Submit your Article

The Nepal Overseas Export Import Association has demanded diplomatic initiatives and infrastructure arrangements to open other border points to facilitate land trade with China. The association has demanded the opening of other border points as the two northern border points, Suwagadhi and Tatopani, are closed every year during the rainy season due to floods and landslides.

The movement of people and goods through the Rasuwagadhi border point has come to a standstill after the flood on the night of June 10 washed away the Miteri Bridge connecting Nepal and China. The Tatopani border point in Sindhupalchowk has also been blocked for two weeks due to floods and landslides. Hundreds of containers and trucks carrying goods imported for Nepal have been stranded on the road due to the sudden closure of the border point due to natural disasters. Due to which businessmen have been forced to bear heavy expenses.

Since it is necessary to open other border crossings to facilitate import and export with China, the association has urged the government to make those border crossings operational through diplomatic initiatives and to arrange infrastructure at other alternative border crossings. The Development Committee of the Legislative Assembly had suggested that Korala and Olangchun Gola border crossings be made operational after studying the condition of the northern border crossings in 2015. High-ranking officials of the Nepal and Chinese governments had agreed to open seven northern border crossings during bilateral discussions a decade ago.

These border crossings included Tatopani, Korala in Mustang, Kimathanka in Sankhuwasabha, Lamabagar in Dolakha, Olangchun Gola in Taplejung, Amjapas in Mugu, Yari Hilsa in Humla, and Larke in Gorkha. However, so far, other border crossings except Rasuwagadhi and Tatopani have not been opened for commercial purposes.

Korala border crossing is in a condition to be operational for 12 months. Infrastructure is also ready at the Korala border crossing towards China. The road has also reached Korala on the Nepal side. Studies have shown that trade between the two countries can also be conducted through the Olangchun Gola border crossing in Taplejung. The association has drawn the attention of the government to open these border crossings for trade purposes as soon as possible and to create an environment for other border crossings that are suitable for trade.

China is Nepal’s second largest partner in import trade. Data shows that trade with China has been shifting towards the northern border crossings with the recent development of infrastructure.

Nepal received foreign investment commitments worth Rs 24.10bn the first month of the current fiscal year. According to the Department of Industry, foreign investment commitments were received for 127 projects in August. The commitments received during the month are 163 percent higher than in the same period of the previous fiscal year when foreign investors had committed to invest Rs 9.15bn in 90 projects.

Monthly foreign direct investment approval data released by the department shows the total commitments have been made for 125 small-scale industries and two large-scale projects. Sectorwise, the agriculture sector received the highest investment in terms of value. The sector attracted investment of Rs 20.04bn, or 83 percent of the total investment commitments for the month, for just three projects.

The tourism sector came next, with 41 projects drawing Rs 3.02bn, or 13 percent of total commitments. In terms of project numbers, the ICT sector saw the highest interest, attracting 71 projects with total commitments of Rs 365.2m. The manufacturing sector received investment commitments of Rs 155m across three projects. One energy project secured Rs 184.2m in commitments. Similarly, eight projects in the service sector attracted Rs 335m in investment pledges.

These ventures have pledged to create 8,268 new jobs. Additionally, eight projects involving share purchases and subscriptions attracted Rs 1.99bn in commitments. The department also recorded five technology transfer agreements during the month. Meanwhile, foreign investors repatriated Rs 2.90bn as dividends in the first month of 2025/26, up from Rs 64m in the same period of the previous fiscal year. 

In 2024/25, Nepal received a total foreign investment commitment of Rs 64.96bn for 840 projects. These projects pledged to create 19,536 new jobs.  However, only about a third of the total commitments are actually realized. According to Nepal Rastra Bank (NRB), only 37.89 percent of the total FDI pledged over the past decade was realized. Nepal received total FDI commitments worth Rs 395.92bn between 2014/15 and 2023/24. Of this, only Rs 126.29bn translated into actual investment.

On Aug 18, WTO Director-General Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala received Nepal’s instrument of acceptance of the Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies from Nepal’s WTO Ambassador Ram Prasad Subedi. Just three more acceptances are needed for the agreement to enter into force. 

DG Okonjo-Iweala said: “Only through collective action can we restore the health of our oceans—and curbing harmful fisheries subsidies is an important step to this end. I am deeply grateful to Nepal for its leadership as a landlocked least-developed country. With Nepal’s ratification, we are even closer to crossing the finish line in bringing the landmark Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies into force. Only three more acceptances to go!”

Ambassador Subedi said: “Nepal is very pleased to deposit its instrument of acceptance of the WTO Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies today, reaffirming our commitment to a rules-based multilateral trading system. As a landlocked country, we nonetheless share with other WTO members a responsibility to ensure the sustainable use of marine resources. We believe that healthy marine ecosystems are vital for food security, environmental sustainability and the livelihoods of millions of people around the world.”

Formal acceptances from two-thirds of WTO members are required for the agreement to enter into force—representing 111 members. At the WTO’s 12th Ministerial Conference (MC12) held in Geneva in June 2022, ministers adopted the Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies through consensus, setting new, binding, multilateral rules to curb harmful fisheries subsidies. The agreement prohibits subsidies for illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, for fishing overfished stocks, and for fishing on the unregulated high seas.

Ministers also recognized the needs of developing economies and least-developed countries (LDCs) by establishing a fund to provide technical assistance and capacity-building to help governments that have formally accepted the agreement to implement the new obligations.

In early June, the Fish Fund launched a Call for Proposals inviting developing economies and LDCs that have ratified the agreement to submit requests for project grants aimed at helping them implement the Agreement. Applications are due by Oct 9. 

WTO members also agreed at MC12 to continue negotiating on remaining fisheries subsidies issues with the aim of finding consensus on additional provisions to further strengthen the disciplines on fisheries subsidies.

Five years after the deadly clashes in the Galwan Valley that severely strained ties, India and China now appear to be moving toward normalization of relations.

While the US President Donald Trump’s tariff war may have nudged the two Asian powers closer, the current thaw stems largely from sustained confidence-building measures and dialogue. For Kathmandu, cordial relations between India and China create a more favorable environment to engage constructively with both New Delhi and Beijing.

On both the Doklam and the Galwan clashes, Nepal consistently maintained that disputes should be resolved peacefully. Following the Galwan incident, Nepal stated: “In the context of recent developments in the Galwan Valley area between our friendly neighbors India and China, Nepal is confident that both the neighboring countries will resolve, in the spirit of good neighborliness, their mutual differences through peaceful means in favor of bilateral, regional and world peace and stability.”

Over the past year, multiple rounds of dialogue helped rebuild trust. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi visited India on Aug 18–19, where discussions included the sensitive border question. Earlier, in July, Indian External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar traveled to Beijing.

India has long maintained that relations cannot return to normal unless border issues are addressed. In delegation-level talks, Jaishankar remarked: “Having seen a difficult period in our relationship, our two nations seek to move ahead. This requires a candid and constructive approach from both sides. Overall, it is our expectation that our discussions would contribute to building a stable, cooperative and forward-looking relationship between India and China, one that serves both our interests and addresses our concerns.”

