Submit your Article

Frustration and nihilism will never herald any solution nor drive to find success. Nonetheless, politics and political turmoil of Nepal has grossly failed to evacuate people from torrent of relentless hopelessness. For ages, people have desperately anticipated basking in the bright light of prosperity and all-round development. Several series of upheavals and mass movements were cast and were heartily corroborated for the same aspiration. But the entire drive seemingly appears to be recklessly and reflexively on reverse gear. Apocalyptic signs are rife; rapidly evolving situations portend an ocean of apathy from concerned authorities. 

Of late, as a consequence, the height of dismay is countlessly compounded that even after many series of political changes the country has not yet reached and received the expected pace of development. Dynamics of welfare state and development is a subject that is continuously raised by the leaders of all political parties. From the last few years, the discussions about slow progress and sluggish development pace are attributed to brain-drain. It is believed that brain drain is the main reason for the under-development of the country and urged for diasporas’ return to accelerate it.
A large section of society is impressively whitewashed to conceive a faulty narrative of brain-drain in Nepal. The latest data shows that nearly 5m Nepalis are abroad. In-deed it has chained our mind, blurred the logical reasoning too. Nowadays, approximately 2,000 people prepare foreign trips every day under various pretexts and wishes. According to the World Bank’s report ‘Large Scale Migration and Remittances in Nepal’, Nepal is the third country in the list of remittance dependent countries after Tajikistan and the Kyrgyz republic.
It is undoubtedly true that many people have gone abroad. But to think that there is brain-drain in the country—merely because more people have gone abroad and everyone is obsessed with foreign countries—is a fantastic delusion. Exploring the details will evidently chart another bleak picture of reality. 

Not everyone who has gone abroad can or should be considered a brain drain. Most of those who went there do not contribute at the level of the brain. They are used only as tools or physical labor; they have lived as a laborer, literally. The number of people who are really contributing with brains and are doing intellectual work is very infinitesimal and far more negligible to count or graph. Also, if those people don’t return here, there shall be no scarcity of people with that level of expertise or brains in the country. Certainly, a dense number of experts, qualified, capable, skilled, intelligent personalities for various required fields are still readily available in the country.
Those who have contributed intellectually abroad do not even feel disappointed to leave the country. They assume it as an achievement and present it as pride. After the foreign trip is decided, they throw a lavish party and write statuses as if they are the winners. They abuse the people living here and blame us as if others, especially those who opt stationing in the nation itself, are unable to do anything worthwhile. Their wives, children and family members too accompany them for permanent settlement. Most of them opt in selling property here and grapple with the best in settling abroad itself. They contribute very little or no remittances at all. They did not go there on being deprived of opportunities, rather they flew after pouring crores of rupees. Michael Mathiesen’s book ‘Brain drain: Beyond the Green New Deal’ states that brain drain is not something that should be worried much about and should be included in the adoption of control measures. Instead, labor drain is becoming more of a problem than brain drain. 

Today, there is a stark need for general labor in the country. India is the country with the largest number of emigrants in the world. Nepal ranks seventh in the list of countries that send remittances to India. It seems that about three to four billion rupees is taken annually by various workers of Indian origin. This capital flight is not caused by doctors, professors, technicians, engineers and experts. The pool of human resources used in different types of labor market i.e. including house builders, hair saloon operators and construction site employees cause a capacious pecuniary deficit. Almost the same amount is spent on food imports annually. The basis of the necessity to import food is the exorbitant migration or flight of labor force from Nepal.

That group of people are deeply in a dismal situation because they have to stay away from their country and family. Here, various problems and discomforts such as family disintegration, sexual misconducts, and crises in parental intimacy are rampant. That group of people who have gone abroad as a labor force is also really suffering much. Existing data pool gives a hint that the works done by most of them are not only risky, comparatively unattractive and exploitative but also dirty, dangerous and disgusting. Most scholars researching the domain of season migration as well as foreign employment call it a 3D job to highlight the pathetic compulsion. By sweating it out day and night, they are also sending huge remittances to the country. There is also an extreme shortage of the labor they are doing there. But those about whom we are having a superficial debate do not contribute, nor is the country standing still in their absence.

