Submit your Article

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.

From an anthropological perspective, health is largely viewed as a state of physical, mental and social well-being shaped by a complex interplay of biological, environmental and social cultural factors. The scholarly contributions of anthropology in understanding health and illness narratives, social inclusion, equity and diversity are monumental and profoundly innovative. More importantly, the social, cultural, economic, political and environmental determinants of health are deeply entwined, influencing and shaping each other in complex and challenging ways.
 

My recent ethnographic field research in Raksirang of Makwanpur was an interesting and humbling experience in terms of exploring health and illness narratives of indigenous and socially-excluded communities such as Chepangs. Moreover, my intellectual curiosity was to understand how local governments have been responsive to these communities in terms of inclusive policies to enhance their easy access to basic health care and other social protection services. 

Within and across societies, illness is largely viewed as a culturally interpreted subjective experience of becoming unwell. Such an experience is influenced by a range of factors such as age, gender, social status and access to health care. Additionally, indigenous knowledge and practices are deeply embedded in social and gender relations, cultural norms, values and religions. 

The ethnographic insights from the fieldwork have offered new frameworks for examining and exploring how indigenous communities are organized, and their knowledge, understanding and experiences of health care are shaped by cultural norms and social hierarchies.
 

Seeking health care is largely a social process. The way people and health care providers interact is influenced by culture. Interactions such as eye contact and language are also important to make people more comfortable in accessing health care. The systemic barriers such as discrimination or bias often yield worse health outcomes. 

The intersection of health and illness is an interesting area of exploration. It helps explain how relationships and power dynamics within and across social structures in local health systems have enabled or constrained the agency of the local communities in accessing health care. 

My understanding on reflective approach to ethnography was meaningful in terms of enriching ethnographic data and ensuring a more nuanced understanding of local perspectives on inclusive health governance.
 

Listening to interesting stories of Chepangs about their health and illness narratives, my questions about why they do the way they do are variously answered. The stories about illness are not just accounts of personal experience but also reflect cultural values and beliefs about health and healing. Their age-old practices to seek health care from natural resources, traditional healers, religious and spiritual leaders do exist. But they have started to visit health facilities and consult with health workers or volunteers for health care.
 

Michael Taussig, a doctor and anthropologist, argues that understanding illness requires attention not only to biomedical models but also to the subjective experiences of individuals who are ill. The emphasis is more on the importance of illness narratives in understanding local health care practices. By examining how people experience illness at a personal level, Taussig provides insight into how medical practices shape individual experiences and social structures.

Interestingly, the shamanic practices of the indigenous communities are culturally constructed and historically nurtured.  In recent years, with public health awareness, local government’s inclusive priorities for health, education and improved infrastructure such as housing, rural road, water and sanitation and telecommunications, the livelihoods of indigenous communities have greatly improved. 

Instead of a health post, now there is a rural hospital in Raksirang which has good health infrastructure and trained human resources. Local government provides additional allowance to mothers who are pregnant and deliver in hospital to encourage the communities for institutional delivery and immunizations. Nutrition allowance to families is another local initiative to address malnutrition and other social protection services in need.

Despite noted progress, the reality is still different. Poor and socially marginalized communities in remote areas of Raksirang have limited access to essential health care. There are little efforts exploring how individuals and communities perceive, experience and cope with what they understand about illness. Moreover, the importance of understanding local healing traditions and practices is overlooked as it can impact how the communities respond to illness or disease.

Going beyond biology, a more holistic understanding of health and illness is required in the changed socio-political context. More specifically, there needs to be a more inclusive and reflexive understanding of political leaders, officials of local government, health workers and civil society activists to promote intersectionality approach in planning and delivering health care services. 

In addressing most pressing health challenges, anthropological perspectives can contribute to shape the future of health and social well-being by developing culturally appropriate interventions and advocating for health equity. Evidence suggests that social, economic and political structures have profound implications on health outcomes. Moreover, social inequalities significantly contribute to health disparities and social injustice within and across social groups.

As we move forward, a broader socio-cultural approach helps local governments to be more creative, accountable and responsive to the unmet health care needs of communities which are culturally appropriate. Moreover, it is high time to critically challenge the traditional ways of thinking about illness, medicine and health care, and build a resilient and sustainable system for health.

