलले उनीहरूलाई निराश बनाएको छ।
व्यवहारमा जे जस्तो भए पनि नेपाली कांग्रेसले आफूलाई प्रजातान्त्रिक समाजवादी भन्दै आएको छ। व्यवहारमा सर्वसाधारणले कांग्रेस र वामपन्थीहरूमा कुनै फरकपनाको महसुस गर्न नपाएको गुनासो थियो। राजनीतिक दलमाथि नागरिकको बढ्दो अविश्वासको एउटा प्रमुख कारण, व्यवहार र सिद्धान्तमा आकाशपातालको फरक पनि हो।
वामपन्थी दलहरूबाट यस विषयमा कुनै आशा नभएका कारण पनि यसपटक नेपाली कांग्रेसलाई आफ्नो १५औँ महाधिवेशनमार्फत आफ्नो दलको व्यवहार र सिद्धान्तलाई समायोजन गर्ने अवसर थियो। अर्थात्, यसका दुई कारण छन्। पहिलो, कमसेकम नेपाली कांग्रेस २.० नाममा ब्रान्डिङ गरेर भए पनि विशेष अधिवेशनमार्फत् यो पार्टीले आफूलाई रूपान्तरण तथा पुस्तान्तरणको चेष्टा गरेको थियो।
दोस्रो, नेपाली कांग्रेस २.० ले चुनावमा कसैसँग मिल्दैनौँ भन्ने दाबी गर्दै आएको छ। नेपाली कांग्रेस २.० का सभापति गगन थापाले नै यो मुद्दा बोकेर हिँडेका कारण पनि यसको अर्थ आफूलाई वामपन्थीभन्दा फरक हौँ र वामपन्थीहरूसँग मिलेर चुनाव लड्दैनौँ भनेको बुझ्नुपर्छ। नेपालमा पछिल्ला तीन दशकमा सत्तामा पौठाजोरी खेले पनि वा मिले पनि, कांग्रेसको विरोधी वा प्रतिद्वन्द्वी भने पनि वा सहयात्री भने पनि नेकपा एमाले वा नेपाली कम्युनिस्ट पार्टी (पुरानो नेकपा माओवादी) अर्थात् सोलोडोलो भाषामा वामपन्थी पार्टी नै थिए। जोसँग नेपाली कांग्रेस १.० का सभापति शेरबहादुर देउवाले पटक पटक मिलेका कारण गगनको विरोध थियो। हुन त नेपालमा राजावादी वा हालको सत्ताधारी राष्ट्रिय स्वतन्त्र पार्टी पनि छन्। तर, उनीहरूसँग नेपाली कांग्रेस २.० ले चुनावी गठबन्धन गरिहाल्ला भन्ने आकलन अहिल्यै गरिहाल्न सकिन्न।
त्यसैले सैद्धान्तिक-वैचारिक रूपमै नेपाली कांग्रेसले समाजवादबाट सिधै पुँजीवादमा फड्को नहाने पनि जसरी आफ्नो ‘राष्ट्रियता, प्रजातन्त्र र समाजवाद’को मूल सिद्धान्तबाट आज ‘राष्ट्रियता, लोकतन्त्र र समाजवाद’मा पुग्यो, हाल जारी १५औँ महाधिवेशनबाट आर्थिक नीतिमा अझै स्पष्टता ल्याउला भन्ने आशा थियो।
किनकि सभापति गगन थापाले प्रस्तुत गरेको राजनीतिक प्रतिवेदनले पनि स्विकारेको छ, ‘नेपाली कांग्रेसको आर्थिक दृष्टिकोणको मूल आधार राष्ट्रियता, लोकतन्त्र र समाजवाद हो। पार्टीका संस्थापक जननायक बीपी कोइरालाले प्रतिपादन गर्नुभएको लोकतान्त्रिक समाजवादले विकासको केन्द्रमा केवल तथ्यांकीय आर्थिक वृद्धिलाई होइन; साधारण नागरिकको जीवन, मानवीय गरिमा, सहभागिता र अवसरलाई केन्द्रमा राखेको थियो। हामीले बीपीको ‘हलो जोतिरहेको किसान’को ऐतिहासिक प्रतीकलाई आत्मसात गर्दै आज ‘हातमा पासपोर्ट बोकेर उभिएको वा देशभित्रै अवसर खोजिरहेको युवा’को यथार्थलाई आर्थिक विकास नीतिको केन्द्रबिन्दुमा राखेका छौँ।’
यसरी हिजो बीपी कोइरालाको समय र आजको आर्थिक परिदृश्य, बजार र बजारको चरित्र, निजी क्षेत्रको भूमिकाको साथै सरकारको पनि भूमिकामा स्पष्ट आकाश पताल फरक मान्ने हो भने हिजोकै लोकतान्त्रिक समाजवादको पुच्छर समातेर बस्नुमा कुनै तुक छैन।
होइन, लेख्न चाहिँ समाजवाद नै लेख्ने तर व्यवहारमा भने वामपन्थीले झैँ आसेपासे पुँजीवादलाई अँगाल्ने हो भने अर्कै कुरा हो। यसबाट त झन् नेपाली कांग्रेस २.० अघिल्लो संस्करणभन्दा पनि विवादित र नागरिकबाट परित्यक्त नहोला र?
समाजवादको अर्थबारे प्रतिवेदनले जति फरक व्याख्या गरे पनि नेपाली कांग्रेस २.० ले यो एउटा अवसर गुमाएकै हो। किनकि नेपालमा समाजवाद शब्द आफैँमा बदनाम छ। समाजवादी नेताहरूका रहनसहन, घर, सम्पत्ति देख्दा जिब्रो नटोक्ने नेपाली कोही छैन। तर, यसको अर्थ सम्पत्ति कमाउनु अपराध हो भन्ने नलागोस्। यसै पनि नेपाली समाजमा व्यापार, व्यवसाय गरेर नाफा गर्नु, धन, सम्पत्ति जोड्नु अपराध तर राजनीति गरेर बिना कुनै औपचारिक आय धन, सम्पत्ति जोड्नु महानता मानिन्छ। नेपाली कांग्रेस २.० ले  कुन वर्गको पक्षपोषण गर्न खोजेको हो, आफैँ स्पष्ट भएको देखिएन।
कतै पुँजीवादी हो कि जस्तो अनि कतै समाजवादी जस्तो देखिएर समाजमा रहेका उदारवादी वाम बुद्धिजीवीलाई आकर्षण त गर्न सकिएला। तर अर्थतन्त्रलाई चलायमान बनाउन यस्तो ढुलमुले नीति लिएर हुँदैन।
यसबाट त २०४८ सालपछिको नेपाली कांग्रेसको नेतृत्वमा चलेको उदार आर्थिक नीतिको पूर्ण स्वामित्व तथा अपनत्व पनि नेपाली कांग्रेस २.० ले नलिएको देखियो। अनि सिद्धान्त र व्यवहार यसरी नै फरक गर्ने विचार हो भने समाजवादको व्याख्या गर्न आवश्यक नै थिएन। दस्तावेजमा समाजवाद नै लेखिरहने अनि, जपिरहेन तर व्यवहारमा जे मन लाग्यो त्यही गर्ने भए त एकपटक पूर्वअर्थमन्त्रीद्वय महेश आचार्य र डा रामशरण महतलाई पनि धन्यवाद दिएको भए हुन्थ्यो।
वामपन्थीले मात्र होइन नेपाली कांग्रेसले पनि सधैँ सरापेका उनीहरूकै आर्थिक नीतिका कारण एक दशक लामो माओवादी द्वन्द्वमा पनि नेपाल टाट पल्टेन भनेर अडान लिन सक्ने कोही पनि आज नेपाली कांग्रेसमा नहुनुले नेपाली कांग्रेसको वामपन्थीकरण झन् तीव्र हुन थालेको भन्दा फरक नपर्ला। आचार्य र डा महतका कमीकमजोरी छैन, सबै ठीक गरे भनेको होइन। उदार आर्थिक नीतिको व्यावहारिक प्रयोगमा उनीहरूका पनि प्रक्रियागत कमजोरी थिए। जसलाई सच्याएर अगाडि बढ्ने अवसर पनि थियो। तर, समाजवादको नाम लिएरै मात्र नेपाली कांग्रेसले वैतरणी पार गर्छ वा समाजवादको गायत्री मन्त्र जपेपछि मात्र निर्वाण प्राप्त हुन्छ भन्ने चेतले आफ्नै पार्टीको नेतृत्वमा प्राप्त उपलब्धि पनि औचित्यहीन बनाएको छ।
आज जुन निजी क्षेत्रको विस्तार छ र जति पनि देशभित्रै रोजगारी सिर्जना भएको छ, त्यसको श्रेय लिन पनि डराउनेले नेपालमा रोजगारी सिर्जना गर्छन् भनेर युवाले कसरी पत्याउँछन्।
अनि, आज बीपी कोइराला भएका भए, के भन्थे होलान्?
त्यसैले, नेपाली कांग्रेसको वामपन्थीकरणमा जति शेरबहादुर देउवालाई दोष दिइन्छ वा दिइएको छ, त्यो भन्दा आजको रूपान्तरित वा पुस्तान्तरित कांग्रेसको पनि कम दोष छैन भन्दा अन्यथा नहोला।
यसबाट विशेष अधिवेशनमार्फत पार्टी कब्जा गरेको आरोप लागेका अनि १५औँ अधिवेशनमा प्रतिद्वन्द्वीविहीन रहेका सभापति गगन थापाको राजनीतिक, आर्थिक वैचारिक प्रतिबद्धतामा वामपन्थीकरणको गन्ध आएको आरोप पनि थपिन सक्छ। जुन नेपाली कांग्रेसको रूपान्तरणको मानक बन्नै सक्दैन।
बीपी कोइरालाको ऐतिहासिक दृष्टिकोण भूमि सुधार, निरक्षरता र ग्रामीण गरिबीले निर्देशित युगलाई प्रतिनिधित्व गर्ने ‘हलो जोत्ने किसान’ नेपालीमा केन्द्रित थियो। तर, त्यो उत्पादक थियो।
आजको नेपाली उपभोक्ता मात्र हो।
हिजो जमिन उत्पादनको स्रोत थियो। आज जमिन सिर्फ किनबेच गर्ने एउटा साधन हो। यसले कुनै उत्पादन गर्दैन, न त रोजगारी सिर्जना गर्छ। त्यसैले नेपाली अर्थतन्त्रमा रहेको संरचनात्मक समस्या समाधान गर्न समाजवादले सक्दैन। रोगको पहिचान ठीक भए पनि औषधि गलत भए रोग ठीक हुँदैन।
भलै, प्रतिवेदनमा लेखिएको छ, ‘राज्यले व्यापारी वा मालिकको रूपमा होइन, निष्पक्ष नियामक, सुशासनको संरक्षक, आधुनिक पूर्वाधारको निर्माणकर्ता र गुणस्तरीय सार्वजनिक सेवा प्रदायकको रूपमा काम गर्नुपर्छ।’ तर, विस्तारै राज्यको भूमिका खुम्च्याउँदै लाने र समयानुकूल नीति निर्माणमा मात्रै ध्यान दिने तथा बजारलाई अनुशासित रूपमा सञ्चालन गर्न अनुगमन गर्ने बाँकी बजारलाई छोड्ने हो। पछिल्ला वर्षहरूमा नेपालमा राज्य बलियो तर शासन कमजोर भएको कारण पनि धेरै समस्या आएको हो।
संस्थाहरू कमजोर बनाउने वा बनाउन सघाउने अनि समयानुकूल उदार आर्थिक नीति नअपनाएर समाजवादको व्याख्या गर्दै बस्दा नेपाली कांग्रेस रूपान्तरण हुँदैन।
अन्ततः सिद्धान्तको निरन्तरता तर औजारमा परिवर्तनले निजी क्षेत्रको लगानी, उत्पादकत्व र रोजगारी बढ्दैन। निजी क्षेत्रको लगानी, उत्पादकत्व र रोजगारीजस्ता शब्दहरू नेपालमा सबैभन्दा बढी दुरुपयोग भएका शब्दहरू हुन्। यी शब्दहरू सबै दलले कण्ठ गरेका छन्। तर, व्यवहारमा प्रतिबिम्बित गर्न भने सकेका छैनन्, सकेनन्।
नेपाली कांग्रेसले यदि साँच्चै निजी क्षेत्रले समृद्धि ल्याओस् भन्ने चाहेको हो भने आर्थिक विचारधारालाई वास्तविक रूपमा अद्यावधिक गर्नुपर्छ, परम्परागत समाजवादलाई नयाँ शब्दावलीले ढाकछोप गरेर वा व्याख्यात्मक टिप्पणी थप्दैमा परिवर्तन हुँदैन।
(First published in nepalkhabar.com on October 6, 2026 -- https://nepalkhabar.com/opinion/289087-2026-10-6-20-16-2)

