अंग्रेजी भाषा (English Language)

Write an essay in about 800 to 1000 words on any ONE of the following issues. The essay should reflect your originality and creativity. (a) Nepal is rich in cultural diversity. It will be a stronger and prosperous nation with the philosophy of "unity in diversity". (b) Education is the backbone of long-term development of a country. Nepal needs to ensure quality education to its youth for the development of the country. (c) The Lord Gautam Buddha, son of Nepal, enlightened the world with the message of peace, compassion and love. Nepal should take a lead role to spread this message.

Translate the following text into Nepali without losing the sense and spirit of the original. At the core of democratic theory and practice is respect for the dignity of the individual. But among the biggest errors many democracies have made since the Cold War is to view individual dignity primarily through the prism of political freedom without being sufficiently attentive to the indignity of corruption, inequality, and a lack of economic opportunity. This was not a universal blind spot: a number of political figures, advocates, and individuals working at the grassroots level to advance democratic progress presciently argued that economic inequality could fuel the rise of populist leaders and autocratic governments that pledged to improve living standards even as they eroded freedoms. But too often, the activists, lawyers, and other members of civil society who worked to strengthen democratic institutions and protect civil liberties looked to labor movements, economists, and policymakers to address economic dislocation, wealth inequality, and declining wages rather than building coalitions to tackle these intersecting problems. Democracy suffered as a result. Over the past two decades, as economic inequality rose, polls showed that people in rich and poor countries alike began to lose faith in democracy and worry that young people would end up worse off than they were, giving populists and ethnonationalists an opening to exploit grievances and gain a political foothold on every continent.

Translate the following text into English without losing the sense and spirit of the original. नेपाललाई कृषि प्रधान राष्ट्र भन्ने गरिन्छ। कृषिमा ठूलो संख्यामा जनता आश्रित रहने कारणले यसो भन्नु स्वाभाविकै हो। धान, गहुँ, मकै, कोदो, आलु, अदुवा, बेसार जस्ता वस्तुहरूको उत्पादनमा नेपाल अगाडि थियो। कुनै समय विश्वका प्रमुख धान निर्यातक राष्ट्रमध्ये नेपालको गणना हुने गर्थ्यो। धान जस्तो प्रमुख खाद्यान्नमा आत्मनिर्भर र छिमेकी लगायत विश्वका धेरै राष्ट्रको धान चामलको आवश्यकता नेपालले पूरा गर्दथ्यो। तराई क्षेत्रमा धान चामल मिलहरूको स्थापना भएको थियो। नेपालको कृषि उत्पादनलाई वैज्ञानिक ढंगले विकास गर्ने हिसाबले बाह्य जगतबाट आर्थिक तथा प्राविधिक सहयोग प्राप्त भएको थियो। कुनै समय मत्स्य उत्पादनमा पनि दक्षिण एशियामा नेपालको राम्रो नाम थियो। नेपालको कृषि विकासमा आर्थिक र प्राविधिक सहायताका साथ कृषि तथा बाली र बागवानीका क्षेत्रमा अनुसन्धान गराउने उद्देश्यले भारत, अमेरिका, बेलायत, जापान र जर्मनी जस्ता राष्ट्रले ठूलो सहयोग गरेका थिए। यस सम्बन्धमा प्राविधिक तालिम केन्द्रहरू पनि स्थापित भए। यस प्रकारको सकारात्मक पृष्ठभूमिका बाबजुद विगत केही वर्षदेखि नेपाल लगभग सबै कृषि उत्पादनमा परिनिर्भर र आयातकर्ता मुलुक बन्न पुगेको छ। एकातिर युवा समुदाय कामको खोजीमा घर परिवार र आफ्नो थातथलो छोडी विदेशमा पसिना बगाउन बाध्य भएको छ भने अर्कोतर्फ देशका अधिकांश कृषियोग्य भूमि या त बाँझो छन् वा बढ्दो शहरीकरण तथा अनियन्त्रित सडक विकासको चपेटामा परेका छन्। सम्बेदनशील प्रकृतिको हाम्रो भू-बनोटलाई ख्याल नगरी जथाभावी डोजर चलाउने र सडक तथा अन्य भौतिक पूर्वाधार खडा गर्ने कार्यले पानीका श्रोत सुक्नुका साथै देश तीव्र मरूभूमिकरणतर्फ उन्मुख छ। उपरोक्त पृष्ठभूमिमा नेपालको कृषि धराशायी अवस्थामा छ। तसर्थ, यो परिस्थितिमा नेपाललाई कृषि प्रधान राष्ट्र भन्नु वास्तविकताभन्दा व्यङ्ग्य जस्तो बन्न पुगेको छ।

Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below. Diplomacy is the established method of influencing the decisions and behaviour of foreign governments and peoples through dialogue, negotiation, and other measures short of war of violence. Modern diplomatic practices are a product of the Post-Renaissance European state system. Historically, diplomacy meant the conduct of official relations between sovereign states. By the 20th century, however, the diplomatic practices pioneered in Europe had been adopted throughout the world, and diplomacy had expanded to cover summit meetings and other international conferences, parliamentary diplomacy, the international activities of supranational and subnational entities, unofficial diplomacy by nongovernmental elements, and the work of international civil servants. Diplomacy is often confused with foreign policy, but the terms are not synonymous. Diplomacy is the chief, but not the only, instrument of foreign policy, which is set by political leaders, though diplomats may advise them. Foreign policy establishes goals, prescribes strategies, and sets the broad tactics to be used in their accomplishment. Diplomacy is the principal substitute for the use of force or underhanded means in statecraft; it is how comprehensive national power is applied to the peaceful adjustment of differences between states. It may be coercive but is overtly nonviolent. Its primary tools are international dialogue and negotiation, primarily conducted by accredited envoys and other political leaders. Unlike foreign policy, which generally is enunciated publicly, most diplomacy is conducted in confidence, though both the fact that it is in progress and its results are almost always made public in contemporary international relations. The purpose of foreign policy is to further a state's interests, which are derived from geography, history, economics, and the distribution of international power. Safeguarding national independence, security, and integrity-territorial, political, economic, and moral- is viewed as a country's primary obligation, followed by preserving a wide freedom of action for the state. The political leaders, traditionally of sovereign states, who devise foreign policy pursue what they perceive to be the national interest, adjusting national policies to changes in external conditions and technology. The purpose of diplomacy is to strengthen the state, nation, or organization it serves in relation to others by advancing the interests in its charge. To this end, diplomatic activity endeavors to maximize a group's advantages without the risk and expense of using force and preferably without causing resentment. It habitually, but not invariably, strives to preserve peace; diplomacy is strongly inclined toward negotiation to achieve agreements and resolve issues between states. Over the long term, diplomacy strives to build an international order conducive to the nonviolent resolution of disputes and expanded cooperation between states. Diplomats are the primary- but far from the only- practitioners of diplomacy. They are specialists in carrying messages and negotiating adjustment in relations and the resolution of quarrels between states and peoples. Their weapons are words, backed by the power of the state or organization they represent. Diplomats help leaders to understand the attitudes and actions of foreigners and to develop strategies and tactics that will shape the behaviour of foreigners, especially foreign governments. The wise use of diplomats is a key to successful foreign policy. Questions: (a) What is the meaning of the word 'diplomacy'? (b) How do you delineate the difference between diplomacy and foreign policy? (c) What is the purpose of diplomacy? (d) What is the purpose of foreign policy? (e) In addition to the diplomats, who else do you think are the practitioners of diplomacy?

Summarize the following passage in one-third of its total length. Diplomacy is traditionally associated with a closed and hierarchical structure that relies on controlling and moderating interactions through the participation of few actors for the purpose of negotiation and representation among state officials. Diplomats could engage in diplomatic activities with limited public engagement, meaning that interstate relations, international conflict and cooperation, and interstate interactions were mediated by similarly socialized professionals who shared institutional and personal connections. A distinct realm of diplomacy helped to maintain international order, reinforce the common values of the society of states and engender the "change management". The proliferation of democracy in the twentieth century not only allowed but necessitated public involvement in international affairs, leading to the spread of public diplomacy. Public diplomacy was successful not only in setting agendas for the broader global public, but also in activating epistemic communities toward addressing global issues and helping to articulate norms and agendas bottom-up. Public diplomacy ultimately aims to help states brand themselves to build and exercise soft power. In some cases, however, public diplomacy also creates incentives for populism, particularly in instances when diplomatic strategy has been disconnected from public audiences, which allows populists to interject their agendas. The promises and pitfalls of digital diplomacy can be understood much in the same way. Accounts range from the possibility of achieving a more inclusive and democratic form of diplomacy with the participation of involved and interested stakeholders and enhancing public diplomatic capabilities by helping states to reach global audiences directly, set agendas, and disseminate norms and values. It could enable much easier connections and communications between diplomatic agents as well. Despite early challenges of adapting to new technologies, such as developing social media capabilities, many Ministries of Foreign Affairs and diplomatic agents were able to adapt to online niches despite the failure of many to progress beyond using social media in traditional ways like bulletins rather than genuinely dialogic instruments. Against the backdrop of these positive developments came the dark side of digital diplomacy, which aggravated the problems of public diplomacy. These include disinformation, or the purposeful manipulations of states to coercively achieve offline goals, and the role of social media in aiding the mobilization of violent and extremist actors. Social media can also aggravate diplomatic relations by facilitating negative communication and various forms of "cheap talk" to win arguments and depict a particularly favorable image of their state. One also cannot ignore tools like the use of bots and trolls to overwhelm and inundate social mediascapes with a favorable message. It is worth reiterating that most of the issues associated with digital diplomacy seem to originate from misuse of public diplomacy or from the purposeful exercise of a maladaptive policy to affect domestic politics more than coercing other states. Digital diplomacy's disruptive impact on diplomacy is therefore of a dual nature and its challenges are contingent on the practitioners' preferences.

Answer the following questions: (a) Draft a press statement for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Nepal's high level participation in the United Nations Climate Change Conference, CoP 28, held in Dubai, the United Arab Emirates, from November 30 to December 13, 2023. (b) Consider you are an officer at the West Asia Division of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Nepal. There is a report of the death of a Nepali migrant worker in an accident in one of the labour destination countries in the Gulf region. Write a first person note to the embassy of that country requesting proper investigation of the cause of the death and facilitation in the early repatriation of the dead body.