Some of the experts and leaders opine that those who have gone abroad are gems for the country; and praise that they will magically change the country if they return. Such a senseless meta-narrative is obviously deep mental stress and abuse on the dutiful group of experts who want to contribute as much as possible to the country by staying in the country. 

Migrant groups’ purported leaders often arrange/sponsor foreign travel arrangements for leaders. There will be extra visits and hospitality as well as occasional gifts and favors. That’s why our leadership might have felt an involuntary attraction toward the group. Have the country’s needs, gross domestic requirement, also been studied in this regard? Regarding brain-drain, both the contribution to the country and the loss to the society due to their absence are almost nil. Our country requires more people who are apt for the labor market. Our country is suffering multifaceted losses due to the lack of people who are to be consumed in the labor market. They also contribute to running the country. Therefore, the discussion of intellectual escape (brain drain) is only amateurish self-righteousness; but the deep attention should be paid on labor drain. They should be the priority of discussion and management. Let’s relieve ourselves from the illusive debate of brain drain and begin questioning it.

Nepal is facing serious problems, with politicians often fighting both on the streets and in the House of Representatives. This situation is causing a lot of frustration among the people. What’s even more troubling is that many of the promises politicians made during the election seem to have been forgotten. They had promised to work for the improvement of the poor and disadvantaged, to provide better governance, and to control the widespread corruption in the country. They also talked about creating jobs for the unemployed and building a prosperous future for everyone.

Forgetting these promises, political leaders appear more focused on their own fights and struggles for power rather than working on the issues that really matter to the people. This leaves the citizens feeling neglected and disappointed, as they see little change in their lives.

Critical issues surrounding economic development in Nepal remain largely sidelined by the political ambitions of its leaders. Instead of tackling the pressing challenges that the country faces, political parties focus on activities that primarily serve their own interests, elevating their short-term popularity. These pursuits, however, often come at the expense of long-term progress and stability. The result is an economy that remains stagnant, with little hope for meaningful advancements. In fact, Nepal’s economic trajectory is increasingly concerning, as it is not only stagnant but also showing signs of deterioration.

A significant indicator of this stagnation is the excess liquidity in the country’s banks. The banking sector holds a substantial amount of idle capital, which could be utilized to drive growth and development. Instead of channeling this surplus into projects that could boost local industries, create jobs or improve infrastructure, banks continue to sit on their excess reserves. Political leaders who should be guiding the economy toward prosperity fail to intervene or prioritize this issue. Rather than focusing on using these resources effectively to stimulate the economy, their attention remains on consolidating state power and enriching themselves and their allies. This self-serving approach undermines the potential for long-term economic improvement and leads to further inefficiency in financial systems.
 

This cycle of mismanagement has persisted for decades, as political parties swap power but offer little in terms of vision or action to address the nation’s economic challenges. There is a glaring lack of leadership when it comes to creating comprehensive and sustainable economic policies that could foster growth and reduce inequality. The political establishment is not concerned with building a robust economic foundation; rather, it is preoccupied with gaining and retaining power, a pursuit that fails to benefit the nation at large.

As a result, Nepal has witnessed a prolonged period of stagnation, with the country’s economic growth hovering around a meager four percent annually over the past three decades. This rate of growth is insufficient to meet the needs of a growing population, and it has left many people—especially the youth—facing limited prospects. The consequences of such stagnation are profound. Employment opportunities remain scarce, particularly for the younger generation, which has significantly contributed to a migration trend. Young people, regardless of whether they are skilled, semi-skilled or unskilled, are increasingly compelled to seek better job prospects abroad. This exodus has become a key issue, as the country’s brightest talents leave in search of opportunities that Nepal fails to provide.
 

The outflow of skilled labor is particularly damaging, as it depletes the nation of its human capital—one of the most important resources for driving economic growth. This not only exacerbates the immediate problem of unemployment but also hinders the country’s long-term development. Skilled workers who might have contributed to the local economy through innovation, entrepreneurship or professional expertise are instead investing their talents in foreign markets. This brain drain leaves Nepal with a weakened workforce and a limited ability to compete in the global economy.

