Submit your Article

Competing national interests and newer threats, compounded by climate change and rapid technological modernization, demand intensive diplomatic action. Nepal-India relations, often strained by seemingly trivial political disputes, have witnessed numerous attempts to disrupt the strategic relationship between the two countries. The border disputes and political disagreements to the Hrithik Roshan controversy and the failed “blockade” narrative of 2015 are now examples of attempts to disrupt relations that has proved bizarrely resilient. The remarkable feature of this connection is not that Nepal and India agree on everything. More often, they do not. Nevertheless, the military relationship has repeatedly survived disagreements, often triggered by political hiccups. The real test of diplomacy is not what happens when relations are good. It is what remains when relations are bad. From the post-independence military contacts associated with General K. M. Cariappa, through the institutionalization of the reciprocal honorary-general tradition, to the visits of Generals Bipin Rawat, Purna Chandra Thapa, M. M. Naravane, Prabhuram Sharma, Upendra Dwivedi, Ashok Raj Sigdel, and Dhiraj Seth, the military channel has repeatedly remained cordial and open. However, this relationship should not remain mere ceremonial trivia; it should evolve into a deeper strategic bond that contributes to a safer South Asia.

The honorary general tradition should not be limited to a theatrical ceremony. 

The Nepal-India relationship entered one of its most difficult phases in 2020 amid the Kalapani–Limpiyadhura and Lipulekh dispute. Yet in November that year, Indian Army Chief General M.M. Naravane travelled to Nepal, met Nepal Army Chief General Purna Chandra Thapa and discussed defense cooperation. A remarkable episode that reminds us that a military channel did not solve the border dispute. Nor should anyone pretend that it did. However, it demonstrated something arguably more important that a disagreement between governments did not pull-down institutional communication. That is precisely what a strategic shock absorber is supposed to do. 

India’s Chief of Army Staff, General Dhiraj Seth, who is scheduled to visit Nepal on August 16, 2026, represents the continuation of an institutionalized tradition dating back to the 1960s. This practice has fostered extraordinary military-to-military communication between the two armies. Each serving Army Chief becoming an honorary General of the other army represents a recognition of institutional equality, historical connection, and professional respect. The two flags, uniforms, medals, military academies, and ceremonial honours create an institutional bond. They tell successive generations of officers that the relationship predates the current government and should outlast every political dispute. Joint Exercise should be more than just a typical counter-insurgency drill. Both countries should consider expanding their collaboration in high-altitude disaster response, mountain rescue, humanitarian aid, peacekeeping, medical support, communications, unmanned systems, and cyber resilience. The collaboration would provide the operational value without turning it into an alliance. Such cooperation would make military diplomacy relevant to the security of ordinary Nepalese citizens rather than merely to elite ceremony.

Although the Agnipath recruitment system has created uncertainty for Gurkhas within the military relationship, it is undeniable that the Gurkha link is the most socially ingrained aspect of military diplomacy between India and Nepal. The connection is not limited to Generals seated across from one another at a conference table. It reaches Nepali villages, families, communities, and veterans. This creates a social and military constituency that traditional diplomacy seldom has. In Nepal, a retired soldier is more than just a former employee of the Indian government. He may also serve as a living conduit between two communities. This aspect was especially evident during General Upendra Dwivedi’s visit in 2024, when he engaged with former soldiers in Pokhara. Thus, military diplomacy is a significant component of foreign relations and should not be limited to the barracks.

China-Nepal-India the diplomatic quagmire  

Nepal being situated between two Asian giant nations, Nepal’s foreign relations with immediate neighbors should not be trend as a choice between two competing powers. No one as either. India remains Nepal's most trusted military partner while respecting Kathmandu's determination to preserve strategic autonomy. Given the presupposition made above, India should even more seek a strong Nepal Army relationship precisely while respecting Nepal's sovereign strategic choices. Beijing has legitimate interests in Tibet-related security, political influence, connectivity, and regional positioning, and its military diplomacy in Nepal is expanding. However, a strictly competitive strategy would be ineffective. Nepal’s strategic autonomy should not be interpreted as anti-India. Nepal is not merely a strategic buffer. It is a nation with its own political disputes, strategic plans, and interests. Therefore, demanding exclusivity in a not apt way to respond a strong influence. Rather India provide an exceptional relationship. India should equip and delve into a more sophisticated military training with Nepal. India Nepal are the most natural partner to collaborate with in every way. Especially in needs disaster response capability. 