ADB to support expansion of power transmission, battery storage capacity in Nepal through PPP

The Asian Development Bank (ADB) has signed two public-private partnership (PPP) -- first of its planned ones -- transaction advisory services agreements with the government to encourage private sector investment in power transmission and battery storage infrastructure.
ADB Country Director for Nepal Arnaud Cauchois and Nepal Electricity Authority (NEA) managing director Dirghayu Kumar Shrestha signed the agreements in Kathmandu, today.
These landmark agreements represent the first transaction advisory services for a power transmission public-private partnership and a standalone utility-scale battery energy storage system in any member country of the bank, according to the multilateral bank. "Through these deals, the bank will assist the NEA with feasibility studies, procurement, tendering, project agreements, and capacity building. The initiatives are projected to mobilise more than $200 million in private sector capital."
Highlighting the energy achievements of the nation, Cauchois noted the rapid expansion of electricity access. "Nepal has made significant progress in providing electricity to its people, with access to power increasing from 58 per cent in 2016 to 99 per cent in 2025," he said, adding that the challenge now is to translate this growth into reliable domestic supply and sustained export capacity. "Achieving this will require the timely expansion of transmission and battery storage infrastructure, with private sector participation playing a critical role in mobilising the capital, expertise, and efficiency needed to deliver these investments at scale."
NEA managing director Shrestha welcomed the collaboration, stating, "We appreciate ADB's partnership through these Transaction Advisory Services Agreements, which will help advance strategically important transmission line projects and battery energy storage systems, attract private sector investment, and support the long-term growth and sustainability of Nepal's power sector."
The first agreement concentrates on the design, financing, construction, operation, and maintenance of a 134-kilometre, 400-kilovolt transmission line spanning Tingla, New Khimti, and Dhalkebar. This project is anticipated to enhance grid reliability, allow for greater integration of renewable energy, and facilitate regional electricity trade.
The second agreement entails the design, financing, installation, and operation of a 100 to 150 megawatt-hour multisite battery energy storage system at selected substations. Operating under a public-private partnership model, this system aims to resolve peak-period grid constraints, support variable renewable energy integration, and provide essential grid management services to ensure system stability.
Together, the projects are expected to strengthen the energy system of Nepal by expanding power transmission and battery storage capacity. The investments will also improve the reliable evacuation of electricity from generation projects and open up private capital mobilisation in the energy sector.

Nepal seeks to turn geography into strategic advantage, foreign minister says

NEW YORK: Nepal must turn its position between India and China into an economic, digital and strategic advantage rather than allow geography to constrain its ambitions, Foreign Minister Shishir Khanal said today.
Speaking at an Asia Society event - in the sidelines of United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) - in New York titled ‘Steering Nepal’s Future in Asia’s Rising Century,’ Khanal said Nepal should move beyond its traditional image as a small country and position itself as a bridge connecting Asian economies, markets and civilisations.
“Nepal is not small but is strategically located,” Khanal said, adding that the size of its neighbours should not become a limit to Nepal’s ambitions.
Khanal said Asia’s rise, with about 60 per cent of the world’s population and a large share of global economic activity, presented an important opportunity for Nepal. South Asia alone has a population of about two billion, he said, adding that Kathmandu could become a centre of the region’s economic and social transformation. "Our question is no longer how Nepal can survive between two large neighbours. Our question is how Nepal can create value between them and beyond them."
Nepal’s strategy should be based on what Khanal called “developmental autonomy”, with a national goal of becoming a middle-income country within 10 years and a high-income developed country by 2050.
He said Nepal would seek to expand its economic and diplomatic policy space through broader international engagement while deepening ties with India, China and other major partners.
With India, Nepal should connect its open border more closely with production and markets, Khanal said, advocating “thick connectivity and thin borders” through greater economic interdependence.
Nepal should also use its hydropower potential to support regional economic integration, he said. Clean electricity is already being exported to Bangladesh through India, while border economic zones could help connect Nepali production to global supply chains.
With China, Nepal should pursue long-term cooperation in roads, tunnels, dry ports, aviation, digital networks and cross-border railways, he said. “Connectivity should not be measured only by kilometres of infrastructure, but by the movement of goods, services, investment, tourists and opportunities."
He also called for greater Nepal-China cooperation on glacier monitoring, disaster early-warning systems, water data sharing, climate adaptation and resilient infrastructure. Such projects, he said, should be based on transparent financing, rigorous feasibility studies and value for money.
Khanal also placed climate change among Nepal’s strategic foreign-policy priorities following the devastating floods that struck the country on August 26.
He described the disaster as a “Himalayan tsunami” and said it had caused major damage to lives, property, trade routes, bridges and Himalayan settlements.
The disaster underscored the need for effective early-warning systems, water-data sharing, predictable grant-based climate finance and practical cooperation with neighbouring countries and international partners, he said.
Beyond its immediate neighbourhood, Nepal plans to expand partnerships with the United States, Europe, Japan, ASEAN and Gulf countries, Khanal said, describing Nepal’s roughly five million-strong diaspora as a strategic asset. "Its capital and expertise should be channelled into entrepreneurship, technology and national infrastructure rather than being viewed primarily as a source of remittances."
“We want to directly mobilise their capital and expertise in entrepreneurship, technology and national infrastructure,” he said.
Khanal said small and medium-sized countries also have a role in protecting international law, sovereign equality and a rules-based international order. “Nepal was a bridge between civilisations in the past, is an economic bridge in the present, and will become a strategic bridge in the future."
While Nepal’s future must ultimately be shaped by its own people, international partnerships would be essential to achieving its development goals, Khanal said, inviting investment and cooperation from the United States, Europe, ASEAN, Latin America and other partners.

Himalaya Airlines to start direct flight on Kathmandu-Hangzhou-Kathmandu route

Himalaya Airlines (IATA: H9), Nepal's international private airline, is expanding its commercial flight operations in China with the launch of direct scheduled flight service between Tribhuvan International Airport (TIA) in Kathmandu, and Hangzhou Xiaoshan International Airport (HGH) in Hangzhou China. The inaugural flight is scheduled for Wednesday, September 30, 2026, marking a defining milestone in Nepal's civil aviation history and international connectivity, according to a press note issued by the Himalaya Airlines.
With this launch, Himalaya Airlines will become the first and only commercial carrier in the history of civil aviation to operate a direct scheduled flight on the Kathmandu-Hangzhou-Kathmandu sector, establishing a new and strategically significant air corridor between Nepal and one of China's major cultural hubs, it claims.
Hangzhou is the capital and largest city of Zhejiang province in eastern China. It is one of China's Eight Ancient Capitals and is best known internationally for its cultural legacy and the scenic West Lake. The city is home to three UNESCO World Heritage Sites: The West Lake Cultural Landscape, the Grand Canal, and the Archaeological Ruins of Liangzhu City.
The Kathmandu-Hangzhou route is strategically aligned with Himalaya Airlines' broader mission to develop direct air connectivity to ten key tourism and economic centres across China, with the long-term objective of promoting Nepal-China tourism and trade, the airliners says, adding that the service is expected to serve a wide range of travellers, including leisure tourists, business travellers, trade delegations, students, and cultural exchange participants from both nations. "Commencing at the onset of Nepal's peak autumn tourism season, the route is expected to provide a meaningful boost to inbound tourism and the broader hospitality sector, supporting the country's economic recovery and growth objectives."
Himalaya Airlines will initially operate two weekly frequencies on the route. Outbound flights from Kathmandu will depart every Wednesday and Sunday, with return flights from Hangzhou operating every Monday and Thursday. The airline will review and consider increasing frequency in response to passenger demand and load factors, it adds.
The Kathmandu-Hangzhou flight (H9 225) will depart Tribhuvan International Airport at 17:15 (Nepal local time) on September 30, 2026, arriving at Hangzhou Xiaoshan International Airport at 01:05 (China local time) the following day. The return flight, Hangzhou-Kathmandu (H9 226), will depart Hangzhou Xiaoshan International Airport at 02:05 (China local time) on October 1, 2026, and land at TIA at 06:20 (Nepal local time) the same day.
"Himalaya Airlines aims to operate flights to ten different tourism and economic centres across China to welcome one million Chinese tourists to Nepal," vice-president of Himalaya Airlines Vijay Shrestha said ahead of the launch of the new route.
"We have pioneered trailblasing new routes to China, leading the way ahead of conventional market trends," he said, adding that the introduction of the Kathmandu-Hangzhou service is a testament to that commitment. "With this route, Himalaya Airlines aims to connect two historical and cultural hubs of Nepal and China."
The aoirlines will create memorable travel experiences while upholding the highest standards of safety and service quality, he said, "We look forward to welcoming passengers on board and facilitating the discovery of the extraordinary beauty and opportunities that both Nepal and China have to offer."
Himalaya Airlines (H9) is a Nepal-China joint venture International Airlines, established in 2014 with two complimenting objectives: to promote people-to-people contact between Nepal and other countries, as well as to boost Nepal’s trade and tourism industries. The joint venture alliance is between Tibetan Civil Aviation Development and Investment Company Ltd (TCADIC) and Yeti World Investment Pvt Ltd.
H9 young fleet consists of total 4 aircraft: three Airbus 320-214 (180 all-economy seats) and one Airbus 319-115 (144 all economy seats). H9 is currently operating passenger flights to prominent countries of Middle East & South Asia, the airliner further claims.

