Submit your Article

In most classrooms across Nepal, you won’t see children with diverse learning needs, not because they don’t exist, but because they’ve been made invisible. Undiagnosed, unsupported, and excluded, these children are left behind long before the first lesson begins.

I first glimpsed this invisibility as a child myself. At around ten years old, I was once waiting for results at an inter-school dance competition when a group of children from a school for the intellectually challenged performed. One of the girls left the stage and walked directly up to me, her face just inches from mine, and asked my name.

I wasn’t wary of her. I was scared of doing the wrong thing. Of saying something hurtful. Of not knowing how to respond. No one had ever talked to me about intellectual disability. No one had prepared me for what to do or how to simply be with someone who moved, spoke, or behaved differently. So I stood there, paralyzed.

Today, as a school leader trying to build inclusive classrooms in a deeply non-inclusive system, I understand that moment differently. It wasn’t just my discomfort, it was society’s silence. Our schools, our homes, and our media had never acknowledged children like her. That silence has hardened into systemic neglect.

More and more children with diverse learning needs are entering our classrooms. But they are still misunderstood, often mislabeled as lazy, disruptive, or incapable. The lucky few who are identified are either nudged out of mainstream schools or left unsupported within them, trapped in a system never designed to recognize their potential.

Globally, around 10-15 percent of children are estimated to have specific learning disabilities such as dyslexia, dysgraphia, or dyscalculia. Neurodevelopmental conditions like ADHD and autism affect an additional 4-10 percent. UNICEF reports that 12.5 percent of children aged 5-17 worldwide have moderate to severe disabilities that impact their access to learning. In Nepal, the numbers are even more stark. A national study found that over 35 percent of children aged 3-4 showed signs of developmental delay, particularly in areas of literacy and social-emotional development. While official disability data remains limited and often under-reported (ranging from 1.6 percent to 14 percent depending on the source), these figures highlight the widespread and urgent need for support systems that go far beyond current efforts.

Nepal’s Constitution, in Article 31, guarantees every citizen the right to education, explicitly committing to equitable access. It calls for education to be brought “within reach of all” and to create “equal opportunities for all.” Building on this, the Inclusive Education Policy of 2016 affirms that every child has the right to study in an inclusive, dignified environment. The policy assigns clear responsibilities to national bodies like the Curriculum Development Center and the National Examination Board, mandating the development of accessible curricula, resources, and assessment systems.

These are commendable commitments. But for educators on the ground, these policies often feel disconnected from reality. Ambiguity persists: Which needs are officially recognized? How are schools operationalizing inclusive education? Who ensures that teachers, counselors, and systems are ready to support this transformation?

Among the most visible barriers is Nepal’s standardized examination system. The Basic Level Examination (BLE) in Grade 8, the Secondary Education Examination (SEE) in Grade 10, and the School Leaving Certificate (SLC) in Grade 12 are all high-stakes assessments with rigid structures. Crucially, passing these exams is mandatory to move forward in the education system. But what about students who cannot pass, not due to lack of effort, but because of intellectual disabilities, neurodevelopmental conditions, or specific learning needs? These students are left without an option. The system treats academic performance as the sole indicator of worth and readiness, erasing the potential of those who learn differently.

The rigidity of these exams sits atop a shaky foundation. Schools lack access to trained professionals who can assess students, provide formal diagnoses, and participate in Individualized Education Plan (IEP) teams. In the absence of such expertise, educators are forced to make judgment calls they are neither trained nor authorized to make. To move forward, Nepal must invest in long-term solutions: teacher training programs focused on inclusive education, specialized university degrees in diverse learning needs and counseling, and ongoing parent education initiatives. 

There is also an urgent need for both national and local support systems staffed with experts in assessment, therapy, teacher and parent support, and school-based implementation to guide and empower schools.These systems must also include financial support for schools and families to access essential therapies, hire specialized teachers, and sustain meaningful inclusion. Without this comprehensive backing, inclusion remains aspirational rather than actionable.

Even when students are identified and supported in school, challenges remain in securing examination accommodations. The current policy requires requests to be submitted two months before the exam, yet in practice, schools often receive approval (or even information about the option) only a week before. This last-minute uncertainty discourages innovation and risks putting students in pedagogically unsound positions. Instead, the government should allow accommodations and modifications to be formally registered and approved as soon as a student’s needs are identified. This would allow schools to support the student throughout the year, not just in exams but in daily learning. Inclusion cannot be reactionary. It must be sustained and authentic.

Inclusion also requires flexibility in curriculum structure and certification. Some students could thrive with reduced subject loads. I currently work with a student with a language-based learning difficulty, for whom taking one language instead of multiple would make a world of difference. Yet the system doesn’t allow for this. We need an alternative School Leaving Certificate for such students that maintains the integrity of the curriculum but allows reduced subject requirements. Additionally, there must be a second type of certificate for students who require modified content entirely, for those whose cognitive development differs significantly from their biological age.

