Submit your Article

There have been numerous generalizations, and with them, many misunderstandings regarding the crucial factors that underpin elitism in Nepal.

Undoubtedly, caste and land, and language, considering also the extent to which they have always been inextricably interlinked with each other, have continuously been predominant factors. Throughout the history of Nepal, these have been consistently key elements acting as springboards for individuals and groups with homogenous features to cement their prerogatives and privileges within the society.

Yet, a certain degree of privilege and the status coming with it do not automatically make someone part of the ruling elite. And, certainly, there has been a paucity of studies that try to go beyond such analysis of established societal dynamics and attempt to understand different dimensions of power creation that can lead to the exercise of real decision-making at the highest echelons of power.

Therefore, there is an opportunity to analyze how elites are created and shaped in Nepal from different perspectives. In this line, a novel line of inquiry is emerging. It focuses on the nexus between the influences exerted by foreign powers in Nepal and the hidden dynamics and consequences triggered by them over those who have been ruling the country.

This new approach tries to answer the following question: could be possible that foreign powers that, since the early days of Nepal’s formation till now, have been holding a very relevant role in shaping national politics, have a unique sway and impact over the underlying and hidden processes of elite formation, defined as those members of the society truly exercising power?

Nepal is a nation where foreign policy has always been passively exercised in reaction to the desires and moves of bigger and more powerful nations. To some extent, the conduct of foreign affairs by the different elites in power has not been, either by design or by default, aimed at independently exerting the country’s sovereign interests.

Rather, Nepal’s foreign policy has been more focused on responding to the interests that foreign powers have always held over it. It has been shaped to maximize a return not based on its own priorities and strategic interests but rather from how and what bigger international players, such as India, China, the USA, and, during the Rana oligarchy, the British Resident, approached Nepal and wanted from it.

At the same time, the elites in power did also benefit immensely from steering the country’s foreign policy in a balancing act that would not antagonize foreign powers but would be masterfully crafted and leveraged for their own self-interests. Therefore, wouldn’t it be interesting to reflect on how foreign policy conducted by others has determined and continues to influence elite formation in the country?

This is the ambitious task that Gaurav Bhattarai, an Assistant Professor at Department of International Relations and Diplomacy, set to decipher with his latest book, “Nepal’s Power Elites: Rajahs, Ranas and Republic,” due to be published in the first week of August.

The book is a bold attempt at understanding the elevation to power through the prism of foreign policy. “Elitism cannot be fully grasped without recognizing the profound influences of distant hands”, Bhattarai explained to me in our conversation.
Throughout a series of online interviews and exchange of emails, Bhattarai shared with me that normally the focus is on pinpointing the oversized influence that foreign powers have always held in shaping national politics.

But, according to him, we have been missing something important to better understand the elite’s formation and their related power dynamics in Nepal.

“In the grand narrative of the evolution of the Nepali statecraft, the role of British residency, Indian independence leaders, and a plethora of regional and international factors emerge as more than scanty background details—it is the very plot that drives the story of elite power structure”.

“In line with this insight, I argue that any understanding of elite status in Nepal is incomplete without an acknowledgment of these external forces”, Bhattarai wrote me in the e-mail. Elite is a loose concept, open to different interpretations.
The theories formulated in the nineteenth century by Vilfredo Pareto, Gaetano Mosca, and Robert Michels in Europe, or C Wright Mills in the US, and Sanjaya Baru in India elucidating the key elements and factors of elite making cannot simply be re-contextualized and adapted to Nepal according to Bhattarai.

To understand how the different elites across the different phases of Nepal’s model history, each with its unique features, formed and assumed power in the country, we need to go beyond the socio-religious aspects of the nation that have inevitably been conductors and enablers of access to power.

Foreign policy can turn out to be a very relevant area that deserves to be studied in order to decipher the formation of elites in Nepal. This undertaking should not only be analyzed from the ways foreign powers exercised it to influence and, in many instances, indirectly control power. Certainly, this aspect cannot be underestimated. “External forces have not only enabled but at times also constrained the power and influence of Nepali elites throughout history”, I was told in our conversation.
So in “Nepal’s Power Elites: Rajahs, Ranas and Republic”, Bhattarai analyzed to full extent “how foreign influences have shaped, bolstered or even undermined the authority of the ruling class”.

