By S. Mona Sinha
NEW YORK, Sep 18 2025 – On Monday, three decades on from the historic Fourth World Conference on Women, the General Assembly meets to discuss recommitting to, resourcing, and accelerating the implementation of the 1995 Beijing Platform for Action – an historic agreement which mapped the path to achieving gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls.

This is a critical moment because, despite the considerable progress that’s been made, it is a sobering fact that not a single country has yet fully delivered against those aims. And with reactionary attitudes increasingly to the fore, many of these hard-won gains are, alarmingly, under threat of reversal.

Even where the heart is willing, the slow pace or absence of change is more often than not put down to budgetary or political barriers. Gender equality is important, just not important enough. We have other problems to fix. We’ll get back to it.

But this is incredibly short-sighted.

While achieving gender equality is first and foremost a matter of human rights, it is also one of the surest ways to help address those other problems, leading to more prosperous economies, more resilient communities, and more sustainable, peaceful societies.

This is not just a matter of opinion. The evidence is clear.

Closing gender gaps in education, employment and pay would unleash an unprecedented wave of productivity. In 2015, McKinsey Global Institute (MGI) estimated that equal participation of women in the workforce could add up to $12 trillion to global GDP within 10 years.

That’s more than the economies of Japan, Germany and the UK combined and would have already been achieved if we had acted on it in 2015.

The logic is simple: excluding half of the population from opportunities to explore and achieve their full potential is an extraordinary waste. When women are able to contribute equally, innovation flourishes, productivity rises and household incomes grow. Far from being a drag on resources, equality is a growth multiplier.

Moreover, women’s earnings are more likely to be invested in children’s health, nutrition, and education, breaking intergenerational cycles of poverty. And in agriculture, where women make up nearly half the global workforce, the FAO estimates equal access to resources could boost crop yields by up to 30% and reduce the number of hungry people by more than 100 million.

Perhaps for these reasons, research has shown that the treatment of women is one of the strongest predictors of whether a country is peaceful. Where women’s rights are respected, societies are more stable, less prone to conflict, and more open to cooperation.

Women’s participation in peace processes matters too. Agreements brokered with women at the table are more durable, more inclusive, and more likely to succeed. We have the proof of that as well.

And then there’s the environment. Women and girls, especially in developing countries, are disproportionately affected by climate change. But it’s also true that when included in decision-making, they bring difference-making knowledge and perspectives to the table.

Indeed, a 2019 study in Global Environmental Change showed that countries with more women in parliament adopt more ambitious climate policies and have lower carbon emissions.

Meanwhile, women-led community programmes in forestry and water management have consistently delivered stronger conservation outcomes. In other words, tackling the climate crisis is not only about technology and finance – it’s also about representation.

Taken together, it’s clear that equality drives prosperity, resilience, peace and sustainability. To deny women equal rights and opportunities is not simply unjust, it’s an act of societal self-sabotage.

At Equality Now, we lead the way in driving the legal and systemic change needed to realise this vision of a just and better world. Since our inception in 1992 we have worked with governments, legal bodies, civil society and other partners to help reform 130 discriminatory laws, improving the lives of millions of women and girls, their communities and nations, both now and for generations to come.

We were in Beijing in 1995, and we’ll be in New York this week – where to all in attendance our message is clear:

The world cannot afford to wait. Everyone needs equality now.

S. Mona Sinha is Global Executive Director, Equality Now

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Sep 18 2025 – When the high-level meeting of the General Assembly takes place, September 22-30—with over 150 world political leaders in town–the UN will be in a locked down mode with extra tight security.

With a rash of threats and political killings in the US—including an attempted assassination of Donald Trump when he was campaigning for the US presidency in July 2024– the list continues.

Against the backdrop of the killing of a conservative activist Charlie Kirk last week, plus the fire-bombing in early 2025, of the residence of Governor Josh Shapiro in Pennsylvania, and the killings of Minnesota state lawmaker Melissa Hortman and her husband– the UN is predictably taking extra precautionary measures.

Asked at a press conference September 15 about security in the wake of recent events in the United States, UN Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric told reporters: “The security within the UN complex during the General Assembly sessions is as tight, as it can be”.

“We are obviously in close contact with the host country authorities, the US Secret Service, the State Department, and, of course, the NYPD (New York Police Department). They will take the measures they need to take outside”.

Traditionally, diplomats and delegates, do not undergo security checks or walk through metal detectors inside the UN building.

