Submit your Article

Nepal faces a critical issue: A significant number of its youth are leaving the country due to the lack of employment opportunities that match their qualifications and interests. Work is essential for human survival, yet the Nepali job market fails to recognize and retain its talented youth. It struggles to offer appropriate remuneration, security and facilities, making it difficult for the country to retain its skilled and capable young workforce. Government rhetoric focuses on presenting data on youth migration and providing false hopes to those abroad, without implementing relevant policies to retain its own talents within the country. 

Global frameworks on labor

Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) 1948 states that everyone has the right to work under just and favorable conditions and to protection against unemployment. Article 6 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) 1976 further emphasizes the right to work, including the opportunity for individuals to gain a livelihood through freely chosen work. Article 7 ensures the right to just and favorable work conditions, including fair wages, safe working environment and reasonable working hours whereas Article 8 confirms the right to form trade unions. Various International Labour Organization (ILO) Conventions also cover issues like minimum wages, industrial relations, employment policy, social dialogue and social security.

Nepal ratified the ICESCR in 1991 but has ratified only some of the ILO standards.

National frameworks

The Constitution of Nepal defines a laborer as someone, who performs work for an employer in exchange for remuneration. Article 34 stipulates that every laborer has the right to appropriate work, fair pay, social security and the ability to form and join trade unions. The Labour Act of 2017 establishes minimum labor standards, including an eight-hour workday and 48 hours/week. It aims to ensure fair wages, safe working conditions and social security benefits, thereby fostering a more equitable work environment. The Labour Regulation of 2021 provides detailed guidelines for implementing these protections.

Securing labor rights
Despite the guaranteed frameworks, youth who remain in Nepal often face significant challenges in finding and retaining employment. Jobs that match their qualifications and interests are scarce, and unfair selection processes and office politics further hinder their prospects. Even when employed, workers often face exploitation, such as being forced to work extra hours without appropriate compensation or being unable to take leave without interference from employers.

Many employers exclude lunch hours from the official workday, effectively extending work hours to nine per day. Emotional pressure to work extra hours, framed as ‘learning hours’, is common, and those who resist face office politics. Although the Labour Act mandates overtime pay at 1.5 times the regular rate, and annual increments in remuneration, employers often manipulate these entitlements to the bare minimum.

Qualified youths are often reluctant to take on work that does not interest them. The job market is so misaligned that many employees work in fields unrelated to their academic qualifications. While changes in career interests can occur, it's crucial to consider the efficiency of professionals working outside their fields of expertise.

While laws guarantee the right to choose employment, in practice, there are limited options. Graduates, despite significant investment in their education, are often forced to take any available job to meet basic needs and ultimately leave the country for better opportunities. 

Way forward

The government must recognize that youth have no choice but to leave the country in search of sustainable livelihoods. Rather than expressing empty regrets about youth migration, the government should focus on creating policies that retain qualified, skilled, semi-skilled, and unskilled workers.

Proper legislation is significant to regulate advanced technologies like artificial intelligence and informal sectors like gig-economy, freelancing, e-commerce including ride-sharing, and food delivery. 

When such laws are particularly enacted, workers will have more opportunities to choose employment in these emerging fields.

Collaboration among the government, private sector, financial institutions, civil society and international NGOs is crucial to effectively implement labor laws. The Labour Act should be seen as a minimum standard, not a limit. Universally guaranteed human rights and constitutional rights should not be compromised at the employer's convenience.

Effective mobilization of trade unions is necessary to provide a platform for employees to voice concerns and improve work environments without bias. Office politics, which often targets women, especially those with family responsibilities or disabilities, must be dismantled. Ensuring an inclusive and fair workplace is essential to foster women’s leadership and retain talents within the country.

The author is an advocate 

Ramprit Yadav was a ranger working in Chitwan in the late 1960s before Chitwan National Park (CNP) was established. He later became a warden of CNP. “In 2026 BS (1969),” he told me, “our team conducted a survey to establish the national park without consulting the Tharus of Chitwan.” He thinks this was a mistake. CNP officials should have consulted the Tharus because their traditional practices helped create a habitat for Chitwan’s famous rhinos and tigers.