The case for a new military-diplomatic compact

India should thus offer a new Nepal-India Military Diplomacy 2035 framework. Its guiding premise should be straightforward: deep collaboration without strategic dominance; institutional interconnections without political intervention; interoperability without alliance; and security cooperation without jeopardizing Nepal's sovereign decisions. This approach might define four priorities. 

First, establish an annual strategic communication between the two armies. The COAS's call was more than just a formality, as it included an organized overview of regional security, disaster response, peacekeeping, border difficulties, and emerging technology. 

Second, emphasis on Joint exercises such as Surya Kiran to develop interoperability. Move from a mostly conventional simulation to a comprehensive high-altitude mountain-warfare, logistics, and security exercise, as well as a HADR exercise that includes drones, medical evacuation, communications, and disaster response.

Third, strengthen the human connection. Increase officer exchange, defense-college cooperation, veteran involvement, and military research partnership.

Fourth, make Nepal a partner in India's regional humanitarian and disaster relief efforts.

Finally, Nepal-India military diplomacy has survived monarchies, republics, political crises, constitutional transitions, border disputes, and changing geopolitical alignments. That resilience should not be romanticized. It should be studied. Its weakness is that it can sometimes become too ceremonial. Its challenge is that Nepal’s strategic autonomy is growing. Its environment is changing because other powers are expanding their military-diplomatic engagement and because the military-diplomatic approached and warfare are changed.

The reciprocal honorary-general tradition, the Gorkha connection, professional military education, veterans’ networks, and regular COAS exchanges constitute an extraordinary reservoir of strategic trust. India’s official bilateral assessment continues to describe defence and security cooperation as robust and institutionalized, while highlighting training, exercises, equipment, honorary-general exchanges, and the Gorkha connection.

In a decision that will be cited for years to come, the Supreme Court of Nepal recently waded into the complex waters of capital market regulation. The case (080-WO-0476), initiated by Advocate Bhimsen Rayamajhi, challenged the right of Himalayan Reinsurance Ltd to issue shares at a premium—charging the public Rs 206 per share while founders paid only the Rs 100 face value.

While the court ultimately allowed the IPO to stand because the shares had already been allotted, its reasoning has exposed a worrying friction between legal literalism and the ‘financial spirit’ of modern markets.

The petitioner’s argument was rooted in fairness. Drawing on Articles 16, 17, 18, 20, 25, 46, and 133 of the Constitution, the challenge argued that charging the public more than the founders was discriminatory and harmful to common investors.

The court’s ruling of bench of justices Manoj Kumar Sharma and Shrikanta Paudel on April 28 pivoted on Section 45(5) of the Insurance Act, 2079. This section mandates that companies must collect ‘100 percent of the face value’ during an IPO. In a move that surprised many financial analysts, the court designated this as a ‘Special Law’. In legal theory, a special law overrides general ones like the Company Act or the Securities Act, which explicitly allow premium pricing for successful companies. By sticking to the letter of the Insurance Act, the court effectively ruled that for insurance companies, the face value is a ceiling, not just a floor.

The most stinging critique of the ruling, found within the sources, is that it may be based on a technical misunderstanding of ‘Call Money’. Historically, companies would collect only a portion of the share price upfront (e.g., 25 percent) and ‘call’ for the rest later. Section 45(5) was likely intended to ensure that 100 percent of the value is paid upfront to prevent unstable capital structures.

By interpreting ‘100 percent of face value’ as a ban on premiums, the court has ignored the reality that Himalayan Reinsurance had met every modern financial benchmark, including an authorized capital of Rs 21bn and a paid-up capital of Rs 7bn, an ‘A-’ credit rating from ICRA Nepal, and detailed Due Diligence Audits (DDA) by independent experts.

Under international standards like Nepal Financial Reporting Standards (NFRS) and Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), a share premium is not ‘found money’ for the company to blow; it is legally required to be held in a Share Premium Reserve Account and cannot be paid out as cash dividends.

Perhaps the most significant part of the judgment is the court’s blunt criticism of the Securities Board of Nepal (SEBON) and the Nepal Insurance Authority. The court ruled that these bodies failed in their ‘legal responsibility’ by approving the premium in the first place, accusing them of ignoring the ‘Special Law’ in favour of general securities regulations.

