Submit your Article

Nepal has recently witnessed a wave of violent protests, initially triggered by the government’s controversial decision to ban social media platforms. While these demonstrations reflect domestic frustrations ranging from nepotism and corruption to high unemployment, they have simultaneously become fertile ground for disinformation campaigns. 

A closer examination reveals that Pakistan-based social media accounts have actively sought to hijack the narrative, shifting blame toward India and framing it as the primary destabilizing force in South Asia.

This phenomenon demonstrates how modern digital propaganda transcends national borders, turning real grievances into geopolitical instruments. By analyzing the patterns, players, and methods involved, we can better understand how this campaign was designed, why Nepal was chosen as the latest battleground, and what its broader implications are for regional politics.

The first wave of misleading posts emerged not from Nepal but from Pakistani social media circles. Accounts began alleging that India was operating fake Nepali bot accounts to engineer unrest, punishing Nepal for engaging diplomatically with China’s President Xi Jinping. They claimed India had adopted a systematic strategy to destabilize its neighbors, citing Sri Lanka, Maldives, and Bangladesh as “previous victims.”

Crucially, these narratives were not spontaneous. They followed a tested playbook:

Initial trigger posts: The first notable push came from Ahmad Hassan Al-Arbi, a self-styled “defense analyst.” He had previously accused India of staging false flag operations, including the Pahalgam terror attack. His thread blaming India for Nepal’s protests became the seed for a larger campaign.

Amplification: What began as scattered posts by cyborg like accounts quickly gained traction through amplifiers larger accounts with audiences between 3,000 and 300,000 followers. Their role was to provide visibility and legitimacy to otherwise fringe claims.

Media recycling: Outlets like the Kashmir Media Service picked up these threads and published them as news, quoting the same Pakistani social media users as “commentators.” These circular references created an illusion of expert validation.

Repetition by repeat offenders: Prominent disinformation spreaders on X such as @iMustansarPK and @Fizz_Urooj, previously involved in pushing fabricated stories like “Kashmir shutdown” or “Operation Sindoor,” reappeared to recycle and reinforce the new claims.

Hashtag narratives: Phrases like “India = Net Destabilizer” gained traction between Sept 4–9. X posts in English targeted global audiences, while Urdu language posts catered to regional and domestic Pakistani users.

The players behind the campaign

Several recurring actors surfaced in this disinformation drive:

Cyborg accounts: Semi-automated accounts that rapidly produced and retweeted content to create artificial trends.
Amplifiers: Medium-to-large accounts like @IntelPk and @faizannriaz, which carried the narrative to wider audiences.

Legacy disinformation accounts: Profiles such as @HelloPKofficial and @mohsin_o2, known for praising Pakistan’s “cyber warriors” during past Indo-Pak tensions, returned to recycle the “India destabilizer” trope.

Thematic hashtags and frames: By positioning India as a “net destabilizer” instead of a “net security provider,” these accounts sought to undercut India’s diplomatic positioning in South Asia. The interplay of these actors ensured that what started as isolated claims rapidly evolved into a widely circulated narrative. Within just eight days, a freshly minted storyline had been established and accepted by segments of online discourse.

Why Nepal?

The choice of Nepal as the newest stage for this campaign is not coincidental. Several factors make it an attractive target for disinformation:

Strategic geography: Sandwiched between India and China, Nepal is particularly vulnerable to narratives that highlight “great power meddling.”

Historical sensitivities: Anti India sentiment has historically flared in Nepal, particularly around border disputes and trade dependencies. Propagandists exploit these pre-existing tensions to lend credibility to fabricated stories.

Domestic instability: With Nepal’s youth disillusioned by unemployment and corruption, foreign narratives blaming external interference resonate more easily.

Regional projection: By portraying India as interfering in Nepal, attempts to universalize its anti-India messaging across South Asia, tying together disparate events in Sri Lanka, Maldives, and Bangladesh, under one conspiratorial frame.

Implications for South Asia

This disinformation drive is not merely about Nepal—it reflects a broader contest over narrative dominance in South Asia. By projecting India as the destabilizer, Pakistan aims to achieve several goals:

Diplomatic isolation: Undermine India’s image as a regional stabilizer and counterweight to China.

