Submit your Article

In Nepal, a road that reaches a remote highland village does more than carry goods or people; it announces the state’s presence. Conversely, a road left to crumble signals neglect. A railway that stops at the border without linking to domestic economic hubs suggests structural reliance. For a landlocked, mountainous nation, transport infrastructure is not merely a development input; it is a form of silent statecraft. Nepal must urgently reframe its connectivity strategy: moving from a fragile, road-dominant model to a multimodal system in which roads and railways serve as strategic connectors for domestic cohesion and regional autonomy.

Beyond asphalt and steel 

Experts conventionally discuss transport infrastructure in terms of economic efficiency: cost-benefit ratios, travel time savings, and freight volumes. But in geographically constrained states like Nepal, roads and railways carry a heavier political load. Over 80 per cent of Nepal’s terrain is hilly and mountainous, a topography that naturally fragments communities, markets, and governance. In such an environment, infrastructure determines who is included, who is left behind, and how the state is perceived by its citizens.

A core thesis runs through this article: Nepal’s connectivity architecture must be understood not only as engineering infrastructure but as strategic communication; a system that produces territorial integration, political visibility, and economic cohesion. Currently, the country remains over-reliant on a vulnerable road network, while railways remain underdeveloped and externally oriented. To strengthen domestic cohesion and navigate the geopolitical realities shaped by India and China, Nepal must pivot toward a balanced, resilient transport strategy.

Infra as state communication

Before examining roads and railways in detail, it is worth establishing the conceptual lens. Infrastructure communicates. It signals state presence, territorial inclusion, and political intent. A road to a remote village signals inclusion. A neglected road signals abandonment. A railway linking domestic hubs signals sovereignty. A railway oriented only toward cross-border transit signals structural reliance. In this sense, infrastructure functions as a form of silent diplomacy between the state and its citizens.

For Nepal, this interpretive lens is particularly important. Connectivity projects are not merely technical investments; they are acts of territorial integration. Rethinking infrastructure as communication allows policymakers to move beyond pure cost-benefit logic and ask a more fundamental question: What kind of state does this project produce?

Geography as destiny and dilemma 

Nepal’s physical geography is the unyielding backdrop to any conversation about connectivity. The narrow Terai plains in the south form the only naturally accessible east–west corridor, where most transport and trade occur. The hills and mountains to the north present steep gradients, fragile geology, and extreme weather conditions.

This geography creates not just a logistical challenge but a structural political imbalance. The Terai is relatively easy to connect, and most highways and cross-border rail links are concentrated there. The mid-hills and mountain districts remain poorly served. According to government data, nearly 15 per cent of rural road networks remain unpaved and impassable during the monsoon, and an average of 20 to 25 districts experience partial or complete road blockade each year due to landslides and flooding. As a result, distance from an all-weather road correlates directly with poverty, limited access to services, and weak state presence.

Infrastructure in this context is never neutral. A paved road reaching Karnali or remote hill districts signals inclusion. Its absence signals marginalisation. Nepal’s connectivity challenge is therefore not merely technical but fundamentally political.

Roads: Indispensable but fragile backbone

Today, roads account for nearly all domestic passenger and freight movement in Nepal. With over 21,000 km of highways, feeder roads, and rural tracks, of which an estimated 60 per cent are paved to varying standards, the road network functions as the de facto circulatory system of the state. It enables agricultural trade from hills to plains, supports tourism flows, and ensures administrative access across districts.

However, this dominance is structurally fragile. Each monsoon, landslides and flooding regularly cut off entire districts. Persistent fiscal constraints have precluded adequate maintenance, leading to the rapid degradation of critical road infrastructure. Many roads are constructed to low engineering standards and fail under seasonal stress. The result is a system that functions in normal conditions but breaks under predictable climatic shocks, a fundamentally unsustainable basis for national integration.

The quality of road connectivity is sharply bifurcated. Major urban centers benefit from paved, all-weather highways, while remote regions rely on unimproved tracks that become impassable during the monsoon. This disparity exacerbates regional inequality. Nepal directs a higher proportion of road investment toward the Kathmandu Valley and the plains, while poor regions like the far west and high mountains receive significantly less. Consequently, rather than reducing inequality, current road investment patterns often exacerbate it.

Railways: The underdeveloped strategic asset

If roads are the overworked backbone, railways in Nepal remain a largely unrealised strategic asset. Existing rail infrastructure is minimal and almost entirely cross-border in orientation. Operational segments such as the 35-km Jaynagar–Janakpur–Kurtha passenger line and the 6-km Raxaul–Sirsiya freight corridor primarily extend Indian railway systems into Nepali territory.

