Submit your Article

The Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) has filed a corruption case against former Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal and 91 others in connection with the Patanjali land scandal. The move has ignited a debate over whether the CIAA has the constitutional authority to investigate cabinet decisions, with legal experts and political analysts sharply divided.

Nepal’s party, the CPN (Unified Socialist), along with several opposition groups, has denounced the case as politically motivated. Many suspect that Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli may have influenced CIAA Chief Prem Kumar Rai to target Nepal, one of Oli’s most vocal critics, under the pretense of a corruption probe. The rift between the two leaders has been widening since the party’s split in 2021

Public reaction has been swift and skeptical. From social media to teashop gossip, many see this as an attempt to weaken the Unified Socialist and lure away its lawmakers. If successful, such a maneuver could boost the CPN-UML’s numbers in the House of Representatives, potentially pushing the Nepali Congress into second place.

But the greater concern is the deepening erosion of public trust in state institutions.  This growing distrust poses a more serious threat to Nepal’s democratic order than the revival of monarchist sentiment.

Like many state institutions, the CIAA is losing legitimacy due to a flawed appointment process, selective investigations, and a deferential attitude toward the political elite—all of which compromise its constitutional autonomy. At the heart of the problem lies the method of appointing the CIAA’s leadership.

Chiefs and commissioners are often chosen based on political allegiance or their willingness to offer bribes for the position. Such practices fatally compromise the agency’s independence.

As a result, the CIAA is frequently accused of targeting “small fish” while ignoring large-scale corruption involving high-profile figures. Its track record in major cases is dismal, with many prosecutions falling apart due to poorly prepared charges at the Special Court.

Had the CIAA built a reputation for fair and rigorous investigations, the current case against Nepal might not have provoked such intense skepticism.

This isn’t just about one institution. Across the board, Nepal’s key democratic institutions are rapidly losing public confidence. The recent delay in appointing the Governor of Nepal Rastra Bank is a case in point, which was marked by indecision and political bargaining at the highest level.

Meanwhile, the judiciary’s credibility continues to decline. One controversial verdict after another has led many to question the impartiality of the courts. Just two weeks ago, the Janakpur high court acquitted former Nepali Congress lawmaker Mohammad Aftab Alam in connection with the 2008 Rautahat blast and subsequent killing of those injured. 

Despite strong testimony from legal experts, witnesses, and journalists implicating Alam, the court found him not guilty. Such rulings fuel public despair and reinforce the perception that justice in Nepal is hostage to politics and impunity. 

The executive branch fares no better. Public trust in the government is at an all-time low, driven by repeated accusations of corruption, opacity, and indifference to citizens’ concerns. One glaring example is the unwillingness of the Prime Minister and ministers to disclose their property details more than a year after the current NC–UML coalition took power.

If Nepal’s political parties are serious about defending the current system against royalist and other anti-democratic forces, they must begin by restoring faith in public institutions. That starts with overhauling the deeply flawed appointment process. Too often, constitutional bodies are staffed not by competent, independent professionals but by political loyalists and former bureaucrats with party affiliations.

These appointees remain beholden to the leaders who installed them, rendering institutions ineffective and subservient. Far from being autonomous, many constitutional bodies now operate as extensions of the executive. The judiciary is no exception.

Over the past two decades, political interference in the justice system has become so normalized that ordinary citizens can identify the political leanings of Supreme Court justices based on their past affiliations. This perceived bias has severely undermined the legitimacy of court rulings.

Both the judiciary and legislature operate in the shadow of partisan influence. Other institutions, including the Nepal Police, Nepal Army, and various regulatory agencies, are also viewed as corrupt and politicized

Because political parties remain at the center of power, the impetus for reform must come from them. Yet history shows a troubling pattern: when prominent political figures are implicated in corruption, their parties work to weaken or discredit oversight bodies. This has been the case since the early 1990s, when the CPN-UML resisted unfavorable court rulings, followed by the Nepali Congress in the 2000s.

