Submit your Article

The death of India’s former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh nudges us to revisit his legacy in policymaking. As India’s technocrat Finance Minister in the PV Narasimha Rao government from 1991-1996, Singh is credited for liberalizing India’s economy at a time when it was nearing an economic crisis, caused by political actors governing the economy, and dismal foreign exchange reserves enough only to support imports for a few weeks. India was then suffering from low output and inefficient markets. 

However, Singh’s aggressive liberalization policies raised domestic productivity, making way for decades of economic expansion. Today, Nepal is also dealing with major institutional inefficiencies, and although not to the same magnitude, an underperforming economy. India’s liberalization story helps understand what holds Nepal back from realizing its economic potential, and as Singh said in his historic 1991 budget speech, from awakening, prevailing and overcoming.

India’s growth, despite being fueled by its geographic advantages, was held back by excessive regulations and centralized economic policies. Before 1991, trade in India remained strictly controlled by political actors that governed the economy. The License Raj, a protectionist system initially designed to nurture young industries, slowed economic activities through its stringent licensing requirements. While elite-backed businesses were able to obtain licenses easily, smaller industries at the core of the economy found it impossible to do so. Low domestic production and widespread inefficiencies largely suppressed economic activities. 

In 1991, India experienced a paradigm shift when the economic reforms brought by Singh reduced licensing requirements, eased trade, deregulated institutions. This increased productivity reformed the economy and political institutions, strengthened core industries and attracted FDI rapidly.

It is worth noting that while India opened up, Nepal also attempted to follow suit. In fact, Praveen Dixit, a member of the USAID’s economic liberalization project in Nepal, recounts in one of his works that Nepal had liberalized its currency before the Indian currency was fully liberalized. Due to unrestricted access to international trade, Nepal was on its way to align with the global economic order. By the end of the 90’s, public enterprises, banks and financial enterprises were privatized; tax reforms were introduced; industry registration was streamlined; and stock trading began. Judicial reforms enhanced the rule of law. 

Today, as India is set to become the world’s third largest economy, Nepal lags behind. This raises an important question—although India and Nepal underwent significant liberalization at the same time, why has Nepal’s liberalization story diverged so significantly?

Nepal’s political instability caused by frequent changes in governments has disrupted long-term planning and policy continuity. Between 1990 and 2024, there have been 32 government changes, a transition from monarchy to a federal democratic republic and institutional frameworks have been overridden by inefficiencies. As Dixit notes, the surge of FDI that followed liberalization in the 1990s came to a halt after the 1994 midterm polls. This disruption highlights how political instability has a direct and negative impact on Nepal’s economic progress. A simple extrapolation gives us an idea of how much economic potential has been wasted in the last 34 years. 

Nepal’s hydropower sector exemplifies these inefficiencies. While hydropower has the potential to transform Nepal into a key energy exporter, institutional inefficiencies prevent this. For example, the Arun III hydropower project, first conceived by the government in 1992, reached financial closure 28 years after its inception in 1992. Another case, a recent tripartite electricity export agreement between Nepal, India and Bangladesh allowed Nepal to earn around Rs 3.8m by exporting electricity for just a little less than 12 hours to Bangladesh on Nov 15. Nepal is projected to make around Rs. 1.2bn annually by selling electricity to Bangladesh for five months each year. Although a net exporter of electricity, the NEA’s margin from exports is only Rs 120m, 0.12 percent of Nepal’s electricity exports. Had this agreement been signed a decade ago, Nepal today would have earned enough to construct a power plant of the size of the Sunkoshi III hydropower project. Combined, these examples highlight the ineffectiveness of institutions working to transform Nepal into a regional hub for electricity trade in South Asia. Clearly, Nepal’s institutional frameworks prevent it from realizing its comparative geographic advantage.

Singh’s legacy highlights the transformative potential institutions have. As the economic center of gravity shifts eastward, Nepal can reap benefits from regional growth. Nepal’s geographic endowments offer immense opportunities for growth, but they alone cannot guarantee prosperity. Without healthy institutions, its comparative advantages will remain underutilized. Therefore, Nepal’s leaders must embrace bold reforms to address inefficiencies within institutions, as Singh did, and unlock the economy’s full potential. Without institutional reforms, Nepal may risk missing the window to achieve sustainable economic development.

The 16 Days of Activism Against Gender-Based Violence, running each year from Nov 25 (International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women) to Dec 10 (Human Rights Day) have ended. While this global campaign underlined the pressing need to eliminate violence and discrimination against women and girls, it reminded us that the road to a world free of violence requires commitment and action beyond just these 16 days.