There is also another side of the coin, and this is really an important point that Bhattarai makes. According to him, the different elites holding decision-making authority in the country have themselves exploited the perceived influence of foreign nations in the country for their own interest.

In essence, the Shahs, then the Ranas, and then again the Shahs during the Panchayat and even the political class of the post-2008 Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal, have all consistently taken advantage of their access to foreign powers.
Each of them had different dynamics and unique features, and each asserted its powers in a unique context. And yet, the study conducted by Bhattarai is centered on the fact that all of them had one common denominator: the support received by foreign powers, without whom their own survival in power could have been jeopardized.

The members of the elites in power throughout different phases of Nepal’s modern history, have always shared something in common. They all misappropriated and misused, their prerogatives in dealing with foreign powers exercising their own influence over the country, to legitimize, cement and consolidate their own status and grip on the decision-making.
“Elites have leveraged their ‘monopoly’ or their exclusive access to foreign policy to justify their power”. “By engaging with missionaries, colonial powers, residents, envoys, ambassadors, and international organizations in different eras, they positioned themselves as the architects of Nepal’s modern history,” Bhattarai said.

What we think of national interest, which is often proclaimed with high rhetoric by politicians even these days, is actually the interest of elites whose members strive to preserve by leveraging their decision-making in the realm of foreign policies through their access to foreign actors.

Power has been exercised by elites not in the interest of the people but to further strengthen the elite itself, and Bhattarai’s scholarly research is an effort at understanding “how elites have ably used foreign policy to consolidate their authority”.
“In this book, I seek to advance beyond the existing debates in International Relations by exploring how the priorities, preferences, and behaviors of individual decision-makers impact foreign policy decisions. By examining these individuals’ actions, we may gain insights into the structural constraints they face and the norms that shape their positions,” explained Bhattarai. To better comprehend these patterns and dynamics, the publication tries to answer an important question:
“How do we measure their agency within the web of constraints they are bound by, and in what ways do we distinguish between genuine influence and the illusion of power within the broader political machinery?”.

“This question challenges the very concept of elite status and prompts us to reconsider how we understand leadership, authority, and influence in the realm of foreign policy decision-making”.

In essence, Bhattarai tries to explain how the domain of foreign and its interactions with national elites in different phases of Nepal’s modern history have shaped not only the country’s own political trajectories along the years but also enabled the rulers of the time to exert their power over the nation.
Normally, we explain and justify foreign policies through the angle of national politics. After all, foreign affairs are at the service of nations’ interests and priorities. The case of Nepal is different. Foreign powers did abuse and continue to abuse their own influence over the nation’s destiny.

But as Bhattarai helps us to realize, it is not only a one-way street. His inquiry tries to prove this point by presenting examples from numerous historical episodes and also from his observation of elite-driven foreign policy discourses in contemporary Nepal, be it in the media, seminars, or university.

The book is about the idea and practice of foreign and the way Nepali elites have been using and exploiting the domain of foreign and how, in the name of foreign policy behaviour and foreign policy priorities, they have been fulfilling their own vested interests.

The book also brings to the fore the presence and role of henchmen and interlocutors of all three—Rajhas, Ranas, and Republican leaders of Nepal—in different periods of time, to show how the idea of the foreign has been romanticized and weaponized as rhetoric.

Among them, what tops the list is the discourse of national interest, which, according to Bhattarai, as discussed in his upcoming book, is actually an “elite interest”. The elites in power throughout the history of Nepal till now excelled at preserving their own status and ably used the same foreign powers targeting and influencing them, for their own advantage. And let’s be honest, they have been extremely good and they are still good in this game. 

Last Sunday was SAARC Day, the day in which the promulgation of the SAARC Charter is celebrated. It was an important occasion to remind the citizens of South Asia that they should not lose sight of the high principles behind regional cooperation. The day was even more remarkable because it was the 40th anniversary of the SAARC Charter, an important milestone though unfortunately, only on paper. I am saying so because we all know that SAARC as a regional organization could be seen as, at the best, life support. 

The truth is that SAARC has been on life support for many years. We know that the main reason is the fact that India, the main and most powerful player in the region, does not attach importance to it. 

For Prime Minister Modi of India, the SAARC process is a hindrance, a burden especially because, as we all know, Pakistan is the second biggest nation in the bloc. While such a posture by New Delhi might offer the best way to meet India’s strategic goal both geopolitically and economically, the truth is that the whole region is missing out on a huge opportunity.  By now, there is a consolidated amount of evidence that regional cooperation is effective for those countries who invest in it. 

