Submit your Article

The agriculture sector, the backbone of the Nepali economy for eons, has been receiving less attention than it deserves. The industrial sector has not been flourishing, either. The private sector is mainly involved in risk-free and unproductive ventures such as real estate and auto business sectors whereas the public sector remains mired in corruption, bribery and smuggling scandals. 

Thanks to the lack of stability, the economy has not even taken off with potential economic sectors capable of boosting the economy unexploited. Reeling under unemployment, an increasing number of people have been leaving the country over the years.  

It can be surmised that a majority of the 0.75m people, who left the country in the fiscal 2022-23, did so in search of employment opportunities. Their destinations included countries in the Middle East such as Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Israel, and Malaysia, Japan and South Korea in East Asia. 

According to estimates, about 50,000 Nepali people migrate to developed countries annually for permanent residence. In 2023, 1.6m people flew abroad for different purposes, including for permanent settlement in developed countries like the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom and Canada. In 2022, according to the Immigration Department, 71,000 people flew out of the country for permanent residence. 

The migration of Nepalis to the United States started in the 20th century. In the beginning, the outmigration was nominal. For the first time in  1974, Nepali living in the US were categorized under a separate ethnic group with the recognition of 56 people as Nepali Americans, a marked shift from the practice of putting Nepalis under the Other Asians category.

Despite a surge in the number of migrants, not even 100 Nepalis used to migrate to the global superpower and economic powerhouse annually until 1996, the year Diversified visa (DV) program was launched in Nepal. Since then, an increasing number of Nepali people have been migrating annually for permanent settlement in the US.

According to  the Pew Research Center, the population of Nepali Americans in 2019 was 198,000, which reached 206,000 in 2020, marking a 4 percent increase in the Nepali population in the US. 

Among them, 78,000 are living in different metropolitan cities of America. Dallas is home to 15,000 Nepali Americans, followed by New York (12,000), Washington (10,000), San Francisco (7,000), Baltimore (7,000), Boston (6,000), Atlanta (5,000), Pittsburgh (5,000), Acron (5,000) and Chicago (5,000).

Nepalis with modest means dream of leading prosperous lives in America. While some are indeed growing rich, a majority of Nepali Americans remain under deprivation. The annual median income (which divides the people in two equal parts on the basis of income distribution above and below median income) of Nepali Americans is  $55,000, far less than the annual median income of all Asian Americans ($85,800) and the median income of all Americans ($68,000). 

Seventeen percent of Nepali Americans are living under economic deprivation, holding low-paying jobs. The percentage of Nepali Americans living below the poverty line is more  than the percentage of Asian Americans (10 percent) and of all Americans (11 percent) below the line. What’s more, only 33 percent of Nepali Americans have their own occupancy, while others are living in rented accommodations. Only 22 percent of Nepali Americans are college graduates against 30 percent Asian Americans. A majority of Nepali Americans are living in relative poverty, near poverty and absolute poverty.

The ‘community forest’ initiative stands as one of Nepal’s most touted conservation development endeavors. Nepal devised the ‘Hariyo Ban Nepal Ko Dhan’ (Forest as national wealth) slogan in the yesteryears with a target of having at least 43 percent forest cover. However, propagators of the campaign say Nepal’s forest dwindled to 40 percent from 45 percent in the 1960s in just 15 years after the nationalization of private forests in 1956. This decline led to the introduction of the ‘community forestry program’ in 1987, transferring forest management responsibilities to local communities. Today, more than 16,186 forest user groups are affiliated with the Federation of Community Forestry Users Nepal, which speaks volumes about the success of the program.

 The program’s underlying motive was to elevate the proportion of forested land in the country by any means necessary. This singular focus led to widespread endorsement and implementation of the project across Nepali society with governmental support, with little room for alternative perspectives. The project’s community-centric name further obscured potential downsides even though the program was implemented without adequate consultation with rural Nepali communities.

 In official rhetoric, community forest was presented as a catalyst for sustainable development of local communities. It promised not just employment opportunities but also income generation through the sale of forest products like herbs and wood. The initiative envisaged forest users groups as autonomous community organizations to manage daily operations and generate resources for various community needs, including drinking water schemes, loans for indigenous people, public infrastructure, road construction and school management, among others. However, the implementation of the program predominantly focused on increasing forest cover. The intricate dynamics of rural livelihoods dependent on forests was largely overlooked.