Call for institutional arrangements for integrated development of textile and clothing sector

Despite the importance of Nepal’s textile and clothing sector to exports and employment, longstanding institutional gaps and fragmented support have prompted calls for a dedicated body to consolidate the sector’s collective voice and strengthen coordination and support, according to entrepreneurs.
Speaking at a policy dialogue ‘Institutional arrangements for integrated development of textile and clothing sector’ organised by South Asia Watch on Trade Economic and Environment (SAWTEE), with support from the International Labour Organisation (ILO), they called an urgent need for such an institutional arrangement to build shared understanding among stakeholders.
In her trigger presentation, Programme Coordinator at SAWTEE Dikshya Singh, highlighted that Nepal's textile and clothing sub-sectors; ranging from yarn and fibre to garments, carpets, pashmina, silk, hemp, and allo; are represented by a patchwork of scattered, sub-sector-specific associations, with none speaking for the value chain as a whole. "Hence, there is a need for an institution that can unite this fragmented advocacy into a single institutional voice," she said, adding "Such an entity would coordinate backward linkages (sourcing inputs domestically) with forward linkages in manufacturing, branding, and market access, treating the sector as a unified value chain rather than disconnected sub-sectors."
Calls to establish such a body have grown louder in recent months since the plan received a positive response from the Prime Minister, as reported in the media following his meeting with the textile and clothing sector entrepreneurs.
President of Nepal Carpet Manufacturers and Exporters’ Association Balaram Gurung, on the occasion, highlighted the important role previously played by the Nepal Carpet and Wool Development Board in providing focused institutional support to the carpet sector. He also noted that the Board’s functions were later merged with the Trade and Export Promotion Centre (TEPC), leaving the sector without a dedicated institution. Drawing on this experience, he stressed that the proposed body should provide similar sector-specific support, or the former Board should be reinstated.
Likewise president of the Nepal Pashmina Industries Association Dhan Prasad Lamichhane stressed the need to develop an integrated pashmina ecosystem spanning the entire value chain, from farm to fibre to fashion, with stronger linkages across sheep rearing, fibre production, dyeing, knitting and garment manufacturing. He emphasised the need for legislative changes required to facilitate commercial farming of sheep in mountainous regions of Nepal, which could help domestic sourcing of wool.
Immediate Past President of the Nepal Wool Felt Producers and Exporters Association Amrit Khadka emphasised the need to establish such institutional body through a parliamentary Act. He also identified policy and regulatory gaps as a major concern, noting that the sector has been requesting amendments to existing policies and regulations for a long time, but that the process has yet to move forward. He further stressed the need for greater representation of both the public and private sectors in efforts to develop the felt industry.
First Vice President of the Garment Association of Nepal Basanta Raj Adhikari pointed out that compared to the competitors, Nepali product is expensive, lower in quality, and slower on delivery; hence, Nepal lacks the capacity to fulfil bulk orders from large buyers. He said unless skill shortages and testing infrastructure gaps are addressed, Nepal's garment sector will remain confined to small, niche orders.
Similarly, Textile Expert Prakash Jha called for the establishment of a council to consolidate and represent the voices of stakeholders across the textile and clothing sectors. He suggested that the proposed council could be placed under the Ministry of Industry, Commerce and Supplies, with participation from the Ministries of Agriculture, Forests and Environment; Finance; and Labour, as well as representatives of industry associations, businesses and technical experts.
He further suggested that the council should develop mechanisms to achieve financial sustainability, including through fees related to rules of origin, certificates of origin and membership. He proposed that the council’s mandate should also cover research and regulation of imported clothing, monitoring of free trade agreements and other trade agreements, and recommending measures for export market diversification.
Chief Executive Officer of Alternative Technology Shreeniwas Sharma highlighted, "how Galaicha software has improved Nepal’s carpet industry by facilitating digital design, cost calculation and production tracking. He noted that similar technological solutions could be adopted across other subsectors, including handicrafts and garments, while emphasising the need to combine technology adoption with laobur upskilling. He suggested that the proposed institution could help connect industries with appropriate technology providers and facilitate wider adoption of such solutions. He stressed that Nepal has the technological capacity to do more, but stronger industry–technology linkages are needed to translate these capabilities into practical outcomes.
Participants, on the occasion, pointed out that the proposed institution's mandate and governance structure required careful design. Several stressed the need for clarity on whether the body's primary role should be coordination or promotion, and called for trade union representation, noting unions could contribute to improving worker productivity rather than being seen as adversarial to business. Others stressed that the council needed meaningful private-sector representation and real decision-making authority, cautioning against it becoming 'another bureaucratic institution' burdened by administrative hurdles. It was also suggested that leadership rotate across sub-sectors like garments, carpets, and felt to ensure balanced representation, alongside inclusion of researchers, experts, and government representatives.
One participant called for an apex body under the Government of Nepal, citing India's model, with sub-committees for each sub-sector to prevent domination by any single industry.
Chair of the session Dr Posh Raj Pandey summarised the key points of the discussion, highlighting the need to address supply-side constraints and strengthen institutional coordination in the textile and clothing sector. He stressed the importance of a stronger governance mechanism to consolidate fragmented institutions, support export promotion and regulatory compliance, and prepare the sector for challenges arising from preference erosion after LDC graduation.

Current multipolar world is strategically vital for Nepal and Bangladesh: Prof Imtiaz (interview)

Retired from Dhaka University, Professor Imtiaz Ahmed is a renowned intellectual not only in South Asia but also in global arena. He had taught International Affairs in Dhaka University for decades. After his retirement from Dhaka University, Prof Ahmed is in Kathmandu for a mission. He is leading a Master’s program offered by Asian Institute of Diplomacy and International Affairs (AIDIA), in academic partnership with Kathmandu University (KU). Since he is leading Masters in International Affairs, Economy and Diplomacy (MIAED) programme, Nepalkhabar’s Consulting Editor Kuber Chalise talked to Prof Ahmed about a plethora of issues including Asian Century, multipolar world, Gen Z movement both in Bangladesh and Nepal, and so on.  Excerpts:

The world is fast changing. You have been teaching international affairs since long. How was the world when you were teaching international affairs in the classroom and how is it today, when you are outside the classroom?
Then the world was bipolar, which means mainly on one hand the west led by US, and on the other hand you had Soviet Union leading eastern Europe. In the 80s, the world largely became unipolar. Particularly after the dismantling of the Soviet Union by Gorbachev. But then midway I think around some people say 86, some people make it later, the world started moving toward a multipolar world. So, I have seen bipolar, unipolar and the coming of multipolar world. So, we are in an exciting time, I think. And I have to say that I enjoyed international relations very much. If I look at the transformation, it has been incredible.

Which is very exciting time for you as a professor?
I think multipolar, there is no doubt about it because the world has never seen multipolar. This is for the first time on a global scale. There were multipolar in Europe. There was little bit of multipolar in Africa, in South Asia. But on a world scale, this is for the first time the world is becoming multipolar. And it is so exciting because all the economies have an opportunity to play a role including Nepal. The big powers were playing their role in the unipolar and bipolar world. But in multipolar world even small powers can play a role. So that means the coming days are more exciting for the small countries like Nepal, like Bangladesh because they have the role.

How do you define that Nepal or Bangladesh, these small states can play a role in this multipolar world?
Well, this is something that needs more brainstorming, including research, including education. And this is where I think AIDIA’s attempt to, and I believe we are already far ahead, in launching this Master's program in International Relations, Economy and Diplomacy (MIAED) can make a difference. Because we still need lot of brainstorming how to handle a multi-polar world. We know that there can be opportunities and there can be good outcomes. But to make that fruitful, it's important we develop the entire structure in a way, where young minds can contribute. And this is where I think AIDIA’s MIAED program can make a difference.

Bangladesh and Nepal both are in South Asia. Once upon a time, we used to talk about South Asia and still we are talking about South Asia region. But in between, there is this institution called SAARC. But now, people think it's non-starter. So, why? What was the problem?
Well, one of the biggest problems with SAARC has been the conflict between India and Pakistan. So, my experience with SAARC also has been quite particular. We have a little bit of success story. I wouldn't say full success story and that is to do with the South Asian University. I was instrumental in establishing it as I wrote the first paper on South Asian University. And later on, I was the original team member from Bangladesh side when Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh agreed to have this which is now called main campus in Delhi but the regional campuses are yet to come out. So, but still that's one kind of achievement.
The idea was to build a South Asian mind. Unless and until we have the regional campuses, I don't think we are having a South Asian mind. What we now have is an Indian University of South Asia rather than a South Asian University. There may be one or two other achievements in SAARC but not much. But now with the political stalemate, I think we need an out of the box thinking of how to revive SAARC. And I would say that we need to take lessons maybe from ASEAN, which now is ASEAN plus three. I think SAARC should also go know, SAARC plus three or SAARC plus four including Japan for example, include China for example, not to mention US. So, if we can include more actors, maybe SAARC will have a better future.

But again, the problem will be the same. India is there, Pakistan is there and you cannot change neighbours!
Well, it is interesting point but keep in mind that India and Pakistan are both in Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). So, if India and Pakistan can be in the SCO, why can't India and Pakistan together in SAARC, may be SAARC plus three or SAARC plus four? So, I am an optimist. I have always been an optimist person but going back to the old charter, would be difficult. I see it's time for us to reinvent. It's an interesting idea but the world has really become very complex and multipolar. Now, I will give you one more example why SAARC flus three or four can be done. And that is if you look at the trade regimes of all the South Asian countries, the largest you know, in terms of if you look at even bilateral trade, it is with China. Even India's largest trading regime is now China. So, China for example is economically almost a South Asian country.
So, I believe if we want to move further and if we want to develop South Asia to the extent some of the Asian economies have done, we need to work very hard and I believe a SAARC plus three or SAARC plus four can make a difference.

The trade within SAARC countries is less than 5 percent, though the trade outside SAARC is much more. So maybe this platform may not work !
No, you see, I think one of the mistakes was to start with economics and trade. You see, economics is a very complicated because it works on scarcity. And scarcity is also psychologically not an interesting concept because it emanates fear. So, if you start with scarcity, then you can't go very far. And that's the reason why I thought of writing concept of this South Asian University, focus on education and change in the mindset first. The mindset has not changed. So, with the trade and you have rightly pointed out with 5% intra-South Asian trade, we are not going to go very far. But if we had worked on other disciplines, and then come to trade, probably things would have been different.

But again, at the same time isn’t economy the only thing that brings these countries South Asian countries together !
Without Nepal-India trade there is no possibility of growth. Without even China-India, there is no growth possibility. So, trade and economy is the integral part of all these agreements or disagreements across the world, not only in South Asia. So, at the same time they are the most important basic thing also to link countries or to link the societies or people. That is where I think we got stuck because most, well, all the South Asian countries they produce almost the same thing. So, it's more competitive rather than cooperation. And all tend to go outside South Asia to profit.
In economy and in trade also, like you said, the countries in South Asia are producing the same thing and there is competition. But why can't we think that a product can be co-produced with the help of Nepal, Bangladesh and India. We can produce the same thing and sell it outside. There is a large room for that.
Absolutely. Nobody has thought about that till date. Well, on the bilateral basis there are something of that like an Ready-Made Garments (RMG). I think this is where we are failing because the mindset is such and not to mention the rules and regulations are so strict and rigid. We still carry the colonial rules and regulations. We need to change but, as I said, if the mindset is always kind of emanates fear that other is trying to take over because these are all new states, in a sense. All are post-colonial states. Nepal probably would be an exception in that case not been colonized but overall, our education has been highly colonized. And again, I have to say this is one thing that we are trying to address in the Master's Programme that we are launching in Kathmandu. And one of the pillars of MIAED course is decolonising international relations. We need to decolonize ourselves first. The reason we got stuck is because we haven't thought out of the box.

