Stories of Sandeept

Experiences of a common man!

Category: Constitution Study

An image showing inequalities in different steps despite equality before the law

Does True Equality Exist in Nepal?

By

On June 4, 2025

In Constitution Study, essay, Nepal, Nepali

Constitution Study #7: A Deep Dive into Article 18 and the Struggle for Real Equality

Aspirations of equality—the state of having equal status and opportunities—inspired a decade-long armed revolution from 1996 to 2006. The civil war promised to end inequalities brought about by systematic and social discrimination, nominal decentralisation, and the lack of fair political and economic opportunities. Yet biases and persecution based on gender, caste, religion, and economic class persist.

Are we really equal? What does the Constitution of Nepal say? What is happening in practice? If the constitution guarantees equality before the law, why do inequalities remain?

1. Article 18: The Promise of Equality

Article 18 of the Constitution of Nepal guarantees the Right to Equality:

(1) All citizens shall be equal before law. No one shall be denied the equal protection of law.

This provision aligns with the Right to Live with Dignity (Article 16), which we discussed previously.

Article 18 further asserts:

(2) No discrimination shall be made in the application of general laws on grounds of origin, religion, race, caste, tribe, sex, physical condition, disability, condition of health, marital status, pregnancy, economic condition, language or
region, ideological conviction or on similar other grounds.

(3) The State shall not discriminate among citizens on grounds of origin, religion, race, caste, tribe, sex, economic condition, language, region, ideological conviction or on similar other grounds.

The prevention of discrimination is further reinforced through Article 24. It bans discrimination and untouchability in any private and public places, including workplace, production and distribution of goods, services, and facilities, and even criminalises such actions.

This does not, however, prevent the State from making special legal provisions for the protection and empowerment of groups facing historical or structural disadvantages—such as women, Dalits, indigenous nationalities, Madhesi, Tharu, Muslims, persons with disabilities, backward regions, gender minorities, and even indigent Khas Arya.

Such special provisions, enshrined in the Article 18 (3) reappear in the rights of women (Art. 38), children (Art. 39), Dalits (Art. 40), senior citizens (Art. 41), the Right to Social Justice (Art. 42), and the Right to Social Security (Art. 43), proportional representation in the parliament, and allocation of spots for a woman and a Dalit woman in the Wards of Local Bodies.

Article 18 also eliminates gender discrimination stating:

(4) No discrimination shall be made on the ground of gender with regard to remuneration and social security for the same work.

(5) All offspring shall have the equal right to the ancestral property without discrimination on the ground of gender.

These provisions on paper form a robust framework for equality. But the deeper question remains: Are they honoured in practice, or are they simply constitutional aspirations still out of reach for many Nepalis?

2. Is Equality Only on Paper?

Despite the lofty promises of Article 18, Nepal continues to grapple with structural inequalities that prevent its citizens from enjoying real equality before the law. These constitutional guarantees are often undercut by the lived reality of systemic bias, social discrimination, and uneven access to justice.

The Constitution also upholds the Right to Justice under Article 20, which guarantees:

“Every person shall have the right to a fair trial by an independent, impartial and competent court…”

Yet, elites accused of corruption or abuse of power often receive lenient treatment—or see cases against them delayed indefinitely or dismissed. Meanwhile, ordinary citizens endure prolonged trials and harsher punishments even for minor violation or dissent.

This selective application of justice creates a double standard: one law, two treatments.

2.2 Discrimination and Unequal Access

Even though Article 24 criminalizes caste-based discrimination and Article 18 bars prejudice based on identity or economic status, violations are still widespread.

Recent Findings

According to the Economic Survey 2081-82:

  • Dalits and disadvantaged communities continue to lag in education, employment, and political representation.
  • While human development indicators have improved overall (reaching 0.622), inequality persists across provinces. For instance:
    • Gandaki leads in economic growth (5.51%), while Sudurpashchim remains lowest (3.32%).
    • Local budgets and access to services are unevenly distributed, with underfunding common in backward and remote areas.

These disparities mean that geographic location and birth identity still largely determine one’s opportunities—a clear breach of Article 18(3).

2.3 Gender and Economic Inequality

Article 18(4) and (5) aim to eradicate gender-based inequality in pay and inheritance. Yet:

  • Women and gender minorities remain underrepresented in decision-making roles.
  • A wage gap persists in many sectors.
  • Marginalized groups have limited access to land ownership, formal banking, and education—despite state-backed affirmative policies.

2.4 Public Perception and Trust Deficit

The 16th Plan of Nepal underscores “inclusive development,” but does not shy away from admitting that trust in public institutions has eroded due to inequality, corruption, and lack of responsiveness.