Information warfare: Distract from Pakistan’s own domestic crises by shifting attention to Indian actions.

Psychological impact: Erode trust between India and its neighbors by sowing doubt and suspicion.

For Nepal, however, this campaign is doubly harmful. It distorts legitimate grievances, weakening the credibility of protesters’ demands, and risks polarizing society along manufactured foreign-policy lines.

Nepal’s protests are a reflection of frustration with governance failures, not the product of Indian interference. Yet Pakistan’s disinformation machinery has opportunistically hijacked the narrative, reframing a domestic movement as a geopolitical conspiracy. This campaign, spearheaded by a familiar ecosystem of Pakistani accounts and digital outlets, once again illustrates how online propaganda can reshape perceptions of unfolding events in real time.

The challenge for policymakers, media platforms, and civil society lies in exposing and countering these narratives before they calcify into “common knowledge.” For Nepal, the greater danger is that its citizens’ real grievances risk being overshadowed by a synthetic blame game manufactured far beyond its borders. And for South Asia, the episode underscores the urgent need for a collective response to the rising weaponization of information in the digital age.

The author is the National Chairperson of Muslim Students Organisation of India MSO, he writes on a wide range of issues, including, Sufism, Public Policy, Geopolitics and Information Warfare

The detrimental impact of conventional agricultural systems on ecosystems has prompted the search for more sustainable farming practices. The question of producing more diverse food without causing harm to nature has become a pressing concern. And for the past few years, agricultural scientists around the world have been working to find answers to this question. Climate Smart Agriculture, Regenerative Agriculture, Natural Farming, Permaculture, and many other “alternative agricultural systems” are trying to establish them as mainstream. There is a movement or effort to transition from conventional farming methods to these more sustainable and environmentally friendly alternatives. Whichever the system has been proposed, their main theme is to start from soil.

The conventional agriculture system portraits soil only as a means of production. This perspective has led to treating soil just as a tool or resource to grow crops through exploitation. Heavy use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, uses of heavy equipment, uncontrolled irrigation, heavy tillage, monoculture, etc., have caused the soil to suffer badly. 

According to the customs department of Nepal, 2024/25, the government of Nepal has imported chemical fertilizer worth Rs 36.44bn which was just Rs 14.33bn in 2013/14. The average use of pesticide in Nepal is 396 grams per ha, which has grown abruptly from past few years. By this rate, there might not be good fertile soil to produce our daily food items. The focus of gaining short term benefits tends to deplete the resources to produce food for the upcoming generation. According to PQPMC, Nepal has imported 1,183,741.24 ai kg of pesticide in 2022/23. 

Almost 10 years back in 2013/14 this import was only 454,595.98 ai kg. This result shows that use of pesticide has almost tripled in Nepal. The impact of use of these pesticides directly hampers soil living conditions. As soil health deteriorates, so does its ability to produce food. Degraded soil demands more inputs to sustain productivity, which raises agricultural costs and diminishes farmers’ profits. If this trend persists, the long-term sustainability of food production will be at risk, particularly in areas where soil degradation is most pronounced. 

As soil health degrades, its ability to produce food also decreases. Almost 87 percent of Nepal’s top soil is being washed away due to floods and landslides every year. In the recent flood and landslide of Mid Asoj 2081, the agricultural land has been washed away in Sindhuli and Ramechaap districts. The sand brought by the flood has been deposited on the arable land. This devastating situation will cause farmers around Sindhuli and Ramechaap to suffer badly in coming years. It is pretty certain that those farmers whose arable soil has been affected by flood must change their profession. This trend is seen every year in Nepal. Every year huge amounts of fertile soil is lost due to floods and landslides and farmers are forced to leave the farming profession. As a result, the population of farmers was 81.2 percent in the census of 1991, which was reduced to 57.3 percent in the latest census of 2021. And the number will keep on decreasing in the coming years too!