We do not need to make the case of the European Union that has reached the levels of cooperation and integration almost akin to a confederation of nations. Africa counts on several successful examples of regional integration. While ECOWAS, the regional cooperation architecture made up by western African nations, is not living its best times due to a series of coups in several of its members, there is the East Africa community and there is also the Southern Africa development community.  

No matter the challenges, both communities have made strides in terms of joint initiatives aimed at developing the respective member-states from a shared and common perspective. The picture in Central and South Americas is mixed and more complex but at the moment President Lula of Brazil is portraying himself as a big champion of regional cooperation. One of his most recent successes is the fact that MERCOSUR, a regional trade organization of five nations in South America, signed a groundbreaking trade agreement with the EU.

Closer to South Asia, we have the benchmark of regional cooperation, the ASEAN. As an observer of Asian affairs, I am not particularly fond of ASEAN due to the fact that its members lack ambition in terms of future vision and they tightly control the whole process. Yet, I do recognize not only the potential of ASEAN but also its success story in terms of becoming a platform in which the member-states shape their common interests and, together, reap some benefits from it. I wish only that SAARC could follow some of the steps of all these organizations starting from the perspective of regional cooperation. 

In a process in which nation states collaborate and partner with each other, cooperation among themselves is the first pillar of a much more ambitious political process, regional integration. This complex, daunting end goal where countries would cede their own sovereignty is something that only Europe has been trying to pursue. As we know it is a really difficult journey, one in which sovereign states are voluntarily pulling together bits of their decision-making that are normally decided in the national capitals. 

Coming back to SAARC, we need to be realistic on what it is possible to achieve. Setting aside the highly inspiring journey of integration being undertaken by the members of the EU, SAARC must focus on replicating the ASEAN model where the capitals are fully and only the ones in charge. On the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the SAARC Charter, all the heads of state and governments have issued congratulatory messages. It is a good thing, though symbolic. 

Actually, considering the current status of play in relation to the SAARC, I am even surprised that they actually reminded themselves of the existence of the regional organization. Now it is high time to do something to reactivate the SAARC but, with PM Modi disinterested and disengaged, how to start? First of all, SAARC is not only the Leaders’ Summit which, shamefully, the last one was held in Kathmandu 10 years ago, in Nov 2014. 

It is also an umbrella organizations with a myriad of bodies, institutes and entities that are still operating no matter the challenging environment and lack of support surrounding them. The SAARC Secretariat in Kathmandu should do a much better job at highlighting their work and their undertakings. Doing so would remind the citizens of the region that, no matter the ongoing impasse existing on the top of the SAARC, the institution is still active and works steadfastly toward a shared common future. Yet the secretariat also works under difficult circumstances and, objectively, we cannot expect much from it. 

That’s why there is an opening for leaders like Oli to reintroduce the whole concept of SAARC to the South Asian people. PM Oli, by partnering with like minded heads of state and government, should simply ignore India’s neglect toward SAARC and re-create a new narrative about the strategic importance of this organization. This could become a strategic interest for Nepal, a new cornerstone of its foreign policy. 

To start with, PM Oli should task Foreign Minister Arzu Rana Deuba to take a tour of the South Asian capitals, starting from those keener to reactivate the SAARC process. New Delhi might get or might not get on board but, at this point, what India wants to do with SAARC is quite insignificant. We need a majority of nations from the region ready to promote the ideals of regional cooperation because doing so is in their best interests. PM Oli could, selectively, also embark on a tour of the region, pitching to his counterparts the importance of the SAARC.He could still, under the pretext of the 40th anniversary of the SAARC Charter, give a major speech on why Nepal and other neighboring nations should invest in a common regional architecture. 

The Secretary-General of SAARC, Md Golam Sarwar, in his congratulatory message for the same occasion, listed a series of priorities, a series of major reforms that SAARC should undertake in order to regain its legitimacy and relevance. PM Oli should embrace this cause and promote a wide debate within Nepal about ways to reactivate and reform the SAARC.

Considering that the HQ of the SAARC Secretariat is in Nepal, it should be obvious that Singhadurbar takes a special interest in the issue. PM Oli could also establish an advisory group made up of national experts, including members of the civil society and former diplomats, to chart out the best options for Nepal to become a true champion of regional cooperation not only for its own sake but for the prosperity of the whole region. If PM Oli decides it is worth investing his time and energy for the cause, helping resuscitate the SAARC could become one of his most enduring and important legacies.