At the heart of this crisis lies a fundamental failure of leadership. The absence of a coherent and forward-thinking economic strategy has created a vicious cycle where the political class remains disconnected from the needs of the people. Rather than working to create a sustainable economic environment that could provide jobs and opportunities for future generations, leaders remain mired in power struggles and self-interest.

It is evident that Nepal needs a shift in priorities. Political leaders must refocus their efforts on creating a long-term vision for economic development that goes beyond short-term gains. This includes harnessing financial resources effectively, investing in industries that can generate employment and fostering an environment conducive to innovation and entrepreneurship. Only by addressing these issues with a clear, unified approach can Nepal hope to break the cycle of stagnation and build a future that offers prosperity for all its citizens.

In such times, the public may lose trust in the government, and it can be difficult for the leaders to inspire hope. The promises made to improve the living conditions of the poor and to address corruption should not be forgotten. It’s also crucial that politicians remember their pledge to ensure good governance and create jobs for the neediest.

Politicians must focus on actions that directly benefit the citizens to regain the latter’s trust. The politicians need to stop fighting among themselves and start working together for the common good. It’s important for them to take responsibility and make real efforts to fulfill the promises they made during their campaigns. Transparency and accountability are key. The people of Nepal deserve leaders, who are dedicated to making their lives better and improving the country's future.

Ultimately, the people should not feel ignored. Political leaders must be reminded of their duty to serve the citizens and improve their well-being. If they focus on their promises and take meaningful steps toward change, they can restore the trust and hope of the public.

In the evening of 1 June 2001, the fragrance of roses hung thick in the gardens of Narayanhiti Palace. Inside of the palace, chandeliers cast a warm glow over the assembled royals, their laughter punctuated by the clinking of silverware. Then, a horror unfolded. Gunshots echoed through the billiard room and in a matter of time, Nepal’s monarchy lay in ruins. Its crown splattered with blood.

It was a turning point. Gyanendra, the last monarch of the Shah dynasty, ascended the throne that had already lost its magic. By the early 2000s, the Maoist insurgency had seized control of most of Nepal’s rural areas. Additionally, pro-democracy protests were gaining momentum. The 2006 People’s Movement—Jana Andolan II, which peaked on 4 April 2006, marking its 19th anniversary this week—saw hundreds of thousands, forcing the reinstatement of parliament. In 2008, under overwhelming public and political pressure, Nepal’s Constituent Assembly abolished the monarchy with 560 out of 601 lawmakers voting in favor. The change was not only for removing the king but also for ensuring stability, economic growth and democratic accountability.

A republic on crumbling ground

In March thus, Nepal witnessed perhaps the largest pro-monarchy demonstration after 2008—with protests erupting around Kathmandu Airport and Tinkune. Thousands marched on the streets of Kathmandu, holding portraits of Prithvi Narayan Shah and demanding the restoration of the monarchy. In the pro-monarch demonstration, two people had lost their lives, and many suffered injuries. But this was not just a call for the return of the king but a reflection of a deeper crisis.

One clear reason behind the public frustration was political instability. Since 2008, Nepal has seen 14 different prime ministers, with the current Prime Minister KP Oli alone holding the office three times and Nepali Congress president Sher Bahadur Deuba five times, and Maoist leader Pushpa Kamal Dahal three times.

This makes an average prime ministerial tenure 14.6 months per prime minister.

An increasing number of Nepalis have begun to question the political legitimacy of the parties and their top leaders, if not the polity. Elections are conducted, manifestos are prepared, and promises are made. However, corruption, inefficiency, and economic stagnation persist. In the 2024 Corruption Perceptions Index, Nepal ranked 110th out of 180 countries, indicating a significant corruption challenge within its public sector. The economy runs on remittances, contributing over 23 percent of GDP and domestic employment opportunities at times remain dismal. This dysfunction fuels a dangerous nostalgia. But the question that Nepalis must ask themselves is not whether monarchy was better but why the republic has failed.