Soil, rather than means of production, is a living, sacred entity. It must be seen as a dynamic system full of life. There is a whole ecosystem of bacteria, fungus, protozoa and millions of invisible living organisms pursuing their own life cycle. These microbes work day and night to maintain the foundation for the entire life cycle on earth. Soil, like other natural systems, contains living microbes that work collectively to maintain its health and fertility. Because of all this, it should be nurtured and cared for as a foundation of all living organisms. The need of preserving soil has become an important topic not just for immediate benefit but for long term sustainable future. And the best way of preserving soil is by preserving life present in it—the microbes.

But how do we preserve or multiply soil microbes? In the pursuit of preserving and multiplying microbes, flawed practices have become predominant. Every time humans have intervened, there have been problems in the ecosystem. A similar situation has occurred for soil microbes too. In the name of preservation, humans have tried to mold for their own ease and benefits. Microbial culture or inoculants, including bacteria, fungi, nematodes and other microorganisms, are marketed for their potential benefit in agricultural sectors like productivity, enhancing growth, nutrient uptake and maintaining sustainability. The primary motivation of promoting these products has become profit generating assets for big agriculture companies. Commercialization of these inoculants has more financial motivation rather than soil conservation. It fails to answer the basic question of what consequences may arise on ecology, economy and agronomy by emphasizing only use of limited beneficial microbes in soil.

Some new practices like using Jeevamrit in soil are rising all around Nepal. In simple terms Jeevamrit is a microbial solution. But understanding it only as a microbial solution might be unfair about its dynamic use. It enriches the soil as a dynamic, living ecosystem. Jeevamrit fosters a symbiotic relationship with soil, balancing it as a natural, living system and enhancing its fertility without reliance on synthetic fertilizers. Some of the local government offices in Nepal distribute EM (Effective Microorganisms) solutions to farmers. While EM selectively promotes specific beneficial microbes, Jeevamrit creates a diverse microbial community, reflecting the complexity found in forest soil.

A philosophical question

Human intervention has created and will always create problems in the ecosystem. The ethical responsibility of selecting only a few beneficial microbes for their own benefits lies in the recognition that it can disrupt the balance of the soil ecosystem, and reduce biodiversity. Our relation with nature lies in its holistic approach. The use of limited microbes breaks the wholeness of nature. This can cause damage in resiliency and sustainability of the whole natural system. The need for a long sustainable future cannot be compromised for short term trivial benefits,

The resiliency of an ecosystem lies in its complexity. Selection leads to more simplified models, resulting in rupture of interconnectedness and complex ecological interactions. For centuries, farmers have come up with the solution of preserving soil without intervening in the way of nature. Easy, fast and flawed solutions of bottle packaged commercial products can result in the disappearance of traditional valuable agricultural practices of nature conservation. 

Prioritizing only beneficial microbes can lead to a reductionist view of nature. As Rachel Carson says- In nature, nothing exists alone. Humans in the present context have forgotten the broader societal views on nature. People for momentary benefits see nature as a source of exploitation without addressing the needs of future generations in both terms of agronomical productivity and ecological health. This short-sighted approach ultimately degrades nature, leaving depleted and compromised resources for future generations.

The use of technology to understand and manipulate microbial activity has potential risks, too. Technology has given humans to intervene in precision for optimum benefits. The commercialization of such microbial culture will not be possible without technological advancement. But use of technology has caused us to overlook the complexity of microbial communities and their working process. As Masanobu Fukuoka quotes “In nature, there is no such thing as waste. Everything serves a purpose. Technology has removed us from the natural process and has made us blind to this truth.” This statement suggests that there has been unintended imbalance in soil microbial activities and over dependencies on commercial products for short term financial gain. All these practices can cause the loss of traditional knowledge of seeing nature in holistic form and conserving it not only for human benefit but also for entire living creatures.

A practical question

Despite gaining technological advancement, scientists have not figured out the complete knowledge about soil microbial activity. For specific bacteria, there may be more than one strain and each strain may have different functions. Some strains can have a positive impact on soil whereas others may have negative. Using only beneficial strain can lead to significant reduction in soil microbial diversity. These introduced strains can dominate over native microbial species by competing with them for food, nutrients and other essential elements. The native microbes can perform a wide range of functions for smooth ecosystem functioning. The use of specific strains, say nutrient solubilizing bacteria, can only perform a single function of providing nutrients to plants. The dominance of this strain can cause reduction in performance of other native bacteria which leads to disruption in soil microbial harmony. Tiedje et al. (2001) found that using only a single bacterial strain for nitrogen fixation can boost nitrogen levels, but this results in suppression of other native beneficial soil bacteria. This reduction in microbial diversity can compromise soil resilience, making it less capable of adapting to environmental stresses like drought or diseases. When only a single strain becomes dominant it creates microbial monoculture, causing reduced soil resiliency and sustainability.