When citizens do not feel protected by the law or adequately represented in governance, the very legitimacy of the constitutional state is called into question.

3. Why Inequality Persists Despite the Constitution

Nepal’s Constitution boldly enshrines the ideals of equality (Article 18) and justice (Article 20), but these promises often fail to materialize in the lived experiences of many citizens. Why? The persistence of inequality in Nepal can be traced to a combination of historical exclusion, weak institutions, and socio-political inertia.

3.1 Historical and Cultural Legacy

Nepal’s social fabric has long been shaped by entrenched hierarchies—most notably caste, ethnicity, and patriarchy. Though untouchability is criminalized under Article 24, many Dalits and Janajatis still face discrimination in daily life, from public spaces to religious institutions. The state itself historically favoured the Khas-Arya male elite, creating structural inequality in education, employment, and political access.

3.2 Weak Implementation of Progressive Laws

Nepal has one of the most progressive constitutions in South Asia, yet implementation lags behind:

  • Police and local authorities often fail to register complaints of discrimination or violence, especially when victims belong to marginalized groups.
  • Judiciary remains under-resourced and male-dominated, with only 3% women in judicial positions (Economic Survey 2081-82).
  • Many local governments still lack capacity or willingness to enforce inclusion measures.

3.3 Skewed Economic Structure

Economic power remains concentrated among dominant groups:

  • Dalits, Muslims, and gender minorities are overrepresented in informal, low-paying, and insecure work.
  • Access to land, credit, and formal employment remains heavily skewed.
  • While poverty rates have declined nationally, multidimensional poverty remains high in Karnali (39.5%) and Madhesh (16th Plan), reflecting deeply rooted economic exclusion.

3.4 Structural Barriers in Education and Representation

  • Disparities in school infrastructure, teacher quality, and language of instruction disproportionately affect Dalit, Madhesi, and rural students.
  • Despite constitutional quotas, marginalized communities remain underrepresented in key decision-making roles, particularly in the bureaucracy and judiciary.
  • Symbolic representation has often replaced meaningful power-sharing, resulting in tokenism rather than transformation.

3.5 Political Tokenism and Elite Capture

  • Political parties routinely use identity-based candidates to attract votes, but rarely empower them to challenge entrenched systems.
  • Inclusion measures are often co-opted by elites of marginalized groups, who benefit personally but fail to advance their communities’ interests.
  • Affirmative action lacks proper monitoring, data, and enforcement, allowing loopholes and misuse.

3.6 Planning Without Accountability

Even national development plans recognize the gap between vision and reality:

“There is a lack of disaggregated and reliable data for effective targeting,”
— 16th Plan, Government of Nepal

This means policies are often misdirected or fail to reach those who need them most. Coordination between federal, provincial, and local governments also remains weak, limiting impact on ground.

4. The Unfinished Revolution

Today, on the Day of the Elimination of Caste Discrimination and Untouchability, Nepal must reflect honestly. The war may be over, but the revolution is unfinished. If the state cannot deliver on its promise of equality and justice, the credibility of the entire constitutional framework risks being hollowed out.

Equality before the law should not depend on wealth, power, or identity. It must be lived reality—not just constitutional poetry.

5. A Call for Constitutional Realization

The gap between constitutional ideals and social reality is stark. When equality before law becomes a privilege rather than a right, and justice is contingent upon status, the foundation of democracy is eroded. Upholding Articles 18 and 20 requires not only legal reforms but structural change, public accountability, and genuine political will.

Nepal must move beyond symbolic guarantees to substantive equality and justice—only then can it truly call itself a republic of the people.

A hand with closed fist breaking out of chained handcuff symbolising the right to freedom

Freedom in Nepal: Constitutional Guarantees, Legal Limits, and the Danger of Silencing Dissent

By

On May 28, 2025

In Constitution Study, Nepal, Nepali, Politics

Constitution Study #6: How Free Are We?

Freedom—a term we instinctively link with democracy. We think of freedom in Nepal as the right to speak, to question, to move, to protest, and to live with dignity within its territory. Article 17 of the Constitution of Nepal boldly declares this right for every citizen. And yet, in the lived experience of many Nepalis, freedom feels conditional, fragile, and at times, dangerous.

So, what does the Constitution really say about freedom? Where does it draw the line? And how can the very right meant to empower citizens be used to suppress dissent?

What Does Article 17 Say?

