Submit your Article

When I engage in intellectual interactions like this, I often find myself asking a personal question: Had I not chosen the path of politics, what would I have been doing today?

I cannot know the exact answer, of course, but I can imagine myself working in the academic world much like yours—teaching in universities or institutions such as the IITs, engaging in research, mentoring students, and participating in serious intellectual debates and discussions like this. 

At a certain point, however, I felt that knowledge alone was not enough. Understanding the world has its limits. The real challenge lies not only in understanding, but in changing it as Karl Marx famously said “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point, however, is to change it”. 

When I looked around me, I saw that my country was at the bottom of the ladder of development. It lacked political freedom and democracy. We had deeply unjust political, economic and social systems. Achieving political freedom and democracy and ushering in rapid socio-economic transformation became the foremost priority when I was a youth. Therefore, I chose the path of change—and revolution—over the path of knowing and understanding.

I was driven by a conviction that still guides me today: for intellectual work to flourish, for innovation to take place, for radical socio-economic transformation, politics must take the right course. Democracy is not only about periodic elections; it is about protecting intellectual freedom, academic autonomy, and the right to question authority. It is about people’s participation in state affairs, inclusion and social justice. Much of my life has been shaped by the struggle for that principle.

I am now 71 years old. When I look back on my life, I see profound transformation—not only in my own journey, but in the lives of ordinary citizens of Nepal, South Asia and the world. But it is not enough.

I was born into a low-income family in a rural village, educated in a local school, and eventually became part of a people’s revolution that reshaped Nepal’s political transformation. I have experienced leadership in times of revolution and peace, and I have participated in the historic task of constitution-making in Nepal. I am now just a campaigner of progressive democratic politics and social justice.

Within a single lifetime, we have witnessed transformations our ancestors could not have imagined.

And yet, when we compare Nepal’s as well as much of South Asia’s pace of progress with that of the wider world, the picture becomes uncomfortable. Compared to developed nations, our progress has been terribly slow. We still face major challenges in poverty reduction, employment, education, health, equality, and governance. A single indicator of South Asia as the biggest pocket of global poverty (40%) is a big slap on our face.

So, the question arises: Why are we lagging behind?

Historical Context

To answer this, we must step back in history.

Before the Industrial Revolution, Asia was the center of the global economy. In 1820, China produced an estimated 33% of world GDP and India about 16%. Together, they accounted for nearly half of global GDP. Asia was not only economically dominant—it was intellectually and technologically advanced.

For example, Ancient China gave the world the “Four Great Inventions” –the compass, gunpowder, papermaking, and printing-- innovations that had a profound impact on the development of civilization throughout the world. Ancient India pioneered fundamental ideas in mathematics and astronomy, including the concept of zero. Well into the eighteenth century, Asia was a leading innovator and economic powerhouse.

So why did Asia fall behind after 1800? Precisely after the Industrial Revolution.

The answer lies not in culture or intelligence, but in institutions. Europe’s rise followed the Industrial Revolution—but more importantly, it followed the emergence of political and social systems that encouraged scientific innovation, debate, and risk-taking. Asia missed this leap initially. As Western nations industrialized, Asian giants stagnated under rigid hierarchies and (in most of South Asia and India’s case) colonial extraction, and centralized power. For example, between 1780 and 1860, India was transformed from a leading exporter of textiles to a mere supplier of raw materials and an importer of British manufactures. The once wealthy Asian economies saw their global share collapse – by 1950 China and India’s combined GDP was under 9% of world output. 

This marked the beginning of what we now call the Great Divergence.

What enabled Europe (and later America) to surge ahead in the 19th and 20th centuries?

Beyond steam engines and factories and advantage of local coal in Britain, it was the ecosystem of innovation powered by more inclusive institutions and freedoms fueled by political and colonial capacity. Western societies fostered environments where people could publish ideas freely, criticize authority, experiment, and pursue enterprise. Inclusive political institutions and Enlightenment values such as rule of law, accountability, freedom of inquiry created fertile ground for scientific and economic breakthroughs.

Nobel Prize–winning research by economists Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, and James Robinson confirms this. Nations prosper under inclusive institutions and stagnate under extractive, autocratic ones. Where power is concentrated and creativity constrained, innovation withers.

In much of Asia, absolutist monarchies, traditional hierarchies, caste systems, colonial regimes and rules, and feudal governance restricted social mobility and stifled broad-based development. 

Nepal, under monarchy and feudalism well into the 21st century, suffered similar constraints, limiting not only access to education, entrepreneurship, and innovation but also minimal public investment in essential infrastructure, science, and education, resulting in decades of economic isolation and underdevelopment.

In short, where the West built an “innovation ecosystem” – driven by freedom to criticize, vote, invest, and create – much of Asia remained hampered by extractive or feudal institutions that throttled broad-based progress. Therefore, Western dominance after 1800 was not inevitable—it was institutional that unleashed human potential.

