Author: space4knews

May 26, London – Vinod* (name changed), 22, arrived in London last September to study Digital Marketing at the undergraduate level at the University of Roehampton. He married and left his dependent spouse back in Nepal due to the UK government’s recent rule banning dependents for all except research and PhD students.

Vinod took out a loan to gather £10,000 (around NPR 2.1 million) for his first year but did not find work immediately upon arrival in London, remaining unemployed for nearly four months.

Alongside academic and work stress, the financial burden, pressure to repay debt, and expectations from his parents and wife led him into depression. Living alone far from home, misunderstandings within the couple increased. Trust diminished and cracks appeared in the marriage formed just a year ago in Nepal, ultimately leading them to decide on divorce.

Vinod registered his divorce officially in Nepal by obtaining an official divorce certificate from the Nepali Embassy in London.

Another story reflects different circumstances. Kailash, who arrived in the UK two years ago on a Tier 2 visa, was unable to fulfill the lifelong commitment to his spouse. Working in a restaurant, Kailash adhered to his employer’s demands to work full hours, with weekends becoming particularly busy in hospitality. His partner often complained about the lack of time together. Financial insecurity, regular alcohol consumption, occasional gambling, and frequent quarrels led to the breakdown of their household.

In Kathmandu, 31-year-old Pradeep* (name changed) was studying management at a reputed college, sharing an exciting world with his 22-year-old wife, Srishti. Fueled by the dream to pursue higher education and build a better future, they hastily married legally before moving to the UK together.

After arriving in London together on respective main and dependent visas, the harsh reality they faced at Heathrow Airport soon eroded their once warm relationship.

Pradeep’s daily schedule became dominated by university assignments, lectures, and strict academic regulations. Meanwhile, the main responsibility to cover rent, groceries, and expensive tuition fees for the next semester fell heavily on Srishti.

Unaccustomed to hard work back in Nepal, Srishti now worked 12 to 13 hours daily at a store and care home. When Pradeep returned tired from college and part-time work, Srishti was already gone for work.

The distance between Pradeep and Srishti grew, turning them into strangers even while sharing the same room. Rather than supporting each other during difficult times, they became burdened by unresolved issues. Within less than two years of marriage, they decided to separate and legally divorce.

Their experience is common among hundreds of student couples who come to the UK for higher education.

Sandeep Bhatt, a final semester MSc International Business Management student at the University of West London, observes that young people are becoming more aware of their personal identity, career, and mental well-being. “They prefer not to remain in toxic or dead relationships due to social or family pressure, which is positive,” Bhatt says. “However, rushed marriages, lack of anticipation of marital financial and mental challenges, and poor communication during crises are ruining many students’ lives.”

Embassy Issues 260 Official Divorce Certificates in a Year

Acting Ambassador Bipin Duwadi shared that the number of Nepali youths obtaining official divorce certificates from the Embassy in London is rising. “In 2025 (Nepali year 2082), around 260 certificates were issued. Most applicants are students and skilled visa holders,” he said.

Divorces are registered legally only if the marriage is legally registered in Nepal. Those who marry and divorce in the UK fall under a different category.

Ambassador Duwadi emphasized that divorces at a young age can have long-term emotional and social effects and urged parents to carefully consider their children’s marriages. “Marriages made without sensitivity and a solid foundation can impact a person’s entire life,” he warned.

Statistics show that nearly 42 percent of marriages in the UK end in divorce.

Emotional distance, living apart, poor communication, misunderstandings, domestic violence, financial difficulties, midlife crises, and infidelity are among the key reasons for divorce.

May 26, Biratnagar – The Koshi Province Assembly meeting has been postponed until May 30 due to a dispute during the process of passing the provincial government’s policy and program.

During Wednesday’s session, opposition members disrupted proceedings and surrounded the rostrum, prompting Speaker Ambar Bahadur Bisht to suspend the meeting for half an hour. As the session could not resume afterward, an official notice was posted declaring the meeting adjourned.

According to Niroj Dhakal, information officer at the Provincial Assembly Secretariat, the next session will convene at 1 p.m. on May 30.

On Tuesday, Speaker Bisht declared the policy and program as passed by ‘unanimity’ without allowing time for amendments, which led to opposition parties objecting. They argued that declaring unanimous passage without their support contravenes parliamentary norms.