Article 17 of the Constitution enshrines the Right to Freedom under six broad categories:

  1. Freedom of opinion and expression
  2. Freedom to assemble peacefully
  3. Freedom to form political parties
  4. Freedom to form unions and associations
  5. Freedom to move and reside anywhere in Nepal
  6. Freedom to practice any profession or business

At first glance, this seems an expansive and a robust shield for democracy. But behind this promise lie several restrictions, some of which are reasonable and others, potentially oppressive.

The Catch: “Reasonable Restrictions”

Each of these freedoms comes with legal qualifiers. The Constitution allows laws to curtail freedoms to protect:

  • Sovereignty, territorial integrity, and national independence
  • Public morality and decency
  • Harmonious relations between communities
  • Security, law and order
  • National secrecy and integrity
  • Reputation, judicial authority, and professional standards

On paper, these restrictions aim to prevent chaos. In reality, they can, and have been, used to silence criticism and criminalize dissent. Let’s explore these restrictions in practice.

Nepal’s Constitution establishes constitutional sovereignty, where power flows through constitutional institutions, not directly from the people. Article 2 declares that sovereignty lies with the people, but only as exercised through the Constitution. (See my earlier article: Can Nepal Restore Monarchy?)

Here’s the paradox:

  • Popular sovereignty suggests the people can question, challenge, and even revise the system.
  • But constitutional sovereignty sets limits — including on what people may say or do in the name of reform.

This tension becomes visible when:

  • Protesters are arrested for demanding structural change.
  • Critics are charged with contempt for questioning judicial decisions. In Chapter 6 of the book, Information Liberation, Brian Martin explains how defamation laws can curtail free speech.
  • Political parties are threatened with bans for pushing ideas seen as “anti-sovereign.”

The question is: Who defines sovereignty — and in whose interest?

Freedom and the Fear of Dissent

Over the years, we’ve seen numerous cases, in Nepal as well as around the globe, where government has used vague terms like “morality,” “nationality,” and “sovereignty” to stifle dissent.

In these cases, freedom seems to protect the powerful, not a sword for justice.

Why This Matters

As citizens, we must ask:

  • Who defines “morality” and “national interest”?
  • Are the laws protecting people, or protecting power?
  • Is the Constitution a living reflection of the people’s will, or a mechanism to control it?

Freedom cannot flourish in a society where criticism is feared, and where laws are used as weapons to silence those without power.

Exercising Freedom Responsibly

Freedom is not just a right — it’s a responsibility. We must exercise it with:

  • Respect for others’ rights
  • Honesty and courage
  • Awareness of consequences

But responsibility does not mean silence. True responsibility means using your voice to speak for truth, justice, and the dignity of all — even when it’s uncomfortable.

Final Reflection

The Right to Freedom in Nepal is both a constitutional guarantee and a battleground. We must defend it, not just on paper, but in practice — through protest, art, speech, storytelling, and solidarity.

Definitions of betrayal and treason raise urgent questions. Is it treason to question authority, or is it more treacherous to quietly erode the sovereignty of the people through corruption, abuse of power, and fear?

“To question your nation is not to betray it. To silence those questions is.”

For us to truly thrive, we must embrace the idea that sovereignty belongs to the people, not to political elites, not to closed institutions. It’s time we rise together to make that truth real, with our words, our actions, and our unwavering courage.

An image showing how Nepalis are struggling to live with dignity

Are We Nepali Living With Dignity?

By

On May 25, 2025

In Constitution Study, Blogging, Nepal, Nepali

Constitution Study #5: A look at the Article 16 (Right to Life of Dignity) of the Constitution of Nepal

An old man died in front of his district’s administration office. He was hoping to apply for the National Identity (NID) Card. His old citizenship was obsolete because of a new law, and without the NID, he could not receive his social security payment. The government stayed indifferent. Hundreds of people like him die every day — not just from disease or disaster, but from neglect.

People are dying not only in Nepal but also beyond the borders. Everyday thousands of Nepalese migrate out of the country to foreign lands for education and employment. Consultancies and “manpower” companies often exploit them. Employers abuse them. Customs officers hassle them upon their return. Some come back in coffins. Students who reach top universities and discover a hefty source of income apply for permanent residence (PR) and rarely return.

“We can’t live a respectful life in Nepal,” they say.

Some youths do return with fresh visions of developing their locality and, in turn, the country. What they face is a series of bureaucratic hurdles, ridicule, and demands for bribes. They return abroad again, dejected, frustrated, and disillusioned.

Mounting frustration does not always lead the youth to flight. It sometimes erupts into protests against the government. From Tikapur to Tinkune, the government’s response to protests has been brutal and increasingly violent. In Tinkune, two unarmed persons died, and more than twenty were injured. The government swept the case under the rug despite evidence from videos and eyewitness accounts of provocation from the police force. The government had set up an independent commission to investigate the Tikapur incident. For Tinkune, it refused to even do so.

