Stories of Sandeept

Experiences of a common man!

Category: Nepal Page 2 of 11

Right to Information vs Culture of Secrecy

Right to Information and Right Communication in Nepal

By

On July 16, 2025

In Constitution Study, Blogging, Nepal, Nepali

Constitution Study #9: A reflection on the conflict between the Right to Information and the Culture of Secrecy

Case Studies on Right to Information and Right to Communication

According to a report published by FreedomInfo, in 2010, following deadly communal unrest in Kapilvastu, local leaders sought the government’s investigation report to secure fair compensation. The Home Ministry initially refused, citing cabinet secrecy. Undeterred, they appealed to the National Information Commission (NIC), an institution established by the Right to Information Act, 2064 (2007). The commission ordered the government to release the report, which was delivered a year later.

During King Gyanendra’s direct rule after February 1, 2005, Radio Sagarmatha, South Asia’s first independent FM station was banned for broadcasting an interview of Prachanda, the black-listed Maoist leader. The station filed a complaint against the Royal Government’s movement in the Supreme Court. Radio Sagarmatha resumed its broadcast 48 hours and 47 hours following the Supreme Court’s verdict upholding the right to communication.

The above examples show that information is power, and communication is key to unlock it. In a democratic society, access to information and freedom of communication are not only constitutional rights, but also essential tools for transparency, accountability, and informed public opinion. The Constitution of Nepal enshrines both the Right to Information (Article 27) and the Right to Communication (Article 19) as fundamental rights. Together, these rights create a framework through which citizens can engage with the state, demand accountability, and participate meaningfully in governance.

Understanding the Rights

Right to Information (RTI)

Article 27 of the Constitution of Nepal states:

“Every citizen shall have the right to demand and receive information on any matter of his or her interest or of public interest. Provided that no one shall be compelled to provide information on any matter which must be maintained confidential in accordance with law.”

This right empowers citizens to access government-held information, including policies, decisions, budgets, expenditures, and plans. It is a legal tool for fighting corruption, ensuring justice, and promoting good governance.

Right to Communication

Article 19 guarantees the freedom of opinion and expression, as well as the freedom of the press, publication, and broadcasting, provided that these rights do not:

  • Undermine the sovereignty, territorial integrity, or national unity,
  • Violate public decency or morality,
  • Encourage caste, ethnic, gender, or religious discrimination or hatred,
  • Jeopardize the harmonious relations between federal units.

This right ensures that individuals and media can communicate, report, and express freely, with reasonable legal restrictions.

Procedures for Obtaining Public Information

To operationalize RTI, Nepal enacted the Right to Information Act, 2064 (2007). The Act outlines the following procedures:

  1. Filing a Request: Any Nepali citizen can file a request with a Public Information Officer (PIO) in the concerned office by filling out a standard form or writing an application.
  2. Response Time: The PIO must provide the information within 15 days. In case of threats to life or liberty, the time limit is 24 hours.
  3. Refusal and Appeal: If the information is denied or not provided, the applicant can appeal to the National Information Commission (NIC).
  4. No Need for Reason: The applicant is not required to state the reason for seeking information.

The Economic Survey also emphasizes digital progress in governance, such as broader access to information and banking through ICT expansion.

Exceptions: What Information is Not Accessible

Both the Constitution and the RTI Act list certain exemptions. The following categories are considered restricted:

  • Matters that jeopardize national security or sovereignty
  • Information that undermines foreign relations
  • Internal deliberations of public bodies
  • Confidential information relating to individuals’ privacy
  • Trade secrets or intellectual property of private institutions
  • Ongoing investigations where disclosure may impede justice

These limitations attempt to balance openness with legitimate state and individual interests.

Connection with the Right to Privacy

While RTI promotes transparency, Article 28 of the Constitution guarantees the Right to Privacy. This includes:

  • Privacy of personal life, residence, property, documents, correspondence, and reputation
  • Protection from arbitrary surveillance or disclosure of personal information

Therefore, RTI must be carefully implemented to not infringe upon the privacy rights of individuals. For instance, information about a person’s health, bank account, or family life cannot be disclosed without lawful justification.

This tension between transparency and privacy necessitates a nuanced approach. The state must develop clear guidelines and train public officers to differentiate between public interest and private confidentiality.

Tension between RTI and the Culture of Secrecy

As we have often seen in this Constitution Study series, there are always gaps between constitutional provisions and implementations. Nepal’s government and bureaucracy have a culture of secrecy because of rampant corruption and the silo problem. The government listed 154 kinds of information as “classified,” in 2008. The National Information Commission ordered the government to revise the list.