After 2006, the Maoists and Madhes-based parties attacked the credibility of state institutions, and now, newer parties like the Rastriya Swatantra Party publicly challenge investigations and court decisions. This persistent trend has done lasting damage to the credibility of Nepal’s democratic institutions.

Political parties often proclaim their commitment to democracy, but that commitment must be judged by actions—not words. True dedication to democratic values requires strengthening institutional integrity, not undermining it for short-term political gain. On this front, Nepal’s political leadership has repeatedly failed.

Public faith in the current political class is near collapse. To address this deepening crisis, Nepal urgently needs principled, accountable leadership at all levels—federal, provincial, and local. These leaders must ensure that public institutions function independently, deliver on their mandates, and operate without political interference.

Today, state institutions are widely seen as corrupt, politicized, inefficient, and disconnected from the public. If political parties genuinely wish to safeguard the political system, they must embrace a long-term, systemic reform agenda rooted in the spirit of the 2015 Constitution.

Although the Constitution enshrines the separation of powers, genuine institutional reform has yet to follow. Nepal does not need a constitutional amendment, but it does need a comprehensive review aimed at strengthening the architecture of democracy. Only then can the country’s political system hope to survive and thrive.

Nepal’s democratic transition was a historic achievement, born out of years of struggle against autocracy and exclusion. The promise was clear: a more inclusive, transparent and accountable political system that would work for all Nepalis. However, in recent years, that promise appears increasingly under threat—not from overt dictatorship or conflict, but from a more insidious danger: crony capitalism, underpinned by corruption and rent-seeking behavior.

Instead of fulfilling the vision of a just and equitable society, Nepal’s political and economic systems are becoming instruments of private gain. Political power is being used not to deliver public service, but to protect vested interests, distribute favors and reward loyalty. As a result, the foundations of democracy are weakening, and inequality, injustice, and disillusionment are growing.

Graft in daily life

One of the clearest signs of Nepal’s corruption problem is the widespread practice of bribery in daily government work. People often complain that they have to pay extra money to get basic services—like getting a driver’s license, registering land or receiving government help. This kind of small-scale corruption is not just occasional; it has become a regular part of the system. Many lower-level officials take bribes, often with the knowledge or silent approval of their bosses. Because of this, public services no longer work fairly, and people lose trust in the system. Along with this, Nepal is now facing several big corruption scandals, such as irregularities in the construction of Bhairahawa and Pokhara airports, cheating in government purchases, and growing cases of human trafficking. These examples show how deep and serious corruption has become in the country.

Patronage over meritocracy

In a healthy democracy, public appointments and opportunities should be based on merit. In Nepal, however, political patronage has become the norm. Government contracts, licenses and even civil service positions are often awarded to those with political connections, not competence. This has created a dual economy—one that rewards allegiance over ability, and another that marginalizes the capable yet unconnected. Such practices discourage innovation, weaken institutions, and dishearten the youth.

Policy manipulation

Nepal’s business elite, particularly those with political ties, have increasingly influenced laws and regulations to serve their own interests. This includes securing tax exemptions, inflating budgets and establishing monopolies that block competition. Regulatory frameworks are often tailored to fit the needs of a few, undermining the spirit of fairness and market integrity. In effect, public policy is being captured and privatized.

Public procurement sans accountability

Large-scale corruption is particularly rampant in public procurement. Infrastructure, health and education projects are plagued by inflated costs, poor quality, and delayed completion. Contracts are frequently awarded without open bidding, leading to the misuse of public funds. Instead of serving the people, these projects often serve the contractors and politicians who collude behind the scenes. The result is a chronic under-delivery of essential services.

The capture of financial institutions

Even Nepal’s financial institutions are not immune. Several cooperatives and commercial banks are believed to be controlled by political actors or their close allies. These institutions have been used to launder money, issue unsecured loans to cronies and bypass financial oversight. Such practices not only promote corruption but also put ordinary depositors and the overall financial system at risk.