 When the program was introduced, villages in hilly areas of Nepal were primarily agrarian communities. These communities believed in self-sufficiency in food production. Market dependence for staple food items, especially grains, was frowned upon during those days. Even households with significant cash earnings prioritized subsistence farming for survival. Villagers traditionally stored surplus grains to weather potential crises like droughts, which ensured community resilience and food sovereignty. This helped Nepal become a net exporter of food until the early 1980s.

 Recent researches show that Nepal transitioned to a net importer of food, particularly cereals, from the early 1980s onwards. This shift, many say, is linked to the implementation of new forest policies under the banner of community forest.  Previously, forests were freely accessible to all and they contributed to vibrant rural economies centered around animal husbandry and organic farming. As it was the only available occupation in rural areas, the younger generation participated in subsistence farming.

 Theoretically, there was room for local involvement in the organizational structure of the community forest program. However, the structure was designed in such a way that inadvertently favored control by a select group of local elites. While there were provisions for marginalized communities, particularly women, to participate actively in the program, the nature of duties assigned to members often prevented genuine people dependent on forests from active engagement. As a result, the poorest and most vulnerable members were overlooked while forming management committees. The program’s structure provided an avenue for local elites to assume leadership positions within forest user groups fostering a nexus between local leaders and government authorities. This collaboration was facilitated by the government’s objective to increase forest cover, influenced by Western ideologies, and its need for local partners to execute the initiative. Lately it was understood that the then western donors helped for this project for carbon trading so that they offer token money to countries like Nepal against the saved timbers, which otherwise could be used by locals as firewood for cooking. However, taking forest dwellers away from the jungle products have diverted village livelihood from eco-friendly sustainable life with renewable energy sources i.e. firewood to LPG gas.   

During those days, communication channels were limited to government-owned media outlets, which were accessible to only a fraction of rural households. This made it easier for authorities and the local elites to introduce new initiatives with minimal resistance from the local communities. Village dynamics also facilitated the implementation process, as the endorsement of a few influential male members would be sufficient to rally community support in those days. The attraction of leadership roles within the community forest framework, coupled with the program’s preservation-centric approach, favored those who already possessed land and trees, primarily the locally affluent. Those reliant on forest resources for their daily sustenance consequently found themselves relegated to the sidelines.

The policy of preserving forests by denying access to local communities was a flawed idea as forests are home to numerous renewable resources crucial for both communities’ sustenance and forests’ health. Regular forest management practices such as clipping and trimming could have facilitated faster forest growth, aligning with the intended objectives of the community forest initiative. Some communities did envision allowing villagers to utilize forest products. But it was not sufficient to meet the needs of the local population.

 The program’s structure was focused more on increasing forest cover rather than addressing the immediate needs of people dependent on forests. This initially led to a conflict between management objectives of the programs and the livelihoods of local communities. Despite the program’s punitive measures against collection of forest resources, many villagers, especially women and children, were forced to risk fines and harassment to gather firewood and fodder. The lack of accessible media platforms and social support networks left victims of this flawed policy powerless to voice their grievances. This suppression of traditional livelihood practices forced communities to depend on external resources, which gradually undermined their self-sufficiency.

The government prioritized road construction as a symbol of progress and modernity in later years. Road expansion enhanced connectivity significantly but also facilitated people’s access to external markets. This made a detrimental impact on local production and self-reliance. The easy availability of imported goods amid erosion of traditional farming practices exacerbated Nepal’s reliance on imported food, which led to a staggering increase in food imports over the years. This situation has proven beneficial for market fundamentalists but it has affected those advocating for a sustainable, eco-friendly and self-reliant economy. Nepal’s food imports were nominal until 2001. By the year 2021, the food import bill had surged by a staggering 78 times. This has highlighted a concerning trend of increased dependency on external food sources.

The author is associate professor of Political Sociology at Kathmandu University

If you were to envision an ideal punishment system what would its components be? Penal system is an important measure, a component of the broader system that ensures the wheels of justice are in motion.  A robust punishment system is integral in turning justice from a vain ideal to a pragmatic reality but with time, it is also important to change the modality and the very aim of the punishment system itself. As important as it is to ensure that justice is done to the victims, it is equally important to be prudent in the reform and rehabilitation of the perpetrator. 

A much-needed solution to the prison problem? 

In Nepal, the prevailing mode of our penal system has relied on financial sanctions and incarceration.  As per the Prison Reform International, financial sanctions such as fines are prone to criminalizing poverty and further over-representation of an impoverished minority. In provisions where the person can either pay fines or face incarceration people who are pushed into crimes because of poverty have no choice but to face incarceration and their jail term that further jeopardizes their economic status thus, even though sentencing is done-it is not a rehabilitative measure. Thus, it is important to acknowledge that financial sanctions have a disproportionate effect and often, may confer an adverse effect to the rehabilitative intent of the criminal justice system. 

This puts out a question on the efficacy of our incarceration system. The recidivism rate is ever so higher in the year 2019, as per a report by the Kathmandu Post the crime rate too had increased by 40 percent. Similarly, the physical infrastructures of our incarceration systems are exhausted beyond their capacity. A report presented by The Prison International  showed that Nepalese prisons were occupied and exhausted beyond their capacity as the occupancy rate was 153 percent. The budget for prison is scant as it is and when the designated resources are already in a state of severe scarcity in the prisons, such undercutting is bound to compromise the living condition standards in prisons. Whereas, increasing the funding causes an unnecessary exhaustion of the state’s economic resources at the expense of its taxpayers—so in this scenario, an alternative sentencing measure can be the economically efficient and effective measure to the problems our penal system is riddled with. The state of internal mismanagement along with plethora of problems such as drug use inside prison have riddled our prison system with a plethora of problems making it a brewing ground for chaos. 

But is incarceration the only norm when it comes to punishing the offenders? It is necessary to debunk these assumptions on the incarceration system by facts not mere assumptions and necessary frameworks are required for a penal system that is effective and just to both victims of the crime and conscious of tenants of rehabilitative and restorative justice.  

Sentencing policies: Incentives or sanction based? 

A way to connect sentencing policies with community is by incentivizing community integration i.e., rather than modes of imprisonment and confinement the justice system has to rely on a mode of incentives and rewards so that the rehabilitative intent of the criminal justice system can transform into a practical reality. Policies on sentencing have advanced community-based approaches in contrast to conventional modalities of punishment that inform a pragmatic and theoretical basis as to why community-based sentencing ought to be prioritized. The Criminal Offenses Sentencing and Executing Act, 2074 governs provisions regarding sentencing modalities—the very act in its preamble lucidly puts that the legislation has been provisioned for the intent of creating a just, peaceful and safe society. The very act in its section 13 (d) and (e) lay out two of the primary principles behind punishment. On one hand it emphasizes that the intent of punishment is to rehabilitate and assist to improve and the consecutive section e. emphasizes on keeping the offender astray or separate from the society thus, it puts out a preventive and a rehabilitative intent.

The emphasis on policies that focus on the role of communities in rehabilitation and restoration by incentivizing community integration as a correctional measure is a step for making our punishment system more efficient and humane. In Nepal, the Criminal Offences Sentencing and Execution Act, has envisioned the provision for community service for offenses with up to six months of imprisonment. The act has embraced a modern reform to our criminal justice system by envisioning provision for open prison, parole and probation. Despite the provision of the act, the system of parole has been implemented from 18 Oct 2023 and it is also to be taken to note that parole is not an absolute right-it is a privilege extended to prisoners who meet the conditions prescribed. As per the department of prison some 1,600 prisoners are eligible for parole which indicates a positive policy measure on the part of the government to address the overcrowding issue of prison.

Although, alternative sentencing practices mark a reformist approach to conventional sentencing modalities that emphasize sanctions as opposed to incentive and a more holistic goal that aims to punish the perpetrators whilst being prudent of their necessity to rehabilitate and reintegrate into society. However, alternative sentencing too has to make place for victim centric justice and should be a measure to promote the common good as opposed to the interest of certain political kittas and their aides. Prisons, fines or other alternative modalities should be perceived as correctional facilities and measures rather than an inescapable oblivion and sentencing term should be a journey of redemption as opposed to an institutional purgatory. 

The author is pursuing BA LLB at Kathmandu School of Law

Nepali leaders frequently express concern about the perils to Nepali democracy from unidentified sources, yet none have explicitly articulated the basis for their apprehension. The political maneuvers diverge from reality, and Nepali people are sick and tired of the leaders from all the political parties, who are still imposing conspiracy theories regarding democracy in Nepal. These leaders persist in imposing outdated notions of political stunts, despite a transformative shift marked by the overthrow of Narayanhiti Palace and the establishment of a new democratic order. The question remains: Why do these self-proclaimed democratic leaders persistently ‘invoke’ threats to our democracy and the rule of law?

These leaders have failed to steer the country with democratic norms and values. Despite Nepal officially discarding the monarchical and autocratic political system and enacting a new constitution in 2015, political leaders have not rekindled their commitment to democratic principles, remaining out of sync with them. Huq and Ginsburg argue that democracy devoid of democrats poses a distinct ethical dilemma, where unelected actors must decide between honoring the preferences of current voters or enabling future voters to make a meaningful democratic choice (2020). Nepal is a stark illustration, with rejected political leaders continuing to influence decision-making processes and governing bodies. The recent appointment of Krishna Prasad Situala to the upper house reflects a non-democratic trend and disregard for the people's mandate. The government appears more focused on retaining power than fortifying democratic institutions and principles, leading to power imbalances among coalition partners and neglect of the voters' mandate.

Nepali voters still grapple with illiteracy, facing challenges in comprehending democratic values and institutional development. Rather than safeguarding democracy, political parties and their leaders exploit this situation as an opportunity to seize power. These self-centric leaders neglect investing resources and efforts in voter education, opting instead to manipulate power through intimidation and vote buying. Presence of corrupt and unethical leaders poses a significant threat to the progress of democratic institutions and the empowerment of the people. Additionally, leaders across the political spectrum resort to deploying various political tactics to attract voters, often falling short of transparency and honesty. For instance, Nepal’s social welfare program, aiming to provide financial support to the elderly, has drawn criticism from experts. This initiative was implemented without sufficient public discourse and research on its potential outcomes and sustainability.

The prevalence of financial and policy-level corruption in Nepal is alarmingly high. Political parties and their supporters engage in substantial financial expenditures during elections, emerging as a primary catalyst for political corruption. Parties and their leaders frequently misappropriate development budgets intended for societal progress to fund costly election campaigns and appease their constituents. Moreover, a disturbing trend in corruption cases implicates high-ranking political figures. Examples include Nepali Congress leader and former minister Bal Krishna Khad, CPN-UML leader Top Bahadur Rayamajhi, Maoist leader Krishna Bahadur Mahara, and former finance minister Janardhan Sharma, all directly implicated in various corruption-related incidents. This poses a significant threat to Nepali democracy, the rule of law, and the moral fabric of society.

In his book “The End of History and the Last Man,” Francis Fukuyama posits that liberal democracy, characterized by a focus on human rights, regular and free elections, and adherence to the rule of law, represents the ultimate stage in the evolution of human history. According to Fukuyama, the path to success for underdeveloped countries involves embracing freer markets and globalization. However, Nepal lacks the foundational tenets of democracy, such as freedom, human rights, and the rule of law.

The 2022 index from Freedom House reveals that Nepal is classified as partly free, scoring 57 out of 100 on the global freedom index. 

Nepal performs poorly in preventing corruption, government transparency, ensuring due process in civil and criminal matters, implementing equal treatment policies, safeguarding individual rights to equal opportunity, and preserving freedom. The government has fallen short of upholding democratic norms and principles for its people. In the light of these shortcomings, the question arises: Why do leaders persistently claim that democracy is under threat, even when they are in power?

The straightforward explanation lies in their apprehension of facing repercussions from the public due to their inability to govern with integrity and uphold the rule of law. Their anxiety is also fueled by the deceptive pledges they have made. Although Nepal theoretically operates as a democratic republic, its leaders often resort to autocratic practices, posing a more significant threat to democracy and the rule of law than external factors. Shifting blame toward foreign entities and passive political interest groups won’t contribute to political stability. It is the responsibility of political parties to fortify democratic institutions and principles, fostering peace and prosperity in Nepal. The primary threat to democracy originates from within the political parties, and their ineffective governance should not be attributed to unidentified elements.

The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s sole responsibility and do not reflect the views of any organization with which the author is professionally affiliated