Submit your Article

In mid-Feb 2025, Pokhara, the tourism capital of Nepal, announced a ‘Pokhara Visit Year 2025’ with the goal of welcoming 2m tourists to the country in 2025. At that time, Pokhara had announced the target to draw in 1.5m tourists to the bustling metropolis alone. Recent estimates suggest that around 40 percent of tourists visiting Nepal also visit Pokhara. For 2025, the target was to increase this figure to 60 percent. The tourism capital is developing different packages to achieve this goal by attracting tourists, Indian tourists in particular.

This Visit Year program, initiated by the provincial government with support from the Nepal Tourism Board, aims to promote Pokhara’s unique natural beauty, thrilling adventure activities, and rich cultural experiences, and to further establish the image of Pokhara at the international level.

At present, domestic tourism in Nepal is gaining momentum. A culture of traveling during holidays is gradually developing, which is a positive sign for tourism. Social media platforms such as Facebook and X are playing a major role in attracting tourists. Despite various challenges facing Nepal’s tourism sector, there has been a noticeable revival of activity. The arrival of tourists to Pokhara and other major cities during Dashain and Tihar has created renewed enthusiasm in this sector.

According to 2024 statistics, France received the highest number of tourists (102m), followed by Spain (93.8m), the United States (72.4m), China (64.9m), and Turkey (60.6m). In the same year, India received 18.8m tourists, while Nepal welcomed 1.147m tourists.

France’s Eiffel Tower and Dune of Pilat paragliding attract tourists, while the desert nation Dubai draws visitors from around the world through manmade infrastructures such as Burj Khalifa, Dubai Mall, Jumeirah Burj Al Arab, and Dubai Miracle Garden. Compared to these countries, Nepal enjoys an excellent climate and extraordinary natural sites. If Nepal can invest even modestly in infrastructure and promotion, it can get attractive dividends from the tourism sector. Nepal has numerous rivers comparable to France’s Gorges du Verdon. Nepal shares many comparable geographical advantages with France and several other countries that have a thriving tourism industry.

Most tourists visiting Nepal come for religious purposes, visiting sites such as Pashupatinath, Janaki Mandir, Muktinath, and Lumbini. Other tourists make it to destinations such as the Sagarmatha region, Chitwan and Bardiya National Parks as well as Pokhara.

In recent years, China has achieved remarkable progress in information technology and infrastructure, surprising even powerful nations like the United States. From the Great Wall to the Forbidden City and cities like Shanghai’s Bund, China has attracted millions of tourists. Just as China developed tourist destinations like the Li River and Yellow Mountain, Nepal too has immense potential to attract tourists by promoting its diverse locations.

The average stay of tourists visiting Nepal is 12 days. By improving infrastructure, increasing tourist numbers, and extending their length of stay, millions of unemployed Nepalis can find employment or self-employment, playing a vital role in economic development. Tourism does not benefit only tourism businesses; it impacts the entire economy, including agriculture, industry, and banking and financial institutions, positively. Increased tourist arrivals and longer stays raise demand for human resources in tourism, generating direct employment, while increased demand for food and vegetables boosts agriculture and generates indirect employment and positive growth.

Nepal’s hotels are capable of providing international-standard services, but many food items—meat, vegetables, and other ingredients—still need to be imported. If international tourists could be served Nepal-produced meat, fish, and local dishes, and developed a taste for Nepali cuisine, food tourism could significantly support the tourism industry, increase demand for domestic products, create jobs, and positively impact the national economy.

France leads the world in food tourism; people travel there from all over the globe to enjoy local cuisine and wine. Countries such as Ireland, the Philippines, and Canada place special emphasis on attracting tourists through local food, while major cities like London, Paris, New York, Berlin, Madrid, Kuala Lumpur, Barcelona, Lisbon, and Rome have achieved strong tourism growth through culinary tourism.

According to recent studies, the world’s most visited tourist attractions include the Eiffel Tower (France), the Great Wall of China, the Taj Mahal (India), the Colosseum (Italy), Machu Picchu (Peru), the Sydney Opera House (Australia), Santorini (Greece), Petra (Jordan), and Niagara Falls (USA).