Crucially, these alternative certificates must carry the same procedural and social value as traditional ones. They must lead to further education and employment opportunities. Without this equivalency, these students remain excluded, their achievements undermined, and their futures jeopardized.

Beyond Grade 10, there must be guaranteed continuity of accommodations through Grade 12 and higher. And for those unable to pursue academic pathways, vocational programs must be introduced, not as a last resort, but as a dignified, valuable alternative. Every student must have a path to self-reliance and social inclusion.

Inclusion is not charity. It is not a favor. It is a right. If Nepal is sincere about its promise of equitable education, it must recognize that inclusive education is not about bringing children into the system as it exists but about reshaping the system itself. This means rethinking policies, retraining professionals, redesigning exams, funding resources, and most of all, re-framing our understanding of human potential.

The invisible students of our nation are not invisible by nature; they are made invisible by our inaction. And how we choose to respond today will define the kind of nation we become tomorrow.

Nepal stands at a critical juncture—demographically and economically. For years, remittances have propped up the numbers. Behind the GDP figures lies a more fragile reality—an economy that consumes more than it produces and depends on forces it cannot control.

For too long, Nepal sought the easy route to prosperity. It neglected to consider economic resilience, which allows economic growth to be enduring. The result is a brittle economy that is also vulnerable to external factors. A vulnerable economy cannot inspire confidence; it deters the very investment needed to strengthen it.

The path to resilience lies in turning inward, not in isolation but in foundation-building. By strengthening food and energy security, improving the quality of local production, and fostering trust-based growth in sectors like tourism and healthcare, Nepal can create an economy that grows from within—steady, self-reinforcing, and less vulnerable to global tides.

Limitations of conventional economic thinking

While economists play a vital role in guiding national policy, their models—useful as they are—often miss systemwide effects. Nowhere is this more evident than in the treatment of remittances. A presentation on the multiplier effect of remittance inflows can be seductive, yet models rarely capture how dependence on remittances weakens domestic supply chains, discourages entrepreneurship, and hollows out local talent pools.

In the short run, remittances may inflate GDP via consumption. In the long run, they heighten vulnerability to external shocks—such as a fall in global oil prices that cuts remittance inflows, even though lower prices should, in principle, benefit an oil-importing nation like Nepal. The result is an economy that appears to grow while losing internal dynamism and self-sufficiency. A sober reading of the last two decades suggests heavy remittance dependence has been one factor in Nepal’s underperformance relative to some South Asian peers.

Imagine a self-sufficient village becoming remittance-dependent: shops survive, but farmers and value-adding businesses suffer; mechanics, millers, and transporters find less work; employment shrinks; production and labour systems unravel. When external conditions worsen and remittances fall, the village is left with little productive base to fall back on.

Policy implication: Treat remittances as a cushion, not a growth model; prioritize policies that rebuild domestic production and capability.

Economic priorities: Resilience before global integration

Exports and foreign direct investment (FDI) can support development, but for a landlocked country facing scale disadvantages and tough competitors, they should follow—not precede—domestic resilience. The first priority is ensuring Nepal can sustain basic wellbeing regardless of global volatility or political pressure.

Resilience begins with self-sufficiency in essentials—especially food and energy—supported by shorter supply chains that are easier to maintain and less exposed to external shocks. Strengthening local production and internal trade does not reject international exchange; it creates the stability needed to engage global markets meaningfully. This insulation from volatility is a hallmark of successful economies. Since food and energy represent some of the largest leakages in Nepal’s economy, and both can be produced domestically, the effort to strengthen internal circulation should begin with these sectors.

A strategy grounded in resilience makes the economy not smaller but stronger. Reduced vulnerability at home prepares Nepal for global integration on its own terms.

Policy implication: Prioritize reforms to improve the reliability of domestic food and energy production and distribution, and only then focus on exposure to external markets and capital.

Domestic retention of value

Concept: The more times a rupee circulates within Nepal before leaking abroad (through imports, foreign tuition, and so on), the more jobs and income it supports.

Why it matters: Domestic spending sustains farmers, workers, transporters, shopkeepers, and technicians—who then hire and buy from one another. Import-heavy consumption, by contrast, lets value escape and weakens resilience.

Illustration:

Imported path: Rs 1,000 spent on imported LPG exits the economy quickly, leaving only trade margins behind.

Domestic path: Rs 1,000 spent on locally generated electricity stays in circulation and can, in turn, be spent on food from Nepali farmers, supporting truckers and retailers along the way. They, in turn, increase the demand for local electricity.