Don't you think multilateralism is much more complex compared to bilateralism?
Well, economically we are already multilateral because we are living in the age of globalization. Take for example, Bangladeshi garments, which is number two in the world after China. But I am wearing made in Bangladesh dress but that's little because the machines come from Germany, now they all they come from China. And cotton comes from India or East Africa or Central Asia. And then the design probably is from Paris or in New York or Italy. This is the unique part of this whole developmental economics because you can't have production of everything in one particular country.

And the electricity to run that company may have come from Nepal?
If you are already multilateral economically, what it needs that we need to transform that economic multilateralism into political multilateralism. And that is where the mindset has not really come up. Economically we are all connected. You can't have an economy now in the age of globalization because production has become international. This is the unique part of the of this whole developmental economics. Because you can't have production of everything in one particular country. So, if production is international, I see no reason why we can't transform ourselves into a political multilateralism.

Lately, Nepal, India and Bangladesh are trying to create joint venture to invest in hydropower and start energy trade. So, do you think this energy trade or like we have said the garments could propel this regionalism and kickstart the regional platform like SAARC again?
Absolutely. And it can go beyond SAARC. You know, this idea of energy corridor, when it comes to Nepal and Bangladesh it is only limited to 40 megawatts and that again on a seasonal basis. So, you know, once you have the grids and everything, you can really extend that and multiply that. Now, on the other hand, there's also a discussion now when our Prime Minister Tarek Rahman visited this time to Beijing, President Xi Jinping proposed the idea of Bangladesh, Myanmar, China economic corridor. And in that economic corridor, energy corridor is a critical one. After many years even Myanmar, their ambassador sat with Bangladesh counterpart to discuss the energy corridor between Myanmar and Bangladesh. Although we have a serious problem of the Rohingya issue. The issue of energy has become very critical after this Iran-US war and Hormuz. So, I believe we need to work very fast to make ourselves totally autonomous, if not independent, so that South Asia can grow collectively together. But if the mindset is ‘I will grow, I will not let others grow’, or if there is that tension, then we are not going to go very far.

But when we created SAARC, or even BIMSTEC or even BBIM, the whole idea was to grow together by promoting the free flow of goods and people across the border. And at one point of time, we even had envisioned single currency in SAARC before Euro. Single Euro came into practice but we failed. So, where did we fail?
Again, I would say mindset. I'll give you one example. The idea of South Asian University, for example, is a good one because the charter clearly points out that the objective is to develop a South Asian mind. Now, when it started, they insisted in having everything in Delhi for example, which had to be negotiated and at the very end the compromise was that the main campus will be in Delhi. Now, what it means that there will be other campus as well. And so, in the beginning they gave a five years moratorium that for five years regional campus can't be made. That five years has gone, it's already like 20 years now, nothing has come up. But look at the mindset, the idea was that each campus would be called by the name like the city Delhi campus, Colombo campus, Dhaka campus but moment you have a main, then it becomes very problematic for example for Pakistan, you know, or even Bangladesh would say what is this main thing. And there are good examples. The West Indies have done that, universities of West Indies which has campuses in different countries in West Indies. But the mindset is such that they insisted that it be Delhi and it could be called main campus. So, we ended up as I said earlier into an Indian university of South Asia. And more interestingly when the disciplines were decided, as I wrote the concept paper, the original idea was to have post-discipline faculties, something like faculty of peace studies or faculty of water futures, faculty of comparative religion. So, all disciplines can come and work. But then the person, who was given the charge, though he was a nice man and passed away, he insisted on the traditional disciplines, regular courses, regular biochemistry, economics. I think it's still time to rectify that. Now that is again, I go back to the Master's Programme of AIDIA.

The AIDIA-MIAED programme that you are leading, says Asian century. I think around 2010, intellectuals had said the epicenter of global economy is going to shift towards Asia. If we go by data also, Asia contributes almost 50% to the global GDP. So, having all these advantages and economic might also, why Asia couldn't get its role in the global politics?
Well, if you take whole of Asia, no. I believe you can't rule out China has a global position now. It has a very bigger position. It has already economically, if you look at the PPP, surpassed United States. So, some Asian economies have really done well. I would also include Singapore which is only 6 million Island, but it has really done remarkable. Also, you have South Korea and not to mention Vietnam is coming up. I think what has happened with Asia is there is a kind of a re-rise of Asian economies because back in 18th century China for example was the largest economy, even undivided India. I would say undivided India was the second largest economy in the world. Because I always talk about Bangladesh because back in 18th century when undivided India was the largest economy, Bengal was the richest province. And that's the reason why the colonial powers Britain came through Bengal. They stayed for nearly 200 years, which we never thought.
So, what we are having now is a re-rise of Asia. And this is the reason one of the pillars of AIDIA-MIAED is Asian futures. There are altogether four pillars; decolonizing international relations, Asian futures, Multipolarity and artificial intelligence (AI). So, it's structured in a way where we need new scholars, new thinkers and this program hopefully will help build minds which will transform Asia even more.

In 2024 Bangladesh witnessed Gen Z movement. And in 2026 Nepal witnessed the Gen Z movement, which only in 48 hours the whole regime changed. Compare Bangladesh movement, the media and intellectuals claim that Bangladeshi textbook is followed in Nepal or it's replicated. Do you think it is possible in today's world to go on experimenting the same thing from one country to another?
No, I think, there may be similarities with all uprisings and revolutions. And since it is happening at one time, even in Sri Lanka. Even people connect this with India's recent Cockroach Janata Party movement. Keep in mind that whether it is uprising or revolution, there is always the youth had a role to play. Back in 71 when we had a serious war with Pakistan, a liberation war, I was just a class 9 student. But I left my parents. I did not tell them. I went to India. I literally slept on the pavement to join the Mutibahini. But I was not an exception. There were young students, who also were participating in the liberation war. So, that is always in all age. Every generation has aspiration to change. So, I don't know why they give the name because, if I take Bangladesh, all the regime change that has taken place in Bangladesh, all the uprising and the demonstrations except one or two, all started in Dhaka University. That means students were always involved. So, I don't think this is the end of Gen Z. There will be more Gen Z. Well, naming, branding, is it good or bad? I'm not really sure. I don't want to go into that. But the point is youth getting engaged in social movement is nothing new.
So, what has happened in Nepal or in Sri Lanka or in Bangladesh and you can take Tunisia, Egypt. Yes, there is a little bit of similarity and that's the reason you have to be very careful of whether you are falling into trap or not, whether the expectation is too much or not. Because in our case for example in Bangladesh, the expectation was very high. But that created different kinds of problem. Some wanted early election, some did not. So, we had election one-and-a-half year later. Whereas Nepal held very quickly election on time and Nepal got elected government. So, there may be some similarities but I think each of these uprisings or revolutions, whatever you say, happened due to absolutely domestic issues. You know, at the end of the day, it's people who sacrifice. Yes, external actors may have interest, may have instigated in one way or other, may have even supported one way or other, but that they can do because there is a space for them to do. If the space is not there, if there is no what you call division, if there is no authority and structure or exploitation or dissatisfaction or alienation, then I don't think the external factor works. It's the internal dynamics that we have to look into. And then of course, one can see some similarities but I will rule out that somebody on the top is doing everything. I don't think that is how it works it had been in the past like you say Cold War era, there is the when the world was bipolar one faction and another faction they used to do such things. Maybe that is why people are today also saying someone is orchestrating. All these are all planned things.

What do you think, like you said in the beginning, in the multipolar world, the small states like Nepal has a role. So, how do you think the small states should be prepared to play that role?
Well, first I have to say that I don't take Nepal to be a small state. I think the small power is okay but not a small state. Largely because there is a UN definition of small state and also, I believe if I am not wrong, WHO also has a definition of small state. Nepal doesn't fall into that definition. It's a small power. I think what we need to see the positive side of Nepal is that first Nepal was never colonized. That allows Nepal in many ways to maneuver in a way particular thought processes it doesn't have the hang-ups that some of the South Asian countries have, including Bangladesh or India, we are highly colonized. Ashish Nandy used to always say that the British have left, the physical colonialism has gone but mental colonialism still remains. So, we are highly mentally still colonized. So, Nepal has an advantage of not being colonized. So, it can actually have an education structure qualitatively different from rest of the South Asian countries. Although, because the Nepali scholars studied in the West or studied in India or in South Asia, they also get infected by the colonial discourse and ends up with the colonized mind. So, advantage is in history. The second advantage is Nepal's geographical position. Being at the center, literally the center of the earth. With the Himalayas and Mt Everest, it's the center of the earth, or the third pole. So, you are at the center. But more importantly Nepal has two big economies; one is China and another is India. And what a potential these two countries or two economies have. China has already shown. It's only that India is lagging behind for its own internal dynamics and I'm sure they have to rectify that and come up with extraordinary thinking to go even further. But you know with these two economies, there's no reason why Nepal will not emerge also as a developed economy because it can always fall back on both sides it should decide on not to be either or that's the only thing the moment it decides that we would engage with the multipolar world. And India is a polar as much as China is another polar, and not to mention other polar is also important.  I believe Nepal has a big future, and that is the reason AIDIA-MIAED has one of the pillars as Asian futures with Nepal at the center.
(First published in nepalkhabar.com -- https://en.nepalkhabar.com/news/detail/19802/)

Nepal could become BRICS-South Asia connectivity bridge

Today, Chinese President Xi Jinping landed in New Delhi for the two-day BRICS summit, the acronym was coined from the initials of Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC). South Africa joined as a full member in 2011, turning BRIC into BRICS.
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping are meeting together on the same platform for the first time in 10 years for the 18th summit of the BRICS, and at a time, when the world is witnessing a war in Ukraine and Iran.
Currently, BRICS has 11 full members: Russia, China, India, Brazil, South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the UAE became full members in 2024, while Indonesia became a full member in 2025.
Belarus, Bolivia, Kazakhstan, Cuba, Malaysia, Nigeria, Thailand, Uganda, Uzbekistan and Vietnam are the 10 Partner Countries in the group. With the expansion of BRICS, around 30 other countries have also expressed interest in joining the group.
For the two-day summit in New Delhi, influential world leaders from 21 countries and few outreach invitees and other participating representative are in New Delhi, where they will discuss on key global issues including global governance, multilateralism, trade and investment, technology, food and energy security, healthcare, disaster resilience and critical supply chains.
Held under India’s BRICS chairmanship this year, the summit’s main theme is ‘Building for Resilience, Innovation, Cooperation and Sustainability’.
On the first day of the summit, a closed-door session among BRICS member states will be held on ‘Inclusive Global Governance and Strengthening Multilateralism.’ The leaders will then visit the ‘Bharat Innovates’ exhibition at the Bharat Mandapam. The first day’s program will conclude with a joint tree-planting ceremony and a dinner hosted by the host Indian Prime Minister Modi.
On the second day, tomorrow, Prime Minister Modi will welcome representatives of 10 Partner Countries, along with leaders of the BRICS member states, to an open session. The session, titled ‘Resilience, Innovation, Cooperation and Sustainability: Shaping the Future for Inclusive Global Growth,’ will be attended by representatives from Belarus, Bolivia, Kazakhstan, Cuba, Malaysia, Nigeria, Thailand, Uganda, Uzbekistan and Vietnam.