Supporting this view, Joel Mokyr, Philippe Aghion, and Peter Howitt, the winner of 2025 Nobel Prize in Economics highlighted the role of innovation and creative destruction that sustained prosperity flows from continuous innovation disrupting old ways.

Mokyr highlights how the Industrial Revolution succeeded once society embraced scientific explanations behind technology and openness to new ideas. Aghion & Howitt formally modeled Schumpeter’s concept of creative destruction – new technologies relentlessly replacing old ones – as the engine of long-run growth. 

Sustainable innovation cannot thrive without fundamental prerequisites such as inclusive democracy, freedom of inquiry, legal stability, institutional independence, and generous state support. In General, the West’s more democratic political systems allowed creative destruction to propel it ahead, whereas in Qing China or colonial India and South Asia, entrenched authorities often resisted or controlled new innovations.

Fast forward to the present – however, we are witnessing Asia’s return in the global landscape. 

China and India began rising only after achieving political independence and policy autonomy. After, China’s independence in 1949 through communist revolution followed by post-1978 reforms, China has achieved an economic miracle lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty.  At present, China is the world’s second-largest economy and the leading manufacturer. It has also become an innovation powerhouse in electric vehicles, renewable energy technology and even Artificial Intelligence. 

Similarly, India too has emerged as one of the fastest-growing major economies. Relying on its huge human resources and restructuring its economy periodically, India has unleashed a vibrant technology and startup ecosystem. India has recently overtaken the UK to become the world’s 5th largest economy. Cities like Bengaluru (Bangalore), Hyderabad, and Mumbai have become major technology centers, hosting R&D labs and thousands of new ventures. 

Both China and India underscore how political independence and governance changes unleashed development.

However, Asia’s innovation today is not only high-tech—it is frugal, social, and locally rooted too. Nepal’s community forestry program is a powerful example. Forest cover increased dramatically within two decades doubled from 26% of the country in 1992 to around 45% by 2016 under community stewardship. 

Nepal was historically late. Nepal got a 40-year late start compared to India or China. Our obsolete monarchy ended only in 2008. This late political opening partly explains why Nepal’s economic takeoff has lagged. However, with inclusive democracy and relative peace now in place, Nepal too can leverage the lessons of its neighbors. The recent GenZ uprising has provided a strong wake-up call.

National Context

Nepal’s challenge today can be summarized in four words that starts with “I”. I call them the “Four I’s” – that hinder our quest for accelerated development and prosperity: Institutions, Integration, Inclusion, and Innovation.

• Institutions: As Nobel laureates remind us, institutions underpin long-run prosperity. Nepal’s institutions – from bureaucracy to rule of law – need drastic overhauling and strengthening. We suffer from political instability, frequent government changes, and weak governance capacity. Over 30 governments in 30 years have made it hard to sustain consistent economic policies. Endemic corruption, cronyism and red tape remain the biggest challenges, undermining public trust. Without strong democratic institutions, even good policies falter.  We need to build institutions that are more accountable, transparent, and efficient.
• Integration: Nepal, sandwiched between two huge states of China and India in the lap of the mighty Himalayas, has remained largely isolated for millennia. When it got integrated late in the second half of the 20^th century, it was caught I the trap of dependency and unequal exchange – net exporter of labor and importer of finished products. This needs to be corrected and judiciously integrated.

Nepal has one of the lowest levels of investment (especially foreign investment) in South Asia. Our businesses are barely integrated into global value chains. This capital drought limits access to new technologies, expertise, and markets. Without boosting investment – both domestic and foreign – Nepal cannot build the infrastructure, factories, and enterprises needed for faster growth. We must improve our internal and external integration and investment climate, from energy and transport to reducing red tape, to attract capital, technology and market for rapid economic transformation.

• Inclusion: Development must include all sections of society, but Nepal still has significant exclusion and inequality. Historically marginalized groups – by caste, ethnicity, gender, or region – have unequal access to opportunities. For example, the Madhesi plains communities, Dalits, and some indigenous groups lag in education and income compared to national averages. True inclusive growth means bringing these left-behind groups into the fold – through better public education, health, affirmative policies, and financial inclusion. Inclusion is not just moral, it’s economic: a nation cannot prosper fully if sizable minorities are uncared and underutilized. An inclusive Nepal would tap the talents of all its people, accelerating innovation and social harmony. 
• Innovation: Finally, Nepal needs to significantly ramp up innovation. We have an enterprising population but our domestic innovation ecosystem is nascent. Investment in research and development (R &D) is minimal (around ~0.3% of GDP) and our universities lag in research output. This innovation deficit stems partly from the above factors – low investment in technology, weak higher education, and institutions that don’t incentivize creativity. 

