Category: Opinion

Population concerns Nepal is looking to address with the 2082 Policy

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)

Nepal’s Population Concerns

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.

Overhyping the SEE can be stressful to teenager students

SEE is still overhyped in 2025; It’s time we move beyond the hype

By Sandeept

On June 30, 2025

In Opinion, Blogging, Education, essay

The results of the 10th Grade, Secondary Education Examination (SEE) create a huge buzz in Nepal. No other exam results get such hype. The overemphasis and craze for SEE results is the legacy of its predecessor, the School Leaving Certificate (SLC), which was called the Iron Gate because of the lucrative education and job opportunities it opened. Since the SLC is now taken at Grade 12 and has become the key credential for jobs and higher education, the SEE has lost its former importance. Unfortunately, SEE still takes centre stage in Nepal’s education, pressuring students, teachers, schools, and parents.

In this post, we discuss…

The Pressure of SEE

In 2022, I taught six 10th graders and twelve 9th graders at a private school. The 10th graders were worried about their SEE. The school management and parents were tense too. Lockdowns had affected their classes, and we had about three months to complete more than 75% of the syllabus of compulsory maths, science, and additional maths. They were taking classes from six in the morning to eight in the evening. The regular classes were, however, between ten and four. They were under immense pressure.

And I was under pressure myself. I was with them throughout their second half, teaching them three subjects in regular time as well as during the extra classes. Later, when they were all compulsorily hostelized for the last month before the SEE, the only thing they had to do was study. If they did anything else, they would be punished with canes.

I was against beating students and even controlling them, however. I always encouraged them to ask about the problems they did not understand, discuss their perspectives on Nepalese politics, and discuss how they used technology. Such an openness created some friction between me and the school management, but eventually, the students coped with the pressure and completed their SEE with outstanding GPAs.

How I gave the SLC

You can say my teaching experience was a special situation created by unprecedented lockdowns, but the 10th graders, especially from private schools, have been going through the same routine for decades. It’s how I studied, and it’s how the new generation still does. Nothing has changed, and perhaps, we have normalised the pressure.

Fifteen years ago I gave my SLC. That entire year, I woke up at 5 AM for school, returning home for meals and attending classes until 6:30 PM, followed by additional tuition from 7 to 8 PM. I often did homework until midnight, feeling exhausted but motivated by the mantra of a “better future.” After completing my SLC, I spent the first week sleeping in the hope of recovering from the intense routine.

This experience mirrors what my students went through years later, showing how entrenched our exam culture still is.

What has changed?

The SLC dropped the percentage marking system in 2016 and adopted GPA (most people still don’t understand it). Two years later, the SLC itself shifted from Grade 10 to Grade 12, with its value intact but hype reduced. The Grade 10 exams got a new name, the SEE. But the education system has remained the same (some say it has worsened); students, teachers, and parents still face the same pressure; and there is still unnecessary hype around it.

Why is SEE overhyped?

SLC’s legacy

As I said earlier in the essay, one of the major reasons for the overemphasis on SEE is the legacy of the SLC. For a long time, Grade 10 was the end of school education. The result of SLC opened the door to university degrees and job opportunities. Until four or five batches before I took the SLC, the exams included questions from grades 9 and 10. Without rigorous preparation, it was difficult to crack the exam.

The government seems to have understood the effect of pressure on students due to the SLC. It stopped declaring the toppers officially, removed Grade 9’s course from the exams, introduced the GPA, and even changed the name. But the media still find toppers, and schools still compete to admit them.

Promotions of schools

Schools with SLC board toppers, a high number of distinctions, and first divisions used to be featured in national magazines. They used to see increased admissions. Schools competed to make their students toppers. Colleges and higher secondary schools that admitted toppers automatically attracted other guardians and students.

The same story continues in the SEE era. Media (traditional and social media alike) absurdly highlight students securing 4.0 GPAs as the toppers when it’s possible for students with lower GPAs to actually beat them, as I show in an example in this article. Higher secondary schools, most of them still marketing as “colleges,” label themselves as “topper’s choice.” SEE results are thus easier promotion tools for schools.

Mentality of the older generation

The SLC generation, including me, is still influential in making policy decisions. It also dictates the ways students should work towards their SEE. Teachers and parents are also from the older generation, where SLC used to be a tough nut to crack. They did the same things they are now imposing on the new generation, probably passing on the same trauma.

What should we do?

We should stop hyping the SEE

SEE is one of the many exams students gave in the past and will give in the future. Schools and teachers should facilitate students, not scare them. They should allow students to play, engage in sports, and participate in extra-curricular activities. Curriculum should be enjoyable and emphasise practicality and creativity. Parents should help their children stay calm, reduce pressure at home, and allow them to pursue their hobbies or interests.

We should listen to the students

Students of the present generation are full of creativity. Social media have also made them well-informed, even though mainstream media say otherwise. They are aware of the political and economic environment of Nepal as well as that of abroad because their siblings migrated there for education and/or work. They are also full of curiosity. Talking to them gives schools and teachers a fresh perspective on the world they are living in. It helps teachers modify their ways of teaching to meet their expectations. Students also learn critical thinking and even understand the adult world.

We should encourage better teaching and learning environment

Better teaching environment in Nepal often translates into classes with strict discipline, one-way communication from the teacher, and non-questioning students. Discipline is non-negotiable, but it is wrong to stop questions in the name of disciplining students. Like I said before, there should be a meaningful interaction between teachers and students. Schools should encourage discussions between the teachers and students. They should facilitate practical education and reward creativity.

Conclusion

Overemphasis on the SEE results may have some promotional advantage for schools, but other than that, it creates pressure on everyone. Despite the government’s intention to decrease the pressure on students of Grade 10, our mindset and education system are sticking with the old ways. Parents, teachers, school administration, and the media should work in tandem to reduce stress on the students. When we stop overhyping SEE, we get schools that prioritise creative learning, teachers who encourage critical thinking, and parents who allow pursuits other than study. Students, thus, get a learning environment where they are loved, respected, and less stressed.

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 Sandeept

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.