This year’s campaign has again brought to the fore the urgency that surrounds gender-based violence (GBV). The conversations it sparked and awareness it raised should inspire action beyond these 16 days. The theme for 2024, Toward Beijing+30: UNiTE to End Violence Against Women and Girls, calls on governments, the private sector and individuals to act on priorities spelt out in the Beijing Platform for Action that reflects three decades of progress and remaining challenges to eliminate GBV.

Globally, the statistics are alarming: one in three women experiences physical or sexual violence in their lifetime. In Nepal, the reality is no different with the Nepal Demographic Health Survey, 2022, revealing that 23 percent of women aged 15-49 years have experienced physical violence, seven percent have faced sexual violence and 13 percent have suffered emotional violence.
Even homes are not safe as the survey shows 25 percent of ever-married women experiencing spousal abuses. This is a stark reminder that GBV is not only an individual issue but a deep-rooted social problem that requires urgent and continued action.

For many women in Nepal, a 16-day campaign is far from enough. Awareness campaigns, though much needed, hardly reach rural areas or the most marginalized groups of society, where women face multiple discriminations based on factors such as disability, caste, and ethnicity. The layers of exclusion increase their vulnerability to violence and limit their access to opportunities and resources.

This complex reality of multiple layers of discrimination exists at every level, from local communities to organizational and institutional settings, denying women the opportunity to lead and reach their full potential.

As we reflect on the 16 Days of Activism, we cannot avoid the fundamental issues underlying all sectors, including livelihood, education, human rights, water and sanitation, and health. An important question that remains urgent is the systematic denial of women’s potential and leadership. This denial is evident not only in communities but also extends to organizational and institutional settings where gender bias and stereotypes often prevail.

These barriers prevent women from participating in decision-making roles and limit their ability to lead effectively. Underutilizing women’s leadership is a disservice to society as a whole and denies the proven capacity of women to bring about transformational change. 

However, in recent times, there have been signs of hope. Women are increasingly rising to positions of leadership, advocating for change and challenging harmful societal norms. This shift, though gradual, signals that change is possible when communities and institutions commit to fostering inclusive and equitable environments.

Campaigns like the 16 Days of Activism raise awareness about important issues, but these efforts must be integrated into broader strategies that enable women and girls to be aware of their rights, resist violence and report it. Continuous advocacy, policy changes and strengthened institutional responses are needed for sustainable progress. This includes engaging local leaders and organizations to the forefront in their communities, furnishing them with resources and support so that they can effectively make change happen.

According to the 2022 health survey, 58 percent of women who suffer physical and sexual violence do not seek support or speak out. This underlines the need for the implementation of programs that allow women to have a safe space where they can express themselves and seek help. It is about empowering women to report violence and ensuring support to break the cycles of abuse and build trust in the systems designed to protect them.

Education and economic empowerment are pivotal in curbing GBV. Educated and economically independent women are better equipped to challenge harmful gender norms and speak up for themselves and others. Yet, despite gains, significant barriers persist. For women who also face discrimination because of their caste and ethnicity, disability, or socioeconomic status, these barriers are significant, making them more vulnerable. The intensity of their exclusion multiplies the risks they face, further calling for targeted interventions recognizing and addressing their unique experiences and challenges.

The call for action is not an individual issue. It demands community-wide engagement, where men and boys are included as essential allies in breaking the violent cycle. Teaching healthy and respectful relationships and gender equality from an early age can establish the foundation for long-lasting change. Programs that encourage gender responsiveness and respect toward women should be integrated into education systems and community-based initiatives. These, along with more stringent and inclusive legal frameworks, can support a culture that gives primacy to safety, equality and dignity for all. This could be done through grassroots movements, government policy or international cooperation; the aim is to bring us closer to a world where women are valued, empowered and safe.

The stories of the women leaders and survivors who share their stories and advocate for change provides much-needed hope. They remind us that with determination and continued support, a future without violence is possible. But to get there, we must commit to the hard work that will be required to dismantle structures that breed violence and discrimination. The 16 Days of Activism must ignite a sense of urgency and purpose, not just for 16 days, but for every day beyond. Only through sustained action can we realize the vision of a world in which women, girls, children and every member of the society can live free from fear and have every opportunity to achieve their full potential.