These are not isolated incidents. They are the daily realities of Nepalese citizens. And so we must ask:

If we are struggling just to be heard, to be fed, to be treated with respect — are we truly living with dignity?

What does Article 16 say?

The Constitution of Nepal, in Article 16, guarantees the Right to Live with Dignity:

(1) Every person shall have the right to live with dignity.
(2) No law shall be made providing for the death penalty to anyone.

Clause (1) may appear simple, but it carries profound meaning. It establishes that the life of a person is not just to be preserved, but to be valued. Each person should be treated as themselves, never as a burden, a tool, or an expendable number.

In other words, the right to life with dignity implies:

  • Not just living, but living well
  • Not just surviving, but thriving
  • Not just being allowed to exist, but being recognized as a full human being

This right is foundational. It acts as the core from which all other rights emerge. We cannot enjoy the right to education, health, or expression meaningfully if our life lacks dignity. A poor child turned away from a hospital, a widow waiting endlessly for her pension, or a student afraid to protest — all these stories point to failures of dignity.

The second clause of Article 16 bans the death penalty and further reinforces this idea. It reflects Nepal’s constitutional commitment to the sanctity of life, even in the face of crime or dissent. No matter a person’s status or offence, the state has no right to strip away their basic humanity.

In addition, other constitutional rights directly support and expand the meaning of dignified life:

  • Right to freedom (Art. 17) protects dignity through voice, expression, and assembly
  • Right to equality (Art. 18) affirms that all people must be treated fairly
  • Right against torture (Art. 22) prevents inhumane or degrading treatment
  • Right to health, education, food, and housing (Arts. 31–37) ensure minimum conditions of well-being

Moreover, the Constitution envisions Nepal as a socialist-oriented state (Art. 4 and Directive Principles), meaning that the state must proactively create conditions in which citizens can lead dignified lives, not just wait passively for development.

And yet, despite these powerful promises, the question remains: are they lived realities?

How is the Right to Live with Dignity Systemically Denied?

While Article 16 promises dignity, Nepal’s state institutions and policies often fail to uphold that promise. The denial isn’t always loud — it often hides behind silence, delays, and inaction. When we step back from individual stories, we see a disturbing pattern of systemic failure:

1. Dignity is Treated as Charity, Not a Right

Citizens have to beg for what government should provide without question — documents, subsidies, compensation, and justice. Those suffering from disasters do not get relief because they are in need, but because they are vote banks.

2. Rights Exist on Paper, Not in Practice

From national ID systems to legal aid, Nepal’s institutions are filled with well-worded frameworks, but little enforcement, little accessibility, and less accountability. Dignity becomes conditional on location, literacy, connection, or compliance.

3. State Responses Prioritize Order Over Humanity

Whether in protest zones or disaster zones, the government is quick to suppress “unrest,” but slow to provide relief, justice, or truth. Citizens are often treated as liabilities, not rights-bearers.

4. Silence is a Survival Strategy

Many citizens no longer believe that asserting their rights will lead to change. They stay silent, self-censor, or simply leave the country. This erosion of democratic hope is the most dangerous sign of dignity in decline.

This is how dignity dies — not with a law banning it, but with indifference, delay, and quiet fear.

What Does It Really Mean to Live with Dignity?

Living with dignity is not an abstract ideal. It is a lived condition — a state of being in which individuals are recognised as human, treated with respect, and empowered to lead lives of their own choosing.

Let’s break this down:

1. Freedom From Humiliation and Fear

To live with dignity means we are not degraded—not by the state, not by society, and not by poverty or violence. It is a respect we need when we are not shouted at in a public office, denied entry because of our caste, or afraid to speak our mind in a protest.

2. Access to Basic Needs and Equal Opportunities

Dignity requires that life is supported with the basics: food, water, shelter, education, and healthcare. But it also goes beyond survival. It means we have a fair chance to pursue opportunities, to study, to work, to create, and to contribute.

3. Participation in Society and the State

A dignified life is one where we can raise our voice, vote without coercion, question leaders, and organize with others — without intervention or punishment. Dignity means we are not subjects, but citizens.

4. Respect for One’s Identity, Autonomy, and Death

It means our language, religion, gender, orientation, or background are not reasons for shame or punishment. It means we have control over us, our choices, and future. And yes, it also means a dignified death, not abandoned, anonymous, or caused by state violence or neglect.

5. Being Seen and Heard as Human

At its heart, dignity is about recognition. It is the acknowledgment that our life matters, that our pain is real, our dreams are valid, and our rights are not negotiable.