Consequences for the nation

The cumulative effect of corruption and rent-seeking is deeply damaging. Economic growth is stifled because genuine entrepreneurs are crowded out by politically connected firms. Inequality worsens as elites accumulate wealth while basic services for the public remain poor. Most dangerously, public trust in democratic institutions is eroding. When citizens lose faith in the rule of law and the fairness of the system, democracy itself is at risk.

Furthermore, the politicization of oversight institutions—such as the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA), judiciary and police—has rendered many of them ineffective. These bodies are meant to serve as guardians of accountability, but they often appear reluctant or powerless to act against those in power.

The way forward

Addressing these challenges requires more than superficial reforms. It demands structural change and political will. Strengthening anti-corruption laws, ensuring transparency in public procurement and depoliticizing state institutions are essential. Political party financing must be regulated, and the independence of watchdog agencies must be guaranteed. Whistleblowers and investigative journalists must be protected, and a culture of ethical leadership must be cultivated.

Equally important is the need for civic engagement. Citizens must demand accountability, participate actively in governance and resist the normalization of corruption. Democracy does not end at the ballot box—it must be defended and deepened every day.

Conclusion

Nepal’s democracy was built with the hope of justice, equality and opportunity. Allowing that hope to be squandered by corruption and cronyism would be a profound betrayal. Crony capitalism is not just an economic issue—it is also a political and moral one. Unless addressed with urgency and courage, it threatens to undo the democratic gains made over decades. Nepal cannot afford to let democracy become a tool for private profit. It must remain a force for public good.

We observe World Environment Day every year on June 5, reaffirming our commitment to protect and preserve the natural environment. Yet, despite our pledges, these efforts often fall short, as environmental protection initiatives struggle to withstand the growing challenges of pollution. 

The natural environment of Kathmandu has become so polluted that the issue of pollution in the capital city has been a topic of discussion for decades. The Supreme Court in the landmark case of Advocate Bhojraj Aire and Others v Office of the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers and Others (2004) observed that the environment of the Kathmandu Valley is becoming increasingly polluted day by day, a fact established through various studies and research. This pollution has had a negative impact on the right to live in a clean and healthy environment, held the apex court. The judicial decision addressing the problem of Kathmandu’s pollution was delivered nearly 21 years ago, yet we continue to debate the same concerns. Years have passed, but the core issue remains unchanged. Kathmandu is one of the most polluted cities in the world. 

The concern for the natural environment was not limited to the early 2000s; it was already a topic of serious discussion in Nepal in the 1990s as well. In the case of Godavari Marbles, which was pronounced in 1995 and filed by Surya Prasad Sharma Dhungel, the apex court was of the view that human life is endangered in a polluted environment. The polluted environment leads to the deprivation of an individual’s life and physical well-being. The right to be free from such a polluted environment is a matter of individual rights and freedoms. In this respect, the protection of the environment is directly related to human life and physical integrity.  

Strict laws, poor execution

The Environment Protection Act, 2019 has been enacted by the government to implement Article 30 of the Constitution, which guarantees a breath of fresh air to every citizen. The Act aims to protect and improve the environment and to mitigate the pollution; to enforce the right to clean the environment; to grant compensation to victims of environmental pollution; and to implement EIA, Environmental Study and Environment Examination reports.  

The Act has set heavy fines for non-compliance of law and government policies. For instance, Section 35 of the Act envisages that there could be a fine of up to five million at the instance of non-compliance of EIA by a proponent. Defiance of Initial Environmental Examination could lead to fines of up to one million.

Socio-cultural legacy

Nepal is a pluralistic country where people belonging to every ethnicity and faith co-exist. Our cultural legacy shows that we have never been cruel toward the environment. In fact, environment protection is one of the cultural heritages of Nepal. 

Every religious and cultural practice we observe symbolizes environmental protection. See, the grand festival of Chhath. It’s the festival demanding cleanliness of waters. The devotees offer prayers to the Sun god by standing in the waters. 