Some promising signs include a budding tech startup scene in Kathmandu and youths innovating in fields like robotics and app development. Yet they face hurdles: financing constraints, lack of mentorship, and limited market size. Government can help by establishing innovation hubs, R&D grants, and better internet and STEM education. We should also tap into our diaspora scientists and entrepreneurs to transfer knowledge.Without innovation, Nepal risks stagnation in low-productivity activities. With innovation, we can leapfrog and compete globally.

In summary, Nepal’s path to prosperity lies in addressing these four I’s together – building robust Institutions, improving Integration, fostering Inclusion in growth, and unleashing Innovation.

Global Context

As we strive for progress and development, we must also confront contemporary global crises that cast a shadow on our future – challenges that affect not just Nepal or South Asia, but the entire world, including powers like China and India. These include a deepening inequality crisis, looming ecological collapse, and the disruptive risks of the digital age. 

Let’s unpack them quickly:

Inequality Crisis: Economic inequality has reached extreme levels worldwide. Wealth is concentrating in the hands of a few at the expense of the many. Astonishingly, since the year 2000, the richest 1% of the world’s population have captured about 41% of all new wealth created, while the poorest 50% of humanity received only 1% of that wealth. This is a profoundly unsustainable and unjust trajectory. Such inequality isn’t just a moral issue – it undermines social cohesion, economic stability, and democracy.

Without action, inequality will further fracture societies and fuel populist anger or never-ending conflict.

Ecological collapse: We are in the midst of a planetary ecological emergency. Climate changeis already causing devastating impacts – more intense floods, droughts, heatwaves, and melting of Himalayan glaciers that millions depend on for water. At the same time, we are witnessing mass biodiversity loss – a sixth mass extinction. A landmark IPBES report revealed that around 1 million plant and animal species are at risk of extinction, many within decades, due to habitat destruction, pollution, overexploitation, and climate change.

Pollution is another facet – toxic air in our mega-cities, plastic-choked oceans, and contaminated rivers including Ganges, for example, endanger health and livelihoods. Water stress is growing: South Asia faces critical groundwater depletion and water conflicts could intensify as populations and demands rise.

These ecological challenges are all interlinked and global in nature. Tackling this requires international cooperation and sustainable development strategies. South Asia must pursue a path of green growth – investing in renewable energy, protecting forests and water. 

The triple planetary crisis namely climate, biodiversity and pollution are urgent; addressing them is not a luxury but a survival imperative.

Digital disruption and the threat to democracy: The rapid advance of digital technology, while bringing many benefits, has also unleashed serious disruption and risks. Automation and artificial intelligence (AI)threaten to displace millions of jobs worldwide through increased productivity with fewer workers from factory robots to AI chatbots. Without preparation, this could worsen inequality and unemployment. 

We must ensure that AI augments human work and that gains are shared.

On the societal front, the digital revolution has a dark side for democracy. Social media, while empowering voices, has also become a vector for misinformation, hate speech, and polarization. 

In many countries including mature democracies, elections have been marred by online propaganda, troll farms, and fake news designed to manipulate public opinion. Digital surveillance is another grave concern. Authoritarian governments are using new tech tools to monitor and control citizens on an Orwellian scale.

Societies must find the balance – leveraging digital innovation for good governance and economic growth, while safeguarding rights and ensuring tech is aligned with democratic values.

South Asian Context

Let us come back to South Asia. 

South Asia is now at the cross-roads of tremendous opportunities and challenges. A series of youth and mass revolts in recent years from Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh to Nepal have cautioned us to see the writing on the wall. It is the test of a good leadership to turn the challenges into opportunities on time. 

South Asia’s Major Challenges:

-       40% of the world’s poor are concentrated in South Asia.

-       Persistent regional tensions, domestic political instability and ethnic conflicts pose significant risks to economic momentum by undermining investor confidence and integrated market. 

-       Endemic economic, social, cultural inequalities in terms of class, caste, gender, region, faith etc. pose a threat to inclusive democracy and sustainable development.

South Asia’s Key Comparative Advantages:

1. Demographic Dividend:
   South Asia accounts for over one-quarter of the global working-age population. This demographic profile offers a substantial labor supply for manufacturing and services, alongside a large and expanding domestic consumer market.
2. Cost Competitiveness in Labor-Intensive Activities:
   Wage levels remain considerably lower than those in China and most Southeast Asian economies. This cost advantage enhances the region’s competitiveness in industrialization and global services outsourcing.
3. Strategic Geographic Location:

• Access to Critical Maritime Routes: Situated along key sea lanes linking the Middle East, Africa, and East Asia, South Asia holds significant potential in logistics, transshipment, and international trade facilitation.
• Proximity to Major Growth Poles: The region benefits from geographic proximity to China, Southeast Asia’s rapidly growing economies, and the Middle East, strengthening opportunities for trade, investment, and regional value-chain integration.