What is BRICS for Nepal?
As the global geopolitical architecture fractures, giving way to a multipolar order, Nepal finds itself standing at a delicate yet defining juncture. For decades, the nation’s foreign policy mantra has been one of ‘amity with all,’ often translated into a cautious balancing act between its two massive neighbors. However, the expansion of BRICS, first agreed at Johannesburg in 2023 and subsequently bringing Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Indonesia into the group signals a tectonic shift in the Global South's economic consolidation. For Nepal, this is not merely a spectator sport. It is an invitation to re-evaluate its strategic leverage. The question is no longer ‘if’ Nepal should engage, but ‘how’.
The answer lies not in traditional diplomacy alone, but in the aggressive commercialization of our geography. Hydropower must cease to be viewed merely as an export commodity – megawatts (MW) sold to India – and must instead be rebranded as the bedrock of a regional clean-energy architecture. This is the economic bridge Nepal must build to float its candidacy for a ‘BRICS Partner Country’ status.
The logic is geopolitical as much as it is economic. BRICS is increasingly focused on energy security, financial cooperation, local-currency settlement and diversification of cross-border payment mechanisms. By pitching a ‘Regional Clean-Energy Platform,’ Nepal positions itself as the green battery for a bloc that includes the world's largest energy consumers (China and India) and ambitious new players looking for sustainable investment avenues.
Nepal’s proposition to BRICS should be audacious yet pragmatic: a trilateral clean-energy corridor linking Nepal's generation capacity with Indian and Bangladeshi markets that utilizes Nepal’s hydropower to stabilize the region's renewable transition. Nepal possesses the technical potential to generate over 40,000 MW. By framing this potential as a solution to the region's carbon deficits and energy intermittency, Nepal moves from being a landlocked nation to a ‘land-linked’ energy hub.
This platform could serve as the prerequisite for BRICS engagement. It signals to major powers like Moscow and Beijing, and even New Delhi, that Kathmandu is bringing tangible assets to the table, not just a strategic location. It transforms hydropower into a diplomatic instrument, a currency that can help Nepal receive a seat at the high table of the Global South.
Formal membership in BRICS brings with it the weight of geopolitical signaling that might currently be too heavy for Kathmandu's delicate balancing act. However, the newly created ‘Partner Country’ category – created in October 2024 Kazan summit – offers the perfect stratagem. Partner country status would give Nepal a formal platform for participation in BRICS consultations, while creating a diplomatic pathway to seek closer engagement with the New Development Bank (NDB) and other BRICS institutions. NDB financing, however, would require separate eligibility and institutional approval.
For Nepal, the pathway to this status must be paved with the hydro-power diplomacy mentioned above. Nepal must argue that the Himalayas are not just a border, but a shared ecological and economic resource that requires a transnational management framework. A BRICS Partner Country status provides the institutional backing to manage this resource without the conditionalities often imposed by Western financial institutions.
Thus, Nepal should not approach BRICS merely as a country seeking a membership but as a Partner Country offering a regional solution like ‘Himalayan Resilience Corridor Initiative (HRCI)’ and ‘Himalayan Climate, Glacier and Disaster Resilience Centre (HCGDRC)’. The first one could be a physical infrastructure and economic corridor, whereas HCGDRC could act as knowledge, monitoring and early-warning institution.
When Nepal becomes a Partner Country, it could formally propose the ‘Himalayan Resilience Corridor Initiative (HRCI)’ and ‘Himalayan Climate, Glacier and Disaster Resilience Centre (HCGDRC)’, which would be the crown jewel of the Nepal-BRICS framework, moving beyond simple energy trade to a comprehensive climate-security paradigm.
Though, BRICS already has energy, climate, infrastructure and disaster-risk agendas, Nepal could connect these existing BRICS priorities through HRCI, which could be envisioned as a multi-modal corridor integrating three critical pillars; Energy Grid Interconnectivity, Climate Adaptation Infrastructure and Green Hydrogen and Ecological Logistics.
Energy Grid Interconnectivity could be a high-voltage transmission backbone linking Nepal’s generation hubs with the load centers in India and Bangladesh – though Bangladesh is not yet the member of BRICS but aspires to become one and a member of BRICS-backed NDB – potentially extending northwards, financed by BRICS capital. Similarly, Climate Adaptation Infrastructure could utilize BRICS technology and funding to combat glacial lake outburst floods (GLOFs) and basin management. It will frame the Himalayas as a ‘Resilience’ asset, appealing to the climate-vulnerable nations within the BRICS sphere.
Likewise, Green Hydrogen and Ecological Logistics could help develop green hydrogen industries powered by seasonal hydro-surplus and establishing eco-friendly logistics routes that complement the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and India’s Act East policy, effectively turning Nepal into a transit lubricant for the region.
To make this a reality, the policymakers in Singha Durbar must pivot from reactive aid-rationing to proactive economic statecraft. The HRCI should be pitched not as a Nepali project, but as a BRICS project ‘hosted’ in Nepal. It serves the interests of China by securing its southern ecological flank and benefits India by providing renewable energy and disaster mitigation.
Furthermore, the HRCI offers an alternative narrative to the ‘debt trap,’ discourse. By structuring this under the BRICS framework – specifically aiming for NDB financing – Nepal can diversify its portfolio, ensuring that its infrastructure development is backed by a coalition of emerging economies rather than a single bilateral lender.
The waters of the Himalayas have flowed for millennia, sustaining civilizations below. It is time Nepal stopped viewing these rivers solely as resources to be tapped, but as currency to be traded on the geopolitical market. By floating the idea of a ‘Clean-Energy Platform’ and subsequently formalizing the ‘Himalayan Resilience Corridor Initiative’, Nepal can do more than just join BRICS; it can define its own relevance in a new world order.
Likewise, a BRICS-supported ‘Himalayan Climate, Glacier and Disaster Resilience Centre (HCGDRC)’ bringing the institutions together from Nepal, India, China, Bangladesh, Brazil, South Africa, and other BRICS partners could work in various areas including glacier monitoring, glacial lake monitoring, landslide monitoring, flood forecasting, seismic monitoring, satellite observation, AI-based disaster prediction, early warning systems, hydrological modelling and emergency communication. The objective of the Centre would be to move from post-disaster response to predictive resilience, which is also one of the key lessons from August 26 Bhotekoshi-Trishuli flash flood. Such a proposal would build on BRICS's existing work on climate change, disaster-risk reduction, energy cooperation and early-warning systems.
The bridge is ready to be built. The materials are our geography and our ambition. All that remains is the political will to lay the foundation.

(First published in nepalkhabar.com -- https://en.nepalkhabar.com/news/detail/19786/)

Nepal must move from climate diplomacy to climate litigation, but with proof, not in haste