Asked whether there will be new restrictions this year, Dujarric said: “I don’t know”.

The limits on the movements of accredited journalists during the high-level meetings were spelled out September 17 by the UN’s Media Accreditation and Liaison Unit (MALU). The link follows:
https://www.un.org/en/media/accreditation/unga.shtml

Accredited media representatives, including official photographers and videographers, must be escorted by Media Accreditation and Liaison Unit staff at all times in the restricted areas, including the Conference Building and General Assembly Building.

Media pass holders are NOT permitted on the second floor of the Conference Building or General Assembly Building.

But going down memory lane, there were several lapses in security in a bygone era, resulting in a bazooka terrorist attack against the Secretariat building back in 1964—and the only such attack in the history of the UN.

But last year, the UN security, conscious on the high-tech weapons now deployed in military conflicts, had a sign outside the building declaring the UN a “NO DRONE ZONE.”

Ernesto “Che” Guevara, Minister of Industries of Cuba, addresses the General Assembly on Dec. 11, 1964. Credit: UN Photo/TC

The streets next week – as in previous years — will be littered with scores of police officers, US Secret Service personnel, UN security officers, the New York Police Department (NYPD), bomb-sniffing dogs, road closures — and a stand-by ambulance in the UN campus ready to cope with any medical emergencies.

In previous years, the Secret Service also had an official chaplain ready to perform last rites in case of any political assassinations in the UN premises.

Meanwhile, hundreds of UN staffers and journalists are double and triple-checked for their photo IDs, reminiscent of security at the Pentagon and the CIA headquarters (where a visitor ID is geared to automatically change colour, if you overstay your visit).

Still, back in 1964, perhaps with relatively less security, the UN building came under a terrorist attack — perhaps for the first time in the history of the world body — from a mis-guided rocket launcher.

When the politically-charismatic Ernesto Che Guevara, once second-in-command to Cuban leader Fidel Castro, was at the United Nations to address the General Assembly sessions in 1964, the U.N. headquarters came under fire – literally.

The speech by the Argentine-born Marxist revolutionary was momentarily drowned by the sound of an explosion.

The anti-Castro forces in the United States, backed by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), had mounted an insidious campaign to stop Che Guevara from speaking.

A 3.5-inch bazooka was fired at the 39-storeyed Secretariat building by the East River while a boisterous anti-Castro, anti-Che Guevara demonstration was taking place outside the UN building.

According to Wikipedia, the bazooka is the common name for a man-portable recoilless anti-tank rocket launcher, widely deployed by the US army, especially during World War II.

But the rocket launcher – which was apparently not as sophisticated as today’s shoulder-fired missiles and rocket-propelled grenades – missed its target, rattled windows, and fell into the river about 200 yards from the building.

One newspaper report described the attack as “one of the wildest episodes since the United Nations moved into its East River headquarters in 1952.”

As longtime U.N. staffers would recall, the failed bombing of the U.N. building took place when Che Guevara launched a blistering attack on U.S. foreign policy and denounced a proposed de-nuclearization pact for the Western hemisphere.

After his Assembly speech, Che Guevara was asked about the attack aimed at him. “The explosion has given the whole thing more flavor,” he joked, as he chomped on his Cuban cigar, during a press conference.

When he was told by a reporter that the New York City police had nabbed a woman, described as an anti-Castro Cuban exile, who had pulled out a hunting knife and jumped over the UN wall, intending to kill him, Che Guevara said: “It is better to be killed by a woman with a knife than by a man with a gun.”

A security officer once recalled an incident where the prime minister from an African country, addressing the General Assembly, was heckled by a group of African students.

As is usual with hecklers, the boisterous group was taken off the visitor’s gallery, grilled, photographer and banned from entering the UN premises.

But about five years later, one of the hecklers returned to the UN —this time, as foreign minister of his country, and addressed the world body.

Meanwhile, Sri Lanka’s Foreign Minister ACS Hameed had one of his memorable moments when Krishna Vaikunthavasan, a London-based lawyer, campaigning for a separate Tamil state, surreptitiously gate-crashed into the UN and tried to upstage Hameed by walking onto the podium of the General Assembly hall and momentarily took the speaker’s slot—at a time when security was lax.

The incident, perhaps a rarity in the history of the UN, saw the intruder unleashing a diatribe against a member state accusing it of genocide and lambasting the government for committing war crimes against the Tamils fighting for a separate state in northern Sri Lanka.

