Submit your Article

The Sustainable Development Goals (Target 3.4) call to “ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages.” One of the key targets is to reduce premature mortality from non-communicable diseases by one-third through prevention and treatment, while also promoting mental health and well-being by 2030. However, progress in reducing suicide rates has been hampered by widespread stigma, underreporting, difficulty in tracking incidents, and a lack of political will to formulate effective suicide prevention strategies.

The government allocates less than one percent of the health budget to mental health. Reports show that the mental health budget declined from 0.8 percent in 2008 to just 0.2 percent in 2020. Such limited resources result in inadequate mental health services, poor access to care, and a shortage of trained personnel and facilities, especially outside urban areas.

According to the WHO, 73 percent of global suicides occur in low- and middle-income countries. In high-income countries, suicides are often linked to mental disorders—particularly depression, alcohol use disorder, and a history of previous suicide attempts.

Every year, many people die by suicide, while many more attempt it. Each suicide is a tragedy with profound and lasting effects on families, communities, and entire societies. Why, then, do people take their own lives?

The French sociologist Émile Durkheim (1858–1917) sought to answer this question in his classic study on suicide, inspired by the death of his close friend Victor Hommay. His theory remains relevant today. Durkheim argued that suicide rates are influenced by levels of social integration and regulation in society. When social integration is very high, altruistic suicide may occur, as when individuals sacrifice themselves for religion, politics, or the nation. When integration is very low, egoistic suicide arises, as people unable to find belonging or meaning choose suicide to escape loneliness or isolation.

Similarly, excessive regulation can lead to fatalistic suicide, seen historically in slavery and persecution, where individuals feel trapped by fate. On the other hand, insufficient regulation results in anomic suicide, often triggered by economic crises or sudden social changes that disrupt people’s expectations—such as financial collapse, divorce, or the loss of a spouse.

Durkheim identified two forms of anomic suicide: acute anomie, caused by abrupt changes like a business failure or divorce, and chronic anomie, a constant state of instability common in modern capitalist societies. Examples include betrayals in love, economic depressions, or other crises that create a gap between people’s lived experiences and their expectations.

In Nepal, police data show that 7,055 people died by suicide in fiscal year 2024/25. Hanging was the most common method (5,798 cases, 82.2 percent), followed by poisoning (961 cases, 13.6 percent). Among these, 3,734 were men, 2,451 women, and 870 children. Hanging was the dominant method across groups, with men (3,112) and women (1,907) most affected. Cases of suicide provocation were higher among women (143) than men (30), reflecting unique gendered dynamics. Other methods—self-immolation, drowning, jumping, or weapons—were less frequent.

Applying Durkheim’s framework to the Nepali context reveals that a lack of social integration, regulatory imbalances, economic hardship, and rapid social change drive many suicides—mostly anomic in nature. Financial crises and relationship breakdowns often lead to hanging, while oppressive norms, early marriage, and abuse may drive women toward fatalistic suicide. Migrants isolated in urban areas may be prone to egoistic suicide. Altruistic suicides appear less common in today’s Nepal.

Karl Marx’s concept of alienation also sheds light on suicide. Marx argued that modern capitalist society separates individuals from their creative potential and from authentic social relationships, undermining equality and freedom. In such conditions, people may feel estranged and hopeless.

Osho, a 21st-century mystic, similarly observed that while traditional societies imposed clear collective values, modern individuals must construct their own identities in a competitive, uncertain environment. This search for meaning, he argued, often leaves people disoriented and vulnerable to despair.

Religions also shape perspectives on suicide. In the West, Judaism and Christianity generally condemn suicide as sinful, historically treating attempts as criminal acts with punishments that even included confiscating property. In South Asia, Hinduism and Buddhism reject suicide but historically permitted forms of altruistic suicide under certain circumstances. For instance, the sati system of self-immolation was once believed to ensure salvation for the widow and her family. Suicide is also often seen as a consequence of past karma.

In Nepal, the Muluki Ain of 2020 criminalized suicide, with survivors facing fines or prison. However, the National Penal Code of 2074 no longer treats suicide as a crime but makes encouraging or assisting suicide a punishable offense, carrying penalties of up to five years in prison and fines of up to Rs 50,000.