In 2024, Japan achieved a 47 percent increase in tourist arrivals, driven by currency devaluation that made travel packages cheaper, expansion of air routes to improve access from different countries, and simplified visa and administrative procedures. Saudi Arabia achieved a very impressive 73 percent growth by prioritizing tourism and diversifying away from an oil-based economy through various initiatives. In earlier years, Paraguay and Tajikistan also significantly increased tourist arrivals by prioritizing tourism.

Paraguay, whose GDP growth rate was negative until 2011–2012, has now achieved more than five percent economic growth, with tourism playing a key role. Favorable weather, clean roads, strong security arrangements, comfortable transportation, and cultural programs during travel have helped attract tourists.

Saudi Arabia attracts millions of religious tourists during Ramadan, just as India draws millions to its religious sites. Likewise, South Korea and Sri Lanka attract millions of religious tourists annually, making a major contribution to their economies.

Nepal, with its large Hindu population and as the birthplace of Gautaam Buddha, holds immense potential for religious tourism. Just as Muslims aspire to visit Mecca at least once in their lifetime, religious tourism programs can inspire Hindus to visit Pashupatinath, Muktinath, Vyas and other sacred shrines, while attracting Buddhists from around the world to Lumbini, the birthplace of the Buddha. By doing so, tourism could promote  and significantly help the nation’s economic growth. For this, it is essential that all stakeholders focus on the conservation and promotion of Nepal’s heritage to attract tourists.

Every Nepali must develop a positive mindset toward tourism and Pokhara must play a key role in this endeavor. Tourism is not just a sector; it is the hope of the nation and the people. Therefore, let us promote this sector with the theme: Tourism that leads, planting future seeds.

There was a time when the UK was an undisputed world super power, backed by an empire and navy that spanned the entire globe in the nineteenth century. In the twentieth century, particularly from 1945 to 1990, the world order boiled down to a bipolar structure, dominated by the USA and the USSR (present-day Russia) as the competing super powers. Since 1990, the USA has remained the only super power of the world. Nevertheless, the emergence of BRICS in the international arena as a major alliance for economic and social cooperation—grounded in the principles of the UN Charter and international law—signals the beginning of multipolarism. Russia regained its military strength, while China has taken the world by storm with its rapid economic rise within the period of 20 years, establishing itself as a formidable global power.

India with vast human and natural resources, along with a fast-growing economy and a strong push toward high-technology innovation, is playing a pivotal role not only in this region, but also on the global arena as an emerging power. The way the international economic and strategic powers are taking shapes in the global political economy signals the dawn of a new global order. The Russia-Ukraine war and the US, Israel-Iran war have shown how powerful nations play to achieve their own interests at the cost of human lives. The global scenario paints a gloomy and miserable picture that poorly affects small states with weak economies.

Balancing

Nepal’s geopolitical position, located between two major powers, remains inherently vulnerable despite efforts to maintain diplomacy in a balanced way. Prithvi Narayan Shah’s strategic assertion that ‘Nepal is a yam between two boulders’ continues to be equally important and relevant even after more than two centuries. Against this backdrop, neither the geography of Nepal can be altered nor its   neighbors chosen. Nepal must build its socio-economic strength in line with the ground realities of its geostrategic position. This means, drawing lessons from the past experiences, the government must read the writing on the wall and keep abreast of the shifting regional and global order to foster its development efforts and balance its delicate foreign policy. Nepal can neither bear the biting cold of the north nor the scorching heat of the south. Similarly, it cannot withstand the damaging storm from the west. It must, therefore, steer a middle path by developing strong institutional relations followed by the art of diplomatic balance.

In practice, previous governments have often been criticized for pursuing an unbalanced foreign policy. Ineffective handlings of policy across different governments has made neighboring and friendly countries skeptical of Nepal’s diplomatic governance. Weak institutional coordination and a lack of continuity in diplomatic initiatives have projected an image of naivety in the conduct of foreign policy.