The survival of introduced strain depends highly on favorable environmental conditions. Unlike native strains, they cannot survive in stress conditions. Due to which those strains whose population is higher in some seasons might completely disappear in another. This can cause more harmful effects on soil health. During favorable seasons, the population of introduced strains increase rapidly suppressing the native ones. But sudden disappearance of those strains can create hollow in soil ecological functioning. The experiment conducted by Allen et al. (2003) found that inoculating crops with mycorrhizal fungi has initial benefit but during environmental fluctuation it fails to compete with native microbial population. This risk of potential failure needs more regular and careful monitoring. So, regular maintenance of such introduced beneficial strains comes up with more monetary investment. This ultimately puts an economic burden on small scale farmers around the world. A case study in the Journal of Agricultural Economics revealed that some farmers saw initial benefits from microbial inoculants but many did not experience long-term yield or soil health improvements that justified the high costs. So, more need for thorough economic evaluations before adoption is required for farmers.

Various microbial populations in soil coexist and interact with each other to maintain synergy for proper ecological functioning. This synergy is required for maintaining balance to perform agricultural activities. The breakdown of synergy can cause decrease in soil nutrient holding capacity, organic matter decomposition rate, nutrient cycling, soil compaction, reduced cation exchange capacity, increased soil borne diseases, and many other detrimental agricultural impacts. This results in complete failure of the agricultural system.

In the name of maintaining sustainability, use of bottle packed beneficial microbial culture/inoculants has been marketed widely. There might be certain short term benefits of using such products but the cost of it in the coming future must not be ignored. This temporary solution results in a cycle of continuous inoculation without sustainable improvements. The only way of preserving soil microbial harmony is to conserve the traditional knowledge and practices that farmers have been performing from centuries and transfer them to the upcoming generation for their sustainable future. It’s that simple.

The author holds a degree in Agriculture with experience in sustainable agriculture practices, agro-ecology, and permaculture design

Academic institutions are the bedrock of any nation’s intellectual, social, and economic development. Nepal’s academic institutions play a vital role in shaping the nation’s intellectual landscape and driving socio-economic progress as they have served as nurturing grounds for scholars, thinkers, innovators, and leaders who continue to influence change across sectors. From centuries-old universities like Tribhuvan University to emerging colleges and schools, they offer a wide range of programs catering to diverse academic interests. However, challenges such as inadequate infrastructure, brain drain, and disparities in access especially between urban and rural regions continue to affect educational outcomes. Efforts are underway to modernize curricula, integrate technology, and enhance research capabilities to better align with global academic standards and Nepal’s development needs.

However, maintaining academic excellence is not merely about infrastructure or curricula—it demands visionary leadership, dedicated staff and inclusive policies. When institutions are guided by strategic foresight and ethical governance, they flourish. But when leadership falters, the consequences ripple through the entire community.

Role of effective leadership in academia

Effective leadership within academic institutions is a cornerstone for their success and sustained growth. It shapes not only the strategic direction of institutions but also the day-to-day experiences of faculty, staff, and students. It acts as the guiding force that propels academic institutions toward excellence, sustainability and innovation. Leaders who embody vision, integrity and strategic acumen inspire faculty, students and staff to strive for higher standards and embrace continuous improvement. They create an environment that promotes collaboration, supports research and champions inclusive learning practices. In navigating educational reforms, resource constraints, and shifting societal needs, effective leadership ensures academic institutions stay adaptive, resilient and focused on delivering quality education and impactful contributions to society.

Leadership in academic institutions is often seen as an administrative necessity but in reality, it is the cultural compass that determines morale, productivity and institutional legacy. In Nepalese educational institutions, where the education sector is expanding rapidly, the role of leadership has become more critical than ever. When done well, it inspires excellence; when done poorly, it erodes motivation and fuels disillusionment.