4. Cultural and Diaspora Capital:
   A large and economically active diaspora contributes through remittances, foreign direct investment, knowledge transfer, and access to international business and innovation networks.
5. Potential for Digital Leapfrogging:
   The region—most notably India—has demonstrated strong capabilities in information technology and digital services, offering opportunities to bypass traditional development bottlenecks through technological adoption and innovation.

B.      Some Policy Options

1. Decisive Action on Binding Constraints:

·      Large-scale, time-bound investment in physical infrastructure, particularly energy and transport connectivity;

• Deepening regional trade integration to expand market size and enhance economies of scale;
• Comprehensive land, labor, and regulatory reforms to improve the investment climate and productivity, and ensure social justice;
• A transformative improvement in the quality of education, skills development, and vocational training.

2. Political Stability and Reduced Geopolitical Tensions:
Persistent regional tensions, domestic political instability, and ethnic conflicts pose significant risks to economic momentum by undermining investor confidence. Sustained growth therefore depends on political stability, effective governance, and enhanced regional cooperation.

Concluding Remarks

Let me conclude with a few lessons.

First, history is not destiny. Asia’s decline after 1800 was not permanent – with determination and the right choices, our countries reclaimed their agency and are rising again. Nepal’s late start can be overcome by leapfrogging in certain areas.

Second, freedom and innovation must go together. Political freedom is inseparable from economic and intellectual freedom. South Asia’s future depends on nurturing inclusive, democratic systems where every individual can reach their potential. Political freedom is not a luxury; it is part and parcel of economic and creative freedom.

Third, sustainability is the only path forward. There will be no prosperity if we destroy our environment. South Asia must unite to tackle climate change through regional cooperation on renewable energy grids, water sharing agreements to manage our common rivers, and disaster preparedness. We share the Himalayas and the monsoons; we share the air and the seas. Collaboration is the way to preserve these life-support systems.

Fourthly, we must recognize that the challenges of inequality and digital disruption are global, and so are the solutions. South Asia, with its vast human capital (a quarter of the world’s population!), can be a leader in championing a more just global economy.

Finally, scientific worldview is the key to understand the world objectively and change it sustainably. Hence, we may have to develop our ideological-political tool based on the latest inventions of physical, biological, social and cognitive sciences. For this, we may have to go beyond the traditional binaries of market fundamentalism or liberalism and state fundamentalism or communism frameworks. This advanced worldview could be tentatively termed as ‘scientific humanism’. This could show the path of harmonious and sustainable co-existence of whole humanity. 

So, let us have a common dream. Envision a future South Asia where innovation is directed toward human development: where a Nepali start-up designs a low-cost solar pump that revolutionizes farming across South Asia; where an Indian AI expert develops an algorithm to improve early disease diagnosis for the poor; where a Bangladeshi entrepreneur invents a new material for flood-resistant housing. And so on with Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Maldives, Bhutan. Envision a South Asia where freedom is safeguarded: where inclusive democracy flourishes in all countries, governments are accountable, and citizens can speak their minds without fear; where digital literacy and critical thinking immunize the public against disinformation. Envision a South Asia that is sustainable and resilient: with clean energy powering our growth, forests and biodiversity protected by enlightened policies, and cities that are smart and livable. Envision our enlightened and energetic youths of South Asia assuming the leadership of this new era of Great Convergence with utmost success.

The vision is ambitious—but achievable.

We are heirs to great civilizations of knowledge. Let us build knowledge economies worthy of that heritage. We have fought hard for democracy. Let us now use it wisely.

Keynote speech delivered by Former Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai at IIT Bombay—TechFest 2025]

Every parent wants their child to be happy. For many, it is the deepest hope they carry, not just for today, but for a future they may not always be present to shape. Yet beneath this shared wish lies a harder question. What does happiness truly mean, and how do we raise children, who can hold on to it long after we are gone?

Happiness is often mistaken for comfort, success or constant affirmation. It is not found in stars on worksheets, top grades or the latest gadget. Nor does it come from shielding children from every frustration or failure. Deep and lasting happiness grows from something quieter and far more enduring. It comes from a sense of peace with oneself, from feeling secure in who you are, even when life becomes difficult or unpredictable. This kind of happiness cannot be given to a child. It must be built slowly through experience, setbacks and a steady inner belief that is not shaken by comparison or external approval.

Yet somewhere along the way, often out of love and concern, many parents begin protecting children from life rather than preparing them for it. In trying to smooth every path, we may unintentionally weaken the very qualities we hope to nurture. Some children, who appear highly successful, struggle deeply when faced with disappointment. Others, with fewer visible achievements, meet the same challenges with calm determination. The difference is rarely intelligence or talent. It is resilience. And resilience grows not in comfort, but through struggle.

Many of us, who grew up in the Generation X or millennial era, remember childhood as a time of trust and autonomy. Walking to a friend’s house, riding bicycles through the neighborhood or spending hours outdoors without close supervision often began at a young age. The world felt big, but children were trusted to navigate it. Of course, not all of that early independence was safe or wise, but those unsupervised moments demanded problem solving, conflict resolution and independent decision making. Confidence developed quietly through lived experience.