Nepal’s geopolitical location is both a blessing and a burden. However, Nepal is a landlocked country, but it is not ‘mind locked’. The mind is a powerful source of action and innovation. Focusing on knowledge-based human resources, innovation, technology, digital connectivity and energy corridors is immensely important, as these elements significantly reduce the constraints imposed by physical boundaries. There is ample scope to develop Nepal through its enhanced economic connectivity between India and China, provided that the trust of its neighbors is secured. Over the past couple of decades, successive political governments have mainly centralized their actions to build ‘vote banks’, rather than steering national interests and development efforts in a way that ensures citizens’ satisfaction.

While dealing with its immediate neighbors, Nepal must not forget that the US as a super power is taking more interests here in recent years, primarily to counter China as its strategic competitor, and at times to balance its hidden agenda toward India. In view of this landscape, Nepal must remain vigilant in safeguarding its sovereignty and national interests by implementing its foreign policy principles into effective and consistent action. So long as the political leadership continues to adopt this reality in a sensitive manner and stays free from the pressure and influence of powerful countries, Nepal’s national interests will be definitely safeguarded.

Learning lessons

In international relations, there are no permanent friends or foes. It is national interest that ultimately determines who can be regarded as a real friend. The government of Nepal has no option left but to resolutely and rapidly strengthen its economy beyond its present condition. Otherwise, its voice in regional and global platforms will be marginalized and rendered inconsequential. Development is determined not only by its resources, it takes inspiring shape through committed will of the government and altruistic implementation of realistic policies.

One of the basic flaws of Nepal’s governance system is its persistent failure to learn from past experiences. It tends to forget even the gravest crises with alarming haste.

Coming days will be more critical and perilous due to the covert and overt power struggles among global powers that will directly affect vulnerable nations like ours. How the present government calibrates its tactical moves in foreign policy is a matter of serious and sensitive consideration. Nepal’s strategic situation demands greater cooperation with its immediate neighbors rather than distant power, maintaining a balanced approach. Unless Nepal’s diplomacy ensures that its foreign policy is strategic, coherent, focused on national interests, balanced in engagement and proactive, frequent critiques of its implementation will continue.

Nepal stands at a moment that feels different from its many past political transitions. This time, the shift is not just about who governs, but about how governance is expected to work. Citizens are no longer satisfied with rhetoric or symbolic change. They are demanding results. That shift, subtle but powerful, may define whether this moment becomes a turning point or just another missed opportunity.

The recent reform narrative reflects deeper structural pressures. Years of uneven economic performance, governance fatigue, and institutional drift have converged into a public demand for accountability and delivery. As highlighted in recent analysis, the political transition underway is less about electoral arithmetic and more about a renegotiation of the social contract between the state and its citizens. At the heart of this reset lies a simple but difficult question: can Nepal move from a system that manages problems to one that solves them?

The illusion of stability

On paper, Nepal’s macroeconomic indicators do not signal a crisis. Growth has hovered around four to five percent, remittance inflows remain strong, and the banking system appears liquid. But beneath this surface lies a fragile structure.

Remittances now account for over one-fifth of GDP. While they sustain consumption and support foreign exchange reserves, they also mask deeper weaknesses in domestic productivity. An economy that relies heavily on exporting labor cannot indefinitely postpone the need to generate jobs at home. At the same time, Nepal’s trade deficit remains persistently high, reflecting a structural inability to produce competitively at scale. Industrial output is limited, and agriculture continues to employ a majority of the workforce while contributing a declining share of GDP. This mismatch is not just an economic issue; it is a governance failure rooted in policy inertia and weak execution.

The credit misallocation problem

Perhaps the most telling indicator of structural imbalance is where money flows within the economy. A significant portion of bank credit continues to be directed toward real estate and trade rather than productive sectors like agriculture and manufacturing.

This is not accidental. It reflects a system where lending decisions are driven more by collateral security than by economic value creation. Land, often overvalued administratively, provides safety for lenders but diverts capital away from sectors that generate employment and long-term growth. This pattern creates a cycle. Productive sectors remain underfunded, growth remains subdued, and the financial system continues to favor low-risk, low-impact lending. Breaking this cycle requires deliberate regulatory intervention.

Here, institutions like Nepal Rastra Bank have a critical role. Policy tools such as differentiated risk weights, targeted refinance schemes, and credit guarantees can help redirect capital. But these tools must be applied consistently and with clear intent. Half measures will only reinforce existing distortions.

