"I have come before you from a remote country in the Himalayas carrying a grave warning for humanity."

This is the very first sentence immediately following the general opening remarks in the speech delivered by Nepal's Prime Minister Balendra Shah at the United Nations General Assembly. Had a conventional speech style been used, other sentences might have taken its place instead. For instance: "I am honoured to speak at the 81st General Assembly of the United Nations." Or, "Thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of Nepal. Before I put forward my thoughts..." and so on.

However, Prime Minister Shah's speech enters the subject directly. The opening sentence is used in a way that is more than sufficient to grab attention. It contains not just his identity—a 'remote country of the Himalayas'—but also carries a 'grave warning for humanity' from this country to the world. In the science of rhetoric, this is called a 'Hook'. Nowadays, such hooks are also sought after in social media posts and videos.

It is said that the beginning of public speaking must be powerful. When a speaker steps onto the stage for an address and fails to captivate the audience within the opening minutes, the likelihood of the speech being impactful decreases significantly. Due to factors such as numerous reference materials, a list of crucial topics that must be addressed, a parade of facts and figures, the protocol of the speaking venue, and the speaker's own abilities and limitations, writing a speech runs the risk of becoming entirely formal. However, by properly recognising the audience's expectations and psychology, the human angle, and timing, speechwriting can be made impactful.

Let us look at the six sentences following the opening sentence of Prime Minister Shah's speech:

• Today, if I could have spoken only about development, democracy, peace, and the hopes of a youthful nation.

• But instead of that, I have had to speak about cataclysm and death.

• I have had to speak about families waiting for the paths of their loved ones who will never return.

• I have had to speak about those communities searching for their relatives in mud, landslides, and water, whose bodies may never be found.

• I have had to speak about bridges, roads, schools, houses, and livelihoods washed away in a matter of minutes.

• And about how the journey of a country moving forward with determination toward achieving the Sustainable Development Goals has been obstructed.

These sentences contain an account of the catastrophe in Bhotekoshi—not statistics of the disaster's impact, but a human interpretation, a description of physical infrastructure damage, and even the waiting stories of affected families. And they highlight the paradox of countries like Nepal pursuing sustainable development. They make a direct attempt to reach the heartbeat of the listener. This also clarifies what subject the Prime Minister's speech will focus on.

There are primarily three ways to begin a speech: through a story, through a question, and through statistics. An artisan writer when drafting a speech can bring all three styles together: pretending to tell a story, pretending to ask a question, and delivering statistics without sounding like mere statistics. For example, after these six sentences, giving a brief glimpse of Bhotekoshi from four weeks ago, naming it a 'Himalayan tsunami', it is mentioned that this is a warning for the entire world. And then the question is asked: I want to ask you: have we heard that warning?

Many media outlets around the world built their news stories by anchoring on this very question by the Prime Minister and raised the issue of the disaster experienced by Nepal. This is the characteristic of an effective speech: the audience's attention goes precisely where the speaker intends it to go, namely, the rhetorical impact.

How was the Prime Minister's delivery? Was the Prime Minister successful in raising other issues of Nepal, ranging from climate justice and compensation? That requires a separate analysis, which is not done in this article. Here, I am analysing only the script of Prime Minister Shah's speech from the perspective of speechwriting craftsmanship. Such analysis is rarely practised in our context.

Let's talk about a few more stylistic elements. Earlier, I mentioned the effective stylistic use of presenting a subject from a human perspective rather than formality. Another sentence in the speech that many noted is—“We have built a world with flawless logistics for war and broken logistics for food.”

While presenting one's arguments, if one can play with contrasts, it becomes impactful. A single sentence portrays and compares pictures of two different worlds. In the English language, this sounds even more powerful. The media use such sentences as quotable. In speeches, such sentences are called 'Power Phrases'. Some such sentences are timeless and are cited in books as important quotes of individuals, written on university walls, and jotted down by people in their diaries. Such sentences also appear in the format of, "Whose quote is this?"