Leadership in academic settings goes far beyond administrative decision-making. It entails inspiring a shared vision, cultivating talent, building trust and steering the institution through challenges and change. It involves setting a clear strategic direction, inspiring faculty and students, and promoting innovation in teaching and research. It plays a vital role in shaping the vision, culture and performance of educational institutions. 

Effective leadership in academia plays a vital role in shaping the values, norms, and culture of institutions, fostering academic freedom, integrity, and inclusivity. By empowering and mentoring faculty and staff, leadership nurtures professional growth and encourages meaningful contributions. It ensures strategic alignment by keeping departments, programs, and initiatives in line with the institution’s mission and vision. Strong leadership is also ethically grounded, creating transparency, fairness, equality, trust, and mutual respect, which drive both institutional and individual development. Furthermore, it enables innovation by cultivating conditions that embrace technological changes, research breakthroughs, interdisciplinary collaboration, and academic reforms. Finally, effective leadership establishes systemic accountability through frameworks for performance evaluation, quality assurance, and ethical governance, ensuring sustainable progress and excellence in academia.

When leadership exhibits these qualities, institutions become hubs of excellence where students flourish, educators innovate and communities thrive.

Consequences of leadership failure: When vision fades

Unfortunately, not all academic institutions are steered with such care. When leadership becomes ineffective, the damage can be deep and far-reaching. Staff morale declines, academic output suffers, institutional credibility erodes and in the worst cases, financial and reputational bankruptcy looms.

Leadership failure often manifests in several ways that can severely undermine an institution’s growth and sustainability. Nepotism and favoritism, where unqualified or inexperienced individuals are hired based on personal connections rather than merit, weaken organizational credibility. Financial mismanagement, including the irresponsible allocation of resources, can lead to unsustainable expenditures and long-term instability. Poor communication, marked by the absence of dialogue and empathy between management and staff, creates a culture of mistrust and disengagement. Overstaffing further exacerbates financial strain, as unnecessary hiring may drain resources and even push an institution toward bankruptcy. Disrespecting the experience and commitment of long-serving employees fosters resentment and diminishes morale, while the erosion of institutional culture undermines the values and mission that once guided success. Together, these failures illustrate how ineffective leadership can damage both people and organizations.

Leadership failure in academia can quietly erode the very foundations of educational institutions, affecting not just operations but the emotional and intellectual well-being of everyone involved in it.

Intellectual and emotional fallout

Poor leadership can significantly impact the mental and emotional well-being of an academic community. Faculty, employees, and students often experience chronic stress, burnout, and anxiety when faced with unclear expectations, lack of support, or toxic environments. A fear-based culture may develop, discouraging individuals from taking initiative or voicing concerns due to the risk of backlash. Leadership that resists or mishandles change can leave teams stagnant and unable to adapt to new challenges. Over time, these issues contribute to low morale, with faculty and staff feeling undervalued and isolated, ultimately leading to demotivation and declining performance.

Institutional consequences

Leadership failure can create significant challenges for an institution, ranging from instability and conflict to potential collapse. When leaders act without transparency or ethical consideration, trust among staff, students, and external stakeholders—including the public—diminishes. Institutions lacking visionary leadership may stagnate, struggling to adopt new technologies, pedagogies, or research initiatives. Such failures often foster a toxic culture characterized by fear, favoritism, and exclusion, which contributes to disengagement and high turnover. Poor decision-making, misaligned with institutional goals, can compound these issues, while public failures or scandals may cause long-term reputational damage. Additionally, mismanagement frequently results in financial losses, wasted resources, and missed opportunities, undermining both growth and sustainability.

Operational impact

Ineffective leadership can lead to institutional fragmentation, with departments or teams operating in silos and lacking cohesion or a shared sense of purpose. Misallocation of resources often occurs when leaders prioritize vanity projects or personal agendas over meaningful academic initiatives. Such failures can also result in a decline in the institution’s reputation, as scandals or mismanagement negatively affect public perception and student enrollment. Moreover, systemic issues—such as inequality, favoritism, and low motivation—may go unaddressed or be mishandled, further exacerbating dysfunction within the institution.