In 2011, the government again tried to classify 88 types of documents as inaccessible, but the Supreme Court ruled against the decision. In 2023, The government listed 87 documents as “classified”, including those related to procurement (which should actually be transparent), but the list is unavailable in the public domain.

Besides corruption, another reason for problems in classification of documents in Nepal is the lack of clear provisions in the Right to Information Act and the lack of its coordination with the Secrecy of Documents Act 2039 (1982).

Conclusion

The Right to Information and the Right to Communication are pillars of Nepal’s constitutional democracy. They empower citizens, ensure accountability, and enhance public participation. However, their misuse and over-restriction can undermine these very goals. To strike the right balance, the state must improve legal awareness, ensure institutional readiness, digitize access, and respect privacy. Only then can these rights truly serve their constitutional promise of building an open and just society.

Major population statistics of Nepal

Population concerns Nepal is looking to address with the 2082 Policy

By

On July 14, 2025

In Opinion, Nepal, Nepali, Public Interest

On the occasion of World Population Day on July 11 (Ashadh 27), Nepal published a new population policy. The Prime Minister’s statement, “Get married at twenty and have three children by thirty,” got huge attention in the social media. As with many of the statements the PM makes, it turned into jokes and memes. Many youths also criticised the government for creating unemployment and focusing on sending the productive population abroad. Although the statement created a buzz, it also made the youths on social media miss serious concerns put forth by the National Population Policy, 2082.

Some population statistics (Source: Population | National Population and and Housing Census 2021 Results)

1. Declining Growth Rate

The 2021 National Population and Housing Census (NPHC) averages Nepal’s annual growth rate of 0.92% per year in the decade 2068-2078 B.S. (2011-2021). This is a decline from 1.35% per year in the 2068 (2011) Census. Similarly, the total fertility rate (TFR) has fallen to 1.94, well below the desired 2.1. In the last decade, population policies talked about demographic dividend—the higher number of youths contributing to national development. The new trends indicate that Nepal may be losing that edge and have raised many concerns for the future.

1.1 Potential Negative Demographic Dividend

A decrease in the population growth rate implies a smaller number of children and the reduction of the active population, aged 15-59, in the future. Although Nepal hasn’t been able to utilise its 62% active population, a reduction indicates an even worse scenario, where there will be a shortage of human resources for production. This will negatively affect human capital formation and the economic growth.

1.2 Aging Population

In 2068, the population above 60 was 8.1% of the total population. The population of the elderly is now 10.21%. Improved health care has and will shoot up the number even higher in the coming decades. The government may have to spend more on the elderly’s health. The reduced active population will have to spend more on the care of their parents, creating economic pressure.

1.3 Underutilisation of Infrastructure

A lower population may not have the need for a large number of infrastructures. Also, the lack of human resources owes to the decline in development and economic activities.

1.4 Reversal of Family Planning Programmes

The government will now have to encourage youths to have more children, and the PM’s statement seems relevant in that context. However, the majority of the youth are not ready to get married, let alone have three children by their thirties. Employment opportunities are scarce, inflation is high, and there is no encouragement to industries and entrepreneurship. Given our situation, it is easier to press for a lower number of children. How can one think of marrying and having three children when surviving alone is a struggle?

2. Rapid Out-Migration

Nepal has a high rate of out-migration. For instance, in 2023, the Department of Immigration’s data showed that 70,915 (36,663 men and 34,251 women) left the country to reside elsewhere permanently. Similarly, 808,415 Nepali citizens went for foreign employment, of which 89.5% were males. Moreover, 108,542 (~55% male and 45% female) students went abroad to pursue their studies. Very few return back to Nepal. Out-migration driven by globalisation has not only reduced the population but also deprived Nepal of skilled human resources vital for national development.

The fact that more people are settling in other countries with their families means that Nepal is losing its source of remittance. Although the Nepalese diaspora has been contributing to various development endeavours, it is uncertain whether they will continue doing so if they don’t have any familial roots in Nepal.

3. Drastic Change in Technology

In the last five years, technology has changed at a breakneck pace, changing the way the world operates. Many labour-intensive works are now being replaced by automation, robotics, and artificial intelligence (AI). Nepal lags behind in the development and adoption of new technologies. There is also a possibility of reduced labour demand in developed countries. The National Population Policy acknowledges that the rapid growth in technology might elevate the problem of unemployment at home and abroad.

Policy Proposals to Solve the Above Problems

To address the problems caused by low growth rate, the National Population Policy 2082 proposes to revisit and revise family planning programs to align with current and future demographic trends and strengthen reproductive health services. The open-ended policy wording means that for now, the government will work towards increasing birth rate and modifying family planning programmes.