So, when a person is denied education because of their background, when a widow waits months for her social security, when a protester is gunned down and forgotten, it is not just a policy failure. It is a violation of their dignity.

What Needs to Change?

If the Right to Live with Dignity is to be more than a symbolic line in the Constitution, Nepal must undergo not just policy reforms, but a moral and institutional transformation. Dignity must become a guiding principle of governance, not an afterthought.

Here are five urgent and necessary shifts:

1. Make Dignity Measurable

We cannot protect what we do not track. Dignity must be translated into indicators and embedded into planning. This means:

  • Evaluating government performance using Human Development Index (HDI), Gender Development Index, access to justice, poverty, and inequality.
  • Publishing regular data on citizenship delays, protest violence, access to health and education.
  • Linking budget allocations to dignity-centered outcomes, not just economic growth.

2. Bring the State Closer to the People

The farther the state, the greater the indignity. We need:

  • Decentralized, responsive, and accountable local governments.
  • Local administrators trained not just in law, but in service, empathy, and anti-discrimination.
  • Bureaucracies that serve citizens, not obstruct them.

3. Ensure Real Accountability for Violations

A system that fails to punish injustice enables it. That means:

  • Independent investigations into deaths during protests, police brutality, and administrative neglect.
  • Public reporting of progress on high-profile human rights violations.
  • Legal remedies for citizens denied services, justice, or recognition — including timely court responses.

4. Rebuild Trust in Public Institutions

Dignity also means believing that the system will protect us. To rebuild trust:

  • End impunity for corruption and discrimination.
  • Make public offices more accessible, transparent, and welcoming — especially for the elderly, poor, and marginalized.
  • Teach dignity, rights, and constitutional values in schools and bureaucratic training.

5. Make Dignity a National Conversation

We must stop treating dignity as a poetic idea and start treating it as a practical demand. This can be done through:

  • Media campaigns that highlight everyday indignities and constitutional promises.
  • Public discussions on what dignity means in politics, healthcare, policing, and development.
  • Empowering citizens — especially the youth — to ask the dignity question: “Does this policy, action, or institution treat people with dignity?”

Because dignity doesn’t descend from above. It rises when the people insist that their lives — and the lives of others — must matter.

Conclusion

Let’s ask this question once again: Are we Nepalis living with dignity?

The answer, if we’re honest, is: not yet.

We live in a country where dignity is promised in law but denied in life. A country where an old man dies outside a government office, where youth flee or fall silent, where protesters bleed and the powerful remain untouched. A country where rights are often transactional, and where systems are built not to uplift but to endure.

But this is not a condemnation — it is a call.

Dignity is not a privilege reserved for the few. It is the birthright of all. And when the Constitution speaks of dignity, it is not speaking only to the state. It is speaking to us, to every citizen who refuses to be invisible, who demands fairness, who insists that respect should not depend on status, wealth, or obedience.

If dignity is the soul of democracy, then it is time we resurrect that soul, in our streets, in our offices, in our homes, and in our hearts.

The Constitution gives us the right.
The struggle gives it meaning.

Let’s not wait to be granted dignity. Let’s build a country where it cannot be taken away.

Nepali citizenship model

Controversies Surrounding Citizenship in Nepal

By

On May 21, 2025

In Constitution Study, Blogging, Nepal, Nepali

Constitution Study #4: Citizenship laws v/s identity

Nepal has a history of intense discussions regarding citizenship that extend beyond legal matters. Controversies around citizenship in Nepal arise from nationalism, identity, political authority, and state governance. Despite significant discord among political factions, civil society, and the general populace, the debates over citizenship persisted even after the adoption of the Constitution of Nepal in 2015. For some, citizenship represents state sovereignty and demographic stability, while for others, it is fundamentally linked to inclusion and dignity.

1. Constitutional Provisions and the Core Tension

Part 2 of the Constitution of Nepal (Articles 10 to 15) outlines the provisions of citizenship. Article 10 guarantees that:

No Nepali shall be deprived of the right to acquire citizenship.

But it is immediately limited by laws that dictate how and under what conditions citizenship can be granted (Article 11). The Constitution introduces different categories: citizenship by descent, by birth, and by naturalization. The provisions, especially related to descent and naturalization, have generated criticism due to perceived gender discrimination and restrictive language.

For instance, Article 11(2)(b) provides citizenship by descent to children of a Nepali father or mother. Also, Article 11(5) ensures that:

A person who is born in Nepal to a woman who is a citizen of Nepal and has resided in Nepal and whose father is not traced shall be provided with the citizenship of Nepal by descent.