When the president of the Assembly realized he had an interloper on his hands, he cut off the mike and summoned security guards who bodily ejected him from the hall and banned him from the UN premises. And as Hameed walked up to the podium, there was pin drop silence in the Assembly Hall.

As a member of the Sri Lanka delegation at that time, I was seated behind Hameed. But the unflappable Hameed, unprompted by any of his delegates, produced a riveting punchline: “Mr President”, he said “I want to thank the previous speaker for keeping his speech short,” he said, as the Assembly, known to suffer longwinded speeches, broke into peals of laughter.

The intruder was in effect upstaged by the Foreign Minister.

This article includes excerpts from a book on the United Nations titled “No Comment – and Don’t Quote Me on That” authored by Thalif Deen and available on Amazon. The link to Amazon via the author’s website follows: https://www.rodericgrigson.com/no-comment-by-thalif-deen/

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By Diwash Gahatraj and Chandrani Sinha
KATHMANDU & NEW DELHI, Sep 18 2025 – Claims that Ravi Laxmi Chitrakar, wife of former Nepali Prime Minister Jhala Nath Khanal, was burned alive in her home—fake. The reports of an angry mob destroying and vandalizing the Pashupatinath Temple—fake. Allegations that protesters were demanding a Hindu nation in Nepal—fake. As Kathmandu and other Nepali cities erupted in unrest last week, the fire of fake news spread just as fiercely across Nepal and into neighboring India and the rest of the world.

These sensational claims, widely circulated during Nepal’s recent unrest, proved to be misinformation. Driven by various actors and amplified by sections of Indian and international media, the stories dominated headlines, prime-time debates, and viral reels on Instagram, TikTok, and other platforms—framing the movement as a “Gen Z protest” over a social media ban.

In reality, Nepal’s youth were rallying against something far deeper: decades of entrenched corruption and a demand for genuine accountability from those in power.

On a sunny September morning, Nepal’s Generation Z poured into the streets of Kathmandu in what would become the country’s most significant youth uprising in decades. What began as peaceful demonstrations demanding jobs, government accountability, and digital freedoms soon swelled into a nationwide revolt that ultimately toppled Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli. The protests turned deadly on September 8, 2025, when police opened fire on demonstrators, killing at least 19 people on the first day alone, with hundreds more injured. The unrest spread rapidly from Kathmandu to major cities, including Pokhara, Biratnagar, Butwal, Bhairahawa, and Bharatpur, as young Nepalis rallied against corruption and a sweeping social media ban.

The crisis reached its peak when protesters stormed and set fire to the parliament building, forcing Oli’s resignation and prompting the military to take control of the streets. The political upheaval culminated in the appointment of Nepal’s first female prime minister, former Chief Justice Sushila Karki, as interim leader.

As the dust settles on one of South Asia’s most dramatic youth-led revolutions, the full extent of the casualties and destruction across Nepal continues to emerge, with the latest reports indicating at least 72 deaths and at least 2,113 injured nationwide.

Flames engulf the Nepal Supreme Court building in Kathmandu. Credit: Barsha Shah/IPS

Chaos of Misinformation

Amid the swirl of rumors and misinformation during the protests, one story that shocked the people was that of Ravi Laxmi Chitrakar, wife of former Prime Minister Jhala Nath Khanal. News started circulating that she was burnt to death inside her house. The false report spread fast, picked up by big YouTubers like Dhruv Rathee and even reported by the Indian daily Times of India, amplifying the claim to millions. “In reality, she had suffered serious burn injuries during an attack and was taken to Kirtipur Burn Hospital in critical condition—but she is alive,” said Rohit Dahal, a Gen Z member and close observer of the movement.

Later, Indian fact-checking outlet Alt News published a story debunking the misinformation.

Initially, many media outlets reshaped the protest’s narrative, reducing it to a youth backlash against the social media ban. Kathmandu-based freelance journalist, researcher and fact-checker Deepak Adhikari says the movement started with young people sharing videos contrasting the lavish lifestyles of politicians’ children, also called ‘Nepo Kids,’ with the daily struggles of ordinary citizens but soon became a major flashpoint for misinformation.

“The most common falsehoods were claims of attacks on politicians and their properties and rumors that leaders were fleeing the country. While some of this misleading content originated on Nepali social media, Indian television channels and users amplified it, turning it into a much bigger problem,” says Adhikari, who heads Nepal Check, a fact-checking platform dedicated to exposing misinformation and protecting public discourse.