Prime Minister Balendra Shah (Balen) is set to travel to New York for the 81st session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). The visit comes amid intense pressure in the aftermath of the Bhotekoshi-Trishuli River basin flash floods, a disaster that has claimed thousands of lives and left thousands more missing.
Though the UNGA is scheduled to begin on September 8, the high-level general debate will begin on September 22. And the visit of PM Shah is not only going to the first out of country official visit as he has not made a foreign visit since taking charge on March 27, but also will mark the shift in diplomacy as he is going to voice the concern of Nepal’s story of climate disaster despite Nepal’s less or no contribution to global carbon emission.
For decades, Nepal has gone to the world’s climate conferences or UNGA with the same message: we are among the countries most exposed to climate change, yet we have contributed almost nothing to the problem.
The message is true. But it is also no longer enough.
Nepal’s latest Himalayan catastrophe – as named ‘Himalayan Tsunami’ by some of the global media – has made the limits of conventional climate diplomacy brutally clear. The August 26 glacier-related disaster along the Nepal-China border has killed hundreds, left more than 5,000 still missing and inflicted extraordinary damage on infrastructure and livelihoods. Rescue operations have continued amid destroyed roads, bridges and hydropower facilities. Government’s preliminary estimates put reconstruction and rehabilitation needs at roughly $4 billion to $5 billion – close to a tenth of the country’s economy – while the latest reported assessment puts direct losses at about $2.56 billion.
The figures itself explains that this is not simply another natural disaster.
Scientists increasingly understand that a warming climate is destabilizing glaciers, permafrost and mountain slopes, increasing the risks of avalanches, glacial lake outburst floods, landslides and cascading disasters across the Hindu Kush Himalaya. Recent research on Nepal also finds that some extreme rainfall and heat events have become substantially more likely because of anthropogenic climate change.
Nepal therefore faces a strategic choice.
It can continue asking the international community for greater climate finance, stronger adaptation support and solidarity. Or it can begin asking a more difficult question: Who should pay for the losses that climate change is imposing on countries that did little to cause it?
The answer requires Nepal to move from climate diplomacy to compensation diplomacy, and eventually, where the legal and scientific evidence permits, to climate litigation.
This is not a call for confrontation. It is a call for a different conception of climate justice.
For years, Nepal has presented itself primarily as a vulnerable country. That identity has helped bring international attention and some financial support. But vulnerability without enforceable claims can easily become a permanent political condition: the vulnerable ask, the powerful promise, and the money arrives slowly, conditionally or inadequately.
Nepal should now become more than a country seeking assistance.
It should become a country asserting a claim.
The distinction matters.
The international climate regime has already recognized the principle of loss and damage. The creation of the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage marked an important institutional development. Yet establishing a fund is not the same as ensuring that countries suffering irreversible climate-related losses receive adequate compensation.
Nepal should therefore stop treating loss and damage as another development-finance programme.
It is a question of justice.
Consider the arithmetic. Nepal builds a road, bridge or hydropower plant with scarce domestic resources or borrowed money. And one fine day, a climate-amplified disaster destroys it. The government then borrows again to rebuild. If another disaster follows, it borrows once more.
At what point does climate change become a debt crisis?
This is the hidden economic cost of climate change for vulnerable developing countries like Nepal. Climate disasters do not merely destroy assets. They destroy the fiscal space needed to build new ones.
Nepal cannot indefinitely finance climate losses through domestic taxation and sovereign borrowing.
Nor should it.
The first step toward changing this equation is deceptively simple: Nepal must start keeping the bill.
The country needs a national Loss and Damage Account that records, systematically and scientifically, the economic consequences of climate-related disasters.
That account should go far beyond destroyed roads and buildings. It should measure lost agricultural output, electricity generation, tourism revenues, employment, household assets, public revenue, migration, displacement, ecosystem services and the long-term effects on human capital.
It should also distinguish between the immediate physical damage and the wider economic losses that unfold over years.
Most importantly, Nepal needs to invest in attribution science.
International climate diplomacy increasingly depends on the ability to establish whether and to what extent a particular event has been influenced by anthropogenic climate change. A recent study on Nepal specifically argues that stronger attribution studies, better data systems and improved institutional coordination would strengthen the country's ability to access international loss-and-damage finance.
This is where Nepal's climate policy must become much more sophisticated.
Emotion can establish moral urgency.
But evidence establishes a claim.
Thus, Nepal should adopt the second step that is compensation diplomacy.
Nepal should build a coalition of countries facing comparable circumstances: least-developed countries, mountain states, small island states and other climate-vulnerable developing economies.
But the objective should change.
Instead of repeatedly asking wealthy countries to increase voluntary assistance, Nepal should push for predictable, accessible and adequate mechanisms for financing unavoidable climate losses.
That could include grants rather than loans, concessional reconstruction finance, debt suspension following major climate disasters, debt restructuring, disaster clauses in sovereign borrowing and automatic financing triggered by objectively measured climate events.
This would not be charity.
It would be an attempt to distribute an increasingly globalized risk more fairly.
Nepal's argument should also be grounded in the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. Every country shares responsibility for addressing climate change, but historical contributions to atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations and national capacities to respond are profoundly unequal.
The country that contributed least cannot reasonably be expected to bear the entire cost of consequences produced by a global system it did little to create.
But diplomacy has limits.
That is where litigation enters.
Climate litigation should not be understood as Nepal's first resort. Nor should it become a theatrical exercise in naming and shaming major emitters.
It should be treated as a strategic instrument.
Nepal should establish a high-level Climate Litigation Task Force comprising international lawyers, climate scientists, economists, diplomats and constitutional and environmental law experts. Its first mandate should not be to file a lawsuit. It should be to determine whether a legally credible case exists.
What duties do states owe to countries exposed to climate-related harm?
What does international environmental law require regarding transboundary harm?
Can historical emissions be legally connected to specific categories of loss?
How should causation be established?
Can states claim remedies for climate-related harm through existing international judicial or quasi-judicial mechanisms?
These are difficult questions. The fact that they are difficult is precisely why Nepal should begin studying them now.
The objective is not necessarily to win a courtroom battle tomorrow.
The objective is to change the negotiating position today.
A country that possesses a credible legal strategy negotiates differently from a country that possesses only a moral appeal.
Nepal should understand this as leverage.
If a legal route is eventually found, it could be pursued. If it is not, the legal research would still strengthen Nepal's position in international negotiations by clarifying rights, obligations and evidentiary standards.
There is another dimension to this strategy.
Nepal should stop presenting the Himalayas merely as a fragile ecosystem in need of protection. The Himalayas should be understood as a global climate asset.
The region's glaciers and snowfields underpin water systems serving enormous populations across Asia. The stability of the Himalayan cryosphere matters not only to Nepal but to agriculture, energy, water security and human settlements far beyond its borders.
If the world considers Himalayan stability a global public good, the costs of protecting it cannot reasonably be assigned entirely to Himalayan countries.
Nepal should therefore propose an international Himalayan Climate Resilience and Loss and Damage Facility, financed through multilateral climate institutions and designed specifically for mountain risks.
“Such an initiative would finance glacier monitoring, early-warning systems, resilient infrastructure, scientific research and, crucially, unavoidable losses,” geologist Shree Kamal Dwevedi argues, adding that it would turn Nepal's vulnerability into diplomatic leverage.
But there is an important caveat. “Nepal must not turn climate litigation into a geopolitical weapon against either of its neighbors.”
The recent disaster occurred in a sensitive transboundary Himalayan environment. Questions about glacier instability, early-warning data, infrastructure and disaster information sharing deserve serious investigation. But attribution must not be confused with political accusation.
A serious climate claim requires evidence.
Nepal must therefore invest in precisely that evidence: satellite monitoring, glacier and permafrost research, hydrological data, hazard mapping, event attribution and transparent disaster accounting, he adds.
In future climate diplomacy, data will be power.
Nepal's diplomats should be able to arrive at international negotiations not merely with photographs of destroyed villages, but with a quantified claim, a scientific attribution assessment, an economic model and a legal memorandum.
That would change the conversation.
The country's message would no longer be: We are poor and vulnerable. Please help us.
It would become: We have suffered measurable losses from a global climate crisis. Here is the evidence. Here is the economic cost. Here is the legal basis for responsibility. Here is what a fair international response should look like.
That is the difference between aid-seeking diplomacy and rights-based diplomacy.
Nepal should also recognize that climate litigation is not necessarily about suing fossil-fuel companies or industrialized states for every disaster. The legal landscape is too complex for such simplistic claims. The more credible path may involve strategic litigation, advisory opinions, international legal interpretation and domestic legal action that establishes duties of prevention, disclosure, adaptation and protection.
The point is to create accountability where conventional diplomacy has failed to do so.
Nepal has been patient.
It has participated in climate negotiations. It has adopted national plans. It has pledged ambitious environmental goals. It has repeatedly highlighted the vulnerability of the Himalayas. Yet the gap between climate promises and climate finance remains enormous. Nepal estimates that implementing its adaptation priorities and climate commitments will require tens of billions of dollars.
The country cannot continue financing an international climate crisis from its own limited fiscal resources.
The August 26 disaster should therefore become a turning point.
Nepal needs a national Climate Justice and Compensation Strategy with five pillars: systematic loss-and-damage accounting, scientific attribution, compensation diplomacy, legal preparedness and strategic litigation.
The shift is conceptual as much as institutional.
Climate diplomacy asks the world to listen.
Compensation diplomacy asks the world to contribute.
Climate litigation asks the world to answer.
Nepal should be prepared for all three.
The Himalayas are warning us that the climate crisis is no longer a distant environmental problem. It is a question of national solvency, human security and international justice.
Nepal did not create this crisis.
But Nepal is paying for it.
The time has come to send the bill back to the world.
And PM Balendra Shah is expected to do the same in the 81st UNGA !!!
(Frist published in nepalkhabar.com -- https://en.nepalkhabar.com/news/detail/19696/)

More than one week on from Bhotekoshi floods, thousands of children remain without safe water and face rising risk of disease

More than one week after flash floods swept down the Bhotekoshi-Trishuli river basin in Nepal, at least 22,000 children urgently need safe drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene support, United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) said today.
Water supply systems have been damaged across the affected districts, from community schemes to larger networks, while sanitation facilities have been damaged and destroyed, a press note from the UNICEF reads, "At the same time, families are crowded into host households and holding centres, creating conditions that raise the risk of waterborne and infectious disease outbreaks."
“Every parent in these districts is now making the same calculation several times a day,” said UNICEF Representative in Nepal Alice Akunga in the press note. "Where can I get water, and is it safe to give to my child? When water systems and toilets have been damaged or destroyed, and dozens of people are sharing the same space, families face enormous challenges in maintaining safe hygiene. The risk of waterborne disease increases rapidly in these conditions, but it is preventable. That is why ensuring access to safe water, sanitation and hygiene is among our top priorities right now."
UNICEF has dispatched critical water, sanitation, and hygiene supplies for around 19,000 people in Rasuwa and Nuwakot, it claims. "These include more than 3,800 hygiene kits, 3,300 collapsible 10-litre jerrycans, 3,500 buckets, 3,500 one-litre mugs, 4,000 bottles of water treatment solution, and more than 1,000 tarpaulin sheets.
UNICEF is working with government counterparts and partners on disease surveillance, hygiene promotion, and outbreak prevention, with messages on safe hygiene, water handling, and household water treatment being carried through mobile messaging, radio, social media, and community networks. Mobile subscribers can reach validated advisories without data charges, and a network of more than 600 practitioners is extending outreach into affected communities.
As access improves, UNICEF will scale up emergency water supply, household water treatment and water-quality monitoring, temporary sanitation and handwashing facilities, and essential hygiene and menstrual hygiene supplies in communities and holding centres, it adds.
“Restoring communities’ access to safe water and sanitation is not a one-week job,” Akunga said. “We can provide water treatment products and emergency supplies today, and we are," she said, adding," But damaged water systems, pipelines, pumps, toilets and other sanitation infrastructure also need to be repaired and rebuilt. And they need to be rebuilt to withstand future floods, not simply restored to the way they were before. We need to make communities safer and more resilient. Otherwise, we will be having the same conversation again after the next disaster, and it will be children paying the price yet again."