Long-term effects

Ineffective leadership can trigger a talent drain, as high-performing staff and qualified educators leave toxic environments, weakening the institution’s academic standing. Such leadership often breeds cynicism, creating resistance to change and making it difficult to implement reforms or embrace innovation. Over time, dysfunction can become normalized, with mediocrity accepted and excellence treated as the exception. Without visionary guidance, institutions may experience strategic drift, losing direction and relevance. Habitual dysfunction further entrenches these problems, making future recovery increasingly difficult.

These dysfunctions are not just managerial mistakes, they’re institutional threats. A motivated employee doesn’t just complete tasks; they contribute ideas, mentor others and take ownership of outcomes. When leadership fails to recognize the value of experience and loyalty, respect tenure, competence and integrity, these deeper forms of performance disappear and the institution begins to decay from within.

Towards leadership that inspires

If Nepal’s educational institutions are serious about academic excellence, they must rethink how leadership is structured, selected and held accountable. 

Effective leadership requires transparency, fairness, and inclusivity. Decisions regarding promotions and appointments should be based on merit and institutional needs rather than personal affiliations. Long-serving employees should be recognized and celebrated, with their contributions serving as a source of institutional strength. Compensation and role allocation must fairly reflect experience, responsibility, and performance, avoiding favoritism. Moreover, faculty and staff should be included in strategic conversations, fostering an inclusive leadership culture rather than one in which they are merely expected to follow orders. 

In Nepal’s fast-growing education sector, good leadership isn’t just desirable, it’s essential. Yet behind the shiny prospectuses and sprawling institutions, many institutions suffer from a quiet leadership crisis. 

In some of the educational institutions, research shows that long serving staff who helped shape its foundation have been sidelined, humiliated and excluded. They have been replaced by newcomers with little experience but with better pay and bigger titles. What message does this send? It tells us that loyalty no longer matters. That performance and experience can be discarded. And that motivation arguably the lifeblood of an academic institution is expendable.

Leadership must be more than administrative shuffle. It must inspire. Fairness in promotions, respect for institutional memory and acknowledgment of contributions, these are not optional luxuries, these are the essence of any thriving workplace. If such institutions continue to replace dedication with favoritism, they risk breaking the spirit of those who carried them this far. And that’s a price no institution should be willing to pay.

Leadership can build or break an institution. In our classrooms and offices, the tone set by leaders’ echoes throughout the academic community. For Nepal to elevate its educational institutions to global standards, leadership must evolve not just structurally, but morally. Respect is not optional. Experience is not disposable. And no academic institution can flourish when its people are silenced, sidelined or shamed.

The author is lecturer of management at NASA International College

Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in Nepal presents a fascinating paradox for legal and business scholars. While the nation’s legislative framework, anchored by the Foreign Investment and Technology Transfer Act, 2019 (FITTA), signals a commitment to global capital, the practical FDI approval process in Nepal remains complex and, at times, opaque. For a foreign entity seeking to invest, understanding the legal nuances is as critical as identifying a viable business opportunity. Navigating the regulatory landscape requires a meticulous approach to documentation and a clear comprehension of the roles played by various governmental bodies, including the Office of Company Registrar.

The legal framework: Statutory instruments and jurisdictional mandates

The legal foundation for foreign investment in Nepal is principally established by the FITTA, 2019, and the Industrial Enterprises Act, 2020. FITTA broadens the definition of foreign investment beyond traditional equity to include loan investments, re-investment of dividends, lease financing, and investment in venture capital funds. It is designed to be the single-window law for foreign investment, though in practice, other ancillary laws like the Companies Act, 2006, and the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1962, also come into play. A key aspect of FITTA is its jurisdictional delineation. The Department of Industry (DOI) is the primary approving authority for investments up to NPR 6 billion, while the Investment Board of Nepal (IBN) handles projects exceeding this threshold. This dual-jurisdiction model is intended to streamline the process by matching the approving body to the scale of the project. However, the requirement for subsequent approvals from the Nepal Rastra Bank (NRB) for fund repatriation and foreign loan approvals adds further layers of legal compliance. A savvy law firm in Nepal is essential to help investors interpret these regulations and ensure they are compliant from the very beginning.