Despite decriminalization, stigma persists. Many Nepalis still view suicide or attempts as shameful, discouraging people from seeking help. Yet a suicide attempt can be a turning point—if timely support is provided. Too often, however, families and communities are preoccupied with their own struggles, leaving vulnerable individuals neglected.

Recognizing early warning signs is critical. Verbal cues (expressing a wish to die), emotional changes (hopelessness, mood swings), and situational triggers (loss, trauma, illness, or financial stress) can all indicate risk. High-risk groups include people with a history of attempts, mental illness, substance abuse, or social rejection.

Timely interventions—listening with empathy, offering care, and connecting individuals to professional help—can save lives. Social environments and family dynamics play a decisive role. As social beings, we carry a responsibility to reach out, talk to, and care for those suffering from depression, anxiety, or despair. Professional support from psychiatrists, trained social workers, and counselors—including meditation and mindfulness practices—can provide immense relief and hope.

Nepal’s rapid progress in digital finance is a well-documented success story. Mobile wallets and QR codes have fundamentally reshaped daily commerce, creating one of South Asia’s most dynamic payment infrastructure. This achievement has laid a vital foundation for a modern economy. Yet, this very success has created a significant imbalance. The nation's fintech ecosystem is heavily tilted toward payments, while the equally crucial domains of credit and investment remain underdeveloped.

While we have solved the problem of how to pay, the more pressing challenge of how to grow remains largely unaddressed by technology. This is more than a theoretical concern. It has tangible economic consequences. The country’s small and medium enterprises (MSMEs), the engine of job creation, face a credit gap estimated in the billions of dollars. Millions of households have savings in low-yield accounts that could be mobilized for productive investment. This imbalance represents a significant missed opportunity for fostering entrepreneurship, democratizing wealth, and accelerating economic growth.

The roots of this lopsided development are twofold: regulatory frameworks that haven’t kept pace with technology, and an institutional focus that has naturally prioritized payments. Key legislation like the Bank and Financial Institutions Act (BAFIA) was designed for a traditional banking era and lacks specific provisions for emerging models like digital-only lenders or peer-to-peer platforms. The Securities Act is similarly silent on innovations like crowdfunding or robo-advisory. This legal ambiguity leaves innovators in a grey area, unable to scale their solutions within a clear, regulated framework.

In addition to this, the institutional focus has logically centered on strengthening the payment systems, which has been essential. However, this has meant that the equally important areas of digital credit and investment have received less strategic impetus. The launch of the Regulatory Sandbox recently is a landmark step forward, but its initial focus on payments, while understandable, limits its potential. What was intended as a gateway for innovation risks becoming a walled garden if its scope is not expanded. To build a more resilient and dynamic digital economy, a balanced approach is essential. This requires a clear vision and decisive action on two fronts: modernizing policy and reimagining the tools for innovation.

First, the regulatory environment needs to evolve. A clear roadmap for amending key financial acts is necessary to create legal categories for new fintech players. This would provide them with a clear path from sandbox experimentation to full-scale, regulated operation, fostering responsible innovation while safeguarding the financial system. Alongside legislative updates, a more consolidated approach to fintech governance could be considered. A dedicated unit or department focused on the full spectrum of financial technology from payments to credit and investment could provide the specialized expertise and coherent policy direction needed to guide the market’s next phase.

Second, the Regulatory Sandbox should be empowered to become a true engine for full-spectrum innovation. Building on its initial success, its scope must be broadened. The next cohort of the sandbox could be transformative if it invited innovators to tackle the economy’s most significant gaps. Imagine a stream dedicated to MSME finance, testing PAN-based digital micro-loans that leverage alternative data to extend credit to viable businesses. Another could focus on retail investment, piloting robo-advisory services and micro-investment platforms to bring first-time savers into the capital markets. A third stream could enable regulated crowdfunding platforms, allowing the Nepali diaspora to invest directly in promising local startups.

Global experience shows this path is both practical and powerful. India has created specific licenses for P2P lenders, while Kenya’s M-Shwari pioneered mobile credit, demonstrating that innovation and regulation can and must evolve together. These examples provide proven models for safely incorporating new financial tools into the mainstream economy. The challenge now is to build upon the remarkable success of our payment infrastructure. Payments are the rails, but the real economic journey involves what runs on them: credit that fuels businesses, and investments that build wealth. By modernizing legal frameworks and expanding innovation initiatives, Nepal can correct its current imbalance. The goal is to create a financial system that is not only digitally efficient but also inclusive, dynamic, and capable of funding the nation's growth for decades to come. The time for this next digital leap is now.

The author is a director of Nepal Rastra Bank

Bijay Bhandari, chairperson of Simkot Rural Municipality in Humla, said, “It has been three years since I assumed this post, but the Chief Administrative Officer has been in my municipality for only nine months. Even now, there is no Chief Administrative Officer in Simkot Rural Municipality.”

There are seven local levels in Humla, but only two—Namkha and Tajkot—currently have Chief Administrative Officers. One of them is seeking a transfer, while the other has already left. “The Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration makes the transfers, but officials rarely go to the remote areas where they are posted,” said Bhandari. “There is a tendency to transfer without even reporting to the assigned place. Employees do not want to work in remote areas.”

On Feb 23, Dharmaraj Gaire was transferred to Dipayal as Chief Administrative Officer of Siliguri Municipality. However, he is not there now, and the municipality is being run on an ad hoc basis by Shankar Shuikar. Out of the 39 deputy secretaries promoted on Feb 16, 15 were posted as Chief Administrative Officers in various municipalities and 24 as District Coordination Officers in different District Coordination Committees. But employees are actively working in only six places: Hariban Municipality (Sarlahi), Sankhuwasabha District Coordination, Rolpa District, Shivashatakshi Municipality (Jhapa), Mai Municipality (Ilam), and Duhabi Municipality (Sunsari). Thirty-two employees have already returned to central agencies. The District Coordination Committee in Achham has also been left vacant.

Frequent transfers have further disrupted postings. For instance, Jema Subba, posted to the Sunsari District Coordination Committee on May 22, was transferred to the Ministry of Industry, Commerce and Supplies on July 31. Similarly, Mahesh Subedi, initially posted to the Panchthar District Coordination Committee, was later transferred to Lamjung District Coordination. Recently, officers in the Nepal Administrative Service, General Administration Group—Gazetted Third Class Branch—appointed through the Public Service Commission, were also transferred.

However, many of these employees never reported to the local levels to which they were assigned, such as Aamchowk and Ram Prasad Rai Rural Municipalities in Bhojpur. Some names do not even appear in published transfer lists. While most of those posted on Feb 16, were assigned to District Coordination Committees, their official websites show that only a few new appointees have actually assumed their posts. This reflects a growing problem: civil servants prefer to stay in Kathmandu or other accessible areas, avoiding assignments in municipalities and districts.

Although the Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration transfers employees under political pressure and influence, many never reach their destination. Those who do often return within a short time. In some cases, local governments themselves send employees back due to conflicts of interest. There is also a mismatch between officers deputed by the federal government and the expectations of local representatives.

Joint Secretary and Ministry Spokesperson Kali Prasad Parajuli admits it is difficult to retain employees at the local level for political and other reasons. “We are working with chiefs and chairpersons to create an environment where employees can continue serving in the municipalities where they are assigned,” he said.

The recent change of minister has again revived commitments to reform transfer practices. Minister Bhagwati Neupane has promised to make transfers more systematic. Administrative expert Kashiraj Dahal argues that the problem persists because the Federal Civil Service Act has not yet been enacted. “There must be a system where employees report to their assigned posts based on clear criteria, and local governments ensure they assume their duties,” he said. “At present, the ministry does not formulate clear rules, employees avoid postings that are not in their favor, and local governments accept only those employees they prefer. These weaknesses create space for misuse at all levels.”

Former Public Service Commission Chairperson Umesh Prasad Mainali agrees, saying the problem arises because the central government continues to appoint employees, contrary to the spirit of the constitution. “As long as the central government controls appointments, disputes will persist,” he said, adding, “Transfers are frequently made prematurely or even as a form of punishment.”

Currently, around 200 local levels are functioning with acting officials. The government is preparing to fill vacant Chief Administrative Officer positions by reallocating excess employees from other ministries. Minister Neupane has proposed deploying undersecretaries and branch officers—who have been promoted in other ministries but not yet posted at the local level—to fill the gap.

In metropolitan cities, joint secretaries serve as Chief Administrative Officers by position. However, most of the 11 sub-metropolitan cities do not have Chief Administrative Officers as per the post. Except for Jitpur Simara, these positions are being filled by senior or acting officials. According to Parajuli, joint secretaries are posted in metropolitan and sub-metropolitan cities, deputy secretaries in municipalities, and branch officers in rural municipalities. Where there is no Chief Administrative Officer, the senior-most official is serving in an acting capacity.

Currently, there are about 950 deputy secretaries in the general administration group of the civil service. These include Chief Administrative Officers in 276 municipalities, District Coordination Officers, Assistant Chief District Officers, and Chief Land Revenue Officers in 77 districts. Around 400 deputy secretaries are working in ministries, secretariats, commissions, and departments at the center. Yet, most prefer to remain in central postings rather than serve in the field.

Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli is travelling to China to attend the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) Summit, an intergovernmental regional body founded in 2001 in Shanghai. Nepal, currently a dialogue partner, will participate in the summit scheduled for Aug 31–Sept 1 in Tianjin, China.

On the sidelines, Oli is expected to hold bilateral meetings with SCO leaders, including Chinese President Xi Jinping and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. This year’s SCO summit brings together Modi, Xi, and Russian President Vladimir Putin at a time when US-India ties have soured over tariffs imposed by US President Donald Trump. Western countries will be closely watching as three major non-Western powers meet to discuss bilateral, regional, and global issues.

For Oli, however, the Lipulekh dispute is likely to dominate his agenda. India and China recently agreed to resume trade through the Lipulekh pass, a territory disputed between Nepal and India, placing Oli under pressure to raise the issue with both leaders. Although Nepal is reported to have sent diplomatic notes to New Delhi and Beijing expressing its displeasure, the government has not made any official statement, and Oli himself has remained silent on the matter.

Beyond the dispute, Nepal is lobbying to upgrade its status from dialogue partner to full SCO membership. At a time when both SAARC and BIMSTEC are becoming ineffective, SCO could be a new regional platform to advance its voices in the global arena. Government sources suggest the summit may decide on granting membership to Nepal and other applicants. Full membership would allow Nepal to deepen cooperation in trade, transit, energy, agriculture, investment, security, and cultural exchanges with SCO members. 

Nepal became a dialogue partner in March 2016 after signing an MoU with the SCO Secretariat, nearly a decade after applying for the status in 2007. According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the MoU defines scope of Nepal’s engagement with SCO in the field of trade, transit and investment, energy, agriculture, small and medium business, security issues, and legal and custom affairs, among others. Since 2016, Nepal has participated in multiple SCO meetings, including a briefing for dialogue partners in April this year attended by Nepal’s embassy representatives.

The Tianjin summit, expected to be the largest in SCO’s history, will host leaders from over 20 countries and 10 international organizations. According to Xinhua, the summit will issue declarations marking the 80th anniversary of the UN and the victory in the World Anti-Fascist War, and adopt outcome documents on security, economic cooperation, and cultural exchange.

The SCO traces its roots to the 1996 “Shanghai Five” mechanism, when China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan sought to resolve border security issues after the Cold War. Over the past two decades, trade among SCO members has grown nearly 100-fold, with their share of global trade rising from 5.4 percent in 2001 to 17.5 percent in 2020.

This year’s attendees include Russian President Putin, Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko, Indian Prime Minister Modi, Iranian President Masoud Peseshkian, Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, Kyrgyz President Sadyr Japarov, Pakistani Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif, Tajik President Emomali Rahmon, Uzbek President Shavkat Mirziyoyev, and Mongolian President Ukhnaagiin Khurelsukh.

Also attending are Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet, Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzou, Nepali Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Egyptian Prime Minister Mostafa Madbouly, Turkmen President Serdar Berdymuhamedov, Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto, Lao President Thongloun Sisoulith, Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, and Vietnamese Prime Minister Pham Minh Chinh.

Currently, the SCO has 10 full members—Belarus, India, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, China, Pakistan, Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. Afghanistan and Mongolia hold observer status, while 14 countries, including Nepal, are dialogue partners.

According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Oli will also take part in the commemoration of the 80th anniversary of the victory of the Chinese People’s war on resistance against Japanese aggression and world anti-fascist war. PM Oli will address the SCO plus Summit in Tianjin on 1 September. Oli will also meet Chinese Prime Minister Han Zheng and vice president on September 2. Nepali Congress leader Purna Bahadur Khadka and some ministers are accompanying PM Oli.