Parents today are understandably more cautious. The world feels more complex and more threatening. But in our efforts to protect children, it is easy to overdo it. Many members of GenZ were not granted similar independence until much later. Safety matters, but so does autonomy, because confidence does not come from praise alone. It comes from doing, from failing, and from trying again. It comes from stepping beyond comfort and discovering a steady sense of self that is not defined by others.

When children are constantly monitored and directed, they miss the small, everyday risks that teach judgment, decision-making and confidence in their ability to recover from failure. Instead of growing more capable, they may grow more dependent. In shielding them from discomfort, we can unintentionally leave them anxious, unsure and constantly seeking reassurance.

This reflection is not only about physical independence. It is also about emotional freedom. Children need space to feel joy, sadness, anger, frustration and disappointment without fear or shame. Emotional maturity is not a personality trait. It is a skill. And like any skill, it develops through practice.

When adults rush to fix every problem or respond with strong emotions of their own such as anger, fear or sadness, children learn that emotions are something to avoid. The intention may be care, but the message received is often one of doubt. You cannot handle this. Over time, this message becomes internalized and forms the child’s inner voice.

One of the hardest tasks of parenting is sitting with a child’s pain without trying to fix the problem. Yet this is often where growth begins. Children learn to regulate their emotions not by avoiding difficult feelings, but by experiencing them in an environment of love, trust and calm. When parents acknowledge emotions with simple acceptance, children learn that discomfort is part of being human. They also learn that they are strong enough to face difficult feelings and that they are not alone while doing so.

This becomes especially important during adolescence. Teenagers are naturally present-focused. Developmentally, they struggle to understand that emotional pain is temporary. This is one reason adolescence is such a vulnerable period. When adults attempt to remove every discomfort, or react with overwhelming emotion themselves, young people may come to believe that negative feelings are dangerous and must be solved by someone else. Without intending to, we risk raising children, who feel emotionally unprepared for life’s realities. If the goal is protection, the answer is not to eliminate pain, but to equip young people to face it with empathy, support, and trust in themselves.

One of the simplest and most overlooked ways to build self worth is through taking responsibility at home. When children contribute by setting the table, folding laundry or helping in the kitchen, they learn that they are useful and capable. These are not small acts. They quietly reinforce a sense of purpose and belonging, reminding children that they matter, that they are needed, and that they can make a meaningful contribution.

Above all, children need to feel loved unconditionally. They need to know their worth is not tied to grades, trophies or praise. Even when parents believe this wholeheartedly, subtle messages can suggest otherwise. Extra excitement when a child receives an A on a report card or heightened warmth upon winning a trophy, can quietly teach that approval is linked to perfection. Over time, this belief shapes how children see themselves and what they believe they must do to be valued.

Every experience a child has is a means to an end, not an end in itself. Adults may focus on the incident, the poor grade, the missed goal or the emotional outburst. What matters more is what the child learns from the experience and how they remember being treated in that moment. The adult’s voice, tone and presence become the child’s inner voice. This inner voice forms the foundation of self-image, values and emotional strength long after childhood ends.

So what will that voice sound like for your child? Will it reassure them that they can face difficulty and remain whole? Or will it echo doubt, shaped by moments when understanding was needed but judgment arrived instead?

As we search for ways to support children, perhaps we can look inward to our own roots. In Nepal, the birthplace of the Buddha, emotional balance and inner awareness have been valued for centuries. Practices such as reflection and mindfulness are not trends. They are timeless tools. Teaching children to pause, breathe and observe their emotions gives them an internal compass, one that guides them through uncertainty with calm.

Raising happy children does not mean removing struggle from their lives. It means walking beside them as they face challenges, stepping back when needed while remaining emotionally present, and trusting them to navigate discomfort, frustration, and pain, knowing they always have a secure base to return to. Real happiness is not about avoiding difficulty, but learning to move through it with courage and self-trust.

Because one day, we will not be there to catch them. If they are truly prepared, they will not need us to.

The Nepali Congress (NC) occupies a singular and enduring position in Nepal’s political history. It is not merely one political party among others but the principal institutional carrier of Nepal’s democratic imagination. From its origins in anti-Rana resistance and exile politics, through the short-lived democratic experiment of the 1950s, the democratic restoration of 1990 and the post-conflict reconstruction after 2006, the NC has repeatedly stood at the center of regime change, constitutionalism and state-building. 

Unlike revolutionary or purely oppositional parties, the NC has combined resistance with responsibility, protest with governance, and idealism with compromise.