Some can easily mention 'systemic inequality' or 'discrimination'. Such vocabulary does not always carry the core essence and gravity of the subject. But the mentioned sentence and a few others bring jargon down to the level of experience and understanding, giving a broader meaning than conventional words.

An important difference between report writing and speech writing is that the most important statistics in a speech are used in such a way that the statistic itself presents an argument. Statistics like emitting less than 0.1 percent of carbon and having to bear 100 percent of the damage are not just statistics; they are arguments in themselves, as well as outrage and questions. Artisans do not use statistics in a speech to display the speaker's intellectual capacity or study, nor to lecture the audience. Rather, if a single statistic can present the entire reality and argument all at once and provoke deep thought, why not include that statistic? That exact usage is present here.

In the speech, local issues of Nepal are elevated as global problems. And that is the reality. Saying, “We have built a world with flawless logistics for war and broken logistics for food,” puts forward the argument that this is not Nepal's private misfortune. Then it says—Ask Bangladesh, ask Bhutan, ask India, ask Maldives, ask Pakistan. Ask any country in our region, and the same thing will be heard.

Speeches sometimes become solipsistic—focusing only on one's own problems, lacking the energy or attention to check if others are facing the same. But an effective speech seeks a shared point of experience. A leader speaking at an international platform certainly does not have the luxury of narrowing down by talking only about themselves. By addressing neighbours and shared struggles, a local crisis was transformed into a human and global issue. Surely, the representatives and listeners of the named countries thought about this, didn't they?

There is a clever trick: the discussion mentions that he is addressing the General Assembly as the youngest head of government. Here was a place where it could have become self-centred. But by avoiding making it the main story, the focus is entirely shifted. This method is adopted to confirm that he has come to talk about issues rather than talking about "I."

Prime Minister Shah says—I have been told that I am the youngest head of government addressing this Assembly this year. I have not come here to make that the main story. And right away, he escalates the issue by saying—I have come to ensure that a country willing to pay the price must be allowed to buy. Although the diplomatic meaning of what is said in this segment may be subject to a separate debate.

Raising the aspirations of the new generation, the topic of generational transition in leadership in Nepal has been spoken about. Explaining that this generational transition is not just a national story, but part of a global consciousness against conflict, inequality, and lack of opportunities, Nepal's political transformation is globally energised. Yes, the story is the same, but why should that platform listen and accept when telling this story on that stage? Such points provide the answer to that question. This style of making narratives universal increases the acceptability of the speech.

Speeches by leaders of countries like Nepal sometimes run the risk of becoming bundles of complaints. Moreover, in such times following a disaster, there is an equally high risk of turning into a plea for assistance. Conversely, solutions that only suggest technical remedies sound purely procedural. In this speech, a storytelling style has been adopted—character portrayal, building conflict, engaging the audience in the conflict, and leading them to a resolution. Here, systemic failure is shown as the cause of conflict, and the proposal of a 'Himalayan Climate Resilience Mechanism' is presented as a solution. This style is adopted to elevate the speaker above being a critic and problem-proposer to a leader with a vision.

There is another interesting usage in the speech. Former US President Barack Obama's famous speech from 2004 before becoming president has some sentences he used to unite America's diversity:

“There is not a liberal America and a conservative America - there is the United States of America. There is not a black America and a white America and latino America and Asian America - there is the United States of America.”

There is rhythm in these sentences, the sentence structures are similar, and they land in the same way. Obama is not the only one who used parallel sentence styles to explain what America is and isn't. Martin Luther King Jr.'s renowned 'I Have a Dream' has similar usages. Such usage is often interpreted as making that speech a poetic one. In the Nepali context, such excerpts are also found in speeches delivered by Madan Bhandari. Examples of his use of a style of shocking the audience's mind by asking consecutive questions in the identical grammatical pattern can be found.

Now let's look at an excerpt from Prime Minister Balendra's speech:

Climate justice, therefore, is not merely a matter of money.