भोटेकोसी विपद्ले बदल्यो कूटनीति– जलवायु ऋण होइन, अब क्षतिपूर्ति

बुधबार प्रतिनिधि सभाले जलवायु परिवर्तनबाट नेपालमा सिर्जित हानिनोक्सानी र राष्ट्रिय सुरक्षा चुनौतीलाई अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय स्तरमा अझ बलियो रूपमा उठाउन सरकारको ध्यानाकर्षण गराएको छ। भदौ १० गते भोटेकोसी र त्रिशूली नदी बेसिनमा गएको विनाशकारी बाढीले रसुवा, नुवाकोट र धादिङलगायत क्षेत्रमा भएको विनाशको सन्दर्भमा प्रतिनिधि सभाले विशेष प्रस्ताव पारित गरेको हो।
उक्त अवसरमा सभामुख डोलप्रसाद अर्यालले नेपालले अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय समुदायसमक्ष जलवायु न्यायको मुद्दा प्रभावकारी रूपमा उठाउनुपर्ने पनि बताए।
यससँगै जलवायु परिवर्तनबाट भएको हानिनोक्सानीबारे नेपालले आफ्नो आवाज स्पष्ट र बलियो बनाउने बाटो खुलेको छ। यसका साथै जलवायु परिवर्तनबाट उत्पन्न जोखिम अब वातावरणीय समस्या मात्र नभई राष्ट्रिय सुरक्षा चुनौतीको रूपमा नेपालले अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय स्तरमा स्थापित गर्न सहज पनि भएको छ। किनकि मानवसिर्जित तापक्रम वृद्धिका कारण हिमनदी र हिमतालमा परिवर्तन, हिमपहिरोको जोखिम वृद्धि तथा असामान्य वर्षाका घटना बढिरहेको सन्दर्भमा विपद् आइसकेपछि राहत तथा पुनर्निर्माणमा केन्द्रित हुने भन्दा हिमताल र हिमनदीको नियमित अध्ययन, अनुगमन तथा पूर्वतयारीलाई प्राथमिकता दिने कार्यमा नेपाल गम्भीर हुनुपर्ने अवस्था छ।
प्रतिनिधि सभाले बुधबार पारित गरेको प्रस्तावले नेपालको जलवायु कूटनीतिका अब कतातिर जान्छ भन्ने पनि संकेत गरेको छ। यसअघि भदौ १५ गते पनि नेपालका जनताको नामबाट विश्व बैंकलाई एउटा पत्र लेखिएको छ।
पत्रमा लेखिएको छः हामीलाई थप जलवायु ऋण होइन, ऐक्यबद्धता चाहिएको छ। हामीलाई जलवायु ऋण होइन, अनुदान चाहिएको छ।
पत्रमा भदौ १० गते भोटेकोसी र त्रिशूली नदी बेसिनमा गएको विनाशकारी बाढी तथा पहिरोको राहत र पुनरुत्थानका लागि विश्व बैंकले नेपाललाई प्रस्ताव गरेको सहुलियतपूर्ण वित्तपोषणप्रति गहिरो चासो र साथै आपत्ति पनि प्रकट गरिएको छ।
‘यो कुनै सामान्य प्राकृतिक प्रकोप होइन, यो स्पष्ट रूपमा जलवायु संकटको बोझ हो। जसलाई नेपालले हरेक वर्ष सामना गर्दै आएको छ। जसले हाम्रा समुदाय, जीवन र जीविकोपार्जनलाई तहसनहस पारेको छ। हामीले हरेक वर्ष अर्बौं अमेरिकी डलर बराबरको आर्थिक र सहन नसकिने गैर–आर्थिक क्षति बेहोर्नुपरेको छ र यस्तो अवस्थामा पनि विश्व बैंक जस्ता अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय वित्तीय संस्थाहरूले नेपालको ऋणको बोझ थपेर जवाफ दिइरहेका छन्। यो स्पष्ट रूपमा मानवताविरुद्धको अपराध हो,’ पत्रमा भनिएको छ।
नेपालले आफूले नगरेको गल्तीको कारण निम्तिएको विनाशमा विश्व बैंकले ऋणको बोझ बोकाउन खोज्नु मानवता विरुद्धको अपराध हो भनेर विश्व बैंक समूहका अध्यक्ष तथा कार्यकारी निर्देशकहरूलाई सम्बोधन गरेर लेखिएको पत्रको बोधार्थ नेपालका प्रधानमन्त्री, अर्थ मन्त्रालय, नेपाल सरकार तथा विश्व बैंक नेपाल देशीय कार्यालयका नाममा पनि दिइएको छ।
पत्रमा अगाडि लखिएको छ, ‘बाढी गएलगत्तै विश्व बैंकले आफ्नो विपद्–वित्तपोषण संयन्त्रमार्फत नेपालको आपतकालीन प्रतिक्रियाको लागि करिब २५ अर्ब नेपाली रुपैयाँ परिचालन गर्न सकिने जनाएको छ। तर, विश्व बैंकको यो सहुलियतपूर्ण वित्तपोषण हो, अनुदान होइन। हामीले नगरेको गल्तीको लागि हामीलाई नै ऋण दिने अनि हामीसँग ब्याज लिने यस्तो व्यवस्था अर्थात् सहुलियतपूर्ण ऋण पनि ऋण नै हो र ऋण भनेको जलवायु न्याय होइन।’
जलवायु परिवर्तनका कारण हुने ठूला प्राकृतिक प्रकोपहरूसँग लड्न र त्यसबाट भएको क्षतिपूर्ति वा पुनःनिर्माणका लागि विकासोन्मुख राष्ट्रहरूलाई आर्थिक सहयोग गर्न स्थापित हानिनोक्सानी कोषको संक्रमणकालीन समितिका अनुसार नयाँ कोष र वित्तपोषण व्यवस्था अन्तर्गत हानि र नोक्सानीलाई सम्बोधन गर्ने सहयोगले विकासशील देशहरूको विकासका प्रयासलाई थप कुण्ठित गर्ने गरी उनीहरूको ऋणको बोझ बढाउने काम गर्नु हुँदैन।
किनकि नेपाल हरितगृह ग्यास उत्सर्जनमा सबैभन्दा कम योगदान गर्ने मुलुकमध्ये भएपनि विश्वका सबैभन्दा बढी जोखिममा पर्ने देशहरूमा पर्छ। तसर्थ, पत्रमा उल्लेख छ, ‘जलवायु संकटबाट उम्कन नेपाललाई ऋण तिर्न बाध्य पार्नु अत्यन्तै अन्यायपूर्ण छ र हामी विश्व बैंकलाई बाढी प्रतिक्रिया र पुनरुत्थानका लागि प्रस्ताव गरिएको ऋणलाई अनुदानमा परिणत गर्न माग गर्दछौं।’
नेपालमा बाढी आउँछ, पहिरो जान्छ, हिमताल फुट्छ, हिमपहिरो खस्छ। मानिस मर्छन्, बस्ती बग्छन्, सडक र पुल भत्किन्छन्, जलविद्युत् आयोजना क्षतिग्रस्त हुन्छन्। केही दिन राज्य संयन्त्र सक्रिय हुन्छ। राहत घोषणा हुन्छ। अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय समुदायले पनि समवेदना व्यक्त गर्छ। तर, नेपाल सरकार विश्व बैंकसँग ऋण लिएर पुनर्निर्माण तथा पुनस्र्थापनाको काम गर्छ। यो क्रम अब रोकिनु पर्छ। किनकि हिमालमा भइरहेको परिवर्तनलाई अब नयाँ ऋण दिने बहानाको रुपमा हेर्न मिल्दैन।
पत्रमा अगाडि लेखिएको छ, ‘तसर्थ, हामी विश्व बैंकलाई नेपालको बाढी प्रतिक्रिया र पुनरुत्थानका लागि प्रस्तावित वित्तपोषणलाई ऋणबाट अनुदानमा तुरुन्तै परिणत गर्न, तात्कालिक प्रतिक्रिया र पुनरुत्थानका लागि दिइने सबै सहयोगले सार्वभौम ऋणको बोझ नबढाउने कुरा सुनिश्चित गर्न, हानि र नोक्सानी कोषमा पहुँच पाउन नेपाललाई सहयोग गर्न र प्रस्तावित वित्तपोषणमा पूर्ण पारदर्शिता प्रदान गर्न आह्वान गर्दछौं।’
‘हामी (नेपालका जनता) नेपाल सरकारलाई हामीसँग दृढतापूर्वक उभिन र विश्व बैंकको नयाँ ऋण प्रस्तावलाई स्पष्ट रूपमा अस्वीकार गर्न तथा समुदायको चिहानमाथि, मानवता विरुद्धको अपराध नगर्न आह्वान गर्दछौं। नेपालले विश्व बैंक र अन्य अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय वित्तीय संस्थाहरूलाई विपद् प्रतिक्रिया, पुनरुत्थान र पुनर्निर्माणका लागि ऋण होइन, अनुदान उपलब्ध गराउन माग गर्नुपर्छ,’ पत्रमा लेखिएको छ।
भदौ १० गते बिहान लाङटाङ–लिरुङ क्षेत्रको करिब ५ हजार २०० मिटर उचाइबाट खसेको हिम, बरफ, चट्टान र गेग्रानको विशाल पिण्डले तलको ल्हेन्दे खोलामा पुगेपछि भयावह बाढीको रूप लियो। हालसम्म उपलब्ध प्रारम्भिक आकलनअनुसार ठूलो मात्रामा गेग्रानसहितको लेदो नदी एकैपटक गडगडाएर भोटेकोसी–त्रिशूली करिडोरतर्फ फैलियो। अनि यो प्रकोपको विनाशले केही घण्टामै बस्ती, सडक, पुल, ऊर्जा संरचना र व्यापारिक सम्पर्कलाई तहसनहस पार्‍यो।
यस्तो अनपेक्षित र प्रलयकारी विपत्तिका कारण सयौं स्वदेशी तथा विदेशी नागरिकहरूले मृत्युवरण गर्न पुगेका छन् भने हजारौं मानिसहरू अझैसम्म हराईरहेका छन्। बाढीका कारण खर्बौँ रुपैयाँ बराबरको भौतिक सम्पत्ति क्षति भएको छ। दर्जनौं पक्की पुल बगेका छन्। करिब ९०० मेगावाटका एक दर्जनभन्दा बढी जलविद्युत आयोजनाहरू प्रभावित भएका छन्। पचासौं किलोमिटर सडकहरू, हजारौं घर तथा व्यापारिक भवनहरूका साथै हजारौं हेक्टर खेतीयोग्य जमिनमा पूर्ण तथा आंशिक क्षति भएको छ।
साथै, शिक्षा, स्वास्थ्य, सार्वजनिक सेवा लगायतका सरकारी संरचनाहरू ध्वस्त भएका छन्। बाढीले भौतिक तथा मानविय क्षति पुर्‍याउनुका साथै हजारौं वर्षदेखिको नदी किनाराको मानव सभ्यता समेत तहसनहस पारेको छ।
परम्परागत मनसुनी बाढीमा वर्षा, नदीको सतह र पानीको बहावका आधारमा केही समय पूर्वसूचना दिन सकिन्छ। तर हिमाली ढलानबाट अचानक ठूलो परिमाणमा बरफ, चट्टान र गेग्रान तल खस्दा त्यसले सिर्जना गर्ने बाढीको प्रकृति तथा गति फरक हुन्छ। यस्तो घटनामा पूर्वसूचनाका लागि उपलब्ध समय अत्यन्त छोटो हुन सक्छ।
यसले नेपाललाई एउटा कठोर पाठ दिएको छः हामीसँग बाढीको पूर्वसूचना प्रणाली भए पनि त्यो हिमालबाट अचानक उत्पन्न हुने उच्च गतिको बाढीका लागि अझै अपर्याप्त छ। त्यसैले अब प्रश्न उद्धार र राहतको मात्र होइन। प्रश्न जोखिमको पुनर्मूल्यांकनको हो।
विपद्पछि हाम्रो पहिलो प्रतिक्रिया भत्किएको सडक र पुल बनाउनु हो। तर जुन ठाउँमा जोखिमको स्वरूप नै बदलिइसकेको छ, त्यही ठाउँमा पुरानै संरचना फेरि बनाउनु पुनर्निर्माण होइन, अर्को विपदलाई निम्तो हुन्छ।
अब पुनर्निर्माणको प्रश्न ‘कति खर्च लाग्छ?’ मात्र होइन, ‘कहाँ र कस्तो पूर्वाधार बनाउने?’ भन्ने हो। किनकि जलवायु परिवर्तनले जोखिम बढाइरहेको अवस्थामा विगतका बाढीको तथ्यांक मात्र हेरेर भविष्यको पूर्वाधार डिजाइन गर्न सकिँदैन।
अझ यो भन्दा ठूलो प्रश्न नेपालको अर्थतन्त्रसँग जोडिएको छ।
विश्वलाई नै थाहा छ, नेपालको विश्वव्यापी हरितगृह ग्यास उत्सर्जनमा योगदान ०.१ प्रतिशत मात्र अर्थात् नगण्य छ। तर जलवायुजन्य जोखिमको सबैभन्दा अग्रपंक्तिमा नेपाल नै छ। हिमनदीको तीव्र परिवर्तन, हिमतालको जोखिम, पहिरो, बाढी र मौसमको चरम परिवर्तनीय घटनाले नेपालको पूर्वाधार, कृषि, ऊर्जा, पर्यटन र जीविकोपार्जनमा प्रत्यक्ष असर पारिरहेको छ।
यहीँनेर प्रतिनिधि सभाले बुधबार पारित गरेको तथा नेपालका जनताको नामबाट विश्व बैंकलाई लेखिएको पत्रमा उठाइएको मुलप्रश्न, ‘अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय जलवायु न्याय’को सन्दर्भ आउँछ। विश्वका सबै देशले समान मात्रामा कार्बन उत्सर्जन गर्दैनन्। सबैको ऐतिहासिक जिम्मेवारी पनि समान छैन। र जलवायुजन्य क्षति सामना गर्ने आर्थिक क्षमता पनि सबैको समान छैन।
‘साझा तर विभेदित उत्तरदायित्व’को सिद्धान्त यही असमानतालाई स्वीकार गर्ने अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय जलवायु व्यवस्थाको महत्वपूर्ण आधार हो। समस्या के हो भने यो सिद्धान्त त स्वीकार गरिएको छ, तर त्यसअनुसारको आर्थिक उत्तरदायित्व अझै पर्याप्त रूपमा कार्यान्वयन गरिएको छैन। त्यसैले, नेपालले यही अन्तरलाई अब आफ्नो कूटनीतिक एजेन्डा बनाउनुपर्छ।
वर्षौंदेखि नेपालले विश्वलाई भनिरहेको छ, ‘हामी जलवायु परिवर्तनका कारण जोखिममा छौं, हामीलाई जलवायु वित्त चाहिन्छ, हिमालय बचाउनुपर्छ।’ विश्वले सुन्दै पनि आएको छ तर यसपटक नराम्रोसँग देखियो पनि। त्यसैले अब भाष्य बदल्ने समय आएको छ।
जलवायु कूटनीति अब पर्याप्त छैन। जलवायु मुद्दासम्बन्धी कानुनी सम्भावनासमेत गम्भीरतापूर्वक अध्ययन गरेर नेपालले क्षतिपूर्ति कूटनीति सुरु गर्नुपछ। तर, यसमा सावधानी पनि अपनाउनु पर्छ। यो कुनै देशविरुद्धको क्षणिक आक्रोश होइन। यो अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय कानुन, वैज्ञानिक प्रमाण र जलवायु न्यायलाई आर्थिक उत्तरदायित्वसँग जोड्ने रणनीति हो। सबैभन्दा पहिले नेपालले आफ्नो क्षतिको दस्तावेजीकरण गरेर प्रमाण तयार गर्नुपर्छ।
प्रत्येक ठूलो जलवायुजन्य विपद्को प्रत्यक्ष र अप्रत्यक्ष क्षतिको लेखाजोखा हुनुपर्छ। सडक र पुल मात्र होइन, कृषि उत्पादन, ऊर्जा उत्पादन, पर्यटन, रोजगारी, विस्थापन, शिक्षा, सामाजिक संरचना, सार्वजनिक ऋण र स्थानीय अर्थतन्त्रमा परेको प्रभावसमेत गणना गर्नुपर्छ।
कुन घटना सामान्य प्राकृतिक प्रक्रियाको परिणाम हो? कुन जोखिम जलवायु परिवर्तनले बढाएको हो? तापक्रम वृद्धि, हिमनदीको अवस्था, हिमतालको अस्थिरता र चरम मौसमबीचको सम्बन्ध कति बलियो छ? यस्ता प्रश्नको वैज्ञानिक उत्तरबिना अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय क्षतिपूर्तिको दाबी कमजोर हुन्छ। त्यसैले नेपालले जलवायु कारण निर्धारणसम्बन्धी अध्ययनमा लगानी गर्नुपर्छ। कूटनीतिमा भावनाले सहानुभूति त प्राप्त गर्न सकिन्छ तर दाबी गर्न प्रमाण चाहिन्छ।
नेपालले हरेक ठूलो विपद्पछि प्रस्तुत गर्न सकिने वैज्ञानिक र आर्थिक ‘क्षतिपूर्ति दाबीसम्बन्धी दस्तावेज’ तयार गरेर हानि तथा नोक्सानीलाई नेपालको जलवायु कूटनीतिको मुलमुद्दा बनाउनुपर्छ। र संयुक्त राष्ट्रसंघीय जलवायु प्रक्रियामा हानि तथा नोक्सानी सम्बन्धी वित्तीय संयन्त्रबाट नेपालले लाभ लिन सक्ने गरी आफ्नो संस्थागत क्षमता निर्माण गर्नुपर्छ।
अनि, जलवायु वित्तलाई नयाँ परियोजना वा ऋण प्राप्त गर्ने अवसरका रूपमा मात्र पनि हेर्नु हुँदैन। भूगर्भविद् श्रीकमल द्विवेदीका अनुसार त्यो वित्त जलवायुजन्य प्रकोप न्यूनीकरणमा लगाउनु पर्छ। अन्यथा फेरि नीति निर्माणका नाममा दुरुपयोग हुने खतरा छ। नेपालले हतारमा यसलाई राजनीतिक मुद्दा बनाइहाल्ने भन्दा पनि अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय कानुनविद्, जलवायु वैज्ञानिक, अर्थशास्त्री, कूटनीतिज्ञ र विश्वविद्यालयहरूलाई समेटेर जलवायु कानुनी कार्यदल गठन गर्नु आवश्यक भएको उनको तर्क छ।
यो कार्यदलले कानुनी दायित्व, वैज्ञानिक कारण निर्धारण र आर्थिक क्षतिको सम्बन्ध स्थापित गरेपछि नेपालले अदालतमा नजाने निर्णय नै गरे पनि विश्वसनीय कानुनी रणनीति आफैंमा एउटा कूटनीतिक शक्ति बन्छ। अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय वार्तामा शक्ति केवल ठूलो अर्थतन्त्रबाट मात्र आउँदैन। प्रमाण, कानुनी तयारी र वैकल्पिक रणनीतिबाट पनि आउँछ।
द्विवेदीका अनुसार हिमनदी र हिमताल निगरानी, पूर्वसूचना प्रणाली, जलवायु अनुसन्धान, जोखिमयुक्त पूर्वाधारको पुनर्निर्माण, समुदायको पुनर्स्थापना र अपरिहार्य हानि तथा नोक्सानीको वित्तीय सम्बोधनसम्म यसको दायरा फैलाएर अझ चीन र भारतसँगको कूटनीतिक सम्बन्धलाई पनि जलवायु सुरक्षाको दृष्टिले पुनः परिभाषित गर्नु आजको आवश्कता हो।
हिमालका नदी, हिमनदी, हिमताल र पहिरोले राजनीतिक सीमा चिन्दैनन्। त्यसैले वास्तविक समयमा सूचना आदानप्रदान, हिमनदी तथा हिमताल निगरानी, नदी बेसिन व्यवस्थापन, पूर्वसूचना र सीमापार अनुसन्धानका लागि नयाँ क्षेत्रीय संयन्त्र आवश्यक छ। विशेषतः उत्तरी हिमाली क्षेत्रमा उत्पन्न जोखिम केही घण्टामै नेपाली बस्तीलाई सोत्तर पार्न सक्ने यसै घटनाबाट प्रमाणित भइसकेको छ।
अनि जलवायु कूटनीति अब वातावरण मन्त्रालयको मात्र विषय रहन सक्दैन। यो अर्थ मन्त्रालय, परराष्ट्र मन्त्रालय, ऊर्जा, भौतिक पूर्वाधार, पर्यटन, कृषि र राष्ट्रिय सुरक्षाको विषय पनि हो। नेपालले अब अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय जलवायु सम्मेलनमा केवल ‘हामी जोखिममा छौं’ भन्नु भन्दा आफ्नो क्षतिको हिसाबकिताब स्पष्टरुपमा प्रस्तुत गर्नुपर्छ। यस्तै, अब अनुकूलन वित्त माग्नु मात्र पनि पर्याप्त छैन। हानि तथा नोक्सानीको दाबी गर्नुपर्छ। नेपाल सहानुभूति खोज्ने देश होइन, अब जलवायु न्यायको दाबीकर्ताका रूपमा उभिनुपर्छ। र बुधबारको प्रतिनिधि सभाले सरकारलाई दिएको निर्देशन पनि यही हो।
‘हामी गरिब छौं, सहयोग गरिदिनुहोस्’ भन्ने भाष्यबाट अब नेपालले ‘हामी जलवायु संकटको अग्रपंक्तिमा छौं, यसको असमान लागत बाँडिनुपर्छ’ भन्ने भाष्य बनाउनतिर लाग्नुपर्छ।
र, ‘राहत चाहियो’ बाट ‘हानि तथा नोक्सानीका लागि वित्त चाहियो’ भन्नेतर्फ जानुपर्छ।
अनि, ‘परियोजना चाहियो’ बाट ‘दीर्घकालीन जलवायु उत्थानशील विकासका लागि वित्त चाहियो’ भन्नेतर्फ जानुपर्छ।
र, सबैभन्दा महत्वपूर्ण, ‘विपद् प्राकृतिक हो’ भन्ने पुरानो सोचबाट ‘जलवायु परिवर्तनले जोखिम बढाएको छ र त्यसको लागत पनि न्यायपूर्ण रूपमा बाँडिनुपर्छ’ भन्ने नयाँ यथार्थतर्फ जानुपर्छ।
अनि नेपालका जनताको नामबाट विश्व बैंकलाई पठाइएको पत्रमा लेखिएझैंः
हामीलाई थप जलवायु ऋण होइन, ऐक्यबद्धता चाहिएको छ।
हामीलाई जलवायु ऋण होइन, अनुदान चाहिएको छ।
अनि जलबायु न्याय चाहिएको छ।
हिमालले चेतावनी दिएको धेरै भयो।
अब नेपालले त्यो चेतावनीलाई सुस्तरी होइन, अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय मञ्चमा सुनिनेगरी उठाउनु पर्छ।