Yet historical centrality does not automatically translate into contemporary relevance or organizational vitality. Like many legacy democratic parties worldwide, the NC now confronts a complex crisis marked by ideological ambiguity, leadership inertia, organizational strain and growing distance from a rapidly changing society. This article offers a brief but integrated institutional analysis of the NC, examining its organizational evolution, internal democracy, leadership culture, governance record and reform dilemmas. It argues that the NC’s greatest strengths—moral legitimacy, adaptability and democratic restraint—have also produced structural fragilities that continue to undermine institutional consolidation. Understanding this paradox is essential not only for evaluating the party’s future but also for assessing the prospects of Nepal’s democratic project itself.

Conceptual framework: Parties, institutions and democratic mediation

In democratic theory, political parties are understood as mediating institutions between society and the state. They aggregate interests, articulate political alternatives, recruit leadership and structure political competition. Classical and contemporary scholarship emphasizes three interrelated dimensions of effective party institutionalization: organizational routinization, leadership legitimacy and internal democracy. Parties that fail to balance these dimensions risk either authoritarian capture, organizational decay or social irrelevance.

In post-authoritarian and resource-constrained societies, these tensions are magnified. Parties often emerge from resistance movements, privileging moral authority and personal loyalty over bureaucratic rules. While such traits enhance mobilization during struggle, they complicate later transitions to programmatic, rule-bound party organization. The NC exemplifies this dilemma. Born as a movement rather than a conventional electoral party, it carried movement logics—charisma, sacrifice, flexibility and informality—into periods that increasingly demanded institutional discipline, policy expertise and routinized leadership succession.

Origins and organizational culture: From resistance to electoral politics

The NC emerged through exile politics, underground networks, diaspora activism and cross-border coordination in India. Its early organizational life was shaped by repression and uncertainty. Survival depended on secrecy, trust and personal commitment rather than formal procedures. Leadership authority was earned through sacrifice and credibility, not electoral mandate. These formative experiences created a political culture in which loyalty and moral standing were valued above codified rules.

When democratic openings emerged—particularly after 1951 and later after 1990—the NC faced the challenge of transforming a resistance movement into a competitive electoral party. Formal organizational structures were gradually introduced, but movement culture persisted. Informal decision-making, personalized leadership and flexible norms remained dominant. This hybrid organizational form proved both resilient and unstable—capable of adaptation across regimes, yet resistant to full institutionalization.

Organizational architecture and leadership culture

Over time, the NC constructed a multi-tiered organizational architecture consisting of a central committee, district committees, local and ward units, and a range of sister as well as well-wisher organizations representing students, women, youth, labor, and identity- and profession-based groups. This structure enabled nationwide penetration and electoral reach, distinguishing the NC from regionally confined or ideologically narrow parties. Organizational breadth allowed the party to function as a national integrator in a socially and geographically diverse country.

Despite this formal decentralization, real authority often remained centralized, particularly in leadership selection, coalition bargaining and strategic decision-making. Leadership culture further shaped organizational life.

Foundational leaders commanded authority through moral legitimacy, intellectual stature, and personal sacrifice. Their leadership emphasized ethical restraint and democratic norms over procedural dominance or coercive control. As electoral politics normalized, leadership criteria shifted. Authority increasingly derived from electoral success, factional strength, and control over party machinery. This transition altered internal expectations, intensified competition, and reduced the unifying moral authority that had once moderated conflict. The absence of institutionalized succession mechanisms amplified leadership struggles and factional reproduction.

Factionalism and intra-party democracy

Factionalism has been a persistent and defining feature of the NC. While often portrayed as a pathology, factionalism within democratic parties can perform integrative functions: It can prevent authoritarian consolidation, provide channels for dissent and facilitate elite circulation. In the NC, factions historically emerged around charismatic leaders, generational divides and strategic disagreements rather than deep ideological schisms.

However, the costs of factionalism have been substantial. Persistent internal competition weakened organizational discipline, undermined public credibility and reduced policy coherence. Formal mechanisms of intra-party democracy—general conventions, internal elections and representative committees—coexist uneasily with informal power structures rooted in patronage, negotiation and loyalty networks. The gap between formal rules and actual practice defines the NC’s internal democracy: procedurally pluralistic yet substantively fragile.

Cadre development, resources, organizational capacity

Unlike cadre-based parties with systematic ideological training, the NC has relied largely on informal mentoring, experiential learning and movement socialization. This approach fostered commitment but limited programmatic coherence and policy capacity. Youth and student wings functioned as recruitment pipelines, yet they were frequently politicized and factionalized, reproducing internal divisions rather than cultivating new leadership.

Financial organization has remained a chronic challenge. Limited public funding, reliance on donor networks and opaque financial practices constrained organizational professionalism and accountability. Resource scarcity affected policy research, cadre training and organizational modernization, reinforcing dependence on informal networks and personalized leadership.

Governance record: Democratic stewardship and state-building

The NC is fundamentally a party of governance. Across Nepal’s modern political history, it has repeatedly assumed responsibility during periods of institutional transition, constitutional experimentation and post-conflict reconstruction. Its governing philosophy has emphasized democratic stewardship—procedure, consent and accountability—over coercion or revolutionary rupture.