Judicial committees in Nepal, established under Article 217 of the 2015 Constitution, represent a pioneering effort to decentralize justice delivery. Their primary mandate is to resolve local disputes at the municipal and rural municipal levels, bridging the gap between formal legal systems and traditional community practices. Operationalized through the Local Government Operations Act (LGOA) of 2017, these committees handle cases ranging from property disputes and water-sharing conflicts to unpaid wages and domestic conflicts. With over 150,000 cases pending in Nepal’s formal courts, these committees play a vital role in alleviating judicial backlogs while ensuring access to justice for all.

Despite their promise, critics argue that these committees have focused heavily on supply-side mechanisms such as processes, structures and jurisdiction, while neglecting the demand side—ensuring justice delivery for marginalized and vulnerable groups. Supreme Court Justice Sapana Pradhan Malla emphasizes that these committees must adopt a victim-centered, gender-sensitive approach based on the fundamental principles of justice. Justice must not only be delivered but also felt and realized by those who seek it. This article examines the historical evolution, challenges, global insights and reformative potential of judicial committees in Nepal, offering a path forward to make justice accessible, inclusive, and impactful

Historical foundations and legal framework

Nepal’s justice system has long been rooted in community-based practices, guided by principles of restorative justice, legal pluralism and cultural norms. During the Kirant dynasty, Mundhum, a customary code, emphasized reconciliation and social harmony. The Lichhavi and Malla dynasties institutionalized systems such as Panchali and Pancha Samuha, which combined local norms with administrative governance. Under the Shah dynasty, Dibyopadesh codified justice, creating a hierarchical system that incorporated community-led dispute resolution.

In modern times, the Panchayat system, formalized through the Village Panchayat Act of 1961, marked a significant step toward decentralizing justice. These mechanisms aimed to resolve local disputes but often excluded marginalized groups, perpetuating elitist dominance. The Local Self-Governance Act of 1999 sought to further decentralize judicial powers, empowering village development committees (VDCs) to mediate disputes. However, political instability and a lack of resources limited their effectiveness.

The 2015 Constitution institutionalized judicial committees as part of Nepal’s federal restructuring. Their legal framework includes jurisdiction over 13 categories of disputes, including property boundaries, minor criminal offenses, and domestic issues. These committees are designed as quasi-judicial bodies, intended to provide alternative dispute resolution while supplementing formal courts. However, ambiguities over their role—whether they are courts or supplementary mechanisms—have led to inconsistent practices across municipalities. Elected representatives lead judicial committees, emphasizing their democratic accountability, but their lack of integration into the judicial hierarchy raises questions about procedural fairness and impartiality.

Supply-side focus, demand-side gaps

While judicial committees are theoretically well-positioned to deliver justice, their operational realities reveal significant gaps. One of the most pressing issues is the absence of mechanisms linking justice seekers to these committees. Marginalized groups, including women and the poor, often lack the knowledge or resources to access these committees. Paralegal committees, which previously served as vital bridges, have been largely dismantled. Their reinstatement could provide essential support, such as legal counseling, community mediation and transitional justice mechanisms, ensuring that vulnerable populations can navigate the justice system effectively.

Resource constraints further undermine the effectiveness of these committees. Many committees lack dedicated office spaces, hearing rooms, trained personnel and access to legal libraries. These deficiencies disproportionately affect rural municipalities, where logistical barriers exacerbate the challenges of delivering justice. Domestic violence cases in Rupani rural municipality highlight the limitations of these committees. The absence of trained mediators and psychosocial support hindered their ability to address sensitive disputes, leaving victims without meaningful resolutions. In contrast, Dhulikhel municipality demonstrates the potential of judicial committees when they integrate traditional norms with modern mediation techniques. By successfully mediating a water-sharing conflict, the committee underscored the importance of cultural sensitivity and contextual understanding in justice delivery.

Another criticism of these committees is their overemphasis on “positive/statutory law,” focusing on procedural adherence at the expense of substantive justice. Theoretical frameworks such as procedural justice emphasize fairness, impartiality and inclusivity as essential components of justice delivery. However, these principles are often sidelined in practice, with judicial committees prioritizing processes over outcomes. Justice must not only adhere to legal standards but also address the real-world needs and experiences of those seeking redress.

Effective local justice

Nepal’s judicial committees can benefit by studying international models that balance procedural rigor with community engagement. The Philippines’ Lupon Tagapamayapa operates at the barangay level, offering a community-driven mediation system that resolves disputes efficiently and cost-effectively. Its focus on accessibility and stakeholder participation highlights the importance of engaging local communities in justice delivery.

India’s Gram Nyayalayas integrate village-level dispute resolution with formal judicial oversight. These courts ensure procedural consistency while remaining accessible to rural populations. South Africa’s community courts, rooted in restorative justice principles, harmonize traditional practices with modern legal frameworks, making them particularly effective in addressing culturally sensitive issues.