By expanding the use of domestic products and reducing avoidable imports, Nepal can raise GDP through a stronger internal multiplier. Economists understand this mechanism well, but it remains underused in Nepal’s development strategy. 

Policy implication: Focus first on the biggest leakages—food and energy—so each rupee circulates longer at home.

Organic growth over inorganic

Growth driven by foreign aid, advertising, subsidies, or one-off events is inorganic: it spikes, then fades. Nepal should instead prioritize organic growth—steady, self-reinforcing expansion built on quality, reliability, and reputation.

Tourism example: Rather than relying on ad campaigns, build repeat visits and word-of-mouth through a continuous cycle of improvement. The process is simple but powerful: listen → improve → convey, then repeat. Gather feedback from visitors, fix what matters most, and make those improvements visible. Each cycle strengthens trust, enhances reputation, and draws more satisfied visitors.

A tourist who feels fairly treated—who is not overcharged, stays healthy, receives genuine hospitality, and gets more than expected—is likely to return. Such experiences build trust, which is the most enduring form of promotion.

Fund the public infrastructure and services that sustain this process: clean trails, reliable rescue services, clear sign boards, public toilets, digital payment systems, and fair, transparent pricing at tourist nodes. Reduce friction through e-visas, predictable permits, transparent fees, and bundled passes. Measure success by depth of engagement—repeat visits, longer stays, and higher local spending—not just arrival counts.

Policy implication: Institutionalize continuous feedback and visible improvement in tourism services; treat satisfaction and repeat behavior as the true measures of success.

Taking advantage of our strengths

Building on organic growth, Nepal should leverage its existing strengths, beginning with tourism. Every visitor should leave satisfied and informed about Nepal’s broader possibilities—especially reliable, affordable medical and wellness services such as dentistry, eye care, physiotherapy, and hair restoration. A trekker today can be a medical tourist tomorrow—or an ambassador who sends a friend.

In many advanced economies, medical care is prohibitively expensive or slow to access. In the United States, even routine procedures cost several times more than in Nepal. In countries with universal healthcare, waiting lists for non-urgent treatments are long. For such visitors, Nepal’s combination of affordability, competence, and hospitality can be genuinely appealing. Unlike much of what passes for “medical tourism” elsewhere, Nepal can offer the real thing: treatment followed by recovery and travel in the same journey.

Candour about both strengths and weaknesses is essential. Tourist feedback must feed directly into service improvements, infrastructure upgrades, and staff training. This cycle—celebrating what works and fixing what doesn’t—turns visitors into repeat customers and advocates.

Nepal’s comparative advantages are clear: natural beauty, genuine hospitality, cost-effective professional care, and relatively low labour costs. The task is to strengthen these advantages through consistency and quality, so that every visitor departs satisfied and aware of what Nepal can offer them and their networks.

Beyond tourism, Nepal can build on similar principles of value and trust in other niche opportunities—from hosting retirees seeking affordable, comfortable living to offering high-quality personalized tailoring and craft services. Such ventures may seem unconventional, but they draw on the same strengths that make Nepal competitive: warmth, skill, and value for money. Each represents a genuine win-win, expanding Nepal’s reach while reinforcing its domestic capabilities.

Policy implication: Position tourism as an entry point to Nepal’s wider offerings in health, wellness, and craftsmanship, while strengthening quality and reliability across the service chain.

Integrated approach to development

Nepal must manage its resources frugally. It has neither the luxury of time nor the abundance to spend inefficiently. Government expenditures should therefore advance multiple goals at once, creating compounding benefits rather than isolated outcomes.

Example 1: Hetauda–Kathmandu cargo and transport cable car

Consider a cable car system linking Hetauda with Kathmandu. Private enterprises have already built several cable car networks for tourism. Drawing on their experience, Nepal could develop a low-cost, energy-efficient system to transport both goods and people between the two cities.

It should be cheaper to move goods by cable car than by diesel trucks that often weigh several times more than their cargo—diesel that must be mined in the Middle East, refined in India, and trucked across Nepal’s steep terrain. If the cable car system cannot achieve this, there is a flaw in its design or an issue of excessive profit-seeking.

During construction, the Ministry of Agriculture could establish a procurement hub near Hetauda to purchase produce from domestic farmers at fair market prices, with the intent to expand the program nationwide.

The system should be financially self-sufficient—operating without government subsidy—but guided by a public-service mandate to provide reliable and affordable transport. Such an initiative could boost agricultural output, lower food prices in Kathmandu, reduce economic leakage through lower food and energy imports, expand employment, cut emissions, decrease road accidents, and stimulate innovation.

Example 2: Narrow pathways to link rural communities

Many of the rural roads built across Nepal have yielded little lasting benefit and, in some cases, have harmed local communities. Overly wide roads have consumed arable land, worsened erosion, and increased landslides. Designed for large vehicles, they have proven costly to maintain and ill-suited to sparsely populated areas.