(First published in Nepalkhabar.com - https://nepalkhabar.com/opinion/285837-2026-9-3-10-56-25)

Nepal floods hit vulnerable communities as UNDP estimates 2.2 million tonnes of debris

Floods and mudflows along Nepal’s Bhote Koshi-Trishuli river system have left at least 2.2 million tonnes of debris within the analysed areas, according to a preliminary estimate by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).
The flash flood, reportedly triggered by a glacial collapse on August 26, swept water, mud and rocks through communities in the affected districts. Nepal has reported over 1,000 dead, with over 4,000 people reported missing.
A total of 10,451 people has been rescued to date. Likewise, some 11 hydropower stations and one solar plant, totalling 431.1 megawatts (MW), had stopped operating. Another 15 power projects under construction, with a planned capacity of 470 MW, were also damaged.
The floods have hit communities already facing hardship.
The floods have struck communities that were already among the most vulnerable in Nepal. Around three in four affected people were living in areas where people already faced greater difficulties with their livelihoods, access to basic services and living conditions.
“This is a devastating disaster for communities along the Trishuli corridor," UNDP Resident Representative in Nepal Kyoko Yokosuka said, adding that families have lost loved ones, homes and livelihoods, while entire communities are struggling to reconnect with essential services and one another. "The scale of destruction is immense, and as the immediate response continues, we must make sure that recovery reaches the people who have been hit hardest and helps them rebuild safely and with greater resilience."
Government figures show that 84,270 people have been affected across 17 municipalities in six districts. Most of the affected municipalities are rural and in Nepal’s hill regions, where 67.4 per cent of people work in agriculture. For households dependent on agriculture, damage to crops, livestock and farmland could have a lasting impact on food security and family incomes. Nepal’s main monsoon planting season runs from June through September, making the timing of the floods particularly difficult for farming communities.
For this assessment, UNDP has combined satellite-based building damage assessments from Copernicus EMS and SERTIT with other available data and locally adapted engineering estimates to map the scale and location of debris. The preliminary findings will be updated as additional information becomes available.
RAPIDA is UNDP’s Rapid Assessment and Analysis for Immediate Recovery and Development Action methodology, which provides governments and partners with timely evidence to inform early recovery planning following disasters.
The debris includes parts of buildings, household belongings, vegetation, rocks and sediment. An estimated 556,200 tonnes comes from building debris, based on satellite assessments of damage covering 2,359 buildings. This figure is expected to rise as more damage is identified.
For families and rescue teams, the debris is more than a measure of the destruction: people remain trapped or missing beneath collapsed buildings and piles of mud and debris, making rescue operations difficult and dangerous.
The amount of debris shows the scale of the destruction and the challenge communities face as they clear homes, roads and public spaces and begin to rebuild. Damage to hydropower and other energy infrastructure has also disrupted electricity supplies, adding to the difficulties faced by communities and slowing the restoration of essential services.