The execution gap

Even where resources are available, Nepal struggles to use them effectively. Capital expenditure consistently falls short of allocations, with a persistent gap between budgeted and actual spending. This is not merely a technical issue. It reflects deeper institutional weaknesses. Project preparation is often inadequate. Procurement processes are slow and complex. Subnational governments, despite increased fiscal autonomy, lack the technical capacity to implement projects efficiently.

The result is a paradox. Funds remain unused while infrastructure gaps persist. Development slows not because of lack of resources, but for want of capacity to deploy them. Addressing this requires more than procedural reform. It calls for investment in institutional capacity, particularly at the local level. Without that, fiscal federalism risks becoming a system of decentralised inefficiency rather than decentralised development.

Digital progress, structural limits

Nepal’s digital payments ecosystem has grown rapidly. Mobile banking users have surged, and QR-based transactions are now common in urban areas. This is often cited as evidence of financial innovation. But payments alone do not constitute a financial system. The deeper promise of fintech lies in expanding access to credit, enabling data-driven lending, and integrating financial services into everyday economic activity.

That transition has yet to happen.

Open banking frameworks, alternative credit scoring models, and digital identity systems remain underdeveloped. Without these, the digital ecosystem risks becoming a thin layer of convenience rather than a driver of structural change. The next phase of reform must therefore move beyond payments. It must focus on building a data-driven financial architecture that supports small businesses, farmers, and first-time borrowers.

Governance and trust

Ultimately, economic reform cannot be separated from governance. Trust is the invisible infrastructure that underpins development. Where trust is low, transaction costs rise, investment slows, and policy effectiveness diminishes.

Nepal’s trust deficit is well-documented. Corruption, inconsistent enforcement, and weak accountability have eroded confidence in institutions. Rebuilding that trust requires more than high-profile actions. It demands consistency, transparency, and fairness in everyday governance.

This includes strengthening oversight in vulnerable sectors such as cooperatives, where recent failures have exposed serious regulatory gaps. It also requires credible mechanisms for accountability that are insulated from political influence. Trust is not restored through declarations. It is earned through predictable and impartial action over time.

The risk of partial reform

The current reform momentum is encouraging. But history offers a cautionary note. Many countries have initiated reforms only to see them stall or reverse due to political pressures, institutional resistance, or lack of follow-through.

Nepal faces similar risks.

Coalition dynamics can dilute policy direction. Bureaucratic inertia can slow implementation. External shocks, particularly in remittance flows, can strain macroeconomic stability. To navigate these risks, reforms must be anchored in strong institutions and supported by broad-based consensus. They must also be sequenced carefully. Attempting too much at once can overwhelm capacity, while delaying critical reforms can erode momentum.

From opportunity to outcome

Nepal’s current moment is rare. Political change, demographic pressure, and technological possibility have aligned in a way that creates genuine opportunity.

But opportunity alone is not enough.

The real test lies in execution. Can policies be implemented effectively? Can institutions be strengthened to sustain reform beyond political cycles? Can technology be integrated in a way that expands opportunity rather than deepening inequality? These are not abstract questions. They will determine whether Nepal moves toward a more productive, inclusive, and resilient economy, or continues along a path of incremental change and recurring frustration.

The shift in public expectations is already clear. Citizens are no longer willing to accept governance that manages decline. They expect governance that delivers progress.

Meeting that expectation is the true measure of this reset.

In less than 48 hours, Nepal’s new government has attempted something no administration has dared before—a 100-point contract with its citizens. For a citizen waiting months for a hospital bed or a simple file approval, this roadmap—if implemented—could mean the difference between delay and dignity. 

Following the formation of the new government under the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), the administration of Prime Minister Balendra Shah convened its first Cabinet meeting on March 27 and issued a prescriptive 100-Point Governance Roadmap on March 28, marking one of the fastest major policy announcements in Nepal’s democratic history. This document is not a traditional set of aspirations but a structured “Citizen Contract” designed to turn the energy of the 2025 youth protests into permanent state systems. By shifting from the “politics of grievance” to a “politics of delivery,” the government is setting a new standard where administrative output becomes the primary metric of success.

