Submit your Article

In Nepal, the perception of health remains narrowly confined to physical well-being, while mental health continues to be dismissed as an afterthought. Despite the growing global emphasis on psychological well-being, the discourse on mental health in Nepal remains largely overshadowed by stigma, misinformation, and systemic negligence. The repercussions of this neglect are severe, affecting individuals across all age groups, particularly in underprivileged communities and remote areas where mental health resources are virtually nonexistent. The lack of awareness and accessibility, coupled with deeply ingrained cultural misconceptions, has exacerbated the crisis, rendering mental health care a privilege rather than an essential component of public health.

The mental health crisis manifests itself across different life stages. Children, often burdened with academic pressure and familial expectations, are rarely given the emotional support necessary for their psychological development. Many struggle with anxiety and depression from a young age, yet their distress is either trivialized or attributed to laziness. Adolescents and young adults, grappling with career uncertainties, societal expectations, and the growing influence of social media, face increasing mental health challenges, yet they are often met with dismissive responses such as being told to ‘toughen up’. The situation becomes more complicated for adults who deal with financial burdens, workplace stress, and family responsibilities, with limited avenues to seek professional help. 

Among the elderly, mental health issues such as depression and dementia are either misunderstood as a natural part of aging or completely ignored, leaving them in a state of isolation and neglect. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that nearly 15 percent of the global elderly population suffers from a mental disorder, a figure that is likely to be higher in Nepal due to the absence of proper mental health interventions.

The situation is even more dire in Nepal’s remote and underprivileged communities, where mental health remains a subject of myth and superstition. Many rural areas lack professional mental health practitioners, forcing those in distress to rely on traditional healers or shamans, whose methods often involve spiritual rituals rather than evidence-based interventions. 

A 2021 study published in the Journal of Global Health Reports indicated that over 80 percent of mental health patients in rural Nepal first consult a faith healer before considering medical help, if at all. The lack of accessible mental health services, coupled with a deep-rooted belief that mental health disorders are caused by supernatural forces, discourages individuals from seeking professional care, further entrenching the cycle of suffering and silence.

Despite the increasing prevalence of mental health issues, Nepal’s healthcare infrastructure continues to marginalize psychological well-being. Hospitals and clinics are largely focused on treating physical ailments, while mental health remains a neglected domain within the broader healthcare system. According to the Nepal Health Research Council (NHRC), mental health services account for less than one percent of the total healthcare budget, a stark contrast to the country’s rising burden of mental illness. Unlike physical health checkups, which individuals proactively schedule, mental health concerns are consistently postponed or ignored altogether. Seeking therapy is still widely considered an indulgence rather than a necessity, with many perceiving it as a service reserved for the wealthy or those who are ‘weak.’

One of the primary barriers to mental health care in Nepal is the prohibitive cost of therapy. While a general physician’s consultation may cost a nominal fee, psychotherapy sessions remain expensive and largely out of reach for the average Nepali citizen. A 2022 report by the Nepal Mental Health Foundation found that the cost of a single therapy session in Kathmandu ranges between Rs 1,500 to Rs 3,500, a significant expense for families struggling with daily financial constraints. Given this economic reality, individuals are more likely to allocate their limited resources to immediate physical health concerns, leaving mental health at the bottom of their priority list.

The path forward requires a multifaceted approach that integrates mental health into Nepal’s overall healthcare system and societal framework. Greater investment in mental health infrastructure is imperative, ensuring that psychological services are available at primary healthcare centers across the country. Nationwide awareness campaigns must be implemented to challenge the prevailing stigma and educate individuals on the importance of mental well-being. Moreover, mental health services must be made affordable through government subsidies and the inclusion of mental health coverage in insurance policies. Educational institutions and workplaces should incorporate mental health discussions into their curricula and professional environments, fostering a culture where seeking help is normalized rather than ridiculed.

Nepal cannot afford to continue neglecting mental health. The consequences of untreated psychological distress extend beyond individual suffering, affecting families, communities, and the nation as a whole. To build a healthier and more resilient society, it’s crucial to recognize that mental health is just as vital as physical health. Therapy should not be seen as a luxury but as a fundamental right, accessible to all regardless of socioeconomic status or geographical location. Only through systemic reforms, awareness, and cultural shifts can we dismantle the barriers that prevent individuals from seeking the help they deserve.