To remedy this, the court issued a directive for these regulators to coordinate and ensure that every rupee of the premium is locked in a ‘Jageda Kosh’ (Reserve Fund). While this ensures the money is safe, it signals a lack of judicial confidence in the very institutions meant to govern the markets.

The sources argue that this case is a ‘living example’ of why Nepal needs a Specialised Commercial Bench or a Securities Tribunal. Corporate finance is a language of its own. When judges interpret these laws through a purely civil lens, it creates ‘unimaginable examples’ of legal confusion that can stifle both domestic growth and foreign investment.

If Nepal wants a thriving capital market, its legal interpretations must evolve alongside its financial ones. Protecting investors is vital, but that protection should not come at the expense of the basic economic logic that allows companies to grow. Until the law is clarified, the ‘premium’ on investing in Nepal remains high—not just in terms of rupees, but in terms of legal uncertainty.

The author is a member of the Supreme Court Bar and has been practicing corporate law for around three decades

The hospitality industry has always been associated with beautiful buildings, luxurious interiors, elegant restaurants, and perfectly made beds. Hotel owners invest millions in architecture, premium furniture, advanced technology, and sophisticated amenities, believing that these elements define a great hotel. While these investments certainly enhance the guest experience, they are not what guests carry with them long after they have checked out.

Ask someone about the most memorable hotel they have ever stayed in, and chances are they will not describe the size of the television, the design of the bathroom, or the thread count of the bedsheets. Instead, they will talk about the receptionist who greeted them with genuine warmth after a long and exhausting journey. They will remember the waiter who surprised them with a birthday dessert. They will recall the housekeeping attendant who noticed they preferred extra pillows and quietly arranged them every evening without being asked. What stays with people is not the room itself, it is the feeling they experienced inside it.

This simple truth is often forgotten in today’s competitive hospitality industry. Hotels compete to build bigger lobbies, install smarter televisions, introduce digital check-ins, and offer more luxurious amenities. These improvements are important, but they are no substitute for genuine hospitality. A hotel can have the finest marble flooring and the most expensive furniture, yet still fail to create loyal guests if it cannot make them feel welcomed, respected, and valued.

Hospitality has never been about providing accommodation alone. It is about understanding that every guest arrives with a unique story. Some are travelling for business and carrying the pressure of important meetings. Some are celebrating milestones such as anniversaries, birthdays, or honeymoons. Others are visiting family after years apart, attending weddings, or even travelling during difficult moments of loss and uncertainty. Behind every reservation is a human being with emotions, expectations, and memories waiting to be created.

The responsibility of a hotel is not merely to provide a place to sleep. It is to make every guest feel comfortable, safe, appreciated, and cared for. That emotional connection is what transforms a stay into a lasting memory.

One of the greatest misconceptions in hospitality is that exceptional service requires extraordinary spending. In reality, the most meaningful experiences often cost almost nothing. A sincere smile, eye contact, remembering a returning guest’s name, helping an elderly traveller with luggage, offering directions before being asked, or simply asking, ‘How was your day?’ can create an impression that no luxury amenity can replace. These small gestures communicate something every guest wants to feel that they matter.

People rarely remember perfection, but they always remember kindness. A perfectly polished floor may go unnoticed, but a staff member who patiently helps a nervous first-time traveller will never be forgotten. Hospitality is built on these moments of genuine human connection.

Consider two hotels with similar facilities and room rates. Both have clean rooms, comfortable beds, reliable Wi-Fi, and good food. Yet one consistently receives glowing reviews while the other struggles to retain repeat guests. The difference is often invisible. It lies in the attitude of the people serving guests every day.

Guests quickly recognize whether a smile is genuine or rehearsed. They know when someone is listening because they truly care and when someone is simply following a standard operating procedure. Authenticity cannot be scripted. It comes from a workplace culture where employees themselves feel respected, motivated, and empowered.

This is why leadership plays such a critical role in hospitality. Managers who focus only on occupancy, revenue, and operational reports often overlook the emotional environment within their teams. Employees who work under constant pressure without recognition eventually lose their enthusiasm. They may continue performing their tasks, but the warmth disappears. Since hospitality is delivered through people, every internal culture eventually becomes part of the guest experience.