Crucially, Nepal lacks any internal railway spine. No line connects east to west entirely within national borders. No rail link connects Kathmandu to major domestic economic hubs. No system integrates hill and mountain economies into a national logistics network. This absence is not a minor infrastructure gap but a structural constraint on economic transformation. Railways offer higher carrying capacity (a single freight train can replace over 100 trucks), lower per-unit transport costs (estimated 30–40 per cent less than road freight over long distances), and greater resilience to weather disruptions. A functioning domestic rail network could reduce logistics costs, improve industrial scalability, and stabilise supply chains during road failures.

Yet, national planning continues to underprioritize rail, largely due to high costs (estimated $10–20m per km in hilly terrain versus $1–2m on plains), terrain complexity, and institutional fragmentation. Consequently, Nepal’s logistics structure remains road-dependent and exposed to climate shocks.

Strategic ambitions v implementation realities 

Nepal has proposed several ambitious railway projects, including the 1,000–km East–West Railway (estimated cost over $3bn), the Raxaul–Kathmandu line, and the Kerung–Kathmandu trans-Himalayan corridor linked to China (feasibility estimates ranging from $2.5 to $6bn). These projects represent a clear long-term vision of multimodal connectivity and strategic diversification.

However, the gap between ambition and implementation remains significant. The East–West Railway is progressing in segments, but land acquisition and financing delays persist. The Kerung–Kathmandu project remains at a conceptual stage due to engineering and financial uncertainties; even optimistic projections place completion two decades away.

The policy dilemma, therefore, is not whether to build railways, but how to sequence them to balance feasibility with strategic aspiration. A pragmatic approach would prioritise completing the East–West Terai corridor first (the most economically viable segment), strengthen logistics nodes at Birgunj, Biratnagar, and Nepalgunj, and gradually expand capacity toward more complex Himalayan routes. Over-ambition without delivery risks undermining credibility; gradualism with strategic direction offers a more sustainable path.

Navigating India-China connectivity 

Nepal’s connectivity strategy is shaped by its position between India and China, two major infrastructure powers with competing regional visions. India remains Nepal’s primary transit and trade partner, handling over 90 per cent of Nepal’s third-country trade through ports like Kolkata and Visakhapatnam. India has also extended several rail links to the Nepal border under existing agreements, and recent cross-border rail connectivity projects represent tangible integration.

However, this integration brings structural exposure: any disruption on the Indian side, whether political, logistical, or natural, directly affects Nepal’s economy. China offers an alternative pathway through the proposed Kerung–Kathmandu railway under its Belt and Road Initiative. If realised, this could provide Nepal with strategic diversification and reduced exposure. Yet the project faces Himalayan-scale obstacles: extreme altitude, seismic risks, and financing terms that remain uncertain.

A critical risk for Nepal is that cross-border infrastructure, whether Indian or Chinese, may prioritise external connectivity corridors without sufficiently strengthening internal integration effects. A rail link that merely connects a border town to Kathmandu without integrating the Terai economic belt would serve external transit more than domestic cohesion. Therefore, the strategic objective for Nepal is not alignment with one power, but the creation of functional optionality through multi-directional connectivity, while ensuring that every external link also strengthens internal logistics.

Policy implications: Toward a resilient connectivity strategy 

Three policy shifts are essential. First, multimodal integration. Nepal must transition from a road-centric model to an integrated transport system. This includes prioritising climate-resilient road maintenance (increasing the maintenance budget from current ~$150m annually to at least $250m), developing the East–West Railway as a phased backbone, and integrating dry ports at Birgunj, Biratnagar, and Nepalgunj into a unified rail-road logistics network. The goal is not the replacement of roads but strategic complementarity with rail.

Second, strategic diversification with realism. Nepal should deepen operational efficiency with India, including streamlined customs and disaster-response protocols for shared rail links. Simultaneously, Nepal should continue feasibility engagement with China-backed corridors. This requires a balance between diplomatic engagement and technical realism, avoiding both over-dependence and over-ambition.

Third, cohesion-oriented planning. Infrastructure appraisal frameworks should include territorial cohesion metrics. Projects should be evaluated not only by economic return but also by regional integration impact, reduction of spatial inequality, and contribution to strategic autonomy.

Conclusion: A connected Nepal is a stronger Nepal

Nepal stands at a critical juncture in its development trajectory. Its road network has played a foundational role in national integration, but it is increasingly insufficient under climate stress and geographic fragmentation. Without a strategic pivot, the country faces a future of recurring monsoon-induced isolation, widening regional disparities, and permanent infrastructure dependency on its neighbours.

The alternative is within reach. By treating railways not as a distant luxury but as a sequenced strategic asset, and by reimagining all infrastructure as a form of state communication, Nepal can build a connectivity system that binds territory, economy, and citizenship into a coherent whole.

