Taking the historical narratives that tout Nepal-India relations as based on mutual respect of each other’s sovereignty as a point of departure, we provide a critical reflection upon the flaws of such a single uncritical discourse that not only risks the danger of creating stereotypes but also leaves it incomplete and misleading. Although many aspects of the Nepal-India relations indeed predate the origin of the modern nation-state, any historical discourse that downplays the realpolitik in these relations leaves the story untold about India being a hegemon interfering in Nepal’s internal affairs and obstructing Nepal’s social, economic and political progression. From a neocolonial lens, we provide snapshots of the ways and instances in which India has infringed upon Nepal’s sovereignty and independence.

This Article discusses BLAs as tools of global labor migration governance, with a specific focus on gender. Drawing on our global database of 582 bilateral labor migration agreements (BLAs), we investigate the extent to which these governing instruments connect and align with relevant international normative frameworks, in particular the extent to which they represent gains, gaps or gaffs in terms of gender equality and the human and labor rights protection of women migrants. In the context of the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM), which stresses a gender-responsive approach to migration governance as one of its guiding principles, we ask: Do the BLAs which are increasingly being used as instruments to govern labor migration contribute toward sustainable gender equality, decent work and reduced inequalities for women and gender-diverse migrants?

Allergic reactions to beta-lactamase antibiotics are the most common cause of adverse drug reactions mediated by specific immunological mechanism. Anaphylaxis is diagnosed clinically. In two of our cases, patients developed acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) secondary to anaphylaxis, which was however managed successfully without residual deficits.

Disability studies, although an emerging discipline, has already advanced in the Global North compared to the Global South in that the discourse around disability has shifted its focus from mere survival debates of the persons with disabilities to subtler and more nuanced forms and manifestations of disability existence. Even at the policy level, the “medical model” of disability has been substituted by different versions of the “social model.” The main idea of the “social model” of disability is that human beings are extremely diverse in terms of mental and bodily faculties, functions and structures, and disability indeed results from the “disabling” infrastructures and environment that society has created without taking this human diversity into account. Some versions of the “social model” go so far as to glorify the bodily and mental disabilities, deeming them merely as manifestations of human variation or diversity that offers a unique experience to be valued and celebrated (Roush & Sharby, 2011). Disability in any form is merely a variation of humanity, but the disadvantages this diversity creates are the lived-realities that should not and cannot be left unattended. What I find even more problematic is the idea of glorifying and romanticizing disability. Such a glorified notion of disability, I argue, becomes yet another means to oppressing the persons with disabilities. The “medical model” that some disability studies scholars in the Global North have discarded can prove still relevant to the Global South, and particularly to South Asia. If disability activists and civil society organizations relish only in the rhetoric of disability as a “human rights” issue, and not pay ample attention to the physical and mental realities of the persons with disabilities, the “rights-based” discourse could ultimately be counterproductive.