The authority can still scrutinise and deny the mother’s claim for an absentee father can. However, the Article’s condition is even more fatal since it quickly sets a condition a person born to a Nepali mother and a foreign father may acquire naturalized citizenship. This has raised serious concerns about the principle of equality guaranteed under Article 18 of the Constitution, which prohibits discrimination based on gender.

2. Citizenship Amendment Bill: Stalled and Contested

In recent years, the proposed amendments to the Citizenship Act further fuelled controversy. Between 2018 and 2022, several versions of the Citizenship Amendment Bill were introduced and ultimately passed by the Parliament in July 2022. However, President Bidya Devi Bhandari rejected it.

President Bhandari’s decision was praised by some as protective of national sovereignty, while others condemned it as overstepping her ceremonial role. The drama and controversies around Citizenship Amendment Bill continued further when Bhandari’s successor Ram Chandra Poudel authenticated the dormant bill. The opposition again criticised the President’s move, for it was unconstitutional.

3. Sociopolitical Dimensions: Inclusion vs. Protectionism

Citizenship laws in Nepal are deeply intertwined with identity politics. Madhesi communities, in particular, have long faced difficulties in acquiring citizenship, often being viewed with suspicion due to their geographic and cultural proximity to India. Women, too, have faced systemic discrimination through the paternal bias in citizenship laws.

At the heart of the debate lies the fear of demographic change and political manipulation. Opponents of liberal citizenship policies argue that leniency could lead to mass naturalization of people from across the border, altering Nepal’s demographic and political balance. Proponents argue that citizenship should be inclusive, recognizing Nepal’s diversity and ensuring fundamental rights for all.

Then there are controversies around the Non-Residential Nepali (NRN) citizenship. Article 14 of the Constitution paves way to provide citizenship to NRNs living outside the SAARC nations. However, despite frequent lobbying, the NRNs only have “economic, social and cultural rights”. This means they can’t vote or have any political say. Lobbyists for NRN citizenship claim that allowing them political rights will make Nepal more inclusive.

4. Judicial Interpretations and International Norms

Nepali courts have offered mixed responses on citizenship cases. In some cases, the Supreme Court emphasized the need for equal citizenship rights for men and women in line with Article 18 and Nepal’s international obligations.

However, other decisions have deferred to the government’s interpretation of laws based on “sovereignty” and “national security” clauses in the Constitution (Article 289).

Internationally, Nepal’s citizenship laws have faced scrutiny for breaching obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), particularly on the rights of women and children. The emphasis on patrilineal lineage, increasingly seen as outdated and contrary to global human rights standards, still lingers.

5. What Lies Ahead?

Nepal’s citizenship debate is far from resolved. As political coalitions shift and constitutional interpretations evolve, the core tension of balancing national security and demographic concerns with individual rights and inclusion remains.

The path forward requires:

  • Amending discriminatory provisions in both the Constitution and citizenship laws.
  • Clear and gender-just procedures for granting citizenship.
  • A broader national dialogue that prioritizes human dignity alongside state integrity.

According to the Economic Survey 2080/81 (MoF), as of 2080 BS, only 63.4% of eligible Nepali citizens had received their National Identity Number. Similarly, 74% of children under five had been registered at birth. These figures suggest significant gaps in legal identity documentation, which affects citizenship recognition and access to public services.

The Sixteenth Plan (2024/25–2028/29) explicitly targets increasing national ID coverage to 90% and universal birth registration by 2028/29, recognizing the role of identity documents in governance and social justice (Sixteenth Plan, Chapter 1.6.1).

In the end, the question is not only “Who belongs to Nepal?” but also “What kind of Nepal do we envision?” One that is secure and exclusive, or one that is just and inclusive. We need to solve the controversies around citizenship to ensure the most basic of dignified living in Nepal.

State and Nation Building

State and Nation in the Constitution of Nepal

By

On May 18, 2025

In Constitution Study, Nepal, Politics

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

State and Nation Building
State and Nation Building (Generated using AI)

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.

Uprising in Nepal

Can Nepal Restore Monarchy?

By

On May 15, 2025

In Constitution Study, Nepal, Politics

Constitution Study #2: Reflections on Sovereignty, Monarchy, and Nepal’s Living Constitution

When I first set out to read the Constitution of Nepal in its entirety, I expected a legal document—dry, technical, full of jargon. What I encountered instead was a mirror, not just of law and governance, but of ourselves, our hopes, our betrayals, our fragilities. Somewhere along the journey, an unsettling question surfaced:

If the power of the State is vested in the Nepali people, and if they want to restore monarchy, would the Constitution still be valid? Can Nepal restore monarchy?