On the first day of the month of Baisakh, people in Tarai-Madhesh celebrate Jur Shital, the festival which aims to protect the trees, waters and soil. The festival begins with elders sprinkling cool water on the head of their relatives and this practice is considered to be part of seeking blessings from the elders. The family members spread water on the plants and trees. In addition to this, there is a culture of playing the traditional game Kado-Mati (mud-soil) which is similar to mud bath. These cultural practices symbolize conservation of soil, trees, and water. 

Kautilya’s Arthashastra states that it is the Dharma of each individual in society to protect nature. The Yajna or sacrificial fire is apparently done to worship one or other deity and it ultimately purifies the air. The Samaveda highlights the importance of the Yajna as it helps in keeping away the mosquitoes and other insects. In Padma Purana and Karma Purana, it is mentioned that the trees, like Peepal, Bel, Neem, etc are the abode of the God and they are not to be cut. 

In Buddhism, the principle of Simplicity preaches for sustainability and the principle of Ahimsa (Non-violence) preaches for the love for flora and fauna. Our holy texts, laws and court judgments too show that the country has been serious towards environmentalism.

The way forward

Our concern for environmental protection should be a topic of daily discussions—not the persistence of pollution itself. Environmental pollution is a business of shame for ancient countries like Nepal, which have a rich socio-cultural and legal legacy of environmental stewardships. 

The more polluted our atmosphere becomes, the more our citizens are forced to spend on medicines and healthcare. Moreover, without addressing pollution, our development cannot be sustainable, nor can we effectively implement our green laws. Also, we would not be in a position to align with the global commitment to ‘Ending Plastic Pollution’, the theme of World Environment Day 2025. 

In fact, we should develop a conscious approach and strike a balance between environmental protection and development, held by the Supreme Court of Nepal in the landmark case of Advocate Narayan Prasad Devkota v Government of Nepal and Others (NKP 2066 BS, Decision Number 8521). The progress and pollution should not go together. There can be no end to progress in terms of industrialization, commercialization and globalization, and consequently, no escape from pollution. Still, we cannot turn a deaf ear to environmental protection measures. It is high time we implemented our green laws, embraced the wisdom of our cultural practices and revived our heritage of environmental protection.

The appointment of Mohammad Yunus as Chief Advisor of Bangladesh, after the acrimonious removal of Sheikh Hasina, signifies an unparalleled shift in the nation’s political course. Globally recognized as a Nobel Peace Prize laureate and innovator of microfinance via Grameen Bank, Yunus ascended to the highest executive role amid a period of national upheaval. His leadership has emerged when Bangladesh faces a confluence of challenges—severe economic downturn, waning investor confidence, geopolitical strife in South and Southeast Asia and a domestic landscape characterised by civil upheaval and institutional exhaustion. 

The unelected top official of Bangladesh has been in the news since the ouster of his predecessor, Sheikh Hasina. When the students of Bangladesh, after the uprising, chose Yunus as a top executive, they must have had a few things in their minds: his international stature, his closeness to the Western governments, his reputation as a global economist and finally, for some, his secular credentials. These qualities of Yunus are not providing dividends for the current political climate of Bangladesh. The most recent example of this tension has been the visible opposition from Bangladesh’s Army to the Yunus-proposed ‘humanitarian corridor’.  

Other than that, in a recent speech in Beijing, Yunus stated that India’s northeastern territories are ‘landlocked’ and suggested that Bangladesh could serve as their natural conduit to the Indian Ocean. Although ostensibly a harmless appeal for regional connection and collaboration, the speech directly aligned with Beijing’s geopolitical characterization of India’s vulnerabilities. Chinese state media promptly disseminated Yunus’s statements, portraying Bangladesh as a neutral yet empathetic regional participant. The political characterization of India’s Northeast is very sensitive. India regards this region as strategically vital, mainly because of the constricted Siliguri corridor, often called the ‘Chicken’s Neck’—and symbolically significant for its domestic cohesion. The speech was interpreted in New Delhi as an implicit endorsement of China's enduring attempts to undermine Indian sovereignty in Arunachal Pradesh and to globalize the geopolitical character of the Northeast.