Yadav credits the Tharus for teaching him about conservation.“In 1973, when I started working as a member of the national park, I was only 22 years old. I had only read about trees and plant conservation in college courses. For the first 10-15 years, I learned how to conserve wildlife from the indigenous Tharus of Chitwan, which was very useful in conserving wildlife.'”

When CNP was created in 1973, the army prevented Tharu men and women who lived nearby from using the areas inside the park that they had relied upon and cared for, for generations. In 2003, the park was expanded in the east by removing Padampur VDC, where 10,000 people, mostly the Tharus, lived.  When we look at the history of Chitwan, we see that Tharu traditional methods helped make Chitwan a good area for wildlife in two ways: Wetland management and grassland management. After removing the Tharus, the park wetlands and grasslands suffered. That meant the Tharus suffered and so did rhinos and tigers. Conservationists like to talk about “win-win” scenarios. This was “lose-lose.”

The indigenous Tharu community of Old Padampur had been cultivating the flatlands for generations by creating a canal from the Churia Hills to the south. The traditional way of irrigation from the canal brought tree leaves as manure to the farmlands, which helped greatly in enhancing agricultural production. After using the water they needed, the Tharus used to divert the leftover water inside the national park, which helped give new life to the park’s wetlands. The conservation of wetlands created a habitat for rhinos and birds.

Before 1973, the small ponds inside the forest were routinely dug out by the indigenous Tharus during Chaitra, Baishakh, and Jestha to make the ponds better for fishing. This practice helped in water conservation in the wetlands. But after the establishment of CNP in 1973, all these activities were stopped by the park officials and the small ponds dried up.

The eastern parts of Old Padampur encompassed Jitpur and Amelia, and the western part was Jayamangala, Bankatta, and Bhawanipur. At that time, as a result of the conservation of wetlands in the eastern parts of CNP, the rhino census report showed a good number of rhinos in that area. However, comparing the recent rhino census in 2021 to the time when Old Padampur was inhabited, the count has significantly decreased. In 2003, the park was expanded but the number of rhinos dropped.

Source: Rhino Count 2021

Paugi Chaudhary, a 70-year-old resident of Old Padampur, reminisces, “When I was in Padampur, I used to bring 10-15 kg of fish and 20-25 kg of Ghonghi (snails) from the paddy field in a day, but after the relocation from inside the park, all those things disappeared.”

Bal Singh Chaudhary (84) recalls, “When Old Padampur was inside the national park, there were 15-20 rhinos in one pond inside the park. With the removal of Padampur and other Tharu villages from the national park area in the late 1990s, all those large ponds have dried up.”

According to Ram Giri Chaudhary, a nature guide at CNP, “Nowadays, you can see 1-2 rhinos in the ponds inside the park only with difficulty.”

Before the establishment of the national park, each Tharu village used to have 300–400 domestic cattle (cows and oxen), and those cattle used to graze in the park’s grasslands. At that time, grasslands made up 20 percent of the park.

“Before the establishment of the national park,” says ex-warden Ramprit Yadav, “the indigenous Tharu people managed the national park in two ways: Firstly, they grazed their domestic animals inside the park and secondly, they harvested the grass for the construction of their traditional houses, once a year.”

Tharu people also used to set fire to the grassland. Only after lighting fire, it was easy to cut grass, and only after setting fire did new grass grow. This helped in forest management as well as in wildlife conservation. It created a habitat for rhinos and deer. Ramprit Yadav says, “Earlier, all Tharu houses were made of reeds, and they used to build temporary houses on the river banks for three months of the year, and cut and burn reeds in the forest during the three winter months—Mangsir, Poush and Magh. This helped a lot in managing the grasslands in the forest.”

According to Aashis Gurung, information officer for the National Trust for Nature Conservation (NTNC), “After burning the reeds, the calcium, magnesium, and nitrogen from the reeds mix with the soil, helping the new grass to grow. This is why the condition of the grasslands in the National Park is better where the grass is burned than where it is cut by machines.”

The ban on grazing cattle and cutting grass and reeds for house construction (imposed in 1973 and 2003), along with the ban on controlled burning, hurt the grasslands. A 2016 Chitwan National Park report shows only 6.42 percent of the grasslands remained. Grasslands are crucial for rhinos and other park wildlife. According to the director of NTNC, Chiren Pokharel, “Before removal of the Tharu community from the park, the population of rhino and other animals in that area was statistically good, but after the displacement (of Tharu communities), the number of rhinos and other animals in the same area has gone down.”

It is true that for many years after 1973, Tharu and other local people were allowed into the park to burn and cut grass for 15 days a year. That window for cutting was reduced as time went by. During the Maoist civil war, cutting was stopped altogether. Afterwards, the grasslands really suffered.

It was not only the rhino who suffered from the loss of grasslands; birds also suffered. According to Ramesh Chaudhary, former chair of the Bird Education Society, Sauraha, “Birds that are found only in short (siru) grasslands, such as Bengal Florican, Lesser Florican, Selender-bellied Babbler and Jerdon's Babbler have disappeared from Chitwan.”

The main food for these birds, insects, are found in short (siru) grasslands. Those foods were found in the dung and feces of domestic animals grazing in the jungle. Many people believe that removing the Tharus from CNP will be helpful for biodiversity and wildlife conservation, but so far, it has turned out to be just the opposite. This is because CNP officials didn’t understand the knowledge of Chitwan’s indigenous Tharu people in managing wetlands and grasslands. Without Tharu management, Chitwan’s wetlands and grasslands have disappeared, reducing habitat for rhinos and deer and other wildlife.

Last year, when the census showed that the number of Chitwan’s tigers had nearly tripled, the Government of Nepal and the donor agencies were widely applauded at the national and international level. But the indigenous Tharu people, who were displaced from their ancestral land to make the park and who suffer disproportionately from wildlife killings and crop raiding, were not acknowledged anywhere despite their traditional conservation practices that helped make Chitwan a suitable habitat for wildlife like tigers, rhinos and deer.

In recent centuries, Earth has seen rapid growth in population of a single species, humans. Humans have explored every nook and corner, deep into the Earth to the depths of Oceans, and even beyond the Earth to space. And this rapid growth has resulted in an increase in trade throughout the globe. During this trade and expansion, humans have been introducing species to new habitats, intentionally or unintentionally. According to the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPEBS), over 37,000 alien species have been introduced through human activities worldwide, with 37 percent of these reported since 1970—attributed to the increased global trade and human movement.

Not all these introduced species become invasive, but many are capable of or forcing their adaptation to the new ecosystem/habitat, making them a potential invasive species. Once the exotic becomes invasive, they grow rapidly and become dominant changing the overall ecosystem dynamics. In most cases, their growth and invasion is supported by the absence of a natural enemy. For the same reason, they are termed biological pollution or green cancer. More than 3,500 species, including 6 percent of alien plants; 22 percent of alien invertebrates; 14 percent of alien vertebrates; and 11 percent of alien microbes, have become invasive, threatening the native biota, ecosystem functioning, human health, and the economy. The IPBES Global Assessment Report (2019) highlights invasive alien species as one of the five most important direct drivers of biodiversity apocalypse, contributing to 60 percent of global extinctions and being the sole cause of 16 percent of recorded animal and plant extinctions. Besides the ecological loss, indigenous communities who are directly dependent on ecosystem services are directly affected by invasive alien species.

Exotic fauna in Nepal

It is plants which are among the major focus when it comes to alien species in Nepal. In Nepal, there are over 182 naturalized alien floral species reported, 27 of which have become invasive. Four of them are among the world’s 100 most invasive species. In contrast, there is limited data on exotic faunal species in Nepal, mostly due to sparse research. A research conducted by Prem Bahadur Budha in 2015 documented 64 alien faunal species in Nepal. The list is mostly dominated by animals introduced intentionally for commercial farming including livestock breeds, fisheries, aquaculture, and for pets and ornamental purposes. However, several alien animal species have invaded different ecosystems and threatened native animal species but are understudied. Some of the reported alien faunal species are among the world’s 100 most invasive species such as African giant land snail, Western Mosquito fish (Gambusia affinis), Mozambique Tilapia, Rainbow trout (Onchorhynchus mykiss), Brown trout (Salmo trutta) and Terrestrial flatworm (Platydemus manokwari), etc.

Contributing factors

In Nepal, many exotic fish species are introduced for augmenting fisheries for their high economic value and rapid breeding, and some for ornamental trade. Some are introduced illegally by farmers into fishery ponds. Currently, Nepal has at least 16 exotic fish species (www.fishorg.com), with some studies reporting up to 19.  These species often escape into natural water systems due to floods or unintentional dumping by aquarists, posing a threat to native species.

A great irony is that some of these species have been reared in natural ecosystems too. For instance, Tilapia fish have been released in large natural lakes such as Phewa, Begnas, Rupa Lake of Pokhara valley, Indrasarobar and other parts. Tilapia is listed among the “100 of the World’s Worst Invasive Alien Species”. An investigation from Begnas Lake found the introduction of alien species led to a 42 percent reduction in native fish. Another study reported native fish catch in Phewa Lake decreased to 13.7 percent of the total, with exotic species making up over 86 percent of the catch. Additionally, a study in Kailali district revealed that 80 out of 101 natural lakes were being used for exotic fish farming, mostly carp.

Despite these ecological risks, there is an increasing trend of importation of exotic species. However, these introductions are questionable. It is not clear whether any scientific assessment has been conducted before introducing these species.

Ornamental fishery

Ornamental fish trade also contributes to the introduction of invasive species. Aquariums housing ornamental fishes and other aquatic animals have become increasingly common, with annual import of ornamental fishes in Nepal rising from 318.1 metric ton (Rs 13.3m) in 2009 to 1233 metric ton (Rs 153.4m) in 2017. A recent study recorded 57 exotic fish species in Kathmandu’s aquarium shops, a notable increase from  27 exotic fish species reported back in 2019.

One concerning example is the presence of Vermiculated Sailfin Catfish (Pterygoplichthys disjunctivus) from Lohandra River, Morang likely introduced through ornamental pet trade. The species is known for rapid growth, high reproduction rates, and adaptability to various habitats, which facilitates its establishment in natural ecosystems. A total of 43 individuals were collected from two sites along the Lohandra, indicating a likelihood of successful reproduction in the wild. A social media video last month showed a local fisherman capturing this species in the nearby Rate Khola, Morang, suggesting its potential spread.

In addition, invasive alien species like red-eared slider (Trachemys scripta elegans) have been found in Nepal’s water bodies, possibly through accidental escape or intentional release from aquariums. Unfortunately, this species is listed among “100 of the World’s Worst Invasive Alien Species” and poses a significant threat of becoming invasive if not regulated.

Existing legal instruments

The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework aims to reduce the rate of introduction and establishment of invasive alien species by 50 percent by 2030. Nepal’s National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) (2014-2020) recognized invasive species as a major threat to biodiversity and native species but focused primarily on plants. The NBSAP prioritizes formulation and implementation of a plan to regulate the introduction and expansion of invasive aquatic fauna by 2018 (WB-B8), but progress on this priority action remains unclear. The Invasive Alien Species Management Strategy has been drafted in 2016 (2074) but hasn’t been approved yet.

Preventing the introduction of non-native species to the natural ecosystem is the most effective measure to avoid invasions. Besides, preparedness, early detection and rapid response are effective at reducing invasion rate by alien species. In addition, eradication can be successful and cost-effective when the invasive populations are small and slowly spreading. There is need for strict measures to prevent intentional or unintentional release of non-native faunal species and to enhance awareness among public and merchants of ornamental fish about risks of exotic invasive species. Strengthening the institutional capacity, capacity of customs and quarantine departments is also crucial for controlling invasion and spread of alien species. Studies have reported that about 15 native fish species of Nepal are ornamental or have the potential to become ornamental fishes. Prioritizing these native fish species for ornamental market trade can help reduce the import of potentially invasive exotic species.

Nepal’s aquatic ecosystem is already jeopardized by infrastructure constructions in the name of beautification, blockage and damming projects, pollution and climate change. Extensive trade and introduction of exotic species has further augmented the threats to aquatic ecosystems. Urgent action is needed to prevent the introduction of alien faunal species and protect Nepal’s biodiversity. 

Can an academician from South America, who just retired this month after 30 years of teaching at Yale, be useful in proposing an alternative view of federalism in Nepal? 

Walter Mignolo, for 30 years a professor at Yale, is one of the most foremost theorists on decoloniality, a concept much broader than decolonization. At its foundations, decoloniality is about getting rid of the structure of powers that are still shaped and controlled by the same hegemonic forces that were the drivers of colonization. 

As we know, over the last few years, there has been a lot of noise about amending the constitution that Nepal adapted in 2015. The regressive forces are asking for a return of a centralized state under the emblem of the monarchy and return of Hinduism as the official state religion. 

The forces obstructing the enforcement of federalism are driven by an attitude or mindset that rows against devolution of powers to local levels. Pushing back, there are those who have, essentially, embraced federalism but want to twist it, making it more effective. 

There are also forces like the Rastriya Swatantra Party that want to dramatically reshape the federal structure by curtailing the power of provinces. The most common-sense position is one centered on implementing the current provisions as they stand. Amid this complex and sensitive debate, we often forget to hear the voices of indigenous nationalities of the country. It is here that Mignolo’s ideas come to the fore. 

I asked RK Tamang, an indigenous rights activist and a strong follower of Mignolo’s ideas, how the concept of “decoloniality” can be turned around in the context of Nepal. His answer: “Making Nepal a plurinational state”.

“This constitution failed to address the aspirations of indigenous nationalities, which have been fighting for a plurinational state for long”, he explained to me. Indigenous people represent the largest part of the population and because of the unequal power relations that still prevail in the country, most of their voices and concerns remain disregarded. A large, though not the whole section of indigenous people of Nepal, consider themselves as members of different indigenous nationalities.

The National Foundation for Development of Indigenous Nationalities (NFDIN) Act defines “indigenous nationalities (Adivasi Janajati) as distinct communities having their own mother tongues, traditional cultures, written and unwritten histories, traditional homeland and geographical areas, plus egalitarian social structures. One of the major confusions about empowering indigenous nationalities is related to the often-misunderstood concept of ethnic federalism that is perceived as a dangerous tool that could disintegrate the nation.

Yet at the core of the aspirations of indigenous nationalities is the concept of a plurinational state. There is still a lot of theoretical and conceptual work that must be addressed and there are still several open questions on how indigenous nationalities can be shaped up and organized and guaranteed their statehood. According to Tamang, indigenous nationalities have been facing internal colonization for centuries and are stateless nations and despite the abrogation of monarchy and the creation of a more inclusive federal polity, the structure of power has not changed. “The state-bearing nations promulgated the new constitution in 2015, surpassing the stateless indigenous nations, which legitimized the coloniality in the federal democratic republic of Nepal”, he told me in an interview.  

First his perspective, those indigenous activists calling for a recognition of their nationalities do so within the framework of a present Nepal. None of them is calling for a breakup of Nepal as a state. It means that the concept of indigenous nationalities, while recognizing their traditions and practices belonging to different ethnic groups, is not exclusive in nature but inclusive, rather. “All groups, including those who have been historically on the top of Hindu hierarchy, have an equal role to play” Tamang explains to me. In short, no one is excluded.

All citizens are equal, so even citizens not belonging to indigenous natalities, like Chettri, Madhesis and Brahmin will have full rights like anyone else. This is a major key point: No one is calling for a dissolution of Nepal as a state but rather there is a call for restructuring the present Hindu hierarchy into social engineering based on national sovereignty. “Within a plurinational state, nations will exercise their power according to a new constitution based on the concept of shared sovereignty,” he added. Importantly and essentially, both in theory and practice. 

The plurinational state will guarantee two aspects of stateless nations: First self-governance and second self-determination of their future. Let’s not forget that self-determination is already a key cornerstone of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People of which Nepal is a signatory. Importantly, we cannot simplify and generalize self-determination with independence. State-bearing nations have to revendate the state in order to end colonialism, given Mignolo’s maxim that coloniality is “not over but it’s all over”. 

Plurinational democracy will revendate the democracy to the stateless nations, and based on it, the plurinational state will revendicate the state as the decolonial state. “If the Nepali state-bearing nation fails to satisfy both past grievances of the Indigenous nationalities and future aspirations for greater self-determination, the political flux will prolong, and Nepal will fail to develop in the 21st century as well” Tamang believes. In short, Tamang proposes for Nepal to allow political autonomy that reflects the historical and cultural presence of the main ethnic groups living in the area. There is still a lot to discuss about what this means in practice. One of the key points being proposed is the fact that traditional rules and forms of governance belonging to Indigenous nationalities should be, somehow, in place. 

Again, it is important to clarify that such embracement of Indigenous governance system does not create a new hierarchy of power where those belonging to indigenous groups or as Tamang prefers to refer to them as nations, have equal powers and privileges as the state-bearing nations have today. Another theoretical framework at the base of the concept of plurinational is provided by Professor Michael Keating who wrote a magistral book in 2000 titled “Plurinational Democracy: Stateless Nations in a post-sovereignty era”.

At the core of its work, there is the idea that there is no just one concept of sovereignty that is self-perpetuating and imposed upon the people. “I have used the term ‘post-sovereignty’ not to indicate a world without any principles of authority and legitimacy, but to indicate that sovereignty in its traditional sense, in which it is identified exclusively with the independent state, is no more. Rather there are multiple sites of ‘sovereign’, in the sense of original authority”, Prof Keating writes. 

One major caveat is that the book mostly refers to western settings, specifically efforts to transform central states into plurinational entities. The focus is, for example, on Canada, Belgium, Spain and Italy. So, transferring the ideas of plurinational states in a diverse country like Nepal is another level of challenge, especially where ethnic and cultural groups are vastly intermingled. 

Imagine an area where indigenous populations have a clear and undeniable historic presence. There, some customary laws could be adopted if they are aligned with key foundational values and principles of human rights. 

Some indigenous forms of governance could also be implemented as long as they are respectful of the rights of those not belonging to the indigenous group, who is, numerically speaking, more predominant. Such a system could hardly do away with the existing model of liberal democracy based on political parties even though deliberative democracy could offer an answer to accommodating different groups and perspectives. The same deliberative democracy model could be used in urban settings where it is almost impossible to even conceptualize the indigenous nationality model. Yet, for example, in the case of the Kathmandu Valley, where Newari culture has been for centuries the only one on the ground, some accommodations of traditional and customary laws could be imagined.

I have severe doubts and reservations on the modality of reshaping Nepal based on indigenous nationalities. Yet it is important to understand a point of view that has been neglected for so long. Ultimately, listening to the concerns and demands of indigenous activists willing to reshape the governance of Nepal without dismantling it is a worthy thing. The journey toward creating a functional model of local governance co-existing with modern legislations that also include human rights is not going to be easy. 

All in all, I believe that it is essential to make an effort and try to answer the following question: Can Nepal imagine re-building its core structure from an indigenous perspective?