The author is a health policy analyst

“Look closely at nature. Every species is a masterpiece, exquisitely adapted to the particular environment in which it has survived. Who are we to destroy or even diminish biodiversity?” The quote by EO Wilson, a pioneer biologist, emphasizes the intrinsic value of every species and its role in maintaining biodiversity and ecosystem balance. All species, including humans, are integral to the web of life, each contributing to ecosystem resilience. As humans, we hold immense power over nature, yet this power comes with the responsibility to protect biodiversity rather than diminish it.

Our actions, such as habitat destruction and the spread of invasive species, disrupt ecosystems and threaten our own survival, highlighting the ethical imperative to preserve the intricate interdependence of life. 

Invasive alien species (IAS) are non-native organisms introduced to new habitats through human activities, intentionally or accidentally, that disrupt ecosystems and threaten biodiversity. Without natural predators, IAS often proliferate rapidly, outcompeting native species and driving them to extinction. Their spread causes irreversible biodiversity loss, alters ecosystem services and incurs colossal economic and social costs. Globalization, trade, travel and climate change have further accelerated IAS spread, making them one of the top five drivers of biodiversity loss, contributing to native species extinction, noted by IPBES, 2019. Globally, around 37,000 IAS are established.

Pyšek et al (2020) reported that around 14,000 species with established alien populations represent four percent of global flora, while 175 terrestrial gastropods as IAS across 56 countries, 745 of 15,000 freshwater fish species, and 971 out of 2000 bird species have become established IAS across various regions.

Growing global perils

IAS are major drivers of biodiversity loss and native species extinction, often referred to as ‘biological pollution’ or ‘green cancer’ (Olson, 2006), while also posing risks to human health, food security and livelihoods. For example, the brown tree snake (Boiga irregularis) led to the extinction of 10 bird species on Guam after its introduction in the 1940s. The IAS Asian tiger mosquito (Aedes albopictus) spreads diseases—Dengue, Chickungunya, and West Nile virus, affecting millions globally. Water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), native to South America, introduced for ornamental purposes across the world, invades water bodies, irrigation channels and rice paddies, causing ecological and economic calamity. IAS disrupt critical ecosystem services such as pollination, water purification and soil fertility, essential for natural cycles. Their spread, accelerated by global trade and travel, worsens these risks, undermining public health and economic resilience.

Economic toll associated with IAS is staggering. A study by Diagne et al (2021) in Nature estimated biological invasions have caused a minimum global economic cost of $1.288trn between 1970 and 2017. According to the IUCN, IAS cost €12.5bn annually and Australia AUS$13.6bn each year. Invasive insects alone account for $70bn in global annual losses. IAS damages agriculture, reduces fishery yields, and disrupts urban areas, leading to financial losses and increased management costs. Prominent IAS in the US, including the spotted lanternfly, red fire ant, feral swine, Emerald ash borer,

Asian carp and Burmese python, purple loosestrife, Japanese honeysuckle, barberry, English Ivy and Kudzu have altered ecosystems and incurred billions of dollars in control efforts and lost productivity. IAS like zebra mussels, native to the Caspian Sea, damage aquatic ecosystems, while the Spanish slugs devastate crops in Europe with massive economic damage.

Furthermore, IAS threaten food security and livelihoods, hindering progress toward the UN's SDG 15 aiming to protect life on land and below water. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (2022) reports that one in ten species on the list are threatened by IAS, emphasizing the urgent need for coordinated global efforts to mitigate their spread protecting ecosystem resilience.

The context of Nepal

IAS pose escalating threats to Nepal’s ecology, economy, sustainable development and health, reflecting global concerns. IAS in Nepal have a long history, with Chomolaena odorata (Siam weed) first reported in 1825. Known locally as ‘Banmara’,  these species disrupt ecosystems, outcompete native species, and threaten agricultural productivity. An estimated 219 alien flowering plant species in Nepal’s forests, with 30 flora species are common IAS (Yadav et al, 2024). Budha 2014 reported 69 fauna species; insects (21), fish (16), birds (three), wild mammals (two), freshwater prawn (one), platyhelminthes (one) and livestock breeds (25 improved breeds), identified as common IAS. These species are primarily from the Americas (74 percent), Europe (one percent) and Africa (eight percent) and cause irreparable harm to ecology.