At the start of Wednesday’s session, opposition leader Indra Bahadur Angbo asserted that the assembly should not proceed against established parliamentary conventions. He questioned, “How is a program considered unanimous if the opposition does not consent?” and demanded that the session could not continue until the program was declared passed by majority vote.

Despite opposition disruption, the Speaker attempted to move forward with the agenda, escalating tensions in the assembly. When the Speaker gave an opportunity to Janata Samajbadi Party lawmaker Nirmala Tawa Limbu to speak, former Chief Minister and Communist Party MP Rajendra Rai rushed towards the rostrum.

Rai tried to seize the microphone at the rostrum but was stopped by assembly marshals, during which some disturbances occurred in the chamber.

In the midst of the dispute, Speaker Bisht maintained that proceedings followed procedural rules. He explained that no amendment proposals were submitted and no objections verbally raised, thus by parliamentary convention the motion passed by unanimity. He clarified that once the policy and program are passed, reversal is not possible.

Central Issue of the Majority Claim

Former Chief Minister and opposition MP Rajendra Rai contended that the Speaker acted under the influence of the ruling party, sidelining legal and parliamentary traditions.

“Rather than intention, it appears due to ignorance or pressure from the ruling party, the Speaker violated laws,” Rai said. “No time was given to submit amendments yesterday, and despite opposition, the process was forced forward today.”

He explained that their opposition escalated after the Speaker’s forceful advancement of the process. “Our plan was to surround the rostrum as a form of protest. We were not given sufficient time to speak otherwise; had we been allowed, speaking and protesting could have occurred together,” Rai stated. “That is why we approached to surround the rostrum.”

The opposition insists that the policy and program passed in the assembly should be considered passed by majority vote rather than unanimity. “We opposed the decision within the passage process. Declaring it unanimous while opposition remained present is incorrect,” he added. “Our demand is that this should not be called ‘unanimous’ but should be recognized as passed by ‘majority.’”

May 26, Kathmandu – Following a financial crisis in the health insurance program, the Health Insurance Board has cut back services offered at private hospitals.

The board has announced that, until further notice, non-emergency services at private health institutions will remain suspended based on the ongoing financial difficulties.

In a meeting held on May 24, the board decided to halt OPD (Outpatient Department), diagnostic tests, surgeries, and medication services at 36 private hospitals and medical colleges affiliated with the health insurance scheme nationwide.

Shakuntala Prajapati, Executive Director of the Health Insurance Board, explained that the decision was inevitable due to mounting financial burdens on the board.

According to the board, claims have reached 1.8 billion NPR by the end of April, with a review of claims through mid-December already completed. Payments amounting to 800 million NPR for service providers remain outstanding only up to mid-December.

“The financial obligations have increased significantly. If the government had ensured timely financial support, service suspension could have been avoided,” Prajapati said. “This is a short-term measure. Once the financial condition improves, services will resume.”

The board reports that an average of 200 to 250 million NPR in claims arrive each month. However, officials say that without necessary financial assurance from the government, sustaining uninterrupted service is not feasible.

Running the program annually requires around 2.5 to 2.6 billion NPR, but there is a significant gap between income and expenditure. Premiums collected from the insured amount to roughly 400 million NPR annually while the government provides an annual subsidy of 1 billion NPR, which still covers less than half of the total expenses.

Prajapati added that the board bears the financial liabilities for services already rendered to private hospitals, yet the government has not committed to a timeline for releasing funds, prompting the board to reduce expenditures.

Concerns have been raised that the closure of services in private hospitals will increase the burden on government hospitals, which already struggle with long queues, limited staff, and equipment shortages. The board, however, assures that citizens will not be completely deprived of services. “Emergency services will continue uninterrupted. Regular services can be accessed at government hospitals,” Prajapati stated.

Declines in member contributions to the insurance fund, delays in government subsidies, and high claim volumes from private hospitals have together imposed heavy financial pressure on the board. The decision to limit OPD services and close services in private hospitals signals that the program is at risk.

36 Private Hospitals Equal to 400 Government Institutions

According to a board official, the decision was a forced step to control the escalating financial burden, with liabilities increasing by NPR 80 to 100 million daily.

The Health Insurance Board data shows that there are 36 private hospitals participating. However, the claims generated by these hospitals are equivalent to those from over 400 government health institutions. Although fewer in number, their share of expenses is almost the same.