March 27, a family trip from Kathmandu to Dang became a grim metaphor for Nepal’s institutional decay. What should have been a 10-hour journey stretched into a 21-hour nightmare, with a single 14-kilometer stretch Daunee consuming ten agonizing hours, an indictment of criminally neglected infrastructure. The exhaustion of travelers—sleep-deprived, hungry, and choking in dust—mirrors the nation’s broader dysfunction: structurally intact yet crippled by systemic rot. The collapse is not limited to roads. Just days earlier, a devastating fire at a Dang plywood factory destroyed nearly Rs 400m in assets and left over 500 workers jobless. 

Chief District Officer Krishna Prasad Lamsal’s desperate pleas for firefighting support from neighboring districts and municipalities laid bare the shocking lack of emergency preparedness. These are not isolated incidents. In Kathmandu, Janamorcha and Rastriya Prajatantra Party cadres blockaded Ratnapark and other areas, paralyzing the capital’s transit, while Prime Minister KP Oli squandered a high-level economic forum on rustic analogies of buffalo - ticks and political jibes rather than substantive policy. Together, they expose a governance trifecta: crumbling infrastructure, unchecked political obstructionism, and executive unseriousness.

Federalism’s broken promise

The 2015 Constitution of Nepal, informed by seminal federalism theories, promised transformative decentralization. Yet nine years into implementation, subnational governments remain systematically disempowered—chronically under-resourced, understaffed, and stripped of meaningful autonomy, while political elites (KP Oli, Deuba, Dahal, MK Nepal, BR Bhattarai, JN Khanal) engage in perpetual factionalism at the expense of federal governance.

This institutional failure manifests in alarming macroeconomic indicators: public debt now stands at 47 percent of GDP (Rs 27trn), exceeding the 35.43 percent sustainability threshold identified by NRB seasoned economist Laxmi Prasad Prasai (2024), with annual debt servicing consuming Rs 402bn. Concurrently, Nepal’s recent grey-listing by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) for failing to combat sophisticated financial crimes including systemic tax evasion and fraud further underscores institutional decay. Compounding this crisis is a perverse bureaucratic culture where civil servants demand additional ‘facilitation fees’ from citizens for routine services, despite receiving full salaries and allowances. This rent-seeking behavior, institutionalized at all levels of government, epitomizes how Nepal’s federal transition has been hijacked—not by constitutional design, but by entrenched interests that perpetuate centralized predation under the guise of federalism.

Critical infrastructure—Narayanghat-Butwal Highway, Nagdhunga Tunnel, Melamchi Water, Mugline–Pokhara Highway—remains mired in delays. Meanwhile, 6,200 youths leave the country daily for foreign employment, a stark exodus underscoring Nepal’s failure to secure its own future. The Local Government Operation Act (2018) remains a paper tiger, with provincial postings treated as bureaucratic exile. Subnational governments face chronic 23 percent budget shortfalls, while resources are allocated based on electoral patronage rather than developmental need.

The path forward

Nepal stands at an inflection point. Federalism’s promise has been hijacked by a new mind set of centralism, where even hiring school teachers requires Kathmandu’s approval. Three urgent reforms are critical:

• Administrative federalism: Devolve personnel and fiscal authority to subnational governments, ending Singhdurbar’s suffocating control,
• Fiscal federalism with teeth: Guarantee provincial revenue autonomy and performance-based funding, and
• Enforced accountability: Implement independent audits of federal spending, as long demanded by the Financial Comptroller’s Office.

Without immediate corrective action, Nepal risks transforming its federal experiment from a beacon of post-conflict hope into yet another case study in constitutional failure. The stranded travelers, the jobless workers, and the millions trapped in this institutional purgatory deserve more than a government that mistakes inertia for governance. The time for reform is now—before the paralysis becomes permanent.

In 2081, Nepal navigated a transformative yet turbulent digital landscape, balancing ambitious technological and governance advancements with persistent challenges in digital rights, privacy, and cybercrime. The country strived to cement its place in the global digital arena while grappling with the complexities of regulating an increasingly connected society.