The first directive of this roadmap mandates an immediate transition to Delivery-Based Governance, drawing lessons from high-efficiency models such as Singapore. This approach mirrors Singapore’s “Clean and Green” campaign of the 1960s, where Lee Kuan Yew used strict, immediate enforcement of public standards to build the trust necessary for larger reforms. Singapore faced the risk of public backlash and compliance fatigue. To overcome this, the state paired strict enforcement with large-scale public awareness and ensured that benefits—cleaner streets and better health—were quickly visible, especially to lower-income citizens.

Applying a similar logic, the Nepali government has ordered strict enforcement of the 10 percent free hospital bed requirement, backed by a newly formed National Health Inspectorate. To make these gains sustainable, the Ministry of Health must move from periodic checks to continuous oversight, including unannounced daily audits.

To dismantle systemic delays in bureaucracy, the administration is prescribing a “Digital by Default” overhaul inspired by Estonia. Nepal seeks to adopt principles similar to Estonia’s X-Road system, which connects public and private services through a unified digital backbone. Estonia’s journey was not without risk—it faced a major cyberattack in 2007 and public concerns over data privacy. These were addressed through advanced data integrity systems and transparency tools that allow citizens to see how their data is used. 

Learning from this, Nepal’s roadmap calls for integrating all departmental databases under a “Once-Only” principle, alongside strong cybersecurity safeguards. A public-facing Digital File Tracker is also proposed, allowing citizens to monitor the status of their applications in real time. However, for this system to be effective, digital literacy must be expanded across the population.

In a move to restore judicial integrity, the roadmap proposes an Empowered Asset Investigation Committee—similar in spirit to Hong Kong’s Independent Commission Against Corruption. This body will investigate the assets of political leaders and officials from 1990 to 2026.

Hong Kong faced a serious institutional crisis when sections of the police resisted anti-corruption reforms. The government responded with a balanced approach: limited amnesty for minor past offences, stricter laws for future violations, and improved salaries for public officials. This ensured that integrity became more rewarding than corruption.

For Nepal, credibility will depend on ensuring that such a commission is staffed by independent professionals, such as forensic experts and auditors, rather than political appointees.

While the official roadmap focuses heavily on service delivery, a parallel shift in national security thinking could further strengthen the state. Drawing from the “Total Defence” concepts of countries like Switzerland and Israel, Nepal could broaden its definition of security to include economic stability, food systems, and cyber resilience.

The risk, however, lies in potential overreach or militarization. This can be mitigated by ensuring strong parliamentary oversight, keeping citizens’ rights at the center of any expanded security framework.

The economic pillar of the roadmap is equally ambitious, proposing a fast-track system for business registration—reportedly targeting completion within 48 hours—drawing lessons from New Zealand.

New Zealand’s reforms in the 1980s carried risks of short-term disruption and job losses. These were addressed by simplifying regulations and making compliance easier for businesses. By reducing bureaucratic friction, the system naturally encouraged efficiency and growth.

Nepal aims to replicate this by linking civil service performance directly to efficiency outcomes, creating internal incentives for faster delivery. 

A final recommendation is to address Nepal’s deeply rooted administrative culture, often shaped by patronage networks and “Afno Manche” practices. Transitioning to a merit-based system—drawing lessons from post-unification Germany—will be critical. 

Germany faced resistance and institutional pushback during its reforms but overcame this through transparent hiring systems and strong legal protections for meritocracy. Nepal may face similar resistance; this can be managed through civil service retraining programs and structured early retirement options, enabling a gradual but firm cultural shift. 

As this roadmap enters its first phase of execution, the priority is clear: early trust-building must evolve into making reforms irreversible. Drawing lessons from Indonesia, Nepal must ensure that institutional changes are protected through law and systems, preventing rollback by entrenched interests.

By embedding reforms into digital systems and legal frameworks, the Balendra Shah administration has the opportunity—not certainty—to ensure that today’s progress becomes tomorrow’s baseline. 

The author is a practitioner who closely follows Nepal’s evolving societal and political landscape and has been regularly contributing analytical articles to national newspapers on issues of security, governance and democratic stability