The introduction of IAS is driven by increasing tourism, trade and limited institutional biosecurity capacity, including insufficient policies and quarantine facilities. These conditions provide a conducive environment for exotic species. Notable flora IAS are Ageratina adenophora, Chromolaena odorata, Eichhornia crassipes, Lantana camara, and Mikania micrantha. Specifically, C odorata, E crassipes, L camara and micrantha are listed among the world’s worst IAS. Tomato leaf miner (Tuta absoluta) and Fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) harm crops, and giant African snail (Achatina fulica) spoils vegetables.

The economic cost of managing IAS, such as Tilapia in water bodies, water hyacinth in the Fewa Lake, and Mimosa diplotricha in Jhapa’s community forests, is substantial, requiring extensive resources. However, the ecological, evolutionary and economic impacts of IAS remain under-studied, with a lack of evidence-based management strategies. While physical removal is common, bio-controls have yet to be formally implemented.

Nation-wide surveys, standardized guidelines, policy-advocacy and community awareness are warranted to address IAS.

IAS pose a silent threat, eroding biodiversity and economic stability globally. While developed nations combat established invaders, countries like Nepal face escalating risks due to weak biosecurity defenses and increasing climate change concerns. Proactive measures including stronger policies, scientific research and global cooperation are essential to mitigate these growing perils. Without urgent action, the ecological and economic consequences will be irreversible.

As Wilson’s call to action reminds us, we must reconsider our role as biodiversity stewards and safeguard ecosystems for future generations. Addressing the critical challenges from IAS requires proactive policies, enhanced cross-cutting research and stronger multi-stakeholder engagement to prevent further damage to the nation’s rich biodiversity.

The author is a biological scientist

Land is more than an economic asset; it has historically shaped social structures and power dynamics. Across the world, land ownership has been a critical factor in defining economic stability, political power and social mobility. However, land reforms have often faced resistance from elites, loopholes in legislation and poor implementation. Past policies continue to influence present land governance, making meaningful reforms difficult to achieve. Analyzing land policies in the United States, Nepal, India and England reveals recurring challenges such as institutional failures, demographic pressures and agrarian struggles that obstruct fair land distribution.

Land is also an instrument of social control, often manipulated by ruling classes to maintain economic dominance. In countries where land reforms have been attempted, the most significant obstacles have been corruption, elite influence and the challenge of balancing modernization with traditional land rights. The experiences of different nations provide important lessons for Nepal as it attempts to navigate its own land reform policies.

Reforms amid controversy

The Government of Nepal recently introduced an ordinance amending multiple land-related acts, including the Land Act (2021), National Parks Act (2029) and Forest Act (2076). The ordinance aims to regulate real estate development, public land use and forest management while addressing encroachment and ownership disputes. The key provisions focus on allowing licensed real estate companies to develop and sell land within specified limits, protecting public and indigenous lands, and legalizing certain settlements for landless communities. It also revises land classifications, including religious forest areas, and reclassifies encroached lands under national park and forest regulations without affecting local ownership rights, among others.

The government has argued that the ordinance is necessary to bring structure and clarity to Nepal’s chaotic land governance system. The ordinance, it says, is intended to prevent illegal land encroachment, promote responsible development and ensure fair land distribution. However, the ordinance has sparked intense political debate. Opposition parties have criticized its provisions, leading to delays in tabling for parliamentary approval. Critics argue that the ordinance prioritizes commercial interests over the rights of landless communities and marginalized groups. There are also concerns about its implementation, as previous land laws have often been undermined by bureaucratic inefficiencies and corruption.

The ministry holds the authority to issue directives for the ordinance’s implementation, but concerns remain over its potential misuse and long-term impact on land distribution. If not managed carefully, there is a risk that the ordinance could deepen existing inequalities rather than resolve them. The government must ensure transparency in enforcement and address the concerns of those who stand to be affected by the reforms.