Congress-led governments played foundational roles in constitutional development, including the 1959 and 1990 constitutions and the post-2006 constitutional process culminating in the promulgation of the new constitution in 2016 with sufficient consensus of a directly-elected constituent assembly. In each instance, the party advocated separation of powers, fundamental rights, judicial independence and parliamentary supremacy. Even when implementation was uneven, these normative commitments shaped the architecture of the Nepali state.

In parliamentary practice, the NC promoted legislative debate, committee systems and opposition rights, reinforcing democratic accountability. In social sectors, Congress governments expanded education, healthcare and early social protection, framing these investments as democratic foundations rather than populist concessions. Infrastructure development, regulatory institutions and fiscal governance advanced incrementally, constrained by limited state capacity and political fragmentation.

Governance limitations and democratic trade-offs

Despite these contributions, the NC’s governance record is marked by significant limitations. Slow policy implementation, uneven administrative capacity, weak monitoring mechanisms and pervasive patronage undermined effectiveness.

Corruption and clientelism eroded public trust, while governance during the Maoist insurgency strained democratic norms. Emergency measures, though often justified as crisis management, left institutional scars. Coalition politics, especially after 2017, diluted accountability, shortened government lifespans and encouraged policy incrementalism rather than structural reform. Federal restructuring after 2015 further complicated governance, overburdening institutions and exposing coordination failures between central, provincial and local governments. These shortcomings reflect not ideological incoherence but the structural difficulties of democratic governance under constraint.

Comparative perspective: Legacy democratic parties in South Asia

Comparatively, the NC occupies a middle ground among South Asian parties. Like several other South Asian parties, it shares a legacy-based leadership culture and factional pluralism. Unlike disciplined left parties, it tolerates internal contestation but struggles with coherence and policy discipline. In contrast to personality-driven regional parties, it retains nationwide presence and constitutional legitimacy.

Internationally, the NC’s trajectory mirrors that of many legacy democratic parties confronting populist challengers, social fragmentation and declining organizational loyalty. Its experience underscores the broader challenge of sustaining democratic parties in an era of electoral volatility and declining ideological attachment.

Recent challenges and the GenZ uprising

Post-2015, the NC navigated a landscape of political fragmentation and external influences. Elections in 2017 and 2022 saw the party alternate in power, often through unstable coalitions. Tenures focused on Covid-19 recovery, infrastructure and foreign relations, but they were marred by allegations of corruption and inefficiency. The 2022 elections positioned the NC as a key player, yet alliances shifted amid geopolitical tensions between India, China and the US.

The year 2025 marked a watershed crisis. In September, youth-led protests erupted across urban centers, demanding anti-corruption measures, accountability for past violence and systemic reforms. These demonstrations—triggered by the government ban on social media and further fueled by disillusionment with entrenched elites, economic woes and unacceptably high youth unemployment—resulted in clashes and casualties, leading to political upheaval, including government resignation, parliamentary dissolution and snap general elections scheduled for March 2026.

Critiques and the challenge of renewal

Contemporary critiques of the NC focus on ideological dilution, leadership inertia, organizational risk aversion and social disconnect. The democratic socialism and humanist ethics that once anchored Congress identity now appear programmatically vague. Leadership succession remains uneven and constrained, and youth engagement limited. Formal inclusion of women and marginalized groups has not consistently translated into substantive empowerment.

Yet decline should not be conflated with irrelevance. The NC retains nationwide organization, constitutional legitimacy and residual moral authority. Its crisis is one of renewal rather than existential collapse. Renewal requires institutionalizing internal democracy, professionalizing organization, strengthening policy capacity and reconnecting with emerging social constituencies.

Conclusion: An incomplete but indispensable democratic institution

The NC represents an incomplete yet indispensable democratic institution. Its historical legitimacy, adaptive capacity and commitment to democratic restraint have sustained Nepal’s democratic state through repeated crises. At the same time, personalized leadership, weak institutionalization and unresolved movement–party tensions continue to undermine organizational coherence and governance performance.

The future of the NC depends on its ability to transform moral authority into institutional strength, reconcile pluralism with discipline and align democratic ideals with governance delivery. Whether it succeeds will shape not only the party’s trajectory but the resilience of Nepal’s democratic project itself.

A young man injured in a road accident in Kathmandu struggles to enter a government office because there’s no ramp. A woman who lost her leg during the 2015 earthquake waits outside a clinic with no accessible toilet. A child with cerebral palsy sits at home because her school lacks a wheelchair-friendly classroom. These are not isolated experiences; they reflect how our infrastructure and social attitudes continue to fail people who live with injuries or disabilities.