On the global context, he added: “We seek a fair, balanced and multi-polar world order, including a multi-polar Asia. Reformed multilateralism is also the call of the day. In the current environment, there is clearly the imperative of maintaining and enhancing stability in the global economy as well.”

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, for his part, urged both sides to draw lessons from the past, cultivate a correct strategic outlook, and view each other as partners and opportunities rather than rivals or threats. He emphasized confidence-building, expanded cooperation and consolidating positive momentum. Pointing to the US, Wang warned that “unilateral bullying practices are on the rise, while free trade and the international order face severe challenges.”

This thaw in India-China ties comes at a time when New Delhi’s relations with Washington have soured after Trump imposed an additional 25 percent tariff on Indian goods, citing India’s continued imports of Russian oil. Meanwhile, China and the US have been locked in a trade and technology war since 2018.

According to Kathmandu-based geopolitical analyst Chandra Dev Bhatta, shifting global geopolitics has compelled both India and China to temporarily set aside differences. “Both countries now recognize each other as competing powers, not necessarily the binary rivals often portrayed in Western media,” he said. “The backdrop to these developments is important for countries like Nepal. For instance, the Trump administration’s tariff measures against India for its Russian oil imports came despite the fact that most major countries were doing the same, something that actually helped stabilize the global oil market, benefiting even Nepal.”

Bhatta added that India and China have long learned from each other, and countries in between stand to benefit if ties continue to improve. Closer relations could generate alternative ideas for development and global governance.

Still, he cautioned that states prioritize their own interests, especially in times of heightened geopolitics. “We too must focus on our own interests and prepare to navigate accordingly,” he said. “There’s an old saying: whether elephants fight or make love, it’s the grass that suffers. It may be old, but it remains relevant when external factors increasingly shape regional relations.”

For many people with disabilities, the everyday reality is filled with obstacles that remain invisible to most. Inaccessible roads, unreliable public transport, and poorly implemented laws create barriers that restrict opportunities, independence, and dignity. 

Take the story of Pustika Prajapati. She lost her vision after completing grade 12 due to corneal problems. “When I step outside, I walk carefully,” she explains. Her vision started deteriorating in grade 8, but she learned to adapt. “The roads have potholes and living in Bhaktapur is even hard because of the brick roads and gallis, but I have been managing till now,” she says.

Transportation and negotiating with city traffic, however, is another story. Zebra crossings are particularly dangerous because there is no voice system to assist. “Once, I asked a man to give me a reserved seat on the bus. He refused, and the conductor didn’t help either,” she recalls.

For Nar Bahadur Bista, a member of the Dwarf Association of Nepal, daily life comes with physical challenges that most people take for granted. Public transport, stairs, and even simple furniture like chairs or toilets are not designed for someone of his stature. “Getting on and off buses is difficult. Stairs, public toilets, chairs, and even kitchens are not made for people like me,” he says.

Hospital visits are also a challenge for Bista, as beds, counters, and chairs are not accessible.

These are not isolated cases. Across Nepal, inaccessible roads, vehicles, buildings, and services create an invisible prison for people with disabilities. These stories reveal the hidden cost of inaccessibility—lost education, lost jobs, and opportunities. 

Sugam Bhattarai, general secretary of the National Federation of the Disabled Nepal (NFDN) and a person living with macular degeneration—a condition that causes blurred or no vision in the central visual field—points out how poor infrastructure creates daily struggles. “Nepal’s roads are very bad,” he says. “They are too narrow for wheelchairs or four-wheeler scooters, and people are scared to use them on the main roads. Public infrastructure must be equipped with the latest accessibility features so that people with disabilities can move independently and with dignity.”

According to the Nepal Census 2021, 2.2 percent of Nepal’s population live with some form of disability. Among them, 2.5 percent are men and 2.0 percent are women. The prevalence of various types of disabilities is as follows: physical disabilities (36.75 percent), low vision (16.88 percent), blindness (5.37 percent), deafness (7.85 percent), hard of hearing (7.87 percent), combined deaf and blind (1.56 percent), speech impairment (6.36 percent), psycho-social disabilities (4.2 percent), intellectual disabilities (1.73 percent), hemophilia (0.75 percent), autism (0.75 percent), multiple disabilities (8.78 percent), and cases not specified (1.07 percent).

Globally, the World Health Organization estimates that excluding people with disabilities from education and employment can cost countries 3–7 percent of their GDP. In India, billions are lost annually because talented workers are sidelined. For Nepal, the cost of exclusion is staggering.

Binita Regmi, chairperson of National Association of the Physical Disabled (NAPD), says that a lot has changed within months as people have been aware, many people have been coordinating well.

For visually impaired persons like Prajapati, college presents another battlefield. “I study in a normal classroom, but the noise and disturbances make it hard to focus,” she says. “My friends say that I ask too many questions. I also need a writer for exams, but it’s hard to find one, and extra time isn’t provided.” 

She emphasizes the need for tactile pavements–designed with raised lines, domes, or other textured patterns to convey safety information to people who are blind, have low vision, or experience other visual impairments or guiding tiles, sound systems at crossings, and accessible educational materials—resources that are rarely available. 

“Laws exist, but they are not implemented. We have rights, but they are not enforced,” she says.

Nepal has legal frameworks intended to protect and empower persons with disabilities. The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2017 mandates accessible public buildings, transport, and services. Building codes require ramps, accessible toilets, and inclusive designs.

Section 15 guarantees access to education, housing, workplaces, transportation, and electronic services for people with disabilities. It also states that disabled individuals have the right to move freely with the assistance of aides or devices of their choosing.

Section 12 of the 2020 Regulations on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities mandates a 50 percent discount on public transport fares and reserved seats for people with disabilities. The National Policy on Persons with Disabilities, 2023, further emphasizes that transportation must be accessible and disabled-friendly.

But implementation remains weak. An audit of government buildings in Kathmandu revealed steep ramps too narrow for wheelchairs, lifts without Braille buttons, and toilets lacking sufficient turning space.

Bista says dwarfism is simply grouped under disability without special consideration. “Rules and regulations are made without consulting us, so facilities fail to meet our needs,” he adds. 

Bista advocates for inclusive planning, where persons with dwarfism and other disabilities are consulted to create fair and functional solutions.

His case highlights that accessibility is not only a matter of physical infrastructure but also of thoughtful policy-making that considers the diversity of disability experiences. Without inclusive planning, even minor design decisions—like the height of a counter or step of a bus—can become insurmountable barriers.

Government and transport officials acknowledge the gaps. Bhupendra Aryal, CEO of Sajha Yatayat, says the company has 111 buses in operation and 65 of them are disability-friendly. He admits some buses still need to be replaced or reformed. “As a new CEO, I have received many complaints highlighting these issues. We have two types of buses—A and B grade—where disabled passengers can travel more freely, but they need to become more accessible and relevant. We are actively working to address these concerns,” he says.

Similarly, Saligram Poudel from the Ministry of Physical Infrastructure and Transport (MoPIT) says the ministry has been working with the concerned agencies to make public transport more disability-friendly. “A specific fleet of buses with proper facilities will be introduced soon to address these needs,” he says. Kamala Ghimire, under secretary at the Ministry of Women, Children and Senior Citizens (MoWCSC), acknowledges that accessibility remains a major challenge in Nepal due to poor infrastructure. She notes while about 2.2 percent of the population is living with disabilities, many of them are not visibly disabled, yet still face significant difficulties—particularly when using public buses. She stresses that traffic authorities, bus staff, and coordinators must ensure proper management of seats and respect the rights and regulations that guarantee accessibility for persons with disabilities.

Dharma Raj Bhandari, general secretary of Nepal Transport Workers’ Association, says they are actively trying to address the concerns of passengers with disabilities.  

“The Vehicle and Transport Management Act is in the process of being amended, and I believe that with proper planning and consultation with people with disabilities, we can create meaningful improvements,” he says.

Meanwhile, experts suggest a multi-pronged approach to improve accessibility. This includes strict enforcement of accessibility codes for all new buildings and public transport, as well as incentives for businesses that invest in inclusive infrastructure. They say low-cost smart solutions, such as portable ramps, voice-assisted apps, tactile paving, and audio announcements, can also make a significant difference.
Alongside these measures, community awareness campaigns are essential to reduce stigma and promote accessibility as a shared social responsibility.

Rame Dhakal from NAPD stresses the importance of awareness. “People need to be educated about the words they use. Many still use inappropriate or insensitive terms when referring to persons with disabilities,” he says. “The real change starts with an attitude change.”  

The China Foundation for Rural Development (CFRD) celebrated its 10th anniversary in Nepal by organizing a special event in Kathmandu on Monday.

The event was attended by the Ambassador of the People’s Republic of China to Nepal Chen Song, Executive Director of China Foundation for Rural Development Chen Hongtao, former ministers, leaders of major political parties, diplomats and several others. 

On the occasion, Chinese Ambassador Chen appreciated the CFRD’s contributions to Nepal’s rural development, education, and disaster relief.

He emphasized that the milestone celebration also reflects the enduring friendship between China and Nepal during the historic 70th year of diplomatic relations. 

He said “China is committed to continuing collaboration in sustainable development initiatives, humanitarian assistance, and community-focused programmes in Nepal, emphasizing the importance of mutual cooperation for long-term prosperity and shared development goals.”

Likewise, Executive Director of the CFRD Chen Hongtao said this celebration is about reaffirming our shared commitment to building a more inclusive and resilient future for rural communities in Nepal. Its commitment to integrating China’s poverty reduction experience with Nepal’s local development needs, continuing to foster sustainable growth and strengthen people-to-people ties between the two nations, he added. 

Similarly, Nanda Lal Majhi, the Vice-Chairperson of the Social Welfare Council of Nepal noted that CFRD’s initiatives in education, agriculture, and community development have not only provided immediate support but have also built long-term capacities within communities.

On the occasion, Kimtang's Tea Project from Nuwakot district; Khokana and Gotikhel villages of Lalitpur district signed separate agreements with three cooperatives from China's Sichuan Province on knowledge sharing and exchanges on agriculture. 

The signing agreement was witnessed by the Chinese Ambassador to Nepal, Chen Song, and former Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Affairs Minister Sujata Koirala, among others. 

It is said that the agreement is aimed at deepening agricultural cooperation and rural revitalization by linking Nepalese villages with successful Chinese cooperatives. The CFRD has been supporting Nepal's villages in sustainable rural development, advancing education, promoting livelihoods, and improving community well-being. 

During the event, a research publication documenting the CFRD’s decade-long journey in Nepal, recognition and appreciation of NGO partners, and exhibition stalls showcasing products made by women beneficiaries of the Women’s Occupational Support program and accomplishments of several comprehensive projects of CFRD in Nepal, according to the CFRD.  

The Country Director of CFRD Nepal Office Zou Zhiqiang, mayors and deputies of different local levels, representatives of the UN agencies in Nepal, and others also attended the event.

The fifth edition of the joint military exercise between the Nepali Army and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) of China is scheduled to take place in Nepal from the first week of September.

The exercise, named Sagarmatha Friendship, will focus on counter-terrorism operations, combat tactics and disaster management, according to Nepali Army sources. The two sides have already agreed to begin the 10-day training from Sept 6.

The fourth edition of the joint drill was held last year in Chongqing, near Sichuan province, China. This time, officials from both armies are holding intensive discussions to finalize the modality, number of participants and observers for the exercise.

Defense Ministry Spokesperson Manoj Kumar Acharya described the joint exercise as part of a regular military cooperation program. “Nepal regularly conducts such exercises with India, the US, and China, mainly to enhance capacity and exchange experiences. These drills are not targeted at any particular country,” Acharya told ApEx.

A high-level Nepali Army team led by Major General Prem Dhoj Adhikari, including Brigadier General Dipendra Gurung, Colonel Mani Ram Thapa, Major Pawan Katwal and Captain Mahesh Dhakal, recently returned from Chengdu after attending the Final Planning Conference (FPC) with Chinese defense officials. Preparations are underway also in coordination with the Chinese Embassy in Kathmandu.

The first Nepal-China joint military exercise was held in Kathmandu in April 2017, followed by the second in Chengdu in 2018 and the third in Nepal in 2019. The drills were suspended for several years due to the Covid-19 pandemic before their resumption in China last year.

Meanwhile, Western countries including the US, India, Japan, South Korea and some European nations have expressed reservations over Nepal’s growing military engagement with China, especially at a time when Beijing has been pushing to implement Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) projects in Nepal. Nepal, however, has maintained that such exercises are routine. Alongside China, Nepal also conducts annual Surya Kiran exercises with the Indian Army and regular joint drills with the US military.

Nepal’s political jostling always manages to keep everyone on the edge of their seats—ranging from possible communist reunification to sporadic pro-monarchical protests. However, one constant has kept looming around the mainstream ever since the current constitution’s ratification—a directly elected executive. Apart from the two major parties, this seems to be on every party’s manifesto—from CPN (Maoist Center) to the Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP). There are, of course, variations to the concept—most of which I’ll touch upon very basically below. 

The appeal of a directly elected executive is clear, especially in Nepal’s polity. It brings democracy front and center, appealing to voters eager to sideline political disarray and usher in leadership to provide “effective” governance. The latter is also the reason why this change is championed by parties whilst in opposition but eschewed once in government. This might be why this concept seems irrefutable, as governments struggle to last meaningfully and public perception of governance has consistently been poor. A peaceful transition to a new form of governance—“effective” and “long-lasting”—would appear to be the way out. The issue is, this runs away from its flaws, which are consistently shunned as “details to be worked out”. The details, however, aren’t as bright as political jingoism would have you believe. 

The current constitution could be amended to account for two forms of a direct executive—through the President or the Prime Minister. The first option of a directly elected President is heavily favored by the Maoist Center and its close allies. This would mean a single head of state and the government, appealing to those against “political extravagance”. This system would also include a legislature—whether it is directly elected or PR representation as some have suggested. This would include two cases—wherein the directly-elected President holds a majority in legislature, and wherein they don’t. In case they don’t, governance wouldn’t get “effective” and would instead deteriorate as the legislature will likely look to stamp its authority when it perceives an overbearing executive. There’s a strong chance where key legislation like the budget is stalled leading to government paralysis or even shutdown—as evidenced consistently in the United States. 

However, let’s assume they do—the President’s party has a commanding legislative majority. There will, of course, be a fundamental question of checks and balances but contextualizing it to Nepal’s polity shows its dangers. A presidential majority might seem like former Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal’s political endgame, given the circumstances surrounding his resignation during his first term. Although it seems long gone now, it wasn’t too soon ago when former President Ram Baran Yadav had to step-in to prevent Dahal’s overreach. Even if one were to disregard that event, a simple look into Nepal’s history with majoritarian governance backed by the military, be it in 2005 or prior to 1990, should inform one of the possible prospects ahead. 

However, there’s another noble option to executive governance—one preferred by the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) and the RPP—through a directly elected Prime Minister. This appeals to ensure “effective” governance whilst shielding themselves from abovementioned critiques. It must be noted that the only modern example of such a system was in Israel, from 1996 to 2001, when they abandoned it. This system maintains the current structure of government, wherein every voter would likely just have an additional ballot for a prime ministerial candidate. This system would similarly have a legislative majority or minority Prime Minister. Although proponents of this governance structure might assume outright majorities to deliver “effectiveness”, this system is likely to render further political clutter than we currently have. Voters are likely to split ballots—more so than a direct presidential election—where legislators represent local concerns and the Prime Minister is to deliver broad governance mandates. There is empirical evidence to support this, and this was also the primary reason Israel abandoned it in the first place. A minority Prime Minister is fundamentally inept to deliver “effective” governance as proponents promise, whereas the presence of a head of state further raises questions on stability in the face of government deadlock—compromising when the head of state needs to interject to possibly replace the Prime Minister.

However, as in the presidential case—let’s assume the Prime Minister commands a legislative majority for their entire term. The Prime Minister is stable for the entirety of their term and can work “effectively”. However, even in this quixotic scenario—a head of state, whomever it might be, will co-exist alongside the Prime Minister as it does now. A majoritarian Prime Minister forces the head of state to reevaluate their boundaries of accountability, as shown by the French fourth Republic or the recent Israeli judicial reform crisis. The head of state must walk an extremely thin line—they can’t enable authoritarianism like Ahmed during the Indian emergency, nor can they impede governance like Mattarella during the 2018 Italian government crisis. 

Nepal’s history of Prime Ministers with legislative majorities and a supposedly symbolic head of state, going back to BP Koirala to KP Oli’s parliamentary dissolution, should stress how thin of a line it is for the head of state. This is of course under an “ideal” scenario, where the legislative majority lasts throughout the parliamentary term.   

My critique of these respective systems isn’t meant to invite gloom—but rather encourage honest discourse instead of political jingoism. It is completely fair to propagate for either of these systems, but political parties have been given far too much leeway to preach “effectiveness” and direct democracy without a framework of how it would actually work in practice. Nepal needs democratic stability and instead of contributing toward parliamentary maturity, every time a party is in opposition, their campaign is to upend parliamentary democracy altogether. 

Parliamentary democracy might appear messy and unstable—but the alternative cannot be to open another Pandora’s box of experimentation. There might be multiple Prime Ministers in a parliamentary term, divergent coalitions and displeasure over governance but diverting to systems unable to stand such basic scrutiny like above isn’t the solution. Political parties need to get into the nitty-gritty constitutional legalese of alternative systems or stop selling this direct election dreamland once and for all.

The author is a graduate student in economics at the University of South Florida

Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli has said that Nepal is exporting 1,000 MW of electricity to India.

Taking to social media , Prime Minister Oli shared that Nepal will earn Rs 80.027 billion by exporting the electricity to India.

“We are exporting 1,000 MW of electricity to India. From this, Nepal will earn Rs 80.027 billion,” the Prime Minister said..

Recent statistics show a worrying rise in the smuggling of illegal drugs into Nepal from abroad. Majority of couriers caught in such cases are Indian nationals, according to police.

The number of Indian citizens involved in drug trafficking through Tribhuvan International Airport (TIA) has increased sharply, with over 80 percent of suspects caught smuggling drugs by air being Indian. According to the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) of Nepal Police, 45 Indian nationals in possession of drugs have been arrested in TIA from mid-July last year to mid-July this year. All of them were arrested for attempting to bring marijuana from Thailand. Seven of them are women.

Firoz Ahmad (35) from Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh, used to work as a laborer on construction sites. An acquaintance offered him a job in Laos with a monthly pay of InRs 25,000 and a plane ticket included. When he reached Laos, he did not get the promised job. Instead, his contact asked him to travel back via Nepal and hand over a bag in Kathmandu. The bag contained four kilograms of heroin.

Similarly, Mouleswar Nanjundamurthy (32) from Erode, Tamil Nadu, an electrician by trade, was also taken to Laos with promises of high earnings. On his return, he was given a bag holding 3.8 kilograms of heroin and told to travel via Nepal. Both men are now in police custody, facing charges under the Narcotics Control Act.

According to NCB Chief Krishna Koirala, the two were arrested in the space of one day in the first week of August when they arrived in Kathmandu from Laos via Bangkok. The heroin was hidden inside chocolate packets. Police believe the mastermind, who recruited the two, could be the same person, and the drugs were intended to be smuggled into India via land routes from Nepal. Over the past year, police have arrested 307 Indian citizens and 18 from other countries for drug offences. A total of 5,001 drug offense cases have been filed in fiscal year 2024/25. About 52 tons of marijuana, 829 kilograms of hashish, 49 kilograms of heroin and over 20 kilograms of cocaine were seized during the year.

Another case involved 49-year-old Abdus Samad Jamil Mansuri (49) from Mumbai. With no steady work, he readily accepted offers for odd jobs. One day, he was promised payment to travel to Azerbaijan and bring back a suitcase. On arrival in Nepal, his suspicious behavior drew the attention of security personnel. When police searched him, they found 3.4 kilograms of cocaine hidden in plastic bags. He claimed that someone in Azerbaijan had asked him to take it to India.

Similarly, just days earlier, another Indian national, Rakesh Ohawal (65), was arrested with 6.5 kilograms of heroin hidden in his luggage.

In the past, most foreign nationals arrested in Nepal for drug trafficking were in transit to third countries. Recently, however, Indian nationals have been found smuggling drugs from Thailand to India via Nepal. One major drug smuggled is Thailand’s marijuana, which is specially cultivated and chemically treated. NCB officials say this drug is long-lasting and highly potent, and is in high demand in both Nepal and India.

NCB spokesperson Janak Bahadur Shahi said Indian nationals smuggling drugs by air are often poor and unemployed, lured with fixed payments to act as carriers. “Trafficking rings send them to Thailand as tourists and then hand them drug-filled bags when they return,” he added.

A few weeks ago, a young woman from Manipur, India, was arrested at TIA with Thai marijuana. She had been promised Rs 50,000 by traffickers.

Nepal’s role as a drug transit point is not new. For years, traffickers have used Nepal to move drugs to third countries. The question remains: is this because Nepal’s security is weak?

NCB chief Krishna Koirala explains that drug trafficking is an organized, international crime with a complex network. Smugglers do not rely solely on Nepal; they also operate via Indian airports. Security checks at TIA are strict, and police monitor passenger lists from high-risk countries to identify potential smugglers.

Nepal Police Spokesperson Binod Ghimire said the nationality of traffickers is less important than their role in the crime. While Africans are more often involved in cocaine and heroin smuggling, Indians now dominate cases involving Thai marijuana. Police say traffickers are favoring Indian nationals due to practical reasons. “Nepal and India share an open border, and Indian citizens do not need a visa to enter Nepal. Security checks for Indians are generally less stringent, making them easier targets for recruitment,” Ghimire said. “After increased scrutiny of couriers from other countries, traffickers seem to have begun using Indian couriers.”

Many of these carriers do not know the full extent of the operation, nor who owns the drugs they carry.  According to Ghimire, traffickers use multiple routes simultaneously to move drugs, and the high prices on the international market make the trade extremely lucrative for organized crime syndicates.

In today’s global economy, tariffs have evolved from mere protectionist barriers to tools of geopolitical strategy. The US-China tariff war, which began during Donald Trump’s first term in 2018, has already brought about a decisive shift in global trade flows.

The latest US decision to extend targeted tariffs on selected Indian goods has been framed as a ‘leveling measure’. Yet, it has also created new impetus for India to deepen market access discussions with Washington and strengthen its position as a reliable trading partner. This move could be a catalyst for India to negotiate more favorable long-term terms by demonstrating its manufacturing flexibility.

Nepal also has many goods on the top list of goods imported from neighboring India. This means that the new US customs policy will inevitably have an impact on Nepal-India trade and the overall economy of Nepal. After the upgrade to a developing country, Nepal’s preferential market access facility (GSP) period has expired and the country has started to face a 10 percent customs duty, which seems to be an opportunity for the country not to increase it.

After this, it can be expected that investment will flow into Nepal from abroad and exports will increase. A large part of Nepal's trade—both exports and imports—depends on India. According to the data of the Customs Department, 64 percent of Nepal’s imports in the fiscal year 2024-25 came from the Indian market.  Similarly, India accounted for 67 percent of total exports. Since this is the case, changes in the US-India trade policy are certain to affect Nepal.

The US has imposed a 50 percent reciprocal tariff on India and a 10 percent tariff on Nepal, which is expected to give Nepal a competitive advantage in trade, but Nepal needs to take concrete steps from product development to export promotion to produce the quantities it can export to the US.

Looking at the past, the US is Nepal’s second largest export destination after India. Nepal exported goods worth Rs 18.32bn to the US in 2024-25, which is six percent more than the previous year.

This should be taken as an encouraging and positive step. In addition, to make all this sustainable and increase further, it is necessary and imperative for Nepal to create a joint mechanism between the government and the private sector to reduce transshipment risks and take advantage of customs rates.

There should be no delay on this front. The US has imposed only 10 percent reciprocal customs duty on Nepal. In such a situation, if trade negotiations with India fail and a 50 percent customs duty is imposed on India, there will be a 40 percent difference in customs rates between Nepal and India.

Even if the recently-imposed additional 25 percent customs duty is withdrawn, the difference in customs rates between these two countries will be 15 percent. Even a 15 percent difference in customs rates is very large in international trade. Nepal should be able to use this situation to its advantage.

Nepal’s main exports to the US are woolen carpets, rugs, ready-made garments, felt goods, clay and other metal utensils and handicrafts. In addition, apart from India, the US has imposed a 19–20 percent customs duty on other countries in the region—Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka—which gives Nepal a competitive advantage.

In short, India has been exporting more goods such as carpets, textiles and rugs to the US than to Nepal. Similarly, Bangladesh is the largest exporter of ready-made garments in South Asia.

And, the US is also importing from it. Nepal also uses Indian land for trade with third countries. Although the trade war between India and the US could also bring uncertainty to Nepal’s trade routes with third countries, its likelihood is low.

The new US tariff policy seems to make Indian goods more expensive in the US market. As a result, Indian manufacturers may have to restructure their production systems. If India starts losing the US market, the Nepali market will also become more expensive, given chances of India adopting a policy of reducing production. Most of the industries operating in Nepal import raw materials from India and this means our production costs may go up. Machinery parts, industrial equipment, clothing and agricultural products from India are most likely to become more expensive in Nepal, exposing the Nepali populace to the risk of a high inflation. 

In addition, the Indian rupee will weaken further as India’s exports are affected and dollar income decreases. This problem will be further complicated by the fact that Nepal’s currency is ‘pegged’ with the Indian currency. This is also the reason why Nepal’s monetary policy has not been independent.

This will naturally have an impact on the Nepali rupee. As a result, not only will Nepal’s dollar income decrease, payments will also become more expensive. In that case, the interest on foreign loan assistance will be expensive and so will the repayment.

The Nepali market may also benefit from the Indo-US trade war. If Indian products cannot enter the US market easily, India may adopt a policy of reducing prices and seeking alternative markets. Nepal can benefit from that. If India adopts this policy, the price of Indian goods imported into Nepal, such as food, industrial raw materials, and machinery parts, may decrease. According to public data, Nepal currently exports ready-made garments worth around Rs 4bn to the US. There is no doubt that this is likely to increase many times over in a few years if the existing customs duty remains in place.

If this policy works in the long term, the ‘backward forward linkage’ of the export-oriented Nepali industry is certain to become even stronger. After the 2015 earthquake, the US had given Nepal preferential market access to 77 different items. The Nepal government should take the initiative for similar preferential market access. For now, it is too early to analyze how Trump’s policies will pan out. But if implemented, India’s export earnings will decrease. The direct impact of this will be a decrease in dollar income for India as well as Nepal, making foreign payments expensive. This will ultimately mean a surge in inflation. There is also the danger of the US aggressive ‘tariffs’ triggering a global economic recession. 

Over the years, the use of chemical pesticides in Nepal has increased so notably that it has raised serious concerns about human health and environmental sustainability. From residues in the food we eat to the degradation of soil health and biodiversity loss, the long-term consequences of excessive pesticide use are becoming harder to ignore. In Nepal, where agriculture remains the primary livelihood for around 60 percent of the population, the dependence on synthetic chemicals is not just a farming issue; it is a public health and environmental crisis in the making. 

Climate change has led to the emergence of new pests and the expansion of pest habitats, causing farmers to rely more heavily on chemical pesticides to protect their crops. While effective in the short term, the widespread and often unregulated use of synthetic pesticides triggers long-term consequences. These include the development of pest resistance, contamination of soil and water resources, accumulation of toxic residues in food, and alarming impacts on human health and biodiversity. Children, pregnant women, and farm workers are particularly vulnerable to pesticide exposure, with studies linking prolonged contact to respiratory issues, hormonal disruptions, and even cancer. 

Recent studies have shown that vegetables in Nepal often contain pesticide residues exceeding the maximum residue limits (MRLs), rendering them unsafe for human consumption. 

The increasing import of chemical pesticides over recent years highlight Nepal's growing reliance on synthetic pest control measures. As in the fiscal year 2023/24 alone, the country imported 1,664 active ingredient (a.i.) tons of chemical pesticides (PQPMC, 2025). The rising trend reflects an urgent need to question the sustainability and safety of our current pest management practices. 

In the face of these growing challenges, biopesticides present a promising and necessary alternative. Derived from natural organisms or substances like bacteria, fungi, viruses, and botanical extracts, biopesticides control pests without causing harm to the environment, human health, or beneficial organisms. Unlike synthetic pesticides, they are biodegradable, target-specific, and less likely to cause pest resistance. 

Common examples of biopesticides include Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), which controls caterpillars; neem-based formulations for a broad spectrum of pests; Trichoderma species that act against fungal pathogens; and Jholmal, a locally prepared bio-mixture made from cow/buffalo urine, dung, botanicals, and beneficial microorganisms for pest and disease management, and is currently being promoted in Nepal. These eco-friendly options not only help protect crops effectively but also support soil health, pollinator survival, and long-term agricultural sustainability. 

Biopesticides are no longer just something used by the organic farmers as a choice; they are now essential for mainstream agriculture, especially in the face of climate and health challenges. As climate change continues to alter pest dynamics, and as chemical residues threaten public health, a shift toward safer alternatives is not just desirable but urgent. The adoption of biopesticides supports multiple Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production), SDG 15 (Life on Land) and SDG 13 (Climate Action). Nepal’s smallholder farmers, who are already facing the brunt of climate impacts, can benefit from locally available and low-cost biopesticide options like Jholmal, which enhance both resilience and productivity. 

Despite their proven benefits, the widespread adoption of biopesticides in Nepal faces several challenges. A major barrier is the lack of awareness and technical knowledge among farmers, many of whom are unfamiliar with how biopesticides work, how to apply them effectively, or how they differ from conventional pesticides. In addition, biopesticides are often not readily available in rural markets, and when they are, they tend to be more expensive or perceived as less effective due to slower action. Limited private sector involvement and insufficient government incentives have also contributed to a weak supply chain and low investment in local production. Without strong institutional support and market linkages, the transition from chemical to biological pest management remains slow and fragmented. 

To accelerate the transition toward sustainable pest management, a coordinated and multi-stakeholder approach is essential. First, government policies should actively promote biopesticides by including them in subsidy schemes. Investment in research and local production of bio-based inputs should be prioritized, enabling farmers to access affordable and effective products tailored to Nepal’s diverse agroecological zones. Extension services must be reoriented to include biopesticide training through farmer field schools, demonstration plots, and digital platforms. The private sector, too, has a critical role to play in developing, distributing, and marketing biopesticides, especially when incentivized through public–private partnerships. Finally, awareness campaigns targeting farmers, consumers, and policymakers can help shift perceptions and generate demand for safe, sustainable pest control solutions.

The overuse of chemical pesticides is not just an agricultural concern; it is a public health, environmental, and sustainability crisis. Thus, biopesticides offer a safer and more sustainable way to manage pests without damaging our soil, food, or ecosystems. If we want safe food and a clean environment, we must act now. With the right support from the government, private sector, and awareness among farmers and consumers, biopesticides can become a powerful solution against pest management.  The future of farming lies not in fighting nature, but working with it. By adopting biopesticides today, Nepal can cultivate a healthier tomorrow; for its land, its farmers, and its people.

The author holds Master's degree in Agricultural Economics and is currently working as a research intern at the International Water Management Institute (IWMI)

The 70th anniversary of the establishment of bilateral relationships between Nepal and China is an important milestone for both nations but it is obvious to say that Nepal has been benefitting the most from this relationship.

Over the years, Nepal proved to be a reliable and trusted partner for Beijing and it is worthy to observe that Kathmandu was able to forge a strong relationship with China without putting its own strategic interests in jeopardy. Co-habiting a space hemmed between India and China, while it can bring multiple advantages, can also be a tricky endeavor.

Balancing off different interests and trade-offs between New Delhi and Beijing requires high skills in navigating foreign diplomacy without forgetting in the equation, the role of the United States that, with the exception of the incumbent administration in Washington, has also been a strong and important partner for Kathmandu.

Thanks also to the presence of different communist parties in the country, Beijing has been able to assert its influence and it is remarkable how swiftly China has been capable of boosting not only its development assistance but also its soft power in Nepal.

I often read mesmerizing reports from reporters invited to China to observe firsthand and then report and explain back home the huge improvements in the lives of Chinese citizens over the last 30 years, enhancements that have been accompanied by a turbo state-led capitalism that supported China’s rise. I have a huge admiration for China’s history and ancient civilization while as someone who grew up in the West, I have also a critical view of certain policies and positions taken by Beijing.

I never expected China to turn itself into a democracy but at the same time, I do not have an uncritical view of some of its approaches related to human rights and freedom of expression. Yet I always had a strong desire to try to understand the nuances of certain policies because in politics as well as in governance, we cannot simplify everything through “white and black” lenses and this is particularly true for a complex country like China.

Because understanding the ways the Chinese Communist Party works and the multilayered governance structure of its political and administrative systems are complex endeavors that require a lot of expertise.

In short, observing and trying to make sense of what is happening in China is indeed a fascinating thing and I do believe that the West should make a much bigger effort at grasping the nuances of China’s political system.

Nepal, despite its links with India, has managed, quite successfully, at building important bridges with China. At the same time, even in relation to the Road and Belt Initiative, Beijing’s flagship global program, Nepal has been able to push back with due respect and smartness. At the same time, the civil society of Nepal has been able to forge stronger relationships with peers in China and slowly a stronger knowledge of the country is emerging and this is a good thing.

Yet, I do feel that members of the press corps and activists should also develop a more holistic understanding of China. I never believed that a paradise on Earth exists, a nation capable of embodying perfection in all its spheres of life where no problems exist. This not only applies to China but also Europe, Australia or the United States of America or any other nation.

As a European, I can be proud of our democratic credentials and freedom of speech I can enjoy back home. I can also certainly assert that the EU has also been struggling with double standards and I wish the Europeans could always walk the talk in matters of upholding human rights domestically but also in their foreign policies. So, I do not take it easily to criticize the second biggest power on Earth, especially when China has been doing a lot for the nation that has been hosting me for many years.

Yet, as Nepal’s consciousness of India has matured over the years because the citizens of the former know very well the mindset, culture, politics and foreign policies of the latter, I do believe that slowly a more “complete” view of China will emerge.

From Beijing’s perspective, this inevitable evolution of views is not necessarily a negative thing because real partnerships require the space also to vent some criticisms or simply different perspectives. As China might sometimes vent its frustrations toward Kathmandu, it is normal that Nepal can be in a position to question certain policies and positions taken by Beijing, not out of disrespect, but simply out of sincere and trustworthy commitment to make the bilateral relationship stronger. This would happen because the rapport between the two will be enhanced when the interests of the smaller partner are better addressed and the latter becomes more assertive.

Nepal learned how to navigate its relationships with its south neighbor, developing a sense of self-confidence in also pushing back whenever needed. At the end of the day, such a level of candid approach might annoy New Delhi but at the end of the day, India knows that the relationships are stronger when both parties feel comfortable at expressing each other even if the positions are different.

Eventually, the same would happen with the northern neighbor. This would represent a new level of relationships between China and Nepal that, rather than being one-sided, are more mutually beneficial because they are more balanced.

Finally, I want to take an appreciative view of what China has been doing for Nepal. With the exception of the Ring Road work that I believe has been poorly designed (see the number of lethal accidents that have occurred so far since the revamped partial motorway has opened from Koteshwar to Kalanki), China has been playing a huge and very generous role in supporting Nepal.

I recently read of plans that China will build a bone marrow transplantation facility at the BP Koirala Memorial Cancer Hospital in Bharatpur, Chitwan.

There are also discussions on important expansions at Civil Service Hospital in Kathmandu, a hospital entirely built by China that, since its start of operations, has already seen important upgrades. These are key infrastructure projects for Nepal, very tangible initiatives at direct benefit of local peoples. At the same time as Nepal is proceeding to graduate from the category of least developed nations, would it not also be essential for Kathmandu to start doing something to help China? I do understand that this might look like a ridiculous proposition but instead I do believe that Nepal is about to reach the point where it can also show gratitude to its northern neighbor.

As Kathmandu tries to learn more about the almost unimaginable improvements in the lives of Chinese people and how Beijing has been prioritizing the right to development, Nepal can also show its templates and success stories. For example, how the nation halved its poverty and levels of social exclusions and how its political system, despite its own issues like instability and corruption, proved to be indispensable for such progress. Nepal could also do much more in promoting its culture and way of dealing with internal problems and differences and why not establish an exchange program where hundreds of Chinese students come here to learn about the country?

If millions of Chinese students have flocked to the USA, why not have some of them also learn Nepal’s way to development and prosperity? Frankly speaking, the university system in Nepal, while having its own share of challenges, also counts with some best practices. Higher education is just one area where Nepal could do something to reciprocate China’s generosity.  Without a doubt, there are many other areas where Nepal can do its bits to show that it is not taking China’s generosity for granted.

Nepal will make 97 of its Himalayan mountains free to climb for the next two years in a bid to boost tourism in some of its more remote areas, BBC reported.

It comes as permit fees to summit Mount Everest, the world's highest peak, during peak season will go up to $15,000 (£11,170) from September - the first increase in nearly a decade.

Nepal's tourism department said it hopes the initiative will highlight the country's "unexplored tourism products and destinations". 

Mountaineering generates a significant source of revenue for Nepal, which is home to the world's 10 tallest mountains. Climbing fees brought in $5.9m last year, with Everest accounting for more than three quarters of that, according to BBC.

US President Donald Trump has announced a steep 50 percent tariff on imports from India, effective Aug 27, a move economists say marks another escalation in Washington’s trade war tactics.

The tariffs do not stop with India; Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka have also been hit with higher rates. Nepal, however, faces a comparatively modest 10 percent tariff. Economic experts believe this lower rate could give Nepal a temporary edge in the US market, especially in products like hand-knotted carpets and readymade garments. But they caution that the benefit will only materialize if Nepal can ramp up production.

According to the Department of Customs, Nepal exported goods worth Rs 18.32bn to the US in the last fiscal year, while imports from the US reached Rs 25.97bn, leaving Nepal with a trade deficit of more than Rs 7bn. The US is Nepal’s second-largest export destination after India, with roughly 320 products shipped to the world’s largest economy annually.

Former Finance Secretary Chairperson of High-Level Economic Reforms Advisory Commission, Rameshore Khanal, believes higher tariffs on Indian goods could push some US buyers toward Nepal. India sends about 18 percent of its exports to the US, including garments and pharmaceuticals. If those products become more expensive, Nepal could see new demand for similar items, he added.

“Bangladesh and India will struggle to compete in garments if their export tariffs to the US remain double or more than Nepal’s,” Khanal said. “This could also attract foreign investors to set up manufacturing in Nepal to take advantage of the lower rate.”

Still, a recent study by the South Asia Watch on Trade, Economics and Environment (SAWTEE) warned that Nepal’s advantage might be short-lived, as the US could change its tariff policy if it signs new trade deals with larger economies. The study, titled “Decoding US’ Reciprocal Tariff: A Nepal Perspective”, urges Nepal to prepare a long-term trade strategy, improve the investment climate, diversify export markets and expand its product base to reduce foreign trade risks.

Industry leaders say the immediate impact on Nepal will be minimal, as the US tariffs target finished goods exported from India, not raw materials that may be re-exported via Nepal. “Only if global prices of certain goods rise will Nepal feel the effect,” said Akash Golchha, executive member of the American Chamber of Commerce in Nepal. “It will only be a problem for India because the revised rate applies to them.”

According to Golchha, even if a product is an American brand, if it is manufactured in India and sent to Nepal, it makes no difference. “This is for finished goods, not raw materials. If India imports raw materials from the US, manufactures them, and sends them to Nepal, there is no duty on that,” he said. “Since the US has raised tariffs only on India’s exports, goods going from Nepal will not be affected.”

Still, the shift in trade flows could lower prices for some imports into Nepal, as Indian manufacturers look for alternative markets to offload goods originally intended for the US.

Kshitij Dahal, senior research officer at SAWTEE, also said higher US tariffs would not make any impact on Nepal. “There are chances of Indian and Bangladesh garment manufacturers entering Nepal to open their factories to benefit from low tariffs for Nepal,” he added. Dahal expects foreign direct investment to come into the country to benefit from low tariffs. “However, since it is uncertain how long the US will maintain such tariffs, it is difficult to be certain about these possibilities for Nepal.”

While the new tariffs offer an opening for Nepal’s exports, the uncertainty over how long the US will maintain these rates makes it difficult to plan investments. Trade experts say Nepal must act quickly to exploit its comparative advantages in the US where it already enjoys preferential US access for 77 products.

Khanal believes Nepal should court garment manufacturers from Bangladesh and India to relocate production to Nepal. “With the US not raising tariffs on Nepal and the MCC compact moving forward, there is a real chance of attracting investment in Nepal and boosting exports,” he added.

Land is more than a physical resource—it represents the foundation of culture, livelihoods and dignity in Nepal. However, centuries of discriminatory policies have systematically stripped communities like the Tharu, Limbu, and Chepang of their ancestral lands, consequently deepening poverty, exacerbating ethnic tensions, and causing extensive environmental harm.

The 2015 Constitution offers hope: Article 37 ensures every citizen’s ‘right to appropriate housing’ and protection from unlawful evictions, while Article 51(e) calls for scientific land reforms to eliminate ‘dual ownership’, curb ‘absentee land ownership’, and manage land for productivity, ecological balance, and farmers’ access to resources. Yet the crisis remains staggering—the Land Issue Resolving Commission reports roughly 89,144 landless Dalit families, 168,888 other landless families, and 875,164 unmanaged settler families, potentially affecting 1.5m families or 6m people. The High-Level Land Reform Commission (2065) estimates 5.5m landless people, with women owning merely 16 percent of land and Dalits controlling only one percent of agricultural land.

A controversial law

Despite these constitutional mandates, Nepal’s government has tabled a Bill to Amend Some Nepal Acts Related to Land, closely mirroring a previously withdrawn ordinance. Although claiming to address longstanding governance issues, it has generated intense controversy due to concerns that it may facilitate elite capture, enable exploitation by land brokers, benefit real estate businesses, and cause significant environmental damage—including deforestation in the Chure region and misuse of forests, public lands and national parks.

The High-Level Land Reform Commissions, established at various periods in Nepal’s history, have consistently warned against ‘cosmetic’ reforms that fail to tackle semi-feudal structures. Instead, they advocate comprehensive changes to prioritize marginalized groups and protect ecosystems. Through historical institutionalism and political ecology frameworks, this analysis explores the urgent need for equitable reforms aligned with constitutional mandates and Supreme Court rulings.

Historical roots of land injustice

Nepal’s land problems originated centuries ago with policies systematically favoring high-caste elites over indigenous groups, dismantling communal systems that sustained communities. Cox (1990) demonstrates how the 1768 Gorkha conquest centralized land control and disrupted the Limbu’s ‘Kipat’ system—a communal tenure where land was collectively owned and could not be sold, preserving cultural identity and economic stability.

Historical institutionalism reveals how these policies are permanently locked in inequalities. The 1886 ‘male tenure’ policy allowed cultivators, predominantly Brahmans, to claim ‘Kipat’ lands through ‘subinfeudation’—dividing and transferring rights—turning indigenous Limbus into tenants on their ancestral territory. The 1964 ‘Land Reform Act’, while aimed at redistribution, was undermined by loopholes allowing elites to retain control, fueling ethnic tensions. The 1968 ‘Kipat abolition’ completely stripped groups like the Limbu and Chepang of their foundations.

This pattern repeated throughout Nepal. The Chepang’s ‘Kipat’ lands, granted in 1848, became ‘Raikar’—state-owned, taxable land—by 1854, pushing communities into poverty. In Dang valley, the Tharu’s Barghar system, a sophisticated communal model for equitable land use, collapsed after 1950s malaria eradication allowed Hindu settlers to seize prime lands, displacing 3,000 Tharus by 1980. The Limbu’s ‘Satya Hangama’ movement, seeking ‘Kipat’ restoration, was crushed by 1946, reflecting ‘legal pluralism’—the clash between customary and state laws.

According to the HLLRC (2065) report, today’s reality starkly reflects these injustices: 47 percent of small farmers control merely 15 percent of land, while three percent of large farmers hold 17 percent, and 20 percent of fertile land lies unused due to speculative holding by bureaucrats and brokers. Semi-feudal practices persist—dual ownership, absenteeism, and bonded labor systems like Haliya, Kamaiya, Haruwa, Charuwa, Kamalari and Gothala encompass approximately one million agricultural laborers. Women, despite working 18 hours daily, hold only 16 percent of land ownership. Indigenous peoples, one-third of the population, face systematic encroachment. Around 1.02m families (5.5m people) remain landless, forcing migration to India and abroad.

Global lessons

Nepal’s challenges mirror global land inequities. Westwood (1984) shows how the US South’s failed “land redistribution’—General Sherman’s 1865 promise of ‘forty acres and a mule’ to freed slaves—was reversed by political forces restoring elite control. Gates (1976) demonstrates how the 1862 ‘Homestead Act’ favored speculators over genuine settlers while displacing Native Americans. In Muscovy, ‘absentee land management’ triggered ‘peasant revolts’ (Melton, 1978).

Spence (1985) defines ‘landlessness’ as systematic exclusion creating ‘dead capital’—land unusable for loans or investment due to insecure tenure. Political ecology frameworks highlight how power imbalances enable elite capture, echoing Nepal’s current Bill concerns. Smith (2018) notes ‘global land use’ tensions harm marginalized groups, while Hrabovszky (1987) warns ‘land use pressure’ risks deforestation.

A fundamental right

Land represents a fundamental human right central to dignity and survival. Enemark et al. (2014) connect ‘land administration’—managing ownership, value, and use—to Universal Declaration of Human Rights' Article 17 (property) and Article 25 (living standards). ‘Tenure security’ aligns with Article 37 of Nepal’s Constitution. The ‘Social Tenure Domain Model’ recognizes a ‘continuum of land rights’, protecting informal tenure, though facing elite capture risks.

Nepal’s crisis produces profound impacts. Economically, losing ‘Kipat’ and Barghar lands drives poverty and migration through ‘dead capital’. Culturally, these losses sever indigenous traditions. Politically, suppressed movements like ‘Satya Hangama’ mirror global exclusion patterns. Environmentally, ‘land use pressure’ creates risks like Chure deforestation. Socially, bonded labor and inequalities persist with women and Dalits systematically marginalized.

Beyond cosmetic changes

The proposed bill must adopt the HLLRC’s structural reforms rather than perpetuating elite capture. Genuine transformation requires ending ‘dual ownership’ and ‘absentee land ownership’, redistributing land to tillers, and prioritizing Dalits, women and indigenous groups. Land classification must scientifically separate agricultural and non-agricultural uses. Agricultural land should be classified by production zones—grain, fruit, vegetable, cash crops, medicinal herbs, grazing, tea, coffee, cardamong, sugarcane, jute and special zones. Non-agricultural land needs residential, industrial and environmental protection designations. Special measures for fragile ecological zones like Chure and Mahabharat are essential.

Clear policies on priority rights and compensation are critical. As the HLLRC states, “Competition essential for capitalist development must be among equals.” Reforms must promote cooperatives, overhaul corrupt administration, and implement collaborative governance with monitoring to prevent land grabs while ensuring constitutional compliance.

A vision for lasting justice

Nepal’s 1.5m landless families face a pivotal moment. The proposed Bill must move beyond ‘cosmetic’ reforms by implementing the HLLRC’s blueprint to dismantle semi-feudal systems, restore ‘customary tenure’ like Barghar and Kipat systems, and protect ecosystems like Chure and Mahabharat. By aligning with constitutional mandates and Supreme Court rulings, Nepal can ensure equitable land access, empower marginalized groups, and boost agricultural productivity through cooperatives and modern methods.

Learning from global failures and local traditions, Nepal can establish a new standard for land justice, ensuring no community remains landless or voiceless. The choice is clear: continue cosmetic fixes preserving centuries of injustice, or embrace transformative reforms that Nepal’s Constitution demands and marginalized communities deserve.