Federal vs state conflicts

The US land policies, as analyzed by Paul W Gates (1976), show how land privatization shifted from federal control, enabling monopolization and speculation. The Land Ordinance of 1785 established structured ownership, but Alexander Hamilton’s 1790 policies allowed large-scale speculation. The Homestead Act of 1862, meant for small farmers, was misused by elites to amass land. Similar conflicts between federal and state land management in the US reflect Nepal’s current struggles in implementing fair land policies.

The lessons from the US show that without stringent enforcement, well-intended land policies can lead to unintended consequences. The dominance of wealthy landowners and real estate speculators can stifle opportunities for small farmers and vulnerable populations. Nepal’s government must be cautious in ensuring that the ordinance does not enable similar trends.

Population Growth and Land Pressure in Nepal

The research by Hrabovszky and Miyan (1987) highlights how rapid population growth has increased land fragmentation, resource depletion and deforestation in Nepal. The population doubled from 8.3m in 1951 to 16.7m in 1985, intensifying competition for limited arable land. The ‘Great Turnabout’ migration, where people moved from the mountains to the Tarai plains, led to increased land-use conflicts and encroachment. This demographic pressure remains a central issue in Nepal’s land governance today.

As Nepal’s population continues to grow, the pressure on land resources is expected to escalate. Unchecked migration and informal settlements are likely to increase unless there is a comprehensive strategy to balance population distribution and land development. The land ordinance must consider long-term demographic trends to prevent further degradation of natural resources and ensure sustainable land use.

India’s struggle with reforms

Koshy (1974) discusses how India’s land reform efforts were undermined by legal loopholes that allowed landlords to evade land ceilings. Nayak (2013) examines the National Land Records Modernization Program (NLRMP), which improved transparency through digitization but shifted the focus away from redistribution toward market efficiency. This led to increased commercialization of land, leaving small farmers vulnerable. Nepal faces similar risks if land reforms prioritize market forces over equitable distribution.

The Indian experience serves as a warning for Nepal, demonstrating that modernization without addressing fundamental inequalities can worsen land-related disparities. Nepal must be careful in ensuring that legal loopholes do not allow wealthy landowners to consolidate even more land under the new ordinance.

Influence of absentee landlords

Melton (1978) explores absentee land ownership in 17th century England, where estates were managed remotely by financial trustees. The case of the second Duke of Buckingham demonstrates how non-residential landowners influenced agricultural wealth distribution. Nepal faces comparable challenges, with corporate landowners exerting control over vast areas, often at the expense of local farmers.

Absentee land ownership weakens local economies by diverting wealth away from agricultural communities. If Nepal’s land ordinance does not address this issue, it may perpetuate a system in which rural farmers remain economically disadvantaged while landowners benefit disproportionately from land-related profits.

Gender disparities and landlessness

Rajuladevi (2000) highlights the struggles of female agricultural laborers in Tamil Nadu, showing how caste and gender deepened economic marginalization. Dalit women faced lower wages and seasonal unemployment, reinforcing cycles of poverty. Nepal mirrors this trend, where women and marginalized groups often lack secure land rights, worsening their economic vulnerability.

Women’s land rights in Nepal remain a significant issue, as land inheritance laws and societal norms often prevent them from owning land. The new ordinance must actively promote gender-inclusive land policies to ensure women are not further excluded from land ownership opportunities.

Future of land reforms in Nepal

A global comparison of land policies illustrates challenges in achieving equitable land distribution highlighting that land governance remains a contentious issue. This comparative study reveals how historical institutionalism, agrarian transition theory and political ecology provide critical insights into the persistence of land inequalities

Nepal must learn from these experiences and implement a balanced approach that prioritizes fair land distribution, sustainable development and inclusive policies. The land ordinance must be carefully structured to prevent elite capture, promote rural development and address the needs of marginalized groups. Without a transparent and just system, the risk of perpetuating land inequality remains high.

Given land’s sensitive and historically contentious nature, the government must consult all stakeholders before proposing reforms. Such measures should be introduced as parliamentary bills, not ordinances, allowing full legislative debates before they become laws.

The government must ensure the ordinance’s effective enforcement and introduce mechanisms to monitor its long-term impact. Sustainable land management, community engagement and fair policies must be the foundation for Nepal’s land reforms. Only then can the country achieve a more just and equitable land distribution system for future generations.