Submit your Article

Nepal has been captivated by cautious optimism following the electoral victory of Balendra Shah and the RSP, instilling a renewed sense of possibility in governance and the broader polity. However, this moment is a critical juncture: ensuring that this new era of alternative politics doesn’t make the same mistakes as the past—as governance is ultimately guided by the policies this upcoming government chooses to pursue.

RSP’s political campaign concentrated heavily on governance—drawing on citizen experiences with administrative staff, lapses in policy implementation, or overall vacuous policymaking. In the past, policy debates have centered around observable relationships—for example, how expedited transportation networks will lead to rapid economic growth. It’s understandable how this is appealing, we’re hardwired to identifying developed cities with clean and wide roads. However, places with pre-existing growth trends consistently attract better infrastructure, and as a result—better developed road networks. This ambiguity in causality is rarely acknowledged as we’ve stopped at observational correlation to apply a temporary band-aid—disregarding underlying issues. 

This isn’t restricted to just road networks—policy debates have consistently centered around visible relationships—patterns that appear obvious but aren’t structurally understood. In most cases, cause and effect move both ways—we can’t isolate road networks from economic activity, nor the other way around. This ambiguity is further complicated by other underlying factors—affecting both transportation and economic networks. This form of misidentified causality ultimately fails to address policy targets and might even cause unintended negative externalities. This misidentification is not strictly an individual or political problem at the core—it’s simply about adjusting our approach to policymaking. We need to be able to establish clear causality in complex systems where observable relationships are not accounting for endogenous dynamics underneath. This can be done if policymaking is guided by thorough analysis: comparing regions with or without the policy, testing policies through randomized controlled trials (RCTs) before implementing broad scale reform and quantitatively tracking variance across implementation contexts. This will require recalibrating usual policymaking but will provide much higher returns on government effort and expenditure—resulting in effective outcomes and avoiding unintended harms.

This recalibrated policymaking can come into effect with our concerns over low exports—generally attributed to weak governance institutions or an unstable oversight mechanism. However, this relationship could very well run in the opposite direction—successful exporting industries or business communities could have instead led to the development of strong institutions and increased oversight to guarantee quality. Policymakers are challenged to distinguish between these explanations. Here is where government policies need to avoid blanket approaches and check for sectoral variation, difference-in-differences with policies already in place, and natural quasi-experimental variation with untreated regions. The results will allow policymakers to understand what actually drives exports, avoid allocating resources to unfocused reforms, and focus on interventions that actually improve export performance. 

This strategy needs to expand well beyond export policy—observable outcomes in society are a result of broader equilibria shaped by interacting forces, and bad policy has often reinforced these underlying equilibria. We have consistently chased after symptoms instead of addressing root causes—what we observe are outcomes, not explanations. This political moment provides us with an opportunity to change this approach—a critical juncture as to how we decide to move forward.

The RSP has made efficient governance and expert policymaking a core electoral tenet—raising both opportunity and expectations from these new political actors. Our policies have largely been concentrated around observable relationships and unclear causality—an issue that isn’t fixed just by better policy design, but rather by a better understanding of what drives outcomes. The success of this electoral shift will depend not just on new policies, but rather on how carefully the outcomes of these new policies are understood. 

Nepal’s educational system has undergone a series of reforms, yet for many, the transformation remains incomplete. Today’s youth are not pursuing education merely to secure certificates; they are seeking skills, opportunities, and a viable future. However, they remain tethered to a system heavily focused on traditional methods that limit their true potential.

Whether in schools or colleges, our system has traditionally prioritized textbooks, examinations, and marks. Students often rely on rote memorization to pass, while essential skills, such as critical thinking, problem-solving, creativity, technological literacy, and entrepreneurship, are neglected. This mismatch has produced a generation of graduates who find themselves ill-equipped for the demands of the modern workforce.