The Hindu kingdom question

The demand for the monarchy’s return is also entangled with Nepal’s unresolved identity crisis. The 2015 Constitution declared Nepal as a secular country, a decision that was hailed abroad but was contested at home. For centuries, the kings of Nepal were not just political rulers but also the upholders of Hindu nationalism. Prithvi Narayan Shah called Nepal ‘Asal Hindustan,’ the last stronghold of Hindu civilization. His successors tied the monarchy to religion. When Nepal became secular, the monarchy was abolished, but the debate over national identity continued.

Meanwhile, the deposed king, Gyanendra Shah, has maintained a careful presence, attending religious and cultural events while avoiding presence in the mass rallies—including both at the airport and Teenkune. In a political climate where symbolism matters, this strategy has kept him relevant in the eyes of the people who are questioning the relevance of the parties. But this alone does not provide monarchy the political legitimacy, given its feudal history in Nepal, as a symbolic unitary state. In the recent pro-monarchist rallies, one of the most heard slogans have been, “One language, one attire. Our king, our country!”

The 30 years of the Panchayat rule was far from a golden age. The monarchy ruled without accountability, suppressing the opposition, censoring the press, outlawing political parties, with a singular emphasis on national uniformity. The economy declined, power remained concentrated in a select elite, and inequality deepened. When the king attempted to seize absolute control in 2005, many saw him as the authoritarian ruler.

This is the paradox of Nepal’s right-wing resurgence. The current protests are not a wholehearted endorsement of royal rule. They are more an indictment of a dysfunctional democracy—the federal democratic republic the 2015 constitution enshrined. 

Is Nepal on the verge of restoring its monarchy? No. And it shouldn’t be.

The monarchy fell in 2008 because it was undemocratic, outdated and incapable of addressing the aspiration of a modern population. The solution to Nepal’s current crisis is not to retreat into history but to confront the failures of the present. The recent protests send a clear warning: Nepal’s leaders cannot assume that democracy is secure simply because Nepalis once stood overwhelming in its favor.

Any polity is not just a system; it is a contract with the people. That contract is being questioned every day by corruption, political instability and a stagnant economy. The protests were not about a longing for a king; they are a demand for accountability.

Deeply ingrained historical, cultural, and geographical links define the civilizational relationship between India and Nepal. Formally expressed via the 1950 Treaty of Peace and Friendship, this bilateral engagement has provided an unmatched degree of permeability between two sovereign governments, enabling the free flow of people and products across an open border spanning 1,770 kilometres. Notwithstanding these apparently tight connections, the relationship has been characterized by occasional conflict, mutual misunderstanding, and diplomatic congestion. Although physical closeness and cultural familiarity should ideally promote smooth collaboration, in practice, India-Nepal ties are nevertheless delicate and vulnerable to both internal political changes and regional forces. This article aims to investigate alternative answers based on existing frameworks and empirical observations as well as to grasp the structural and dependent elements causing these obstructions.

The territorial dispute over Kalapani, Limpiyadhura, and Lipulekh is among the most delicate and persistent causes of disagreements. When India published an updated political map including the disputed areas in 2019, this problem became much more severe. Nepal responded with its map and a constitutional change, thereby supporting its assertions. In Nepal, this move stoked nationalistic fervor and turned into a gathering place for claiming historical identity and sovereignty. It shows how closely conflicts over territory—especially in post-colonial states—are related to issues of nationhood and historical recognition rather than just legal or administrative ones.

This escalation also emphasizes the more significant trend in nationalist politics affecting bilateral ties. Domestically, political players in both India and Nepal have been turning more and more to foreign policy issues to inspire popular support. In Nepal, criticism of India often finds prosperous footing in nationalist narratives that show India as an obstructive force. Although these stories are not necessarily based on reality, their resonance comes from past grievances and the more extensive background of imbalance. In India, however, there is a tendency in strategic circles to see Nepal’s actions as either reactive or shaped by outside players. When free from diplomatic communication, such opinions may harden policy stances and limit the area for compromise.

Another significant bottleneck in the relationship is Nepal’s evolving engagement with China. China has significantly expanded its presence in Nepal during the last ten years by means of diplomatic outreach, economic support, and infrastructural projects. Seeing a chance to diversify its economic alliances and lessen reliance on India, Nepal has accepted China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Nevertheless, it did not bore much fruit to Nepal. In New Delhi, where worries about Chinese intrusion in the Himalayan area have developed, this realignment has not gone unseen. From Kathmandu's vantage point, interacting with China is a hedging and strategic autonomy-boosting tactic. It aims to strike a balance between two big powers, thereby preventing too much reliance on one.