What is at stake? Continued neglect would mean that a farmer in Mugu or a small manufacturer in Dhangadhi remains disconnected from national markets, that the state’s presence in peripheral regions remains invisible, and that Nepal’s external trade remains vulnerable to a single transit corridor. Conversely, a deliberate, balanced strategy would help citizens, whether in the Terai plains or Himalayan highlands, experience the state as present, reliable, and integrated.

That is the true measure of strategic connectivity. And it is both a development imperative and a political necessity.

The author is a practitioner who closely follows Nepal’s evolving societal and political landscape and has been regularly contributing analytical articles to national newspapers on issues of security, governance and democratic stability

In less than 48 hours, Nepal’s new government has attempted something no administration has dared before—a 100-point contract with its citizens. For a citizen waiting months for a hospital bed or a simple file approval, this roadmap—if implemented—could mean the difference between delay and dignity. 

Following the formation of the new government under the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), the administration of Prime Minister Balendra Shah convened its first Cabinet meeting on March 27 and issued a prescriptive 100-Point Governance Roadmap on March 28, marking one of the fastest major policy announcements in Nepal’s democratic history. This document is not a traditional set of aspirations but a structured “Citizen Contract” designed to turn the energy of the 2025 youth protests into permanent state systems. By shifting from the “politics of grievance” to a “politics of delivery,” the government is setting a new standard where administrative output becomes the primary metric of success.

The first directive of this roadmap mandates an immediate transition to Delivery-Based Governance, drawing lessons from high-efficiency models such as Singapore. This approach mirrors Singapore’s “Clean and Green” campaign of the 1960s, where Lee Kuan Yew used strict, immediate enforcement of public standards to build the trust necessary for larger reforms. Singapore faced the risk of public backlash and compliance fatigue. To overcome this, the state paired strict enforcement with large-scale public awareness and ensured that benefits—cleaner streets and better health—were quickly visible, especially to lower-income citizens.

Applying a similar logic, the Nepali government has ordered strict enforcement of the 10 percent free hospital bed requirement, backed by a newly formed National Health Inspectorate. To make these gains sustainable, the Ministry of Health must move from periodic checks to continuous oversight, including unannounced daily audits.

To dismantle systemic delays in bureaucracy, the administration is prescribing a “Digital by Default” overhaul inspired by Estonia. Nepal seeks to adopt principles similar to Estonia’s X-Road system, which connects public and private services through a unified digital backbone. Estonia’s journey was not without risk—it faced a major cyberattack in 2007 and public concerns over data privacy. These were addressed through advanced data integrity systems and transparency tools that allow citizens to see how their data is used. 

Learning from this, Nepal’s roadmap calls for integrating all departmental databases under a “Once-Only” principle, alongside strong cybersecurity safeguards. A public-facing Digital File Tracker is also proposed, allowing citizens to monitor the status of their applications in real time. However, for this system to be effective, digital literacy must be expanded across the population.

In a move to restore judicial integrity, the roadmap proposes an Empowered Asset Investigation Committee—similar in spirit to Hong Kong’s Independent Commission Against Corruption. This body will investigate the assets of political leaders and officials from 1990 to 2026.

Hong Kong faced a serious institutional crisis when sections of the police resisted anti-corruption reforms. The government responded with a balanced approach: limited amnesty for minor past offences, stricter laws for future violations, and improved salaries for public officials. This ensured that integrity became more rewarding than corruption.

For Nepal, credibility will depend on ensuring that such a commission is staffed by independent professionals, such as forensic experts and auditors, rather than political appointees.

While the official roadmap focuses heavily on service delivery, a parallel shift in national security thinking could further strengthen the state. Drawing from the “Total Defence” concepts of countries like Switzerland and Israel, Nepal could broaden its definition of security to include economic stability, food systems, and cyber resilience.

The risk, however, lies in potential overreach or militarization. This can be mitigated by ensuring strong parliamentary oversight, keeping citizens’ rights at the center of any expanded security framework.

The economic pillar of the roadmap is equally ambitious, proposing a fast-track system for business registration—reportedly targeting completion within 48 hours—drawing lessons from New Zealand.

New Zealand’s reforms in the 1980s carried risks of short-term disruption and job losses. These were addressed by simplifying regulations and making compliance easier for businesses. By reducing bureaucratic friction, the system naturally encouraged efficiency and growth.

Nepal aims to replicate this by linking civil service performance directly to efficiency outcomes, creating internal incentives for faster delivery. 

A final recommendation is to address Nepal’s deeply rooted administrative culture, often shaped by patronage networks and “Afno Manche” practices. Transitioning to a merit-based system—drawing lessons from post-unification Germany—will be critical. 