Ambitious digital vision and infrastructure expansion

The government’s commitment to digital progress was evident in its declaration of 2024–2034 as the ‘IT Decade’, a vision backed by Rs 7.25bn allocated for ICT projects in FY 2081/82. This funding fueled broadband expansion, IT park development, and efforts to create a thriving ICT hub aimed at generating jobs and boosting digital payments and e-commerce. Internet penetration soared to 99.38 percent, a remarkable achievement, though rural areas still faced connectivity gaps, highlighting the ongoing digital divide. Initiatives like integrating national databases and automating public services advanced digital governance, with the Nagarik App, formalized under amendments to the Good Governance Act, enabling seamless access to public services via electronic devices. 

Policy and legislative developments

Significant policy advancements shaped the year. The Social Media Operation, Usage, and Regulation Bill, 2081 tabled in Parliament aimed to regulate social media platforms and to moderate social media content. Likewise, draft Information Technology and Cybersecurity Bill, 2080, aimed to regulate online spaces and enhance cybersecurity was released for public consultation. However, both the bills drew criticism for potentially restricting free speech and privacy. Similarly, the Media Council Bill, 2081, sought to promote self-regulation in online media but raised concerns about its regulating agency’s independence and alignment with federalism. A concept paper on Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the Draft AI Policy, 2081, outlined plans to leverage AI across sectors, emphasizing clear policies and global standards. Regulatory efforts also targeted virtual currencies to curb money laundering, while amendments to the Industrial Enterprises Act recognized startups as distinct entities to foster innovation. The E-Commerce Act, 2081, was finally made into law to regulate online transactions and ensure transparency for consumers and businesses.

The draft E-Governance Blueprint and Draft Digital Nepal Framework 2.0 laid out bold plans to modernize public services, enhance digital infrastructure, and address past challenges like weak coordination and limited technical capacity through phased implementation and skill development. The Council of Ministers provided conceptual approval for drafting the Electronic Good Governance Commission Bill to combat corruption, and the Supreme Court’s ruling to uphold mandatory national identity cards for public service access, despite legal challenges, reinforced the push for centralized digital systems—though it sparked debates over accessibility.

Digital rights and privacy at stake 

Digital rights faced significant hurdles, with freedom of expression under strain. Prosecutions under the Electronic Transactions Act (ETA) targeted individuals for political comments, alleged defamation, or disruption, raising fears of a chilling effect on free speech. Critics argued the ETA is being misused to suppress dissent, a concern echoed in the Press Council Nepal’s expanded scrutiny of YouTube and online media, which sparked debates over regulatory overreach. The judiciary’s actions, such as the Sidhakura contempt case, further intensified scrutiny of media freedom. The lifting of the TikTok ban on 22 Aug 2024, was a victory for digital rights, but the lack of transparency around the decision left questions unanswered. The Ministry of Communication and Information Technology’s Directives on Managing the Use of Social Media, 2080, required platforms like TikTok and Facebook to establish local offices and moderate content, yet only TikTok, Viber, and WeeTok complied. A 30-day ultimatum for social media registration in 2081 marked a shift toward stricter enforcement, with potential bans for non-compliant platforms like Meta and X. Minister for Communications and Information Technology, Prithvi Subba Gurung, warned of shutting down social networks if they failed to register by April 13, 2025, emphasizing the urgency of compliance.

In 2081, Nepal faced significant internet disruption, including a major outage on National ICT Day, May 2, caused by disagreements over RTDF taxation between ISPs and the Ministry of Communications (MoCIT).

Further internet connections were disrupted in various places due to natural calamities, beautification of the city, and floods damaging the power supplies, leading to the shutdown of several base transceiver stations (BTS) and cutting off communication in affected areas.

The Supreme Court’s Sept 2024 ruling against unauthorized data access by Nepal Telecom reaffirmed privacy rights, but international reports like CIVICUS highlighted Nepal’s obstructed civic space, citing media censorship and reprisals against activists.

In a related development, the Department of Transport Management, following an appeal by a law student under the Right to Information Act, rectified its practice of publishing personal data such as citizenship numbers in driving test results. The department admitted this breach of privacy laws and committed to upgrading its software to prevent future violations. 