Great hotel leaders understand that taking care of employees is one of the best ways to take care of guests. When employees feel trusted and appreciated, they naturally extend that same respect to every guest they meet. A positive culture cannot be hidden behind office doors; it becomes visible in every greeting, every conversation, and every interaction throughout the property.

Housekeeping provides one of the clearest examples of this principle. Guests may never meet the person who prepares their room, yet they experience that person's work every moment they spend inside it. A spotless bathroom, crisp linen, neatly arranged amenities, and a fresh, welcoming atmosphere communicate professionalism without a single word. More importantly, they communicate care.

Housekeeping is often misunderstood as simply cleaning rooms. In reality, it is responsible for creating comfort, trust, and peace of mind. Guests do not inspect every corner of a room searching for perfection. They simply want to feel confident that someone prepared the room with attention and pride. That feeling allows them to relax.

The same philosophy applies to every department within a hotel. The Front Office creates the first impression. Food and Beverage creates memorable dining experiences. Engineering quietly ensures comfort behind the scenes. Security provides peace of mind. Sales promises an experience, while operations deliver it. Every department contributes to one shared objective making guests feel welcome.

Technology is changing hospitality faster than ever before. Mobile check-ins, digital room keys, artificial intelligence, and automated guest communication have improved efficiency and convenience. These innovations are valuable because they reduce waiting time and simplify operations. However, technology should support hospitality, not replace it.

A mobile application cannot recognize disappointment hidden behind a guest’s smile. Artificial intelligence cannot comfort a family whose flight has been cancelled or congratulate newlyweds celebrating the beginning of their lives together. Human empathy remains the greatest competitive advantage any hotel possesses.

Another defining moment in hospitality occurs when things go wrong. No hotel is perfect. Delayed room readiness, maintenance issues, service delays, or unexpected inconveniences are part of daily operations. What distinguishes outstanding hotels is not the absence of mistakes but the quality of their response.

When guests feel ignored, frustrated, or dismissed, the problem becomes much larger than the original issue. On the other hand, when employees take ownership, apologize sincerely, and act quickly to resolve concerns, guests often leave with even greater respect for the hotel than if nothing had gone wrong at all. Effective service recovery transforms disappointment into trust, proving that genuine care matters more than perfection.

In today’s digital world, guest experiences travel far beyond hotel walls. Every emotional moment has the potential to become an online review, a social media post, or a personal recommendation shared with family and friends. Positive reviews rarely describe room dimensions or furniture brands. Instead, they celebrate people. They mention employees by name, describe thoughtful gestures, and explain how the hotel made them feel during their stay.

That is the true measure of hospitality. Buildings may attract first-time guests, but emotions create repeat guests. Marketing campaigns may generate bookings, but memorable experiences generate loyalty.

Every hotel, regardless of its size or star rating, has the opportunity to create extraordinary experiences. A boutique hotel with limited facilities can earn stronger guest loyalty than a luxury resort if it consistently delivers warmth, authenticity, and genuine care. Hospitality has never been defined solely by luxury; it has always been defined by humanity.

As professionals in this industry, we often focus on checklists, occupancy percentages, average daily rates, and operational targets. These metrics are important because they measure business performance. Yet there is another measurement that deserves equal attention: how many guests left the property feeling happier than when they arrived?

That question captures the true purpose of hospitality. Every interaction is an opportunity to reduce someone’s stress, celebrate their happiness, solve a problem, or simply brighten their day. These moments may seem ordinary to employees, but they become extraordinary memories for guests.

At the end of every stay, guests rarely remember the colour of the curtains, the size of the room, or the design of the lobby. Those details gradually fade from memory. What remains is the warmth of the welcome, the kindness of the staff, the confidence that someone genuinely cares about their comfort, and the feeling of being treated as more than just another room number.

Hotels are built with concrete, steel, and glass. Successful brands are built with trust, consistency, and service. But unforgettable hospitality is built with something far more powerful than human emotions.

In a world where competitors can copy your room design, imitate your menu, match your prices, and even replicate your facilities, there is one thing they can never truly duplicate: the way your people make guests feel.

That is why the most successful hotels in the world understand a timeless truth. Guests may check out of a room, but they never check out of a feeling. And those feelings become stories, those stories become recommendations, and those recommendations become the foundation of a hotel’s reputation for years to come. Because in the end, guests may check out of a room, but they never check out of a feeling.