The policy aims to make foreign employment skill-based, prioritise the knowledge on AI, and utilize the human resources on national development. For internal migration, the policy aims to strengthen information and data systems, increase economic activities in rural areas to create employment, and systematize internal migration through integrated settlement development.

For addressing the challenges brought about by technology, the policy proposes revising the education system to be entrepreneurship, and production-focused, prioritize skill and competence enhancement in new technologies and artificial intelligence (AI) for Nepali workers, and increasing investment in productive sectors like tourism, modern agriculture, infrastructure development, and forest product processing to expand employment and self-employment opportunities.

Ground Realities

Despite elaborate policy proposals, the ground realities show a different picture. Infrastructures are subpar, the quality of education is questionable, the influence of globalisation is insurmountable, and the frustration of the youth is higher than Mount Everest. There is no way the government can stop the youth from going abroad in search of opportunities. It might even encourage out-migration to improve the economy via remittance. Unless Nepal improves infrastructures and encourages the youth for entrepreneurship and mass employment, the National Population Policy has very little chance of success.

A symbolic image of justice in Nepal under the control of shadowy figures while the others are in trouble

Crisis of Justice in Nepal: Who Gets It and Who Doesn’t

By

On June 11, 2025

In Constitution Study, Humans and Humanity, Nepal, Nepali

Constitution Study #8: An analysis of eroding faith on justice in Nepal

Political Meddling and Public Distrust in Justice

In recent years, public confidence in Nepal’s judiciary has eroded to alarming levels. From controversial rulings to suspected backdoor deals, the very institution meant to safeguard fairness and the rule of law now finds itself entangled in political webs.

Recent Examples of Political Interference:

  • Attempt of Impeachment against Chief Justice Sushila Karki (2017): On April 30, 2017, 239 Members of Parliament (MPs) filed the impeachment motion against Karki. It was the first time any Chief Justice had faced impeachment. The then Judge of the Supreme Court Cholendra Shamsher Rana ruled against the move on May 5 and reinstated Karki.
  • Chief Justice Cholendra Shamsher Rana’s Suspension (2022): Rana faced impeachment proceedings not solely due to his alleged misconduct, but also due to political realignments. Reports suggested political parties coordinated the move when he resisted some executive appointments—blurring the lines between accountability and retaliation.
  • Impunity in Corruption Cases: Several politicians implicated in high-profile scams (e.g., the Lalita Niwas land grab, gold smuggling cases, and fake Bhutanese refugee scandal) have either evaded prosecution or benefited from procedural delays. Courts appear reluctant to confront power centers.
  • Selective Enforcement: Political opponents often face swift charges, while ruling party members are granted procedural leniency, bail, or silence from investigative agencies.

The judiciary’s proximity to party interests has created a justice system that feels arbitrary, inconsistent, and aligned with power rather than principle. This has weakened the moral authority of the courts and shaken citizens’ belief in equal justice.

What Does the Constitution Say?

Despite the current realities, the Constitution provides a comprehensive framework for justice in Nepal:

Article 20: Right to Justice

  • Guarantees the right to fair trial, legal counsel, and presumption of innocence.
  • Emphasizes judicial independence and impartiality.

Article 21: Rights of Crime Victims

  • Ensures victims’ rights to information, participation, compensation, and dignified treatment.

Article 42: Right to Social Justice

  • Mandates proportional inclusion of women, Dalits, Adivasis, Madhesis, Muslims, backward regions, and gender minorities in state bodies.

The Constitution, on paper, envisions justice not only as due process in courts but as a tool of social transformation. Justice in Nepal is not just about being heard—it’s about being seen, represented, and uplifted.

Loopholes That Enable Political Influence

While the Constitution upholds judicial independence in principle, several weaknesses open the door for manipulation:

  1. Judicial Council Composition (Article 153):
    • The Chief Justice heads the Council, but its members include a minister, the senior-most justice of the Supreme Court, a nominee of the President (on executive advice), and a senior advocate recommended by Nepal Bar Association.
    • The fact that three of five members are directly affiliated to politics (and there is a high possibility of the Chief Justice and the Judge to be politically oriented as well) allows ruling parties to influence judge appointments, transfers, and promotions.
  2. Impeachment as a Political Tool (Article 101):
    • Judges can be impeached by a fourth of Parliament members. While this ensures accountability, it can also be abused as a weapon by political factions.
  3. Delay in Judicial Appointments:
    • The executive has frequently delayed nominations to influence court compositions during key cases.
  4. No Constitutional Limit on Interim Orders:
    • Frequent, ambiguous interim orders from courts create a perception of tactical favoritism, especially when sensitive political or corruption cases are involved.