Bihar’s community mediation programs provide a compelling example of inclusivity. Data show that diversity among mediators correlates directly with greater trust and effectiveness in dispute resolution. Nepal could adopt similar practices to ensure that judicial committees reflect the diversity of the communities they serve, enhancing their legitimacy and public trust.

These global models demonstrate the value of procedural clarity, inclusivity and community engagement in strengthening localized justice systems. Judicial committees must adapt these lessons to align their operations with both local contexts and international best practices.

Toward inclusive justice

To transform judicial committees into effective instruments of justice delivery, Nepal must address both structural and conceptual challenges. Reinstating paralegal committees is a crucial step toward bridging the gap between justice seekers and judicial committees. These committees can facilitate community outreach, provide paralegal support and empower marginalized populations to access justice mechanisms.

Expanding mobile legal clinics and mediation programs is another critical reform. Mobile clinics offering free legal counseling and transitional justice services can bring judicial committees closer to rural and disadvantaged communities, ensuring that justice is accessible to all. Public awareness campaigns and targeted interventions are equally important to educate communities about their rights and the functions of Judicial Committees.

Legislative amendments are necessary to clarify the role and jurisdiction of judicial committees, resolving ambiguities that hinder their operation. Training programs focusing on gender-sensitive dispute resolution, case management, mediation techniques and legal literacy must equip committee members with the skills needed to handle complex cases effectively. Judicial committees must also prioritize outcomes over processes, adopting a justice delivery approach that emphasizes fairness, impartiality and inclusivity.

Drawing on global best practices, Nepal can integrate lessons from the Philippines, India and South Africa to enhance the credibility and effectiveness of its judicial committees. By fostering community engagement, promoting diversity and ensuring procedural consistency, these committees can become transformative platforms for equity and empowerment.

Conclusion

Judicial committees in Nepal are a bold experiment in localized justice delivery, reflecting the country’s commitment to empowering communities and decentralizing governance. However, their potential remains largely unrealized due to operational inefficiencies, resource constraints, and a disconnect between theoretical frameworks and practical implementation. By addressing these challenges and adopting a justice delivery approach, Nepal can transform judicial committees into effective mechanisms that deliver meaningful outcomes for all.

The path forward requires reinstating paralegal committees, expanding mobile legal clinics and clarifying the role of judicial committees within the broader justice system. Inclusive practices, gender sensitivity and public engagement must be prioritized to ensure that justice is accessible and impactful. With thoughtful reforms and a commitment to equity, Nepal’s judicial committees can set a global benchmark for localized justice systems, bridging the gap between legal mandates and the lived realities of those they serve.

​​​​​The author is an advocate and development practitioner

Prime Minister KP Oli’s China visit has stirred the pot, with some experts terming it as a diplomatic maneuver aimed at counterbalancing India and fueling speculations that India was not too keen on extending an official invitation to him. Additionally, the two major ruling coalition parties, the CPN-UML and the NC, have differing interpretations of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), such as viewing it as grants versus aid. These differences, along with their political and ideological leanings toward either China or India, have sent out mixed signals regarding Nepal’s relationships with its neighbors.

Many Indian politicians, media outlets and think tanks view the BRI as China’s key foreign policy tool aimed at influencing the signatory countries' domestic and foreign policies. For instance, a recent heated debate in the Indian Parliament focused on the perceived shift of India’s neighbors toward China and India’s failure to build trust with them. India’s Member of Parliament Manish Tewari questioned the efficacy of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s ‘Neighborhood First’ policy even as Nepal and China signed on the BRI cooperation framework during Prime Minister Oli’s recent visit to China, triggering considerable debate in India’s nationalistic media.

India’s relationship with Bangladesh and other neighbours is on a rough patch. Bangladesh’s popular movement, which toppled the regime of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina in August this year, has created friction between the two countries, with Bangladesh asking India to extradite the former PM. Sri Lanka, the Maldives and Nepal have tried to strengthen their relations with China often creating friction with India. In South Asia, critics also argue that the appeal of BRI funding and other assistance to India’s neighbours is less about China’s efforts to contain India, which accounts for almost 80 percent of the region’s economy, and more about these countries’ desire to counterbalance or challenge India’s Monroe Doctrine-style regional dominance.