This question did not come in isolation. It arrived during a time of national anxiety. Pro-monarchist rallies were clashing with the government—voices rising from corners of frustration, nostalgia, and desperation. The very legitimacy of Nepal’s republicanism was being questioned on the streets.

Uprising in Nepal
A Protest in Nepal. Source: https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/nepal-can-democracy-recover-in-the-himalayan-nation

So, I asked. And I explored.

What the Constitution Says

Article 2 of the Constitution of Nepal lays out the provision for popular sovereignty:

“The sovereignty and State power of Nepal shall be vested in the Nepali people. It shall be exercised in accordance with the provisions set forth in this Constitution.”

This clause is both empowering and limiting. It declares that sovereignty lies with the people. But it must be exercised within the Constitution. This means constitutional sovereignty overrides popular sovereignty. And here lies the contradiction:

What happens when the people’s will itself wants to go beyond the current Constitution?

Can the Monarchy Be Reinstated?

Theoretically, yes. Practically, it’s a bit complicated. And yes, not without undoing the Constitution itself.

Nepal is currently a federal democratic republican state, as defined in Article 4(1). This identity is not decorative. It is woven into the Constitution’s foundation.

Reinstating the monarchy, may be possible through:

  • A two-thirds amendment in the Federal Parliament (Article 274),
  • A popular movement,
  • A referendum, or
  • A drafting of a new Constitution.

It’s not like we say, “We want the King back,” and poof! we get the King in an instant. It is a structural, existential shift. And it would legally nullify the current Constitution’s core.

What About the Constitution of 2047 (1990)?

The Constitution of 2047 (1990) was built upon constitutional monarchy. It was not perfect. It embodied a compromise between the king and the political parties after the Jana Andolan of 2046 (1990). Interestingly, even though the executive worked under the name of the king, it explicitly stated in Article 3:

“The sovereignty of Nepal is vested in the Nepalese people and shall be exercised in accordance with this constitution.”

Reinstating that Constitution would mean people still reigning supreme. However, the actions of king could not be challenged in court. He could declare an unfit heir, and people would have to accept him. He could choose anyone to head the Raj Parishad in his absence, undermining democratic representation. These provisions are both legally contradictory and philosophically paradoxical, which eventually resulted in extra-constitutional actions by the king, the political parties, and the reinstated parliament.

And yes, while the actions of the reinstated parliament bypassed formal legal channels, they were largely legitimized by the momentum of Jana Andolan II of (2063) 2006, a movement that many believed restored, rather than subverted, the people’s sovereignty.

But is it possible for Nepal to reinstate monarchy?

Maybe. The answer is in world history.

Cambodia’s Restoration: A Comparative LensIn exploring Nepal’s possible paths, I looked outward — to Cambodia.

  • In 1970, King Sihanouk was overthrown.
  • After a tragic chapter of genocide and communist rule, Cambodia returned to monarchy in 1993, not by reviving the old constitution, but by drafting a new one.
  • The new monarchy was symbolic, ceremonial, and constitutional. The real power remained with elected representatives.

Cambodia’s case shows us: Monarchy can return, but it must adapt to the times.

A Personal Reckoning

As I studied these questions of sovereignty, legitimacy, and revolution, the streets outside were turbulent. The clashes between monarchists and police, the chants for the crown, the counter-chants for the republic… they weren’t just noise.

They were echoes of something deeper: a broken trust.

The Constitution promises much: dignity, equality, justice. But the political system built atop it has failed too many, too often.
During those weeks, I saw not just a legal text, but a document under siege, not by mobs, but by neglect, by elite capture, by empty promises.

Where Do We Go From Here?

Theoretically, Nepal could become a monarchy again. But it would not be the same monarchy. Nor should it be.
Just as this republic must evolve or die, any future system must serve the people, not rule them.

As I often reminded myself:
A Constitution is not a crown. It is a contract.
It lives only if we believe in it, and act on it.

Final Thoughts

This journey left me emotionally raw, politically awakened, and intellectually humbled.

I don’t support monarchy. But I understand why some people now do. It is not because they all love the idea of kings. Maybe some do.
But it is mostly because they feel abandoned by the republic.

The Constitution of Nepal is still our greatest hope, but only if we make it real in the lives of the people it was meant to serve. Otherwise, it too will be remembered as yet another broken promise in the footnotes of history.

The Constitution of Nepal

My Journey Through the Constitution of Nepal: Lessons, Emotions, and Awakening

By

On May 14, 2025

In Constitution Study, Nepal, Nepali

Constitution Study #1: Beginning of the Journey

I recently dove into the Constitution of Nepal, all 35 Parts and 308 Articles of it—can you believe it? What started as a simple goal to memorise some stuff turned into one of the most eye-opening experiences I’ve had. This wasn’t just about learning the law; it felt like I was uncovering a whole world of promises, power dynamics, and the real struggles of people. It was emotional and pretty profound!