“Approximately half of total claims come from private hospitals,” said the official. “The strategy adopted was to suspend the most costly OPD services first.”

Since the program’s inception, private hospitals have been accused of maximising claims through unnecessary tests, excessive medication, and additional services.

Former Board Director Raghuraj Kafle noted that claims from private hospitals are more than twice those of government hospitals.

He attributed this to flexible diagnostic practices and patient preferences rather than a genuine increase in patient volume.

“Treatments costing one NPR in government hospitals can cost up to three NPR in private hospitals,” Kafle explained.

In government hospitals, doctors often hesitate to conduct unnecessary tests and question patient demands, whereas private hospitals frequently perform extensive tests upon patient request.

Kafle added, “Both patients and hospitals in the private sector enjoy greater flexibility, which often leads to inflated claims.”

Board officials acknowledge that private hospitals tend to add unnecessary tests and medications. “Fake patients and fraudulent bills are difficult to catch, but there’s a risk of excessive testing and medication,” they noted.

This has led to long-standing discussions on strengthening oversight of private hospitals. The recent decision aims to gradually reduce dependency on private hospitals while empowering public facilities.

Former Board Chairman and ex-Health Secretary Dr. Senendra Raj Upreti described the move as a short-term pressure management strategy. He emphasized that rather than entirely closing private hospitals, reforming the insurance system is imperative.

He stated that although the removal of private hospitals may have limited impact in some areas, it will directly affect insured members in many districts.

“Medical colleges in places like Nepalgunj and Kohalpur attract patients from distant regions. Eliminating private hospitals will create accessibility issues,” Dr. Upreti said.

He highlighted that the foundational goal of health insurance was to provide equal service rates across both public and private sectors.

“The insurance used to pay government and private hospitals at the same rates, which enabled patients to receive timely and convenient care and resulted in patient satisfaction,” he noted.

However, he acknowledged that rising liabilities are the primary cause of the current crisis but cautioned that reducing services is not the only solution.

Dr. Upreti also recognized ongoing problems of false and exaggerated claims in private hospitals, with instances of billing for unperformed tests.

“Such issues are common not just in Nepal but globally in insurance systems. Nonetheless, accountability lies with the insurance system itself. Strengthening monitoring, digital tracking, and real-time claim processing is essential,” he asserted.

‘Deceptive to Citizens’

Since mid-February, the board has scaled down OPD services by limiting annual coverage to 25,000 NPR, aiming to control growing financial obligations and sustain the insurance program.

Insured individuals will be entitled to OPD services up to 25,000 NPR annually, after which inpatient (IPD) and emergency services can be availed.

The majority of the board’s expenditures go towards OPD services, accounting for approximately 71% of payments, while IPD and emergency services represent 19% and 10% respectively.

Former board officials criticize this restriction, stating that although insurance contracts originally covered benefits up to 100,000 NPR annually, there was no clearly defined limit on service expenses.

Dr. Upreti said, “There were no such limits at the program’s start, and applying new rules retroactively on current insured members is unfair. It’s unjust to collect premiums while failing to deliver necessary services.”

He warned that the decision will directly affect patients with chronic illnesses and those requiring regular medication.

The principal aim of health insurance is to protect patients from healthcare costs. Board data shows a large number of insured utilize OPD services, but limiting these may result in some being deprived of treatment.

Experts have reacted to the decision as deceitful towards citizens.

Preparations to Implement the ‘DRG Model’

As the financial crisis deepens, the board is preparing to switch the current payment system. At present, it follows a ‘fee-for-service’ model where payments are made for each test and service separately.

The board plans to adopt the ‘Diagnosis-Related Group’ (DRG) package system, where fixed amounts will be allocated per disease. For example, a fixed package payment will be assigned for pneumonia treatment.

Officials noted that implementing this new system will take time, which is why OPD services in private hospitals have been temporarily limited during this transition.

May 26, Kathmandu: The National Human Rights Commission has recommended prosecuting those responsible and conducting further investigations regarding the events of September 8 and 9. During the Jenaz Movement, 76 lives were lost due to police detentions of students and protesters.

A committee chaired by Commission member Lily Hajur Basnyat Thapa concluded that former Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, former Home Minister Ramesh Lalthok, and former Information and Communication Minister Prithvi Subba Gurung violated human rights.