In the case of people with disabilities, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reframed the global understanding of dignity. Article 1 declares that “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” Article 16 of the Constitution of Nepal (2015) explicitly affirms that “every person shall have the right to live with dignity.” Yet, for many individuals with disabilities, dignity is frequently compromised through discrimination, exclusion and social stigma. Such violations not only undermine fundamental rights but also contribute to poor mental health outcomes, creating a cycle of suffering that affects individuals, families and communities. From a developmental perspective, Amartya Sen’s capabilities approach broadens the notion of dignity by emphasizing substantive freedoms and the real opportunities people have to pursue lives they value. When dignity is eroded through neglect, discrimination or violence, individuals experience profound personal harm, and the consequences extend further: social systems lose cohesion, legitimacy and overall effectiveness. This underscores the necessity of fostering environments where people with disabilities can fully exercise their rights, capabilities and inherent dignity.

Nepal’s position

There are lots of areas that we are behind in addressing the dignity of differently-abled people. The barriers begin with our built environment. Most public buildings in Nepal remain inaccessible to those with physical limitations. Sidewalks are uneven, roads often lack crossings or tactile paving for the visually impaired, and many schools do not have ramps or adapted toilets. Even newly-built structures often lack accessibility standards mandated under the Act Relating to Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2074  and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), to which Nepal is a signatory. 

These physical barriers are more than design flaws but they are reflections of our social priorities. Our public spaces silently communicate who belongs and who doesn’t. When a person on crutches cannot cross the road safely or a wheelchair user is carried up stairs because there is no ramp, it reveals a failure of imagination and empathy.

Infrastructure that is excluded is not only unjust but it is also economically inefficient. By neglecting to accommodate all citizens, we restrict participation in education, employment and governance. Accessibility is not a luxury for a few; it is a fundamental right for all and every person has an equal dignity.

The cultural barrier

The deeper challenge, however, lies in our attitudes. In many communities, people with disabilities are still viewed with pity or dependency, rather than as individuals with agency and potential. Sympathy often replaces justice. Charity programs and donation drives dominate our response, while systems for empowerment, accessibility and inclusion remain weak. Too often, we view injury or disability through a lens of tragedy instead of resilience. When the injured or differently-abled are portrayed as objects of sympathy rather than participants in society, their voices are sidelined from policy debates and community life.

Nepal’s culture of community and compassion can, paradoxically, both comfort and confine. Compassion must evolve into inclusion. Our values from Buddhist teachings on interconnectedness to Hindu values of sewa (service) already hold the moral grounding for inclusion. But it is time we translated those values into systemic change. True dignity is not about receiving kindness; it is about being treated as an equal.

From the lens of IHD

As Nepal builds roads, hospitals and digital systems, it must remember that true development is not just about what we build, but for whom we build. Integral Human Development (IHD), a dignity-centered framework that aims for human flourishing, and sees every person as a whole reminds us that a just and prosperous society must recognize every individual as capable of contribution and worthy of care. It offers a transformative way to rethink how we design societies. It begins from a simple truth: a person is not merely an economic actor or a recipient of aid, but a whole human being physical, emotional, social, and spiritual. Dignity is its core foundation. Dignity is also the key pillar of development, and every person, regardless of special needs, deserves to flourish.

IHD invites policymakers to pause and reflect before drafting any plan or project. If we are building a school, would we feel confident sending a child with special needs from our own family there? If not, then the project is not good enough. This is what IHD demands, merely not perfection, but empathy and coherence between intention and impact. It helps us to transform policies from technical checklists into moral commitments. It challenges us to see the person before the impairment, the capability before the constraint.

From policy to practice

Nepal needs more than laws to advance inclusion, it needs implementation grounded in dignity. First, enforce accessibility standards across all levels of government. Every new school, hospital and municipal building must meet basic mobility, visual and hearing-friendly design requirements, with accessibility audits built into approval processes. Second, invest consistently in rehabilitation and reintegration. Road-accident survivors, earthquake victims and others with long-term injuries need sustained physiotherapy, counseling and employment support. Third, ensure that people with disabilities and injuries are part of decision-making; their lived experience is essential for designing inclusive systems. Fourth, shift cultural practice. How we speak to, treat and create space for differently-abled people determines whether inclusion is real or symbolic. Finally, mainstream inclusion in education and employment through teacher training, workplace adaptations and public awareness. Economic participation allows people not just to survive but to thrive.

Nepal stands at a crossroads. Progress is visible in infrastructure and connectivity, but true development is measured by who can access those advancements. A ramp at a school or tactile paving at a bus stop may seem small, yet they embody respect and equal opportunity. Designing for the most vulnerable ultimately benefits everyone: the elderly, the sick, children and temporary accident survivors, strengthening trust and resilience.

As Nepal reimagines its development path, IHD offers a guiding compass. It urges policymakers to move beyond economic expansion and ask how policies nurture the whole person. Through this lens, these reforms are not technical fixes but parts of a holistic vision that balances efficiency with empathy, participation with policy and growth with justice.

The author is a graduate student of Global Affairs at the University of Notre Dame, USA