Rise of mis/disinformation and deepfake materials 

Social media also became a breeding ground for misinformation, deepfakes, and racially motivated attacks, with manipulated videos, false narratives, and unchecked mis/disinformation spreading widely. As Nepal’s digital ecosystem grows, combating false and misleading information, particularly during critical moments like elections or public protests, remains a significant challenge. These threats underscore the need for comprehensive strategies to enhance media literacy, promote responsible digital practices, and introduce effective policies addressing disinformation and digital manipulation.

Surge in cybercrime and systemic vulnerabilities

The year was marred by a cybercrime surge, with the Nepal Police Cyber Bureau recording 19,730 FIRs in FY 2080/81—a tenfold rise from five years earlier—and 13,426 complaints within nine months of 2081/82. Cases spanned financial fraud, phishing scams, social media impersonation, and hacking, with incidents like the theft of Rs 34.2m from F1 Soft’s bank account and data breaches by Khalti employees exposing systemic vulnerabilities. Fraudulent schemes exploiting trusted brands, fake government grants, and illegal crypto transactions targeted vulnerable groups, particularly youth and students. The NRB pushed for stronger KYC procedures, real-time monitoring, and public awareness, but the volume of cases strained resources.

Major cybersecurity and infrastructure threats

In 2081, Nepal faced significant cybersecurity challenges, marked by high-profile incidents such as DDoS attacks on government servers and recurring cyberattacks on local government websites, disrupting essential services. Notable breaches included the hacking of the National Vigilance Center’s website, resulting in the loss of registration data, and a malware attack on the Passport Department, causing delays in passport services. Other incidents exposed vulnerabilities in the teacher personnel records system and Tribhuvan University’s online exam platform. Additionally, over a dozen ministry websites went offline due to negligence in renewing licenses, and funding shortages threatened the stability of key digital infrastructure, such as the Integrated Data Management Center and Disaster Recovery Centre. A particularly alarming breach involved the hacking of Nepal’s public grievance platform, Hello Sarkar, by the Russian hacker group ‘Ghudra’, which sold sensitive citizen data on the dark web. Despite the adoption of a National Cybersecurity Policy in 2080, Nepal’s cybersecurity ranking fell to 100th globally, highlighting the government’s struggles to improve its digital security infrastructure.

In 2081, Nepal’s digital journey was a paradox of progress and peril. Ambitious ICT and e-governance initiatives laid a foundation for a connected future, but rural connectivity gaps, regulatory overreach, and rampant cybercrime demanded urgent action. The tension between digital advancement and democratic freedoms underscored the need for balanced policies that protect rights while fostering innovation. As Nepal advances toward its ‘IT Decade’ goals, the lessons of 2081 emphasize inclusive access, transparent governance, and robust cybersecurity as critical to shaping a resilient digital future.

Nepal’s political landscape has been in a constant state of flux, and finds itself at a critical juncture in its democratic journey. Over the past three decades, Nepal has transitioned from a monarchy to a constitutional monarchy, and eventually to a federal secular republic. However, the ongoing political turbulence—punctuated by protests, dissatisfaction, and competing ideologies—has left the Nepali people disillusioned with the political system they once hoped would deliver on its promises.

Nepal’s political transitions have always been marked by external influence, particularly from India, which has had a notable role in the country’s path to democracy. So, decoding the intent and what went about in the recent one-to-one bilateral meeting between Prime Minister KP Oli and PM Narendra Modi holds further portrayal.

Legacy of political transitions

New Delhi has constantly portrayed a notable share in Nepal’s transition to democracy. The absence of a twin pillar foreign policy of a constitutional monarchy and multiparty democracy in 2006 paved the way for the current federal secular republic.

On March 17 at the CPN-UML secretariat meeting chaired by PM Oli emphasized the importance of united efforts by republicans to counter the monarchist movement against the federal republic in addition to claims that India has played a role in the pro-monarchy movement. He also urged the party’s youth wing volunteers to “attack anyone trying to snatch away the rights that we fought for.”

Nepali Congress (NC) President and former PM Sher Bahadur Deba said that India does not support the royalist movement in Nepal.