Nepal today stands at a critical intersection. Prime Minister Balendra Shah has captured public imagination with his compelling icon of modern governance, promising to separate politics from administration and insisting that the government must serve citizens rather than partisan interests. Yet the central question remains: Is PM Balendra truly governing, or merely presiding over government machinery? The honeymoon period has now ended, and the verdict on his first hundred days demands honest examination.

The promise and the reality

Within his first hundred days, PM Shah unveiled an ambitious ‘shopping list’ of reforms, installed a youthful cabinet, and passed the 2026/27 budget. These actions initially inspired hope among citizens weary of conventional politics. However, for ordinary Nepalis: farmers, wage earners, students, housewives, and commuters’ tangible relief remain conspicuously absent. Instead, recycled appointments, politically exposed figures in universities, and retirees recalled to key posts evoke frustration rather than confidence. Essential services remain stagnant while kitchen prices soar from Taplejung to Surkhet. The paradox is stark and unsettling: the leader most cherished by the electorate risks missing the very mission of governance that brought him to power. Unless PM Balendra moves beyond symbolism toward substantive reform, hope may dissolve into disillusionment, trapping Nepal once again in cycles of stagnation.

The state of public health

When citizens voted for the RSP, they envisioned accessible, affordable healthcare delivered with dignity at their doorsteps from the hills of Mugu to the valleys of Dang. The reality, however, is starkly different. Public health institutions remain crippled: doctors are frequently absent, new equipment lies idle, and families are forced to sell gold or mortgage land to pay for private treatment. From district headquarters to Bir Hospital, TU Teaching Hospital, Patan, and Bhaktapur, the story repeats itself overcrowded wards, scarce professionals, and indifference where compassion should prevail. This is not the governance people hoped for. 

Reform has yet to materialize, leaving citizens frustrated and despairing. The absence of humility and kindness, compounded by systemic neglect, steadily erodes public trust. Without visible improvements affordable care, functioning institutions, humane treatment; the government risks squandering the very mandate that brought it to power. Governance must move beyond endless discussion; it must deliver tangible relief to those who need it most.

The crisis in public education

Education stands among the most critical public goods. Citizens expected that strengthening public schools would reduce dependence on costly private institutions. Yet the reality remains disappointing. The Ministry of Education has staged drama rather than genuine reform. Private schools continue to impose rising monthly fees and arbitrary charges in the name of ‘development’, ‘annual costs’, ‘stationery’, and ‘infrastructure’. Parents are forced to pay inflated prices for school supplies, often far higher than market rates. Instead of protecting families, regulators appear complicit, allowing profiteering to flourish unchecked. 

Where is the reform that PM Balendra promised? Where is the accountability for schools that ruthlessly burden parents with punitive costs under countless headings? Neither public education shows signs of meaningful improvement, nor do private schools face consequences for exploitative practices. This failure leaves citizens deeply frustrated. Parents who once hoped for relief now confront the same cycle of exploitation. Without decisive action to strengthen public education and regulate private institutions, PM Shah’s mission risks becoming yet another unfulfilled promise.

Energy governance: Promise unfulfilled

Hydropower has long been hailed as Nepal’s economic game-changer, with estimates suggesting more than Rs 10trn in investment opportunities for new projects. Yet the Ministry of Energy’s disappointing performance has become another source of public frustration. Instead of meaningful reform, the sector remains mired in favoritism: some officials are removed, others are protected, and key appointments appear to be influenced more by political patronage than merit and performance. 

The situation across the Nepal Electricity Authority (NEA), its subsidiaries, and government-promoted hydropower companies reveals a troubling pattern. Leadership positions at institutions such as Budhi Gandaki Hydropower Company, Rastriya Prasharan Grid Company Limited, Hydroelectricity Investment and Development Company Limited, and numerous others continue to be held by officials whose appointments have attracted public scrutiny. Although senior officials at the Ministry reportedly signaled that these appointments would be reviewed, no meaningful action followed. 