Why I Began

My primary target was to rote the Constitution of Nepal for my Public Service Commission (PSC) exams using ChatGPT. I initially copy-pasted each article into ChatGPT so that I could listen to them later on. However, I soon realised that the AI could do more than regurgitate the words I fed it. I now wanted to understand the foundation of our republic. I had read articles and opinions, seen news coverage of constitutional crises, and heard political slogans that referenced the Constitution, and even read it in parts. But I knew that without reading it myself, I was relying on filtered, often distorted interpretations. I decided I needed to go to the source.

How I Read

Like I said in the previous section, I used ChatGPT to read the Constitution. I didn’t rush. I read part by part, often returning to previous sections to understand cross-references. ChatGPT turned into a thoughtful companion on this journey. I asked not only about what was written but also what was missing, what historical events shaped a clause, and how global norms compared. I paired my study with the Sixteenth Plan and the Economic Survey to see how constitutional ideals translated (or failed to translate) into real governance.

What I Discovered

  • A Tension Between Aspiration and Reality: The Constitution of Nepal is remarkably ambitious. It promises equality, social justice, federalism, inclusiveness, and participatory democracy. But in practice, many of these promises remain unfulfilled.
  • Political Will Matters Most: Even the best-drafted constitution is useless if those in power do not honour its spirit. The political system appears hijacked by a few, turning inclusive provisions into political bargains and decentralisation into control.
  • Rights Are Only as Strong as Our Vigilance: I began to see how fundamental rights, unless backed by accountability and access to justice, can become empty slogans.
  • The Constitution Is a Mirror: It reflects who we are, but also who we hope to be. Reading it forced me to reckon with my own expectations of the state and my role as a citizen.

Emotional Turns

1. Protests

I undertook this study primarily between February and April 2025. These months were not calm. During this period, political turmoil shook the streets: pro-monarchist groups clashed with government forces. Tear gas, barricades, and chants of “Raja aau, desh bachau” collided with the Constitution’s promise of federal republicanism. The death of Sabin Maharjan and Suresh Rajak on Chaitra 15 (March 28) disturbed me.

I remember reading Article 1, which declares Nepal a federal democratic republic, while watching live images of protesters waving the old royal flag. I remember the government violating human rights as I was studying about the Constitution’s promise of a life of dignity. The timing was surreal, as if the Constitution itself was being challenged just as I was beginning to grasp its meaning.

During my reading, I found myself emotionally torn between fear and hope. Would the Constitution survive this wave of anger? Was this a backlash against corruption or a romanticism of monarchy? Could people still believe in republicanism if republican leaders had failed them so deeply?

2. Gaps between text and implementation

Reading the Constitution was heartbreaking. Certain provisions promised dignity and justice to groups I know have suffered. Others, like emergency powers, revealed how fragile our freedoms can be under the wrong hands. I reflected on past political betrayals, unsolved transitional justice, public disillusionment, and even personal stories of injustice shared with me over the years. The gap between promise and practice hurt.

The gaps between the text and the reality made me more sceptical. The Consitution of Nepal is not one with consensus but compromise. There are many things that need to change. Is the change possible within the framework of the Constitution? I have serious doubts.

Yet hope remains.

If we, the people, become aware of what the Constitution has given us, we can create a better future. We have the roadmap; we need to trust it, build on it, and make necessary modifications as we move ahead.

What This Journey Taught Me

  • That a constitution is not just for lawyers or politicians. It is for every citizen.
  • That meaningful change requires informed citizens who hold institutions accountable.
  • That constitutional literacy is a form of empowerment.
  • That the document is not dead. It lives. It evolves. And it must be read and reread.

The Road Ahead

Though I have completed reading it once, my journey is far from over. I plan to revisit specific articles, track major Supreme Court interpretations, and explore comparative constitutional law. I want to continue connecting the text to the realities on the ground through economic reports, provincial plans, and citizen experiences.

A Call

To anyone who hasn’t read the Constitution of Nepal yet: start today. Don’t wait for a political crisis. Don’t assume it is too complex. Read it for your rights. Read it for your responsibilities. Read it because it belongs to you.

This journey changed me. It awakened me. And I hope, in some small way, this post will awaken others too.

If you ever want a companion to explore the Constitution with, I know one who helped me, tried answering all my queries, and never once grew tired.

Page 2 of 2

Previous

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén