Submit your Article

Prime Minister Balendra Shah has assumed the responsibility of the Home Ministry as well. 

The Ministry had fallen vacant after Home Minister Sudhan Gurung resigned earlier today.

Home Minister Gurung submitted his resignation to Prime Minister Shah today and the Prime Minister will take charge of the ministry as of now, said Prime Minister's Press and Research Expert Deepa Dahal.

The National Statistics Office has published the provincial-level results of the Nepal Multidimensional Survey 2081/82 amid a program held in Janakpur today.

The survey has shown that particularly in the Madhes Province, the situation of child mortality, malnutrition, adolescent girls fertility rate, and out-of-school children is more worrying compared to the national average.

According to the survey report, in Madhes Province the neonatal mortality rate is 20 per thousand live births and the under-five child mortality rate is 33, which is above the national average.

Similarly, the level of malnutrition also appears serious, with 23.2 percent of children being underweight for their age and 31.1 percent being stunted. 

Challenges have also been observed in the education sector in Madhesh Province. Here, 9.2 percent of children in grades 1–5, 8.2 percent in grades 6–8, and 22.6 percent in grades 9–12 are out of school. 

The participation rate in early childhood education programmes is only 26.3 percent.

Also, inequality has been found in access to health services. In Madhesh Province, only 70.4 percent of women have had four prenatal check-ups as recommended, while the number of people with health insurance is very low - only 6.6 percent for women and 3.9 percent for men.

In terms of reproductive health, the total fertility rate in Madhesh is 2.4, which is higher than the national average of 1.9. The adolescent (15–19 years) fertility rate is also high, recorded at 71 per 1000.

However, some positive aspects have also been observed.

 In Madhes, 98.5 percent of households have access to electricity, while 94.7 percent have telephone facilities.

Similarly, 78.9 percent of households are using devices that use the internet. 

Although the percentage of people using improved drinking water sources is high (99 percent), the report shows that it is concerning that E. coli bacteria were found in 65 percent of the water.

The National Statistics Office has expressed confidence that the data obtained from this survey will make a significant contribution to policy-making, planning, and monitoring of sustainable development goals.

This survey was conducted with the support of UNICEF Nepal.

From April 19 to 22, US Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asian Affairs Paul Kapur visited Nepal. Although it was a routine visit, it carried significance for two main reasons. First, it was his first visit to Nepal after assuming office at the State Department last year. Second, the visit came on the heels of the Rastriya Swatantra Party’s stunning victory in Nepal’s landmark March 5 elections and the appointment of Balendra Shah as prime minister on March 27.

The visit provided an opportunity for Kapur to outline the new priorities of the Donald Trump administration and to understand the priorities of Nepal’s new government. For Nepal, it was a chance to communicate its priorities to the United States, a major development partner since the 1950s. Since Trump’s second inauguration, there has been no substantial high-level engagement between the two countries. It was only after nine months that Kapur was appointed to oversee the region. Meanwhile, Nepal was preoccupied with internal issues such as the GenZ protests and the March 5 vote. That is why Kapur’s Nepal visit got delayed.

Kapur’s meetings this week with political leaders, business representatives and members of the cultural community indicate both continuity and change in the Trump administration’s Nepal policy.

During his stay in Kathmandu, he met RSP Chairperson Rabi Lamichhane, Foreign Minister Shishir Khanal and Finance Minister Swarnim Wagle. He also held discussions with members of the business community and representatives of the Tibetan community in Nepal.

 Unlike previous assistant secretaries, who typically met opposition leaders, former prime ministers, civil society representatives, and media figures, Kapur’s engagements in Kathmandu were relatively limited.

Now, turning to the key issues discussed with Nepali officials: as the Trump administration has dismantled USAID—which previously supported Nepal’s health, education, agriculture, and energy sectors—Kapur emphasized deepening and expanding commercial ties during his meetings with government ministers and business leaders. This signals that the US is shifting away from aid (except in a few areas) and focusing more on investment.

 The dismantlement of USAID created a stress on Nepal’s health, education and agriculture sector. The Trump administration has been prioritizing trade over aid and investment assistance which puts Washington in a stronger position to counter China.

In his meeting with Finance Minister Wagle, Kapur stressed improving the business climate to attract US companies. He noted that more American private firms would invest in Nepal if a more investment-friendly environment were created. Even during the Joe Biden administration, both sides had discussed increasing American investment in Nepal. The Trump administration has also continued projects under the Millennium Challenge Corporation, which the US views not as aid but as investment.

Speaking before the House Committee in February, Kapur said that carefully targeted investment can provide South Asian countries with high-quality, transparent and non-coercive support for critical infrastructure such as ports, telecommunications networks, and energy systems—helping them avoid the risks of “debt-trap diplomacy,” a veiled reference to China.

He made similar remarks during a recent meeting with Bangladesh’s finance minister in Washington, emphasizing expanded trade and investment, improved market access, energy cooperation and opportunities in infrastructure development.

Collaboration in digital infrastructure is another major US priority in Nepal. In discussions with business representatives, Kapur highlighted opportunities in Nepal’s ICT sector, including strengthening digital infrastructure, promoting artificial intelligence adoption, enhancing cybersecurity and sharing US technological expertise. Interestingly, the Chinese ambassador to Nepal recently made similar proposals in talks with Finance Minister Wagle.

Immigration policy has also become a major priority under Trump’s second term. Kapur raised concerns about illegal immigration and human trafficking in his meeting with Foreign Minister Khanal. Over the past year, the US  has deported hundreds of Nepali nationals residing illegally in the country, and this issue has been discussed in prior engagements in Washington.

Enhanced defense cooperation is another priority for the US, representing continuity with past policy but with greater emphasis under the Trump administration. Although Kapur did not meet security officials during this visit, earlier engagements suggest this focus. For instance, Admiral Samuel J. Paparo, commander of the US Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM), highlighted expanded defense cooperation during his visit to Nepal.

In previous statements, Kapur has emphasized that countries like Nepal, Bangladesh, the Maldives, Sri Lanka and Bhutan hold strategic importance due to their geographic positions but are also vulnerable to external pressure. Defense cooperation with the US, he argued, can help these nations safeguard their borders and waterways. The US continues to promote the State Partnership Program (SPP), although Nepal decided in 2022 not to join it.

Through INDOPACOM, the US has supported Nepal in strengthening disaster response capabilities via joint exercises, technical assistance, and non-combat equipment such as helicopters, vehicles and communication systems. Additional training and logistical support aim to enhance Nepal’s capacity for peacekeeping and humanitarian operations, aligning with broader goals of self-reliance and regional resilience.

Countering Chinese influence in Nepal remains a longstanding US priority, and the Trump administration appears to be placing renewed emphasis on it, even if it was not explicitly stated during this visit. Notably, issues such as democracy, climate change cooperation, human rights, media freedom, and minority rights—often highlighted in previous US engagements—were not prominently raised during this visit.

The post-Cold War world order of the 1990s set the tone with a thrust on transparency in political democratization. The international wave was so strong that developing countries like Nepal were swept along, readily embracing policies deeply engrained in the changed global landscape. International financial and socio-economic development institutions forcefully advocated for extensive transparency in every action and decision of governments, so that citizens could enjoy unencumbered access to information, thereby strengthening democratic values and paving the way for good governance.

Nepal, on one hand, suffered from becoming a mere market for foreign products, which narrowed its export base and severely undermined national economic growth, and on the other, in the name of transparency, state's confidential and secret matters were either leaked or slipped through the cracks. This situation, inevitably, exposed national security to serious vulnerabilities. These two pillars of democratic governance—transparency and secrecy—often pull in opposite directions, but both are indispensable for the effective functioning of government. While practicing them in  day-to-day activity of the government, maintaining a logical and practical balance between them had become increasingly essential, due to Nepal’s vulnerable position shaped by its geostrategic location.

There is no denying that transparency enhances the ability and capacity of citizens to rigorously scrutinize the actions and performances of the government, thereby promoting accountability and reinforcing institutional credibility. When transparency prevails, citizens remain well-informed and safeguard against the misuse of state power. In a democratic government, if decisions are taken in camera and the processes remain shrouded in opacity, the values and norms of democracy begin to decay, making pliable ground for the rise of autocracy or even monocracy.  With its paramount importance in democratic structure, transparency stands as a keystone of good governance, which contributes to fostering public trust in government. Transparency does not mean being naked, rather, it signifies being decent.

Security realm

Given its inherently sensitive domain, national security always perceives absolute transparency as a latent threat to the nation's survival.  Protecting critical and important information, which affects the sovereignty and  national unity of Nepal, is basically a matter of maintaining complete secrecy. Within this milieu of national security, there always stands a pressing challenge in striking a sensible balance between openness and confidentiality. There was a time when tensions frequently arose between information seekers and information providers.

Many times, information seekers were compelled to knock on the door of the National Information Commission. Only after issuing the formal directives by the Commission, the concerned officials provided the requested information or documents.  In a few cases, the Commission has also imposed a fine on those officials who did not comply with its directives. This situation brought two institutions—the Commission and the concerned ministry—in a state of tug- of-war.

Later, all the ministries classified certain official documents as confidential. In response to such decisions, information seekers raised questions about the intentions of the government. They alleged that the government's motive was to hide information—an affront to democratic values and constitutional rights.

In a democratic system, transparency empowers citizens to consistently scrutinize government actions, which helps reduce corruption. Transparency is not merely a tool for good governance, rather it is a democratic necessity.  In view of this, transparency in government operations, particularly in areas such as procurement, service delivery, decision-making for the welfare of citizens, is indispensable. In the pursuit of openness, the government’s decisions must not be compromised with national security.

At one side, there is a constitutional right to information, which unequivocally states that ‘every citizen shall have the right to demand or receive information on any matter of personal or public interest’.  On the other hand, its restrictive clause stipulates that ‘no person shall be compelled to disclose information that is required to be kept confidential by law’. There is a thin and delicate line between these two versions that should be distinguished through a patriotism-oriented interpretation. While disclosing the sensitive information, all concerned must give paramount consideration to the national interest and national security imperatives. National security policy is the umbrella policy encompassing all sectoral policies, such as industrial, economic, agriculture, health and education policies.

National security operates in different realms—basically with internal and external threats, intelligence operations, defense, internal security, sensitive national issues, and diplomatic negotiations. Premature or excessive disclosure can jeopardise national interests. Such an activity weakens the nation in particular. It must be taken into mind that in such a situation, secrecy can not be a choice but a necessity.

Some of the government’s responsible persons have developed a tendency of being vocal, believing that their respective ministries are superior to others and that their policy decisions need not comply with the national security policy. If such a mindset prevails, the entire government’s line ministries cannot work in unison in pursuit of national interests. No ministry can function in isolation, rather, a collective and coordinated effort must be reflected in their working styles—avoiding the repetition of past mistakes.

In order to cultivate a culture of responsible governance, officials must be trained to discern the 'fine line' between transparency and secrecy. Their ethical conduct, reinforced by professionalism, should guide them in identifying the delicate boundary. A mature working culture is a must to understand that these two are not adversaries but rather complementary gears serving different purposes.