Adhikari adds that unfounded claims about sacred sites also went viral. On September 9, a Facebook page called Corporate Bazaar posted a video claiming protesters had reached Pashupatinath Temple and attempted vandalism. The clip showed people climbing the temple gate—but a fact-check later revealed it was originally uploaded nearly two months earlier by a TikTok user during the Vatsaleshwori Jatra festival. YouTubers also amplified such rumors, Adhikari shares. For instance, a U.S.-based Nepali creator, Tanka Dahal, claimed police had detained 32 children inside Nepal’s parliament, fueling even more dramatic—and false—claims that the children had been killed there.

Indian Inputs

As Nepal’s youth fought for their future, Indian broadcasters and social media influencers reframed the movement. Dainik Jagaran, a popular news outlet, ran a front-page story claiming the Gen Z protests were demanding a Hindu Rashtra. This became a clear example of how misinformation can hijack a movement. While Nepal has seen pro-monarchy demonstrations in the past, calling for the reversal of the country’s secular status, the current protests did not include such demands. Instead, the Gen Z movement focused on highlighting the country’s stark wealth gap, rampant nepotism, and a migration crisis that forces nearly one in 10 Nepalis to work abroad. Politicians’ children flaunt luxury while most citizens struggle to make ends meet.

Asked how Indian media and social media users amplified false narratives about Nepal’s protests, BOOM Live deputy editor Karen Rebelo explained that large-scale anti-government movements often attract misinformation, especially when they draw attention beyond national borders.

“Misinformation thrives on uncertainty. In the vacuum created by incomplete reporting, people either invent stories or recycle old information to go viral,” she said.

Rebelo noted that social media determines who controls the narrative—authorities, protesters, or other actors. In Nepal’s case, many Indian outlets misreported the protests as solely a reaction to the social media ban. In reality, Gen Z demonstrators were protesting systemic corruption, nepotism, and inequality, with the ban only highlighting deeper frustrations.

Rebelo also pointed out how some right-wing outlets framed the protests as efforts to restore the monarchy or establish a Hindu nation—narratives that misrepresented the genuine concerns of Nepali youth. “These stories were amplified online and distorted what was actually happening on the ground,” she said.

Similarly, one of the crucial groups part of the Gen Z protest is Hami Nepal, a non-profit dedicated to supporting communities and individuals in need. According to the Nepal Times, “The group played a central role in guiding the demonstrations, using its Instagram and Discord platforms to circulate protest information and share guidelines.

Interestingly, the group’s leader, Sudan Gurung, became another victim of misinformation. As Nepal’s Gen Z protests gained momentum, misinformation quickly complicated the story. Upendra Mani Pradhan, a journalist and political analyst based in Darjeeling and editor-at-large at The Darjeeling Chronicle, pointed to this case.

“A major gaffe that almost painted the Gen Z revolution as ‘India-sponsored was the case of Sudan Gurung,” Pradhan said. He explained that Indian news channels—News18 and Zee News—published photos of Sudhan Gurung from Darjeeling, claiming he was a key architect of the Gen Z movement and leader of the Hami Nepal group. “The problem was both outlets, perhaps in their rush to report, failed to do their due diligence. They typed ‘Sudhan Gurung activist’ and not ‘Sudan Gurung, Nepal’ and used the first image they found online,” Pradhan said.

Coincidentally, Sudhan Gurung from Darjeeling is also an anti-corruption activist. He was assaulted a month earlier, allegedly by  political goons in the Darjeeling hills of India, for exposing the Teachers’ Recruitment scam in the Gorkhaland Territorial Administration.

Newspaper The Telegraph, published from Kolkata, wrote about this confusion and the backlash faced by the Nepali Sudan, with many questioning his credibility.

Tensions over media coverage of the protests spilled into a visible backlash against Indian journalists. On September 11, an Indian reporter was reportedly manhandled by protesters chanting anti-India slogans.

“It is very unfortunate that the journalist had to face this,” says Rebelo. “But this backlash did not come out of nowhere. Reckless reporting and misinformation by some Indian media outlets created the anger. We could have covered the story with much more care and responsibility.”

Rebelo highlighted a deeper issue, saying the incident reflects how little many in India understand their neighboring countries. “This lack of nuance makes misinformation even more damaging,” she added, noting that sensational reporting often worsens the situation.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);