From my experience as a co-founder of EV Education, I have seen this firsthand. Having reached over 10,000 students across 100 schools and communities in Nepal, I’ve observed an immense enthusiasm for technology, robotics, coding, and STEAM-based learning. The passion is there, but the infrastructure is not. Students rarely get the chance to apply theoretical knowledge to real-world problems.

A significant disconnect exists between education and employment. Many Nepali students feel directionless after graduation. If our system prioritized innovation and skill development, students wouldn’t feel forced to look abroad, not just for economic survival, but for the chance to make a meaningful impact.

In this digital age, integrating technology into the classroom is no longer optional; it is a necessity. Yet, tech adoption remains low in many regions. To bridge this gap, we must invest in modern teaching methodologies and empower teachers, who serve as the primary catalysts for systemic change. Furthermore, it is essential to include youth in policy-making to ensure that education remains relevant to their lived realities and the evolving demands of the modern world.

A sensitive but vital issue is the role of student political organizations. Educational institutions should be sanctuaries for equal opportunity. Unfortunately, political activities often disrupt academic programs and compromise the fairness of the learning environment. To foster true growth, schools and colleges must prioritize knowledge development and innovation over partisan politics.

Nepal must pivot from a degree-based to a skill-based education model. By fostering entrepreneurship and research from the school level, we can transform students into job creators rather than just job seekers. This shift is the only way to stem the massive outflow of our nation’s most valuable resource: its young, skilled workforce.

The journey toward a modern education system in Nepal has begun, but we are far from the finish line. Progress requires a collaborative effort between the government, educators, parents, and the youth themselves. Education is not just about passing an exam, it is about building a future.

The time for change is now. By embracing technology, practical skills, and the voices of young people, Nepal can move from an unfinished educational experiment to a complete, thriving journey.

The ‘One Man Army’ of the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), Balendra ‘Balen’ Shah, has breathed new life and energy into both the party and its chairman, Rabi Lamichhane. The results and the popular vote in the March 5 election have once again proven the power of this ‘magical’ figure. While his popularity in Kathmandu was well-known—evidenced by the massive crowds that gathered whenever he appeared—few could have speculated that the ‘Balen craze’ would sweep the entire nation. By leaving traditional parties in a state of political turmoil, his popularity has fundamentally altered the political landscape and the status of the RSP.

​The bitter truth is that before Balen’s formal alignment with the RSP, the party’s standing under Rabi Lamichhane was precarious. Critics claimed the RSP was facing its darkest hour. Lamichhane’s alleged involvement in cooperative fraud, money laundering, and other legal issues had pushed the party onto the defensive. Even during the GenZ movement, the RSP chair was held in Nakhu prison, with several cases registered against him in various district courts. Despite these hurdles, RSP cadres and leaders leveraged the momentum of the GenZ movement to help Lamichhane secure his release. Following his exit from jail, Lamichhane and his supporters hoped the youth movement would propel him to the Prime Minister’s office. Surprisingly, leading GenZ activists began criticizing his actions on social media, even starting trends against him. Amidst this friction, high-profile leaders Sumana Shrestha and Santosh Pariyar left the party, dealing a significant setback.

​However, the tide turned suddenly. Sudan Gurung emerged to unite Balen, the RSP, and other forces. This strategic move revitalized the party and successfully captured public sentiment. Balen became the center of attraction; his ‘face value’ alone significantly enhanced the party’s ability to garner votes.
​The election results proved the power of this alliance. Despite political fluctuations, the RSP led by Lamichhane secured nearly a two-thirds majority. While journalists and analysts had predicted RSP gains due to the GenZ movement and the negligence of old parties, the sheer scale of the landslide victory was unexpected. Even RSP leaders were surprised by the outcome. Beyond the victory itself, several crucial factors shifted the electoral scenario and the public’s mentality toward traditional parties.

​The primary factor behind the shift was undoubtedly Balen. The public’s trust in him is near-total. While some argue he hasn’t yet achieved results that match the party’s current standing, one cannot deny that Balen is the ‘Midas’ of Nepali politics. His charm and aura prove he is a man of the masses. His recent political campaigns silenced those who questioned his fame; everywhere he went, massive crowds gathered just to catch a glimpse of him. Human chains lined the roads to greet him, a spectacle that directly translated into votes for the ‘Bell’ (the RSP electoral symbol).

Another key driver was Balen’s strategic alliance with the RSP. Although Balen presents as an individual, he is backed by a powerful network of GenZ activists, celebrities, content creators, and influential social media groups like Routine of Nepal band (RONB) and Men’s Room Reloaded (MRR). The names ‘Balen’ and ‘Ganti’ (the Bell) became synonymous. Even citizens not yet eligible to vote were swept up in the fervor. During the election, the common refrain was simply, ‘Vote for the Bell’. Voters often prioritized the symbol and Balen’s endorsement over the actual quality of individual candidates. Viral social media clips even showed voters outside Jhapa-5 claiming they ‘voted for Balen and the Bell’, cementing his role as the architect of this victory.

Furthermore, the RSP’s tactical move to project Balen as the upcoming Prime Minister played a significant role in capturing the public’s desire for youthful leadership. Had the RSP proposed any name other than Balen for the premiership, the strategy likely would have failed. Conversely, the repetitive rhetoric and perceived failures of veteran leaders paved the way for this ‘Balen and Bell’ victory. The election even transformed the Madhes region—traditionally a stronghold for regional Madhes-based parties. In a stunning shift, the RSP secured 30 out of 32 seats in the region. This was largely due to Balen’s influence; the Madhesi community sought a representative who could lead the government, and the RSP’s move to elevate a figure with Madheshi roots resonated deeply.

Despite this unbelievable victory, the RSP must remain alert. To maintain this favor, they must address public needs and navigate complex geopolitics. Balen and the RSP leadership must realize that this mandate is a cry for change from a public fed up with traditional politics. This is a golden opportunity for Balen and the RSP to succeed where old leaders failed—specifically in governance, economic development, and loyalty to the people. They must prioritize equality, equity, and social emancipation. If they fail, the Nepali electorate has shown time and again that they are not afraid to change their leaders once more.

The growing prominence of Balendra Shah, widely known as Balen, to the position of Prime Minister comes at a time when India-Nepal relations are steady but not without underlying tensions. The relationship has always been unique, shaped by an open border, deep cultural overlap, economic interdependence, and a shared civilizational space. Yet, it has been marked by phases of temporary mistrust, especially when internal politics, leadership struggle, or public dissatisfaction in Nepal shift outward and take a stronger anti-India stance. In this context, Balen’s emergence is not just a political shift within Nepal but a moment that could potentially reshape how the two countries engage with each other.

What makes Balen different is the source of his political power. Unlike many leaders in Nepal who come from long-standing party structures, Balen represents a break from the traditional leaders. He rose as an independent, outsider figure. Unlike most politicians’ dependence on party backing, networking, and support from senior leadership, he was never a party worker and his reputation and visibility was not tied to traditional political machinery. His popularity has been built on governance, efficiency, and a promise to clean up public institutions. This matters for India. One of the recurring difficulties in dealing with Nepal has been political instability and frequent changes in leadership, which slow down decision-making and delay bilateral projects. 

For instance, Arun III Hydropower Project has taken years due to approvals, renegotiations, and political uncertainty. That’s why, a leader with a strong mandate and a focus on delivery rather than ideology can bring a certain level of predictability. That alone can improve the policy continuity between New Delhi and Kathmandu.

There is also a noticeable shift in tone with Balen. He does not rely heavily on identity-based narratives or historical grievances like sovereignty or nationalism. Instead, his politics is grounded in practical concerns like urban planning and tackling waste management, improving business environment and creating local economic opportunities, and public services like roads and basic civic services. Balen’s focus on execution over rhetoric reduces the incentive to use anti-India sentiment, historical disputes, and ideological dialogues as a political tool, something that has surfaced in Nepal at different points in the past. If domestic legitimacy is tied to performance rather than nationalism, the room for stable and constructive engagement with India expands.

Another important factor is the generation he represents. Much of Balen’s support comes from younger voters who are less interested in geopolitical posturing and more focused on economic opportunities. In other words, Balen has entered a politics of economic desperation, not aspiration. Moreover, Balen uses social media for quick response to issues and has been building a perception of transparency. Undoubtedly, the urban voters, youth, and people frustrated with corruption and inefficiency see him as a welcome change. For them, India is not just a neighbour but a major source of trade, education, employment, and mobility. India is Nepal’s largest trading partner, a place for higher education in cities like Delhi and Bangalore, and a destination where millions of Nepali citizens live and work without visa restrictions. 

Consequently, economic stability in Nepal is closely linked to access and cooperation with India. Therefore, a government that is responsive to the “Youthquake” is more likely to prioritise connectivity, cross-border trade, and investment flows, all of which naturally strengthen ties with India.

Balen’s leadership could also bring a more balanced approach to Nepal’s external relations. Nepal has always had to manage its position between India and China. It has been rightly described that Nepal is a “yam between two boulders”. At times, this balancing act has turned into strategic signalling, with Kathmandu leaning towards one side to counter the other. The 2015 blockade made Nepal sign multiple agreements with China on transit and infrastructure to reduce dependency on Indian routes. Likewise, during the 2020 Kalapani border dispute with India, Nepal issued a new official map that included several disputed areas within Nepal’s territory and followed this by a constitutional amendment to formalise the change. So, a leadership that is less tied to these legacy political alignments may approach the balancing act differently. Instead of sharp swings, there could be a steadier, more measured engagement with both neighbours. 

For India, this kind of consistency is easier to work with. It reduces uncertainty and allows for long-term planning and policy continuity in areas like infrastructure, energy cooperation, and regional connectivity. It could mean continued hydropower cooperation with India alongside selective infrastructure projects with China without framing them as alternatives to India.

There is also a practical angle that often gets overlooked. Many India-Nepal agreements struggle not because of disagreement at the top, but because of slow implementation on the ground. Bureaucratic delays, regulatory hurdles, and lack of coordination have held back several projects. Take the cross-border railway projects like Jaynagar-Bardibas Railway as an example, it took years to operationalize because of construction delays and procedural hurdles on the Nepali side. Other important initiatives like Integrated Check Posts at border points like Birgunj witnessed delays in expansion due to regulatory and logistical challenges. 

In this context, Balen’s track record as a city administrator suggests a preference for speed and accountability. He is willing to cut through red tape, follow timelines, and hold officials accountable for delays. If that approach carries into national governance, it could improve execution. Faster project delivery in sectors like hydropower and transport would directly benefit both countries.

That said, none of this is automatic. Moving from municipal leadership to national governance is a significant jump. Unlike his role as a mayor, as a Prime Minister of Nepal, Balen requires a different level of institutional coordination and strategic thinking. He has to diplomatically manage relations with neighbours on sensitive matters of security and trade. Balen will need to rely on experienced advisors and build a capable team to handle complex regional dynamics. So, the actual test is not whether Balen can win elections, but whether he can expand the Nepal state’s capacity and functionality. At the same time, India’s approach will be just as important. A respectful and non-intrusive engagement style from New Delhi will go a long way in supporting a stable partnership. The relationship has always worked best when both sides show sensitivity to each other’s concerns.

In many ways, this is less about one individual and more about a broader shift in Nepal’s political landscape. Balen represents a demand for cleaner governance, economic focus, and a break from old patterns. These aspirations do not clash with India’s interests. In fact, they align closely with what India seeks in its neighbourhood: stability, growth, and reliable cooperation.

If handled carefully, his leadership could move India-Nepal relations into a productive phase. That, in the long run, is often what sustains strong bilateral relationships.

The author is an editor at Zebra Learn. She studied International Politics at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU). Her research focuses on South Asian politics