Why People Are Losing Faith

The erosion of judicial credibility isn’t merely procedural—it’s deeply emotional and experiential. People lose faith when:

  • Cases drag on for years without resolution.
  • Judges with known political leanings preside over politically sensitive cases.
  • Victims of caste-based violence or rape fail to get justice while perpetrators are shielded by local or national politicians.
  • Legal aid remains inaccessible for those who can’t afford it, making justice a privilege for the rich.

In Fiscal Year 2022/23, Nepal scored 0.52 in the Rule of Law Index—barely halfway to an ideal system. That doesn’t mean there is no justice in Nepal. It means that the law works—sometimes. For some. But for millions of Nepalis, especially those from rural, Dalit, and indigenous communities, it works slowly, selectively, or not at all. Surveys and government reports suggest these groups rarely seek legal redress unless absolutely necessary—and when they do, they often feel unheard, humiliated, or dismissed.

The Path Forward: Reclaiming Justice

Justice in Nepal can be saved, but only through urgent reforms rooted in transparency, inclusivity, and courage.

Suggested Reforms

  1. Revamp the Judicial Council: Exclude executive members; ensure the Council is independent with balanced representation from civil society, bar associations, and retired justices.
  2. Transparent Appointment Processes: Publish criteria and reasoning for judicial nominations, transfers, and promotions.
  3. Strengthen Legal Aid: Expand the budget and outreach of legal aid centers, particularly in marginalized and remote areas.
  4. Language and Accessibility Reform: Provide translation and legal materials in local languages; make courtrooms less intimidating for laypeople.
  5. Empower Local Justice Systems: Incorporate indigenous dispute resolution mechanisms under constitutional safeguards to serve communities historically left behind.
  6. Establish Independent Judicial Oversight: Create an autonomous ethics commission for judges to investigate misconduct separate from parliamentary impeachment.

Conclusion: A Constitution is Only as Strong as Its Execution

The Constitution of Nepal speaks eloquently of justice—legal and social, personal and collective. But when laws are manipulated and courts become extensions of political games, the promise becomes a lie.

Justice must be rebuilt—not through slogans or courtroom formalities, but by restoring dignity to the powerless, accountability to the powerful, and trust to the people. Without that, justice in Nepal will remain, tragically, a word in a book few can afford to believe in.

An image showing two Jholes burdened by indifferent leadership and ideologies

The Dangers of Jhole Politics in Nepal and Why We Should Avoid It

By

On June 9, 2025

In Opinion, Blogging, Humans and Humanity, Nepal, Nepali

In a recent social media post, Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli shared an image boldly stating, I am a Jhole). It was a provocative twist on a term repeatedly used to mock political sycophants — the Jhole, those who carry their leaders’ ideological and literal bags with unquestioning loyalty. By embracing the label, Oli turned it on its head, drawing parallels to Tyrion Lannister’s iconic line from Game of Thrones:

“Never forget what you are. The rest of the world will not. Wear it like armour, and it can never be used to hurt you.”

Psychologically, it was a masterstroke. What had once been a symbol of ridicule is now recast as a badge of honour. It arms party cadres with moral confidence and a ready-made justification for loyalty. It strengthens in-group identity and inoculates against public criticism. In a time of waning ideological clarity and rising cynicism, such reaffirmation is emotionally powerful.

But this reframing comes at a steep cost.

The idea of being a Jhole contradicts the very essence of democratic citizenship. Nepal is at a juncture where political awakening, not blind allegiance, is the need of the hour. When being a Jhole becomes aspirational, it signals a dangerous retreat from critical engagement. It celebrates hierarchy over participation, obedience over dialogue, and ideology over truth.

In a country reeling from institutional decay, corruption, and disillusionment with mainstream politics, embracing the Jhole identity is not brave — it is escapist. A true patriot cannot afford to be a bag carrier of any leader or party. We must ask questions, demand accountability, and have the courage to stand apart when needed. Ideological loyalty should come from understanding and belief, not from submission.

Ironically, the moment a leader wears the insult as a crown is also the moment the rest of the party members boldly follow suit. By accepting the term Jhole, they normalise a culture where subservience is rewarded and independent thought is suspect. They cultivate an indifferent leadership that does not care about the problems ordinary citizens face.

This is not a personal attack on the Prime Minister but a plea to every Nepali:

Let us not be flattered into submission. We must be more than Jholes — we must be citizens.

In a democracy, the highest duty is not to follow but to question. That is the only way we break the chain of servitude.

Disclaimer: This piece reflects critical reflection on public discourse and is intended to encourage democratic engagement, not to target any individual personally.

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.

Page 2 of 11

Previous

Next

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén