State and Nation in the Constitution of Nepal

Constitution Study #3: Between promises and practices of state- and nation-building

Reading the Constitution of Nepal can be frustrating when similar words represent different meanings. For instance, the words “state” and “nation” interchangeably in casual conversations and articles, and at times, even in political discourses. The Constitution, however, formally defines them as different concepts and dreams of a just, inclusive, and united Nepal. But, as anyone who has walked through a village neglected by development or spoken with someone whose language isn’t recognized in state institutions knows, dreams don’t always unfold as promised.

In this article, I explore the definitions and distinctions of the concepts of “state” and “nation” and critically examine the ongoing projects of state-building and nation-building within Nepal’s constitutional and socio-political context.

1. Constitutional Definitions of State and Nation

i. State:

Article 4 defines Nepal as an:

“… independent, indivisible, sovereign, secular, inclusive, democratic, socialism-oriented, federal democratic republican state.”

The State is thus, a legal and political construct designed to exercise authority, ensure rights, and deliver governance. It represents the political system, power separation and division of political units.

The Nepal State is constituted by its independence, constitutional and popular sovereignty (Articles 1 and 2), and democratic and federal institutions (federal, provincial, local).

ii. Nation:

Article 3 declares:

All the Nepali people, with multi-ethnic, multi-lingual, multi-religious, multicultural characteristics and in geographical diversities, and having common aspirations and being united by a bond of allegiance to national independence, territorial integrity, national interest and prosperity of Nepal, collectively constitute the nation.

The definition of Nation says that it is a socio-cultural construct based on shared historical experiences and collective aspirations. It is the culmination of the Nepali people—from Olangchung Gola, Taplejung to Chandani-Dodhara, Kailali to Limpiyadhura, Darchula to Kechana, Jhapa—in their diverse identities, cultures, and their interests, desire for independence and territorial integrity. A nation is, therefore, upheld by its people, united by common goals in spite of differences among themselves.

The Preamble of the Constitution also emphasizes the sovereignty of the people and unity in diversity.

2. State-building: Structures and Challenges

i. Structures Created

The Constitution has created a three-tiered federal system with a complex web of institutions and governance structures. The primary aim of federalism is for decentralization of power and resources, while enhancing accessibility to basic services among common people.

ii. Challenges:

Despite the Constitutional promise, federalism in Nepal has faced several challenges, including, but not limited to,

• Capacity gaps and coordination issues between levels of government.
• Insufficient and complicated legal provisions, for example, provincial laws on civil service came out before the federal law, creating confusion and chaos.
• Weak implementation of laws and fiscal federalism.
• Political instability affecting Federal and Provincial levels.
• Patronage-driven bureaucracy.
• Public disillusionment due to unmet expectations.

The current state of state-building in Nepal is seen not only in frustrated youths going abroad but also in leaders who won elections believing they could bring some change. The frustration is slowly converting to rage, displayed through protests, riots, and extra-constitutional demands of monarchy. What comes out of it will depend on various factors, prominent among them, popular sovereignty, discussed in this article.

3. Nation-building: Identity, Inclusion, and Discord

i. Efforts:

Nation-building encourages the feeling of ownership among all the Nepali people irrespective of their origin, languages, cultures, and traditions. The Constitution commits proportional inclusion and participation. It legally recognises indigenous nationalities, languages, and cultures. It also sets up affirmative actions in civil service, education, and representation.

While constitutional provisions for inclusion are commendable, true nation-building demands more than legal recognition. It requires a reconciliation with past injustices, the crafting of shared national narratives that embrace all Nepalis, and reforms in education that foster empathy, dignity, and mutual respect. Without these cultural and psychological foundations, legal measures risk becoming hollow gestures.

Several civil servants and schoolteachers are in their positions today because of these provisions, and the strengthening of commissions like the Public Service Commission (PSC). The change is palpable. These changes demonstrate the Constitution’s strength and make me hopeful, but the gaps in implementation are hurting the sentiments of the constitution.

ii. Gaps and Tensions: From Constitutional Promise to Political Reality

Despite constitutional guarantees, there are some grave areas of concern surrounding nation-building. For instance,

• The Sixteenth Plan (2024/25–2028/29) continues the language of justice, prosperity, and inclusion, but acknowledges structural weaknesses in governance, economic equity, and service delivery.
• The unfulfilled promises of transitional justice continue to alienate conflict victims. Without formal reconciliation, the wounds of the past hinder a shared future.
• Despite impressive gains in literacy, infrastructure, and legal frameworks, the gap between constitutional vision and lived reality remains significant.
• Economic Survey 2080/81 highlights both progress and persistent disparities in income, access, and human development.

Weaknesses in governance brought about by lawlessness, injustice, and corruption makes people lose hope. They feel abandoned by the government and set up their own ecosystem outside the constitution and laws for survival. The result could be a rise in outlaws or militants, risking increase instability and violent resistance in marginalized regions.

For nation-building to thrive, Nepal needs shared narratives that recognize Madhesi heroes, Janajati resistance, and Muslim contributions alongside more mainstream histories. Without such narrative parity, inclusion remains symbolic.

Similarly, education remains one of the most underutilized instruments in Nepal’s nation-building project. A curriculum that genuinely reflects Nepal’s ethnic, linguistic, and regional diversity—not just tokenistic mentions—can nurture empathy and unity among the next generation.

Conclusion

Nepal’s Constitution lays a bold foundation for a democratic, inclusive, and sovereign state that celebrates its multi-ethnic national character. However, the transition from textual commitment to substantive transformation demands deeper reforms, robust implementation, and sincere political will. The absence of political will not only hampers the implementation of constitution but also raises distrust among the people. True nation-building must go beyond symbolic inclusion to embrace structural change, social justice, and a reimagined civic unity that respects diversity.