Nepal should instead prioritize narrow, well-engineered pathways that connect villages at similar elevations, minimizing steep gradients and annual monsoon damage. Built properly, such paths would require little maintenance and could support affordable, low-emission transport such as bicycles and small electric vehicles.

A network of such pathways would strengthen rural connectivity, preserve farmland, reduce erosion, lower infrastructure costs, and encourage innovation. It would also offer a distinctive model of rural mobility—one that promotes tourism while reflecting Nepal’s ingenuity and respect for its landscape.

Policy implication: Prioritize integrated projects that advance multiple goals—for example, efficiency, connectivity, resilience—within a single investment.

Population decline and student migration

A growing challenge is population decline in many areas, driven by the outward migration of youth for education and work. As destination countries tighten immigration rules, many students spend thousands abroad only to return with depleted savings and limited prospects. This drains foreign reserves, reduces demand for local producers, and accelerates the decline of the working-age population.

A family spending several lakhs per year on tuition and housing abroad removes equivalent purchasing power from local farmers, schools, housing, and services. If permanent residency abroad does not materialize, the household returns financially weaker, and Nepal loses both years of potential contribution and the chance for a young person to build a career at home. Nepal would be wise to reduce outward student migration, especially immediately after Grade 12.

Policy implication: Tighten quality controls and consumer protections around student outflows while building attractive domestic pathways for learning and work.

Proposed policy directions

1. Reduce remittance dependence

Introduce moderate exit controls for low-return, high-risk placements abroad while offering skill-bridging programs and small grants for returnees to start or join local enterprises.

Impact: Rebuilds domestic capability, strengthens local employment, and reduces vulnerability to external shocks.

2. Reform the temporary foreign worker system

Negotiate bilateral agreements that guarantee fair wages, insurance, and safe working conditions for Nepali workers abroad. Shift focus from volume to value—fewer departures, better protection, and stronger oversight of recruitment practices. Implement measures such as exit clearances for high-risk destinations.

Impact: Protects workers from exploitation, preserves Nepal’s labour strength, and restores confidence for domestic investment and entrepreneurship.

3. Regulate outward student migration

Approve study permits only for recognized institutions, license and supervise recruitment agencies with enforceable welfare guarantees, and expand domestic options such as vocational programs, cooperative degrees, and scholarships tied to national needs.

Impact: Protects families from exploitation, slows youth drain, and sustains demand for local education and services.

4. Encourage domestic circulation of wealth

Focus national effort where it matters most—on food and energy, the two sectors where value leaks abroad the fastest but can also be most easily retained. Support domestic food production through fair procurement, storage, and transport programs; promote agro-processing clusters near urban markets; and ensure reliable, affordable energy through stable hydropower, wider use of induction stoves, and ropeways or cable systems to reduce diesel transport.

Impact: Reduces dependence on imports, stabilizes prices, strengthens rural incomes, and keeps more of every rupee circulating within Nepal’s economy.

5. Build from within

Prioritize reliability in food systems, domestic energy, and logistics before courting large-scale foreign investment. When inviting investment, reward projects that strengthen domestic supply chains—for example, those that source materials locally, contract Nepali service providers, or transfer production know-how to local firms. Require foreign investors to partner with domestic suppliers and to train Nepali workers, ensuring technology and skills stay in the country.

Impact: Aligns foreign participation with national capacity-building so that Nepal can engage with the world on its own terms.

6. Promote organic growth in tourism

Develop a permanent mechanism for continuous quality improvement across the tourism chain. Focus public investment on essentials such as safety, sign boards, sanitation, digital payments, and fair pricing for tourists. Measure progress through visitor satisfaction, repeat visits, and longer stays.

Impact: Builds trust and reputation through steady enhancement of quality instead of short-term campaigns.

7. Expand tourism’s scope: Health, wellness, and care

Provide reliable information at airports, hotels, and major trails on accredited clinics with transparent pricing. Offer fixed-price care packages and simplified medical-visitor visas for patients and companions. Establish a feedback mechanism to uphold the integrity of partner organizations and ensure consistently high service standards.

Impact: Extends the value of existing visitor flows, generates high-trust, high-value services, and diversifies Nepal’s economic base.

8. Integrate development efforts for compounding impact

Design public investments to achieve multiple objectives—economic, social, and environmental—within a single initiative. Each project should create compounding benefits rather than isolated gains. For example, transport projects can also advance energy efficiency, local procurement, and rural employment; agricultural initiatives can simultaneously improve food security, logistics, and trade balance.

Impact: Delivers higher returns on public spending, strengthens linkages across sectors, and embeds resilience into the fabric of development.

9. Institutionalize feedback and data infrastructure

Create a national feedback loop—listen → improve → convey—using tools such as QR surveys at key touchpoints, public reporting of results, and visible follow-up actions. This infrastructure need not be limited to tourism, though that would be a natural place to begin.

Impact: Builds transparency, strengthens accountability, and makes improvement a continuous, self-reinforcing process.

Conclusion

Nepal’s first task in the coming year is to make resilience visible and measurable. That begins with cutting the largest leakages—keeping more of every rupee circulating at home through local food procurement, electrification of cooking, and domestic energy reliability. Strengthening these foundations should precede any push for global expansion, so that foreign investment builds upon Nepal’s own productive capacity rather than substituting for it. The projects that the government takes on must solve multiple problems at once. In tourism, the goal should be to turn first-time visitors into repeat guests and advocates, using transparent feedback loops and the expansion of high-trust and high-value offerings such as medical and wellness travel. At the same time, families and youth must be protected from exploitative education and labour pipelines abroad through credible domestic opportunities that make staying an equally rational choice.

Nepal will be strongest when it is resilient first and globally integrated second—organic before inorganic, strengths before stretch. By focusing on leakage reduction, service reliability, and the conversion of visitors into lasting partners, the country can create a cycle of improvement that feeds on itself. Small, practical steps, applied with discipline, will compound into stability, dignity, and durable prosperity.

Nepal’s political landing has been one of remarkable transformations but with persistent fragility. From constitutional monarchy to federal, secular republic, the country has continually redefined its system of governance. Yet, the outcomes remain uneven: political instability, fragmented coalitions, patronage-driven governance, economic interruption, diplomatic distrust and declining public trust. The repeated neglect in the people’s noise has brought about the recent GenZ uprising, which has exposed the urgency for a state that delivers stability, accountability and credibility—not just representation.

As Nepal reflects on its political destiny, it must explore a hybrid model of governance — blending the parliamentary accountability of the United Kingdom, the institutional discipline of the United States, and the executive balance of France’s semi-presidential system. Such a synthesis could deliver what neither pure parliamentary nor presidential models have achieved in Nepal: a government that is stable yet accountable, professional yet democratic, and credible at home and abroad.

The limits of the current system

Nepal’s 2015 Constitution institutionalized a parliamentary democracy with federalism, secularism and proportional representation. Yet, it has also produced coalition instability and administrative paralysis. Prime Ministers change with alarming frequency, political parties prioritize alliances over governance, and lawmakers double as ministers, often compromising both legislative oversight and executive efficiency.

In this model, the state has become top-heavy but underperforming. Parliament, intended to be the guardian of accountability, has become an arena of political bargaining. The public perceives politics as self-serving, and governance as synonymous with corruption or inertia. The structural question, therefore, is not just who governs, but how Nepal governs.

Learning from global models

Accountability thru parliament

The Westminster model offers robust parliamentary control but is vulnerable to instability when coalitions dominate. Nepal’s adaptation of this model has suffered from party fragmentation, weak discipline, and limited professionalization of ministers.

Separation and professionalism

The American system demonstrates how a strict separation between the executive and legislature enhances efficiency. Cabinet members are appointed from outside Congress, ensuring that ministers are professionals rather than politicians. This approach insulates governance from partisan instability and rewards expertise and performance.

Balance thru dual executive

France’s semi-presidential model combines a ceremonial President as head of state and a Prime Minister accountable to Parliament. This dualism provides balance and continuity, ensuring that no single institution monopolizes power. It also allows the executive to remain stable even amid political transitions.

For Nepal, the lessons are clear: parliamentary instability can be offset by executive professionalism and constitutional balance. A hybrid framework that draws from these three systems can be tailored to Nepal’s scale, political culture and aspirations.

A proposed model for Nepal

A House-elected chief executive

The Prime Minister would remain the head of the government, elected by a majority of parliament members for a fixed four or five-year term. To prevent excessive politicking, a no-confidence vote should be restricted within the first two years of tenure. The Prime Minister should not hold any party office, ensuring that governance remains above partisan maneuvering.

Subject experts as ministers

A critical innovation would be to separate lawmakers from the executive. Ministers should be drawn from outside Parliament—from academia, civil service, security, intelligentsia, business and other professional sectors—vetted by a parliamentary confirmation committee. This professional cabinet would reflect meritocracy rather than political patronage. It would also help address public disillusionment with political elites and bring expertise into governance.

A lean, unicameral legislature

Nepal could abolish the National Assembly and operate with a unicameral Parliament of 125-150 members. The current size is costly and redundant, while duplication across two houses delays decision-making. A leaner legislature would enhance efficiency and focus on lawmaking and oversight. The electoral system could remain mixed—60 percent direct and 40 percent proportional—to preserve inclusivity.

A ceremonial prez

The President would serve as Head of State and constitutional guardian, with powers to ensure continuity during crises. Elected through an electoral college of Parliament and provincial assemblies, the President’s role would be symbolic but stabilizing—much like the German or Indian model.

Toward a system that works

Nepal could gradually move away from its costly and fragmented federal structure toward a union government system that retains local empowerment but restores national coherence. Federalism, though conceived to promote inclusion, has instead multiplied bureaucracy, diffused accountability, and strained public finances. A Union model—drawing lessons from Japan’s prefectural efficiency, France’s unitary yet decentralized administration, and the UK’s devolution framework—would streamline governance by abolishing redundant provincial layers while strengthening local bodies and professional administration. This approach would preserve representation where necessary but align authority, resources and responsibility under a unified executive and legislative framework, ensuring fiscal discipline, administrative clarity, and national stability.

Strengthened oversight institutions

Parliamentary committees—especially Public Accounts, National Security and Ethics—must become more independent and professional. The judiciary should retain constitutional independence, and the Constitutional Council should include respected professionals, not only party appointees.

Why this model fits Nepal

Stability thru structure:

A fixed-term Prime Minister and a professional cabinet would end the cycle of frequent government collapses. Continuity of governance would allow long-term planning—particularly for infrastructure, economic reforms and foreign policy.

Professionalism over patronage:

By selecting ministers from outside Parliament, Nepal would cultivate an executive focused on performance and delivery. This mirrors the US cabinet system, where expertise outweighs party loyalty. It also reduces corruption by severing the link between lawmaking and resource control.

Accountability sans instability:

Legislative oversight remains robust through committees, but the executive retains autonomy in implementation. This ensures accountability without paralyzing governance.

Efficiency and cost reduction:

A smaller, unicameral Parliament would save public expenditure and improve efficiency — vital for a small, resource-constrained nation.

Institutional balance:

A ceremonial president, an empowered parliament and a professional executive would together prevent both authoritarian drift and chaotic populism. The structure would encourage responsible governance rather than perpetual negotiation.

Challenges to reform

Reforming the Constitution will not be easy. Political elites are unlikely to give up ministerial privileges or the leverage that comes from coalition bargaining. Civil society must therefore drive the national conversation on governance reform—framing it not as a partisan debate but as a strategic necessity.

Another challenge lies in bureaucratic resistance. A professionalized cabinet must work with a reformed civil service, guided by clear performance metrics and ethical standards. Nepal’s success will depend on whether institutions—not individuals—become the true anchors of power.

Finally, there must be a cultural shift in how politics is practiced. Political parties should evolve from patronage machines into programmatic institutions that shape policy and national vision, not appointments and benefits.

Reimagining governance for credibility

Nepal’s quest for stability is not about replacing one form of government with another, but about refining its governance architecture to reflect its realities. The hybrid model offers a balance between democratic representation and administrative efficiency.

It is a model where Parliament governs through oversight, not occupation; where ministers serve through expertise, not entitlement; and where the people measure democracy not by rhetoric, but by delivery.

If Nepal succeeds in building such a system, it would set a regional example—a small state navigating complex politics through institutional strength and meritocratic governance. This would also complement India’s and China’s neighborhood strategies by ensuring Nepal’s internal credibility, which remains the foundation of any external stability.

Toward a governance compact

Nepal can no longer afford the cyclical instability that has eroded public faith and economic opportunity. It needs a Governance Compact 2040—an understanding across parties, provinces, and society that stability, merit and accountability must define the next political generation.

A hybrid constitutional model drawing from the discipline of the United Kingdom, the professional governance of the United States, and the executive balance of France could suit Nepal’s unique needs.

It would keep democracy accountable, insulate administration from partisan capture, and restore credibility to governance. Reimagining governance is not a rejection of democracy but its renewal. A hybrid model—where Parliament elects the Prime Minister, ministers are drawn from merit, and a lean structure is lean and functional that ensures efficiency—could transform Nepal toward “stability and integrity” from a state of perpetual transition to one of strategic coherence and credible democracy.

Nepal’s future stability will depend not on who rules, but on how it chooses to govern.

The author is Maj Gen (Retd) and a strategic affairs analyst based in Kathmandu. He writes on South Asian geopolitics, national security, and the intersection of governance, diplomacy, and stability

Nepal is one of the most disaster-prone countries in the world. The question is not whether a disaster will occur, but which type and when. Marking this week as Disaster Risk Reduction Week in continuation of the International Day for Disaster Risk Reduction observed on Oct 13, Looking at past disasters from a retrospective perspective, in addition to recurring events such as earthquakes, floods, and landslides, we can also identify unique incidents such as the Armala sinkhole in Pokhara, the tornado in southern Nepal, the recent sinkhole in Hetauda, and the outburst of a supraglacial lake in Tibet that caused floods in Rasuwa.

On July 8, a sudden flash flood triggered by the rapid discharge of a supraglacial lake on the Purepu Glacier in Tibet caused widespread devastation along the Bhotekoshi River in Rasuwa, Nepal. The event claimed at least 11 lives and left 18 people missing. At the same time, Nepal experienced drought in the Tarai within a span of just 150–200 kilometers, underscoring the complex reality of disaster exposure in the country. Earlier, on May 2, a road in Gairigaun, Hetauda, suddenly caved in, swallowing a vehicle into a swamp-like sinkhole. The vehicle remains missing despite search operations. These two recent events, one a transboundary disaster and the other a unique local hazard, prompt the author to revisit unique past disasters in Nepal rather than recurring ones. Starting with the May 2012 Seti River flood, the author reviewed all unique disasters and their impacts in the country.

On 5 May 2012, a massive avalanche from Annapurna IV triggered a sudden flood in the Seti River, Kaski District, killing 72 people, displacing many families, and causing heavy property loss. Dwivedi & Neupane (2013) reported that approximately 32,000 m² of ridge collapsed from 6,850 meters to 4,500 meters, pulverizing ice, rock, and sediment. The impact generated a brown cloud, strong vibrations, and seismicity equivalent to 3.8–4.0 Richter Scale, recorded in Nepal and even in Tibet. The debris rushed downslope into the Seti River, transforming into a debris flow that traveled 20 km downstream at speeds of about 12 m/s within 28 minutes. Although minor rainfall had occurred a day earlier, it was not linked to the avalanche. 

During Nov 2013, major sinkholes formed in Armala, Pokhara. The region, where the Pokhara and Ghachock formations meet, consists of fluvio-lacustrine terraces with mixed sediments of gravel, limestone, quartz, gneiss, calcareous silt, clay, and fine sand. Between 2013 and 2017, over 200 sinkholes formed in Armala, creating severe challenges for residents. On 31 March 2019, strong winds and hailstorms hit Bara and Parsa districts, killing 30 people, injuring more than 1,150, and making over 2,890 families homeless. Infrastructure, utility services, agricultural land, and businesses were damaged. Research suggested this was the first officially recorded tornado in Nepal, though some classified it as a windstorm. Regardless, such wind events on this scale are unusual in the country.

On 15 June 2021, a disastrous debris flow occurred along the Melamchi River in central Nepal and caused enormous loss of life and property. At least 350 residential buildings, six bridges, and numerous infrastructures were affected. According to the World Bank and GFDRR, the flood resulted from the combined effect of heavy rainfall, temperature changes at the snow line, erosion in the end moraine of Pemdan Lake, a possible breach of the natural dam responsible for the lake, and cascading effects of the dam breach, along with erosion and a series of landslides along the Melamchi River.

In Oct 2021, the Mahakali, Karnali, and Seti rivers recorded the highest flows in decades due to unseasonal rainfall, hitting Sudurpaschim Province hardest. The disaster caused 88 fatalities, 30 missing persons, and 10 injuries. 

On 13 Aug 2023, heavy rains caused floods in Muktinath, Kagbeni village of Mustang. About 31 buildings, two permanent and three temporary bridges, were destroyed. According to Fort et al. (2024), Kagbeni (2,810 meters) lies in the north Himalayan rain-shadow area and normally receives little rainfall (<300 mm/yr). 

However, for several years, the trend has been toward increased rainfall, leading to more landslides and floods. Although rainfall data from the nearest monitoring station, Jomsom (2,720 meters), showed high rainfall, there is no detailed information about rainfall amounts at Jhong (3,600 meters) and Muktinath (3,760 meters), the source area of the Kagbeni flood. The flood was likely a landslide lake outburst, but the difficult terrain has limited detailed study.

Nepal has also recently experienced heat extremes. On 30 May 2024, Nepalgunj reached 44.2°C and Dhangadhi 44.1°C, closer to the highest ever recorded data of 46.4°C in Dipayal on 5 June 1995.

On 8 July 2024, the cloudburst event occurred, where Dodhara Chandani in Kanchanpur recorded the heaviest 24-hour rainfall in the 77-year history of rainfall measurement in Nepal, with a recording of 624 mm. Other nearby stations recorded similar extreme rainfall, surpassing previous records from 1993.

On 16 Aug 2024, a sudden flood carrying boulders devastated Thame village in Khumbu, destroying 60 buildings and damaging various structures. On that day, there was hardly any rainfall. It was later found that the flood was caused by an outburst from the Thyanbo glacial lake. Other significant events include the Birendra Lake overflow on 21 April 2024 with no human casualties. On 12 July 2024, A landslide struck two buses at Simaltal, Chitwan, sweeping them into the Trisuli River and causing the loss of 59 lives.

During 27–29 Sept 2024, extreme precipitation caused flooding, landslides, and inundation across different parts of Nepal. The Department of Hydrology and Meteorology (DHM) recorded rainfall at 222 stations nationwide, of which 77 stations reported heavy rainfall exceeding 200 mm on 28 September. Among the hydrological gauging stations, 23 recorded water levels surpassing the danger level, while another 14 recorded levels exceeding the warning threshold. The floods affected 518,403 households and a population of 2.59m, with an estimated economic loss of Rs 46.6bn. During this event, three buses were buried by a mudslide in Jhyaple Khola, Dhading, resulting in the loss of at least 35 lives.

On May 15, at around 10:30 pm, a sudden debris flow occurred in the Tiljung stream in Namkha, Humla. The incident affected the 15 kW micro-hydropower project, drinking water sources, cultivable land, irrigation canals, and the motorable bridge over the Til stream. According to field reports, this was likely caused by the melting of permafrost within the moraine, which developed into a cavity or piping system extending to the lakebed, ultimately resulting in the sudden drainage of the lakes. The Til flood does not resemble a typical GLOF, but a detailed study could classify it more accurately as a Thermokarst Flood or Permafrost-Release Flood. A massive flood in Upper Mustang on July 9, carrying mud and damaging six bridges, including four that were completely swept away.

Also, the cyclones that develop in the Arabian Sea and the Bay of Bengal have indirect impacts and sometimes cascading and compounding effects. For example, Cyclone Tauktae in May 2021 caused mild to light rainfall across western Nepal, with a flash flood in Ramaroshan in Achham District in Sudurpashim Province. Cyclone Yaas in May 2021 left various parts of Nepal drenched in rain and overcast conditions. On 14 Oct 2014, sudden weather changes caused by Cyclone Hudhud in Nepal reportedly triggered avalanches around Dhaulagiri and Annapurna. The avalanches and heavy snowfall killed at least 43 people in Nepal and caused heavy rainfall in major cities. 

Along with recurring events such as earthquakes, including the 2015 Gorkha Earthquake, the Doti Earthquake of 2022, and the Bajhang and Jajarkot earthquakes of 2023, as well as annually occurring monsoon disasters, and global pandemics such as Covid-19, unique disaster events have caused major damage to both life and property. These events have resulted in substantial economic losses and placed a heavy burden on reconstruction, rehabilitation, and recovery efforts, ultimately impacting Nepal’s overall GDP. Some of the above events include transboundary challenges in disaster management, where disasters originating in neighboring countries also cause loss of life and property in Nepal. 

In addition, the change in the pattern and intensity of rainfall, unseasonal droughts, increasing heatwaves and forest fires, along with various climate extremes, reflect the evolving risks caused by climate change. According to NDRRMA, although rainfall during the first 90 days of this year’s monsoon has been below average, monsoon-related disasters have already caused 63 deaths and left 22 people missing. As hydro-meteorological events and their effects increase, the early warning system for such hazards needs to be strengthened. In 2024, forecasts issued by the DHM were almost 70 percent accurate, but in 2025, accuracy appears to be lower, highlighting the need for technological improvements to enhance forecast reliability.

According to the National DRR Strategic Plan of Action (2018–2030), the target was to reduce annual disaster-related deaths to 300 by 2025. However, given the current situation, achieving this target seems challenging. Moving from disaster management to investing in risk reduction is more effective, more efficient, and fairer. This is also the message of the International Day for Disaster Risk Reduction: “Fund resilience, not disasters. Disaster risk financing strategies must also be strengthened, especially to protect agriculture and farming, while reducing the financial burden in the post-disaster phase. 

The Government of Karnali Province has already introduced good practices in risk transfer and insurance by launching the Natural Disaster Risk Group Insurance Program, which provides coverage of up to Rs 200,000 and has reached around 1.7m people. In addition, the Disaster Home Protection Program has supported 16,078 households with benefits worth Rs 8.8m as of the fiscal year 2024/25. It is also essential to engage and support community disaster management committees, local women’s and youth groups, so their involvement extends beyond formal channels and can be immediately mobilized after a disaster. 

It is equally necessary to equip all security forces with the required personnel, rescue gear, and rapid response training needed for swift mobilization, and to explore the possibility of establishing a separate National Disaster Response Force, as the country needs regular human resources dedicated to disaster response. We are all aware that Nepal is one of the most disaster-prone countries in the world, but it is also time to explore potential hazards that may cause disasters, as past trends have shown unexpected events in the country. It is high time we ask ourselves and prepare for every possible disaster, since Nepal seems to be safe only from marine disasters.

The author is an earthquake engineer with over a decade of experience in practice and research in DRR, civil and earthquake engineering