Foreign Minister Arzu Rana Deuba while in Delhi raised a question about potential Indian support to the pro-monarchy protest with her Indian counterpart S Jaishankar, who denied any backing for the protests. Though PM Oli has not been officially invited to visit New Delhi, he had a bilateral meeting with Indian PM Modi on April 4 on the sidelines of the Sixth Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC) summit in Bangkok. 

The 35-minute one-to-one discussion came at a time when protests were going on in Nepal demanding the restoration of monarchy and a Hindu state with a catchphrase of anti-corruption drive and end of federalism. This was a second bilateral meeting between Oli and Modi after the sidelines meeting during the 79th United Nations General Assembly in New York in Sept 2024. The difference is that the first was held with officials while the latter was one-to-one.

Complex political landscape

Nepal’s political arena is highly polarized, with three dominant ideological camps vying for influence. The first group consists of the status quoists, who advocate for the current federal secular republic. The second group is the reformists, who are pushing for structural political changes to address governance issues, corruption, and inefficiencies. Finally, the growing pro-monarchist movement that calls for the restoration of the monarchy, albeit in a symbolic role, with an elected Head of Government. These factions reflect a deep division in how the country’s future should be shaped.

This polarization, while enriching the political discourse, also makes it difficult to reconcile these opposing views. Each faction draws on different historical narratives, cultural values, and visions for Nepal’s national identity. The fundamental issue, however, is not about rejecting democracy but about the effectiveness of the system that was supposed to deliver a better future.

Governance crisis and public discontent

At the heart of the current dissatisfaction is poor governance. The public’s anger is not directed at democracy itself, but at the way it has been implemented. The promises made by the political leaders, from economic development to efficient governance, have largely gone unmet. Corruption remains rampant, institutions are weak, and political leaders are seen as more interested in maintaining their power than in serving the people.

This disillusionment is not just ideological; it is deeply pragmatic. The people are questioning whether the system can truly deliver. The notion of democracy, for many, has become synonymous with inefficiency, corruption, and political infighting. The failure to meet basic expectations has created a breeding ground for discontent, with many wondering whether the existing political framework can ever be fixed.

Global democratic backsliding

Nepal’s democratic challenges are not isolated; they are part of a global trend of democratic backsliding. Countries around the world—India, the US, Sri Lanka, Israel—are witnessing increased political polarization, the rise of populism, and the erosion of democratic norms. In this context, Nepal’s situation reflects a broader pattern of democratic disillusionment that is sweeping across many parts of the globe. This global backdrop, however, also provides an opportunity for Nepal. There is a chance to rethink democratic governance—not by retreating into authoritarianism but by rebuilding a more inclusive, accountable, and citizen-driven democracy. The key lies in re-establishing the connection between the people and their representatives, ensuring that the political system is genuinely responsive to the needs of the people.

What’s confidential about “boosting relations”? 

Headlines say: PM Oli and PM Modi agree to “boost Nepal-India relations” in their meeting on the sidelines of the Sixth BIMSTEC Summit. The one-to-one meeting is a strategic win for PM Modi and a purposeful attainment for PM Oli claiming that all officials including Minister of Foreign Affairs Arzu Rana Deuba encompassed a bilateral meeting that was changed at the last minute by the Ministry of External Affairs, India (MEA). 

What’s confidential about “strengthening mutually beneficial cooperation in areas such as development partnership, energy, connectivity, and people-to-people relations”. The phrase “mutually beneficial cooperation” in public statements may obscure deeper strategic negotiations. The MEA statement said “They expressed satisfaction at the progress in enhancing physical and digital connectivity, people-to-people linkages, and in the domain of energy. They agreed to continue working towards further deepening the multifaceted partnership between our two countries and peoples”. Nepal is a priority partner of India under its Neighbourhood First Policy. This meeting continues the tradition of regular high-level exchanges between the two countries.” 

On X PM Modi posts “India attaches immense priority to relations with Nepal. We discussed different aspects of India-Nepal friendship, especially in sectors like energy, connectivity, culture and digital technology. We also talked about some of the key positive outcomes from this year’s BIMSTEC Summit, especially in areas of disaster management and maritime transport.”