This captures the dynamics of small-state conduct in international relations, especially the idea of ‘soft balancing’, in which smaller governments try to increase their autonomy by including many partners without open conflict. Nepal’s China outreach also shows an effort to change its growth story, presenting itself not only as a dependent neighbour but also as a growing transit centre between India and China. This change for India calls for a review of its strategic posture. India would be better off improving its attractiveness with dependable infrastructure delivery, open project management, and culturally sensitive diplomacy with Kathmandu.

India has shown both technical know-how and readiness to co-develop responses in water resource cooperation. The great hydropower potential of Nepal offers the area transforming prospects. India has funded significant hydropower projects such as Arun III and Upper Karnali, therefore offering not just financial help but also grid connection and market access. Some cooperative ventures have delays that result not from a lack of purpose but rather from the complexities of transboundary water management. In renegotiating agreements, India has shown willingness and flexibility to guarantee that Nepali issues are resolved and profits are fairly distributed. 

The bilateral dynamic is powerfully shaped by ethnic politics as well, especially in connection to the Madhesi community in Nepal’s Tarai area. Historically excluded from Nepal’s political mainstream, the Madhesis have significant cultural and family links to those living in northern regions of India. Their demands for linguistic rights, federal reorganisation, and proportional representation have set off periodic outbreaks of internal strife. The complexity results from these internal issues permeating bilateral relations. While India views itself as supporting democratic values and minority rights, Nepal has seen India’s comments of support for Madhesi’s inclusion as an intervention in domestic affairs. This sensitive problem emphasises how foreign policy and home politics interact. After the civil war, state-building initiatives in Nepal have required a reconsideration of citizenship, identity, and representation. Cross-border ethnic connections can result in hopes of moral or diplomatic assistance in India. Handling these calls for great care. India needs to stress quiet diplomacy and people-to-person interaction in this case.

With these stacked difficulties, which paths may be followed for a more steady and cooperative relationship? First, bilateral communication has to be institutionalised right now. Although ad hoc conferences and high-level visits are valuable, they cannot replace organised systems of participation. Joint Commissions’ regular meetings, strategic conversations between foreign secretaries, and the rebirth of bilateral working groups on trade, water, and energy can help to provide continuity and lower misperceptions. Scholarly research on international regimes emphasises how crucial ongoing engagement is to building confidence and lowering diplomatic transaction costs.

Second, economic interconnection has to be extended and strengthened beyond conventional industries. In recent years, India has made admirable progress in building cross-border rail connections, starting a petroleum pipeline from Motihari to Amlekhgunj, and setting integrated checkpoints. Other areas like digital infrastructure, educational exchanges, and tourism should have these ideas expanded and duplicated. Economic cooperation should be considered as a vehicle for the empowerment of Nepal’s development aspirations as much as a tool for influence. Here, theories of complicated interdependence are informative, stressing the variety of channels and the role non-state players play in maintaining peaceful interactions.

Cooperation on water resources calls for a paradigmatic change. Pursues of joint development should centre on environmental sustainability, equality, and openness. Project agreements and bilateral treaties have to be negotiated inclusively with local populations and interested parties. Establishing dispute-resolution systems and cooperative environmental assessment agencies would also help to build confidence. Other areas, including the Mekong basin, where transboundary cooperation is controlled by multi-stakeholder systems balancing growth with sustainability, might provide lessons as well.

Ultimately, structural inequalities, changing geopolitical alignments, and deeply ingrained political sensitivity restrict India-Nepal relations, even if they have traditionally been close and profoundly nuanced. Though they are not insurmountable, the obstacles in the way of collaboration call for a change in institutional involvement, policy instruments, and attitude. Mutual respect, strategic empathy, and an awareness of Nepal’s sovereign goals will form the foundation of a forward-looking, sustainable cooperation. Through cooperative development, inclusive diplomacy, and long-term trust-building, India and Nepal can overcome regular difficulties and create a robust and future-oriented alliance.