India's response was prompt and multifaceted. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in a pointed retort, affirmed that the Northeast is “central to India’s growth narrative, not peripheral or isolated,” clearly countering Yunus’ assertion, with geographic and diplomatic connotations. External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar intensified the matter by publicly alleging that Yunus was “cherry-picking narratives” and emphasized to Dhaka the profound economic, cultural and historical dimensions of Indo-Bangladeshi relations.

Central to India’s response is the Siliguri corridor—a 22-kilometer-wide land passage linking the remainder of India with its northeastern states. The ‘Chicken’s Neck’ is commonly referred to as one of the nation’s most significant strategic vulnerabilities. Yunus’ comments directly contributed to India’s enduring apprehension of encirclement. The episode revitalized New Delhi’s security dialogue, with Indian defense strategists cautioning about a ‘chicken with two necks’, wherein Bangladesh and China may exert pressure on India’s most vulnerable spot together.

It was another blow to an already fragile relationship between India and Bangladesh, considering Bangladesh’s ex-PM Sheikh Hasina is currently residing in India, fearing persecution in Bangladesh. The current Bangladesh government has demanded her return from India. On its part, the government of India has been wary of the current regime as it has “failed to stop the persecution of minorities after the ouster of Sheikh Hasina”. 

While the current regime in Bangladesh has signalled strong ties with China, they are yet to see any material impact. Other than that, Pakistan has also made overtures toward Bangladesh, which the current regime has welcomed, but the strategic and economic viability of this relationship is in question. The political climate in the West has also changed drastically since the arrival of Donald Trump as US president. His transactional relationship is haunting the US’ oldest and most steadfast allies. In his first term, Trump was particularly interested in the Indo-Pacific to counter China. Bangladesh finalized its Indo-Pacific strategy in 2023 during Hasina’s tenure, which more or less aligned with the US’ vision. However, the US is currently dealing with two evolving crises in Gaza and Ukraine, and the Indo-Pacific has again taken a back seat. The other economic powers are trying to cut deals with the US because of Trump’s trade war threat.

Yunus must embrace a more equitable and realistic strategy that harmonizes with Bangladesh’s domestic circumstances and the shifting geopolitical environment to traverse the intricate political and diplomatic landscape ahead. Although advantageous, his global credentials and reformer persona must now be enhanced by a more profound engagement with regional nuances and state institutions. In the light of the recent tensions with India, it would be wise for Yunus to implement confidence-building measures that strengthen Bangladesh’s dedication to regional peace and cooperative benefits, especially on connectivity, trade and border security. This does not inherently necessitate a withdrawal from alliances with other nations, such as China; nevertheless, it demands meticulous recalibration to prevent the appearance of strategic alignment with any one entity. 

Simultaneously, Yunus must tackle national issues regarding governance and institutional credibility. Establishing communication lines with political players, especially moderate opposition factions and civil society, may alleviate tensions and facilitate a more inclusive political process. Enhancing civilian-military interactions will be crucial for ensuring policy continuity and internal consistency. His initiatives, including the humanitarian corridor, must be conveyed transparently and deliberated within national institutions to prevent misunderstandings or suspicions of unilateralism.

Bangladesh’s future will likely hinge on its capacity to sustain strategic flexibility while strengthening internal cohesion. As global power dynamics change and regional alliances develop, Yunus’ leadership will be evaluated on his ability to establish Bangladesh as a constructive regional participant, engaging with all significant actors without excessive dependence on any, and grounding its diplomacy in national consensus and institutional robustness.

The author is pursuing his doctoral research from the School of International Studies, JNU, New Delhi