FDI approval and company registration in Nepal: A step-by-step procedural blueprint

The FDI process is a sequential journey with distinct legal and administrative milestones. The first and most crucial step is obtaining the foreign investment approval, which is initiated by submitting a comprehensive application to either the DOI or the IBN. This application must include a detailed project report, outlining financial projections, technical feasibility, and the proposed investment amount. Once the investment is approved, the foreign entity proceeds with Company Registration in Nepal at the Office of Company Registrar. This is a critical juncture where the foreign company is formally incorporated as a legal entity in Nepal. The documents required for registration include the foreign company's Certificate of Incorporation, Memorandum of Association, Articles of Association, and a formal resolution authorizing the investment. Following company registration, the newly formed entity must register with the Inland Revenue Office for tax purposes and, if applicable, with the local ward office. Finally, a crucial step for a foreign investor is to register the foreign investment with the Nepal Rastra Bank, as required by the FITTA, to facilitate future repatriation of profits and capital. The assistance of a specialized Law firm in Nepal is indispensable during these stages to ensure all legal requirements are met and to minimize procedural delays.

Documentation and due diligence: The cornerstone of legal compliance

A successful FDI application in Nepal hinges on the meticulous preparation and submission of a comprehensive set of documents. Legal practitioners emphasize that due diligence is not merely a formality but a non-negotiable prerequisite. The application for foreign investment approval must include, among other things, a notarized copy of the foreign company’s incorporation documents, a letter of commitment from the investor, and a bank-issued Financial Credibility Certificate verifying the investor's financial capability. This certificate is particularly crucial as it provides a legal basis for the financial viability of the project. Furthermore, depending on the nature of the industry, an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report may also be required. At the Office of Company Registrar, documents such as the Power of Attorney for a local representative and passport copies of the foreign directors must be submitted. The specific requirements for Company Registration in Nepal can be intricate and vary depending on the type of business vehicle (e.g., private limited company, public company, or branch office). It is here that the expertise of a law firm in Nepal becomes invaluable, as they can navigate the minutiae of these documentary requirements and liaise with the relevant authorities on behalf of the investor.

Statistical analysis and recent trends (2024-2025): A discrepancy between law and reality

A legal framework, however robust in its design, is ultimately judged by its practical outcomes. A review of recent FDI statistics reveals a persistent disparity between the stated legal intent and the actual flow of foreign capital. According to a report by the Nepal Rastra Bank, the FDI stock in Nepal reached Rs 333bn in the fiscal year 2023/24, a 12.7 percent increase from the previous year. While this indicates a growing level of total foreign investment, a more granular analysis shows that net FDI inflows were only Rs 8.4bn for the same period. This suggests that while commitments are being made, the actual injection of funds is a fraction of the approved pledges. For the month of July 2024, FDI inflows were $14.4m, which is a nominal increase compared to the same period in the previous year. However, according to the UNCTAD's World Investment Report 2025, FDI inflows to Nepal experienced a sharp decline in 2024, falling to $57m. This stark contrast between different data sources highlights the volatile nature of FDI in Nepal. For the beginning of the current fiscal year 2025/26 (mid-July to mid-August 2025), preliminary data from the Nepal Rastra Bank shows a foreign direct investment (equity only) of Rs 691.5m. These statistics underscore a critical legal and policy challenge: the legal mechanisms for approval and registration exist, but they are not translating into consistent, large-scale investment.

In conclusion, for foreign investors in Nepal, navigating the legal landscape requires a deep understanding of the FDI approval process in Nepal. While the Foreign Investment and Technology Transfer Act (FITTA) aims to attract foreign capital, persistent procedural hurdles exist, creating a gap between investment commitments and actual inflows. To ensure success, investors must meticulously handle documentation at the Office of Company Registrar and seek guidance from a specialized law firm in Nepal. The government's continued reform efforts to streamline inter-agency coordination are crucial. Ultimately, transforming Nepal into a regional investment hub depends on addressing these regulatory inefficiencies to build investor confidence and turn the country's potential into a profitable reality.

Prabin Kumar Yadav

Kathmandu School of Law