Editorial

As Nepal goes to the polls on March 5, 2026, it is not merely electing a new government—it is rendering a verdict on a pivotal, and painful, chapter in its democratic history. This first general election since last September's devastating Gen Z-led uprising is a testament to the power of popular will, but it is also a stark reminder of the fragility of the institutions that guard it.

Just six months ago, the world watched as at least 77 people, many of them young students, lost their lives in clashes with security forces . What began as a protest against a social media ban quickly erupted into a national movement against deep-seated corruption and an out-of-touch political elite . The sight of the parliament building in flames was a metaphor for a system that had, in the eyes of the youth, failed them . The movement's success in toppling the government was swift, but the underlying grievances it exposed remain the central issue of this election.

The contest in Jhapa-5 embodies this generational and ideological clash. Here, six-time former Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, a veteran communist leader, is fighting for his political life against Balendra Shah (Balen), the young, charismatic former mayor of Kathmandu . Oli’s campaign, framed around safeguarding the constitution and national sovereignty, carries the weight of experience but is shadowed by his government's brutal response to the protests . In contrast, Shah represents the very force that unseated him: a Gen Z constituency demanding accountability and a new political culture.

This election, however, is not just an internal matter. Nepal's geopolitical significance ensures that its outcome will resonate far beyond its borders. The controversy over the China-backed Damak Industrial Park, which Shah has conspicuously dropped from his manifesto, highlights the delicate balancing act Kathmandu must perform . New Delhi's concerns over the project's proximity to the Siliguri Corridor are well-documented, reflecting India's acute sensitivity to Chinese infrastructure along its borders . This has thrust questions of national sovereignty and foreign influence—particularly regarding Chinese Belt and Road Initiative investments—directly into the domestic political discourse. A vote for one candidate can be interpreted as a vote for a certain geopolitical orientation.

As nearly 19 million Nepalis, including over a million first-time voters, cast their ballots, the weight of the past and the hope for the future hang in the balance . The logistical support from India, including vehicles and border security cooperation, underscores the shared interest in a stable and peaceful transition . But stability cannot come at the cost of ignoring the sacrifices made last September. The protesters who lay bleeding on the streets, like 22-year-old Aditya Rawal who was shot while trying to help a friend, did so for a transparent government free from corruption.

The question before Nepal's voters is whether the old guard can truly reform, or whether it is time to trust a new generation to rebuild the trust that went up in flames. Tomorrow's result will provide the first, but not the final, answer.

The bitter irony of the current US-Israel military campaign against Iran is that what was sold as a precise, defensive action has rapidly morphed into a full-blown regional confrontation with devastating consequences. What began with joint strikes on Iranian military and government targets — including Tehran’s presidential office and Supreme National Security Council — has now spiralled into a broader war involving missile barrages, drone assaults, and attacks on embassies stretching from Riyadh to Kuwait.

Proponents in Washington and Jerusalem have justified the offensive by framing it as necessary to degrade Iran’s missile and nuclear capabilities and to preempt threats against Israel and US forces. But this narrative obscures deeper strategic recklessness. Far from remaining a contained “surgical” campaign, the conflict has exacted heavy civilian casualties, widespread infrastructure damage across multiple countries, and the closure of vital economic arteries such as the Strait of Hormuz, driving global oil price shocks that will harm ordinary people worldwide.

Moreover, the legitimacy of the strikes is open to serious legal question. Critics have pointed out that there was no credible, imminent threat justifying such an extensive bombardment under international law, and that US congressional authorization was absent for what amounts to a war. These are not minor quibbles: they go to the heart of the rules-based global order the United States claims to uphold.

Iran’s retaliatory attacks — though in themselves condemnable when they strike beyond military targets — are a foreseeable response to escalation without diplomacy. The spread of violence to Gulf states and Western installations underscores how easily regional conflicts can metastasize into wider wars with catastrophic humanitarian costs.

Equally troubling is how public debate in both the US and Israel has been muted, driven more by nationalist grandstanding than sober assessment of risks and end goals. Polling shows low US public support for the conflict even before the latest bombardments, underscoring war fatigue and skepticism about endless overseas interventions.

The events unfolding are not just a strategic error — they are a moral failing. Leaders owe it to their citizens and the world to pursue diplomacy, not bombardment; restraint, not retaliation; reconstruction, not ruin. Without an urgent shift toward negotiation and international engagement, this conflict threatens to consume an entire region with consequences no government can contain.

• SAS Kirmani