Since no existing laws provide penalties for these human rights violations, the Commission recommended enacting retroactive legislation addressing crimes against humanity and human rights to ensure punishment.

The Commission forwarded these recommendations to the Prime Minister’s Office on Wednesday, urging interim Prime Minister Sushil Karki and outgoing Home Minister Sudhan Gurung, among others, to conduct further investigations.

Additionally, Ravi Lamichhane, chairman of the ruling Rastriya Swatantra Party (Raswapa), has been implicated for involvement in releasing detainees during the Jenaz Movement. Raswapa parliamentarians Manish Jha and Hari Dhakal, along with Nakkhu Prison Administrator Satyaraj Joshi, have also been recommended for investigation.

Regarding the crackdown on the Jenaz Movement, the Commission has recommended departmental action against Chief of Police Dan Bahadur Karki, Armed Police Force Inspector General Narayan Datt Paudel, Deputy Inspector General Om Vikram Rana, Superintendent of Police Bishwo Adhikari, Armed Police SP Jeevan KC, Directorate of National Investigation Krishna Khanal, and Kathmandu Chief District Officer Chhabilal Rizal.

The Commission identified weaknesses in the Nepali Army’s handling of the vandalism and arson at Singha Durbar, the Supreme Court, and the President’s residence during the September protest, though it did not recommend any punitive action against the Army.

The Commission has not released the full report but has shared decisions based on a 1,000-page document.

Former Commission member Gauri Shankar Lal Das explains that while recommendations from any constitutional commission are technically binding, in practice, implementation is limited. He notes, “Only in strong democracies, where there are no human rights violations, does the commission’s recommendation guarantee promotion. The reality is, less than 10 percent of these recommendations are implemented.”

Under the Inquiry Commission Act, 1970, commissions may be formed to investigate matters of public importance, with the authority to collect facts and details related to incidents. However, although these commissions can make recommendations, the final decision rests with the government.

Typically, such commissions suggest further investigations and legal proceedings against offenders.

Former Human Rights Commission member Mohana Ansari highlights that the mandates of constitutional commissions differ from those formed under other laws. Although recommendations from constitutional commissions are binding, Ansari expresses frustration that reports from the Human Rights Commission have not been effectively implemented during her tenure. She states, “Our recommendations were also ignored. If these recommendations were enforced, it would enhance the state’s reputation internationally.”

A notable example illustrating the negative impact of ignoring recommendations is the decade-long Maoist armed conflict case involving the severe torture of Janak Bahadur Raut at Gorusinge Barracks. The Commission recommended departmental action against Nepali Army General Kumar Lama and compensation for the victims. However, the government did not take action against Lama, who was promoted to Colonel and later arrested in the UK in 2013 while on leave from South Sudan.

In 2014, during a parliamentary committee meeting on Social Justice and Human Rights, current President Ram Chandra Paudel and other members demanded Lama’s return to Nepal for investigation under Nepali law.

“Had the Commission’s report been enforced, such extensive governmental intervention to shield Lama would not have been necessary, nor would he have had to endure such humiliation abroad,” a Commission member commented.

In January 2016, three individuals were killed due to police gunfire during clashes between CPN (UML) and the United Democratic Madhesi Front in Rangeli, Morang. The Commission concluded that these deaths were due to negligence by security officials.

The Commission recommended legally prosecuting the responsible officers and providing adequate relief and compensation to the victims’ families. Officials implicated in the recommendations previously sought reconsideration from the Commission, which firmly refused. Former member Ansari emphasizes, “The Human Rights Commission’s recommendations cannot be reconsidered or amended.”

Article 249 of the Constitution authorizes the Commission to recommend legal action against individuals or institutions responsible for human rights violations.

The Commission can recommend departmental actions and legal penalties to the relevant authorities.

The Supreme Court has also ordered that the Commission’s recommendations be implemented unequivocally, without conditionality.

Human rights activist Charan Prasain acknowledges some shortcomings in the Commission’s Jenaz Movement recommendations but stresses that there is no alternative to implementing them. He states, “There are discussions about reappointing the former Home Minister, but according to the Commission’s recommendations, he should not be given such responsibilities again.”

Prasain adds that the Commission has the right to receive updates every three months on the progress of implementation. Referencing constitutional provisions, he emphasizes, “The implementation of the Commission’s recommendations is not optional. If officials obstruct implementation, the Commission has the right to publicly identify them as human rights violators.”