It is a matter of distributive justice—who is bearing the price?

It is a matter of procedural justice—whose voice is heard in the decision-making process?

It is whether the future of Himalayan communities, small island states, landlocked and least developed countries, and yet-unborn generations is equal or not.

Initially, three sentences are spoken in that exact manner and lead to a conclusion to state his argument. Explaining the genesis of the United Nations, it is stated:

Its promise was—sovereignty will have meaning.

International law will have meaning.

The self-respect of every human being will have meaning.

And the vulnerable will not be forced to silently accept whatever the powerful decide.

In both places, three sentences flow in the same style. This is called the 'Rule of Three'. Furthermore, identical sentence structures are called 'Parallel Phrasing'. 'Parallel Phrasing' does not have to be limited to three sentences. Consider this example:

Let us fund resilience, and invest in insurance and innovations.

Let us build strong infrastructure and institutions.

Let us reduce dependence on fossil fuels.

Let us prepare early-warning, awareness-raising, and life-saving systems.

Let us reform this system that makes the most vulnerable the most powerless.

And when the next warning comes from the roof of the world: let us be ready to listen, and ready to act.

Five sentences are in the same structure, and the sixth holds a stronger call.

There is another place where the Rule of Three is used. Six words starting with the English letter 'R' are divided into two parts and expressed this way:

“That is why this Assembly must note six words:

Relief. Rehabilitation. Reconstruction.

And also: Responsibility. Reparation. Resilience.

The first three are what we need after disaster.

The second three are what we need to ensure that disaster does not become a permanent condition.”

Interpreters of speechwriting craft believe that dividing anything into sets of three words or sentences helps the audience process it easily and makes it memorable. But rhythm is necessary in that. In Eastern philosophy, from 'Satyam, Shivam, Sundaram' to Girija Prasad Koirala's use of three words like 'Sahamati, Sahakarya ra Ekata' (Consensus, Cooperation, and Unity), the use of the Rule of Three is found. When words or phrases in such structures are spoken while maintaining that exact style, it gives the listener's mind a sense of an orderly structure and complete mastery over the subject.

Speech is also called an art. Just as metaphors and similes are used alongside many other styles in other literary genres, metaphors and similes are also used in speeches. This transports the viewer and listener to the scene the speaker wants to show. Hearing about abstract policy concepts might not be interesting to the viewer-listener. But a domestic and touching example like “When a house is on fire, 50 forms are not made people fill out” cuts through institutional complexities and directly impacts the listener's mind. It explains procedural hassles in a single stroke, in a single sentence, in a single breath. And it sets up problems in large structures as a question. Perhaps the Prime Minister's personality was also well considered while drafting the speech.

I was also thinking the same: who drafts the Prime Minister's speech? Whether it is a style starting from "Did you drink tea?" to reaching "We must eat our own vegetables," or his informal style when appearing in parliament—looking at these, one would wonder how this could be written, blending suggestions from various scholars with the Prime Minister's personality. What if it turned out full of technicalities and statistics like Finance Minister Swarnim Wagle's? Or would it just be limited to something like an election speech? However, because it closely matched the Prime Minister's own temperament, the speech turned out unconventional and impactful. Carrying a rapper background and the style of expressing certain topics directly and clearly on social media, the 'Balen vibe' is sustained in the speech.

The end of a speech must be strong. If a problem is raised at the beginning, showing how the solution is unfolding at the end and where the speaker stands in that process is most appropriate. This method is adopted in this speech—Call to Action, an invitation for collective action. This sounds positive and shows the resolve to walk together once the identification of the problem and the path to a solution are seen. Besides this, another technique considered effective is suspense or a twist.

Finally, wishing that Pashupatinath bless the welfare of the world and that this world be able to walk on the path shown by the Buddha, non-Nepali speakers are given suspense and homework, while an attempt is made to connect Nepali speakers with the help of religion and history. An unexpected twist is created here, the meaning of which people have interpreted in various ways.