Instead, the government’s subsequent engagement with the same officials created the perception that its initial commitment to accountability had given way to accommodation. Many of these institutions continue to operate under acting leadership for extended periods or under long-entrenched management. The inconsistency is difficult to ignore. While the government moved swiftly to remove the leadership of NEA, SEBON, and ERC through ordinances or executive decisions, officials heading several government-promoted hydropower companies have remained in place. Such uneven application of governance reforms inevitably raises questions about the credibility and consistency of the government’s reform agenda. 

Despite repeated promises of governance reform, PM Shah’s administration has largely failed to establish consistent standards of accountability, transparency, and merit-based appointments across the sector. The result is a system in which public enterprises are not treated equally, governance standards remain weak, and the enormous potential of Nepal’s hydropower sector is being squandered through poor leadership and weak oversight. Hydropower could transform Nepal’s economy, but without decisive leadership, the promise will remain unrealized.

Banking and finance: A fragile foundation

Nepal’s economy today stands at a fragile path where governance must extend beyond symbolism into structural reform. PM Balendra’s promise of modern administration resonates with citizens, yet the banking and financial sector exposes the fragility of this mission. Financing for SMEs: the backbone of any economy remains shallow. Class-A BFIs prefer lending to promoters and large shareholders, leaving new sectors starved of credit. Deposits are abundant, but the Nepal Rastra Bank has failed to deepen monetary policy or widen access. 

PM Balendra’s direct meetings with the NRB governor and business elites, bypassing his finance and commerce ministers, echo the old political style he vowed to replace. Governance cannot be reduced to private consultations; it must energize cabinet institutions and deliver results. The capital market suffers from favoritism, with retirees recycled into leadership instead of visionary reformers. Oversight of listed firms is weak, and SME financing windows like those pioneered in China remain absent. Nepal's financial system requires ruthless oversight, credible appointments, and policies that channel credit into productive sectors. Without decisive reform, the promise of change risks dissolving into repetition.

The disconnect: 68,348 votes and zero public meetings

The electoral triumph of PM Balendra in Jhapa-5 was nothing less than a political earthquake. By unseating Khadga Prasad Sharma Oli; a four-time PM and Chairman of CPN-UML by a staggering margin, PM Balendra did not merely secure a parliamentary seat; he earned a resounding democratic mandate for transformative change. This was no ordinary turnover. It was a profound expression of trust and hope from the electorate, signaling their desire for a genuine ‘game-changer’ capable of addressing Nepal’s most entrenched challenges. Yet the magnitude of this endorsement makes his subsequent disengagement from the very populace that elevated him to power both perplexing and disconcerting. 

In a vibrant democracy, governance must embody Lincoln’s ideal: of the people, by the people, and for the people. That principle, however, appears conspicuously absent from the current administration’s practice. Following such a historic victory, it is an egregious oversight that PM Balendra has not prioritized direct, substantive engagement with his constituents. The absence of town hall meetings, public forums, or structured dialogues leaves citizens distressed, awaiting acknowledgment and reciprocity. This democratic silence raises a fundamental question: is this the expected conduct of a leader entrusted with a landslide mandate?

The disconnection is further compounded by internal inconsistencies within the RSP. While the party commendably organized orientations for its lawmakers with intellectuals and public figures, Balendra Shah himself; the senior leader and PM, failed to address this critical assembly. Such absenteeism signals fragility within the political party governance that risks appearing rudderless. Equally troubling is his omission in thanking or meeting RSP lawmakers whose support was instrumental in his election as Parliamentary Leader. This neglect undermines cohesion at a time when unity is indispensable.

The path forward

As the administration’s ‘honeymoon period’ is no more, the record of its first hundred days remains conspicuously thin. PM Balendra has been absent from the parliamentary floor and reluctant to engage the public. Citizens do not demand ceremonial pageantry; they demand substantive dialogue. From Phungling in Taplejung to the streets of Kathmandu and villages of Dang, the electorate that placed its faith in him now feels abandoned. Governance cannot be conducted from insulated rooms in Singha Durbar or the kitchen cabinet of Baluwatar. 

PM Balendra must transcend these confines visiting schools, hospitals, farms, and communities to honor the monumental trust placed in him. The time for rhetoric has passed. The time for visible, accountable, people-centric governance is now. The real test of PM Balendra’s administration lies not merely in governing the government but in reforming the institutions entrusted with Nepal’s future. Without such transformation, the hope that swept him into power may dissolve into the very disillusionment he promised to overcome.