In a post on X, PM Oli said that he was delighted to meet Modi, had a meaningful and positive conversation and described the meeting as intimate. “Had a warm and heartfelt meeting with my dear friend, Prime Minister Shri @narendramodi Ji. Our discussions were highly meaningful and constructive. I express my appreciation over this cordial exchange.” 

During the same stretch of the secluded meeting, there are protests in the streets which have weakened all the political powers whether democratic forces or the communists in Nepal. In addition, the political powers behind the compelling of the 2015 constitution is ineffectual and ineffective. The focus could be with cultural ties, and geopolitical manoeuvring particularly China in view and the ongoing protests in the streets of Kathmandu.

Underlying strategic motives

Limiting China’s engagement that influences Indian security concerns—India is wary of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) projects and growing political ties. The discrete nature of the meeting could indeed involve such discussions. Renouncing anti Indian oratory as a slogan for nationalism-Anti-Indian sentiment has been weaponized politically. India may be seeking Nepalese leaders to dial this down in return for greater cooperation.

Strengthening of Nepal and India deep cultural, religious and ethnic ties with arrangements even through constitutional reform-This would resonate with India’s soft power diplomacy. Cultural diplomacy is a core part of the “Neighbourhood First” policy. Constitutionally and not physically owned map of Nepal embracing Kalapani-Limpiyadhura-Lipulekh region as an impediment in relationship during Oli’s premiership that transformed ‘territorial claim’ to ‘occupied’-This remains a sticking point. Modi-Oli’s rapport might open doors for de-escalation or reinterpretation of constitutional stances to ease tensions.

Political context and transformation

Nepal may undergo a major transformation but not a principled constitutional shift. There is growing momentum for systemic reform, but not necessarily a dismantling of the ideal framework. All major parties, from NC to UML to Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) to RPP to Madhes-centric alliances with eight parties on board, seem interested in functional reform over structural revolution—more governance efficiency than ideological upheaval. The idea of a "reformed federal secular republic" is gaining quiet traction—a way to appease conservative, nationalist, and regional groups without overturning the constitutional ethos.

PM Modi and Delhi will retain substantial influence over Nepal’s political-economic direction. India remains Nepal’s largest trade partner, transit route, and a soft power heavyweight. Nepal’s fragile economy and political flux create a strategic vacuum India is eager to fill, especially amid China's growing interest.

Conclusion: Balanced, yet urgent

The PMs’ meeting on the sidelines of BIMSTEC is not just a symbolic continuation of bilateral ties but potentially a strategic recalibration. The confidentiality, the exclusion of key Nepali diplomats, and diplomatic subtleties hint at unspoken understandings on contentious topics. The expected transformation in Nepal is likely to be governance-oriented, not ideological, possibly backed or influenced by New Delhi’s geopolitical imperatives.

The Meeting and its timing with one-on-one meetings were strategic and involved a late-stage change by MEA, suggesting high confidentiality. High-level bilateral talks between PM Oli and PM Modi have always been significant due to both nations intertwining cultural, economic, and strategic ties. The MEA and both PMs’ statements reinforce the notion that the meeting, while framed in diplomatic language, likely involved deeper strategic discussions. The late-stage restructuring (excluding the Foreign Minister) raises questions of trust, exclusivity, or sensitive content, especially amidst domestic unrest in Nepal.

The national challenges are both status quo defenders and the supporters of change to rethink what democratic governance means in practice and in Nepal. It implicitly asks:

• Can Nepal create a democracy that delivers?
• Can it preserve diversity without fragmentation?
• Can it reform without losing headway?

The answer lies not in returning to past systems, but in building a new democratic consensus—inclusive, accountable, and rooted in justice. Structural flaws remain with federalism without proper devolution of power; judiciary questioned for political bias; weak checks and balances in governance and institutional corruption; economic struggle; environment vulnerability; food security; infrastructure connectivity and chain of supply and political instability. 

Thus, a call for constitutional reform seems timely—but it must avoid top-down imposition. Instead, reform should be participatory, deliberative, and aimed at creating a more functional democracy, not just changing symbols or structures.

The author is a retired major general of the Nepali Army