Global politics also plays a significant role in South Asian geopolitics. Military conflicts like the Russia-Ukraine war and trade tensions, such as the US chip embargo and reciprocal tariffs coming from the US and China, underscore the renewed great power competition involving the US, a rising China, and a revisionism ambition of Russia. India’s fast economic growth, coupled with rising global influence, is also reshaping alliances and the world’s political and economic orders. 

In this context, the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (the Quad) comprising India, Australia, Japan and the US seeks to counter China’s growing military and political influence in the Indo-Pacific. Recently, the global economic landscape is shifting in India’s favour, with 69 percent of companies, up from 55 percent in 2022, planning to leave China, and 39 percent favouring relocation to the Indian subcontinent, according to Fortune Magazine.

India’s reservation toward Nepal’s closeness with China through the BRI also emanates from the fact that in global power competition, superpowers and rising powers are likely to use military, economic, diplomatic, intelligence and technological tools to influence other states and reshape the world order by leveraging foreign assistance in all forms—military, economic and development. For example, China has invested billions in African infrastructure projects and established a military base in Djibouti, with plans for another in Gabon. A key lesson for Nepal is to carefully assess each form of assistance or alliance, accepting or rejecting them based on national interests.

At the technical level, Nepal should be aware of risks and opportunities associated with BRI fundings under which China has provided an estimated $1.34trn to more than 20,000 projects based in 165 countries in the form of grants and loans. 

The top three recipients of BRI funding over the past two decades have been Russia, Venezuela and Pakistan. China has provided nearly $170bn in development loans to Russia for multi-sector projects, including industry, mining and construction, budgetary assistance to Venezuela for stabilizing the economy and funding of more than $67bn to Pakistan (almost 20 percent of its GDP) whose economy continues to struggle.

Chinese loans have been a major source of sovereign default risk in countries like Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Ghana and Zambia, prompting some to label it as China’s ‘debt-trap diplomacy’. According to World Bank estimates, in 2022, one-third of debt service payments by the 74 poorest countries in the world were owed to China, with many borrowers unable to repay. This has led Beijing to reduce spending on infrastructure projects under the BRI and focus more on rescuing countries in financial distress to help them repay their loans. China is also increasingly focusing on smaller-scale strategic projects, such as green technologies, political party training and cultural exchanges.

The key question is not whether to accept BRI funding, but to assess whether proposed projects are financially and technically viable and offer a high rate of return. Fitch's credit rating recently highlighted Nepal’s strong debt affordability, with more than 40 percent of government debt being external and highly concessional. This suggests that accepting BRI loans is less challenging for Nepal than for countries like Sri Lanka or Pakistan. However, the projects must be transformative for Nepal’s development; otherwise, they risk becoming ‘white elephant’ projects.

China has recently been scaling back funding for large-scale projects, making it increasingly difficult to secure substantial grants. The challenge for Nepal now lies in its ability to develop projects with high rates of return and secure adequate fundings. Otherwise, submitting a list of projects without concrete funding agreements would amount to little more than a symbolic gesture aimed at counterbalancing India.

Most importantly, Nepal should prioritize what is beneficial for the nation while improving its communication of priorities. Nepal must clearly explain why development assistance from its neighbors, including BRI, is not only crucial for its own economic growth but also contributes to regional and global economic integration. This can be achieved by dispelling common myths, addressing information gaps and building trust with both India and China. Countries like Singapore and Mongolia have successfully crafted foreign policies that serve their national interests by earning the trust and confidence of rival powers. 

At the same time, Nepal should adopt a balanced approach, maintaining strong ties with both neighbors to secure financial support for infrastructure and development projects, without becoming overly reliant on large loans from either country. Such a strategy would encourage healthy competition between the two regional powers, enabling Nepal to negotiate more favorable terms for its development. As long as Nepal clearly communicates to both India and China that accepting BRI promotes Nepal’s stability, growth and prosperity, maintaining close economic ties with China may not be as sensitive an issue for India as often perceived.

Given a divided national political landscape, Nepal needs a consensus on how to handle foreign development assistance and decide which projects to accept or reject. While the US Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) funding sparked political division, it also led to a more open debate. In contrast, discussions on the BRI have been less transparent, with limited public information, making the call for parliamentary debate and oversight both valid and reasonable.

Most importantly, a national consensus is crucial on the principles for accepting foreign assistance, including inclusion (with civil society participation), transparency (openness about projects and funding), parliamentary oversight (for broader legitimacy) and honest communication with donors on Nepal’s approach and position. While parliamentary approval for each foreign funded project may not be necessary, it is essential for larger projects like the BRI or the MCC Compact.

The author is a member of the board of directors at the Institute of Foreign Affairs,Nepal. Views are personal