Germany faced resistance and institutional pushback during its reforms but overcame this through transparent hiring systems and strong legal protections for meritocracy. Nepal may face similar resistance; this can be managed through civil service retraining programs and structured early retirement options, enabling a gradual but firm cultural shift. 

As this roadmap enters its first phase of execution, the priority is clear: early trust-building must evolve into making reforms irreversible. Drawing lessons from Indonesia, Nepal must ensure that institutional changes are protected through law and systems, preventing rollback by entrenched interests.

By embedding reforms into digital systems and legal frameworks, the Balendra Shah administration has the opportunity—not certainty—to ensure that today’s progress becomes tomorrow’s baseline. 

The author is a practitioner who closely follows Nepal’s evolving societal and political landscape and has been regularly contributing analytical articles to national newspapers on issues of security, governance and democratic stability

Nepal’s interim government is operating amid a deep national crisis. Public trust in the state is weak. Institutions are working at cross purposes. Citizens, especially the youth, are demanding change on the streets, while political factions and external actors closely watch for any weakness to push their own agendas. The government’s mandate is limited but crucial: conduct national elections within six months, of which one month has already passed. This cannot be achieved through short-term political arrangements or by simply reacting to every crisis. The state must fix its weak institutional foundations. Fortunately, the Constitution offers a clear instrument for this task: the National Security Council (NSC). This is one of the government’s most strategic, but most underused, institutions.

Nepal’s instability is not happening in isolation. Youth groups are demanding structural change, while political parties that lost power after the dissolution of the lower chamber of the bicameral parliament (the House of Representatives) see this as a chance to make a comeback. At the same time, supporters of a return to the erstwhile royalist order are becoming more vocal, presenting themselves as an alternative political force. External actors are also watching the situation closely. 

A weak and distracted Nepal suits the strategic interests of some regional and global powers. The longer state institutions remain uncoordinated, the more space internal and external actors will find to influence national affairs. The current situation, latent inter-agency rivalries, uncoordinated responses, and widespread public anger reflect a deep crisis of coordination and command. If this gap remains, it could become very difficult to control later.

The NSC, established under Article 266 of the Constitution, was created precisely for such a situation. It is meant to serve as the strategic brain of national security, bringing together the Prime Minister and the Ministers of Defense, Home, Finance, and Foreign Affairs. However, successive governments have allowed the NSC to remain a ceremonial body, meeting rarely and acting even less. This interim government can change that. Reactivating the NSC requires no new law or constitutional amendment, only political will. The NSC offers a neutral platform to depoliticize security discussions, the authority to bring all security agencies under a common plan, and a legally sound way for an interim government to address security challenges.

Reviving the NSC should not mean only holding closed meetings. It should become a real center for coordination, planning and communication. The government can give it three immediate tasks. First, the NSC should issue a clear public directive explaining which agency does what during a crisis. This simple step will reduce confusion and close the gaps that opportunistic actors currently exploit. Second, intelligence and security agencies must be required to share information and work on the basis of a common threat assessment as fragmented works allow destabilizing elements to take advantage of blind spots. Third, the NSC should hold regular briefings to inform citizens about the security situation and present a common narrative. This is not about revealing sensitive information; it is about preventing rumours, misinformation and disinformation from filling the gap. While the NSC membership is constitutionally fixed, its processes can be more inclusive. It should consult representatives from the private sector, civil society, scholars, technology experts and youth groups as these stakeholders bring perspectives from the ground that government officials often miss.

Given limited time and high risks, the government’s approach must be focused and realistic. In the first phase, the government should activate the NSC by holding a serious, substantive meeting and publicly declaring it as the central coordinating body. This will signal both to the public and to external observers that there is a clear hand on the wheel. It should also launch an independent inquiry by forming a time-bound, judge-led commission to investigate recent protest violence. Showing accountability will strengthen public confidence and deny critics their strongest arguments. Alongside this, the government should establish a crisis communication desk to serve as a single, trusted source for verified information. When rumors spread about “foreign hands” or hidden agendas, citizens should know exactly where to get the truth.

In the second phase, the NSC’s policy directives must be translated into operational orders across all security agencies. In sensitive districts, local security committees made up of officials, police and community leaders should be set up to identify grievances early and prevent external exploitation.

The interim government’s success will not be measured only by whether the streets become quieter for a short period. Its real success will be judged by whether it leaves behind a more coherent, trusted and functional state than it inherited — one that is less vulnerable to internal manipulation and external pressure. The NSC can and should be the central instrument to achieve this. By reactivating the NSC and using it strategically, the government can provide clarity, restore coordination, and close the gaps that currently invite instability.

The author is a self-practicing social analyst. Through her independent study of Nepali society, she provides a unique perspective on societal norms