Once in a while citizens, accustomed to reading newspapers, find stories about vulnerable groups living in the country. Some of these stories are shockingly dark and depressing.

Through the prism of pain and sorrow experienced by persons who struggle, day in and day out, just to survive, we realize how the quest for equity, equality and social justice looks like an insurmountable climb. Persons living with disabilities are among the most vulnerable, discriminated against and deprived of fair opportunities.

They are often dismissed as losers and taken for granted.

What a mistake, what a pity! It is a mistake and a pity not to acknowledge and recognize persons living with disabilities because, all in all, it’s the whole Nepal that is tremendously missing out.

Missing out on what? The answer couldn’t be simpler.

The nation, by not recognizing, acknowledging and giving visibility to persons with disabilities, is precluding and at the same time, excluding the innate potential and skills of a large group of citizens. These citizens, living with disabilities, are unable to contribute to the national growth of the country.

Nepal is at such a stage of development that it needs the involvement of all its citizenry. Ahead of us, there are big aspirations and goals that have been set by policymakers.

For example, turning the country into a middle economy, a small but dynamic nation that, one day, would be able to attract foreign investments. Rather than having thousands of youths migrating each year to more developed nations, Nepal hopes to retain its best minds and laborious human resources. Yet many groups, among them persons with disabilities, are seen as a burden. They are not recognized for what they could do for the country. This type of status quo, if you think about it, is not just frustrating but also maddening.

If you are a youth living with a disability, you really have less opportunity to shine. Accessibility remains a huge issue, for example. There are plenty of new buildings and constructions but how many of them have ramps? But it is not only about accessibility. The issue is much broader and complex. It is really about a state of mindset that discourages the rise of persons with disabilities or, similarly, citizens belonging to the Dalit community.

But this status quo can change because it can be challenged. And it gets challenges each time that persons with disability are able to showcase their skills, talents and overall capacities.

Fortunately for Nepal, there are also different types of stories about disabilities. Readers of newspapers can also find inspiring reporting about incredible achievements obtained by persons with disabilities.

For example, the recent story written by Ellie Davis for a daily about Nirmala Bhandari, a national adaptive sports athlete but also a strong social inclusion activist, can be inspiring. Without discounting the tragic stories we often read about exclusion and discrimination, there is also another side of the coin.

Today it is important to highlight this different picture, promoting the potential and actual achievements of thousands of citizens, especially the young ones, who live with disabilities. It is important doing so not only because today is a special occasion, the International Day of Persons with Disabilities. It is essential doing so because building alliances with persons with disabilities or persons belonging to other vulnerable groups should be seen as a civic duty.

Alliances are paramount to challenge the status quo and change it for better. While many of us have decided to embrace the cause of climate and biodiversity activism and rightly so, we should not forfeit other important responsibilities. Because the struggle for equity, equality and social justice can only be won together. Only when less disadvantaged citizens, only when the middle and upper class members of the society realize that a lot depends on them can change occur.

But let’s be clear: Dalits or persons living with disabilities do not need tutoring or paternalistic, top-down attitudes. They must be able to lead by showing the way and by helping other citizens to implement the required changes step by step, minute by minute. At the end of the day, we need persons with disabilities to showcase their own leadership.

It is a leadership that, like in the case of Nirmala  Bhandari, is developed through a very painful journey.  We are talking of the highest form of leadership because it is built through a continuous effort and it is founded on inner resilience and endless determination. This is not just the case of Nirmala.

Like her, there are many other youth and adults with disabilities who are doing great. The problem is that only few get noticed and recognized. This is a painful truth.

While we certainly need a much stronger implementation of existing laws and regulations in matters of disabilities and social inclusion, a lot will depend on people’s attitudes and behaviors. The hope is that these gems of leadership, as I said, too often hidden, can shine.

This year’s theme of the International Day of Persons with Disabilities is focused on amplifying the leadership of persons with disabilities. In a recent webinar organized by the South Asia Office of UNICEF, an exemplary group of young disabilities activists from the region shared their own stories. Unsurprisingly there were many instances of discrimination, stories of pain and sorrow. But there was also a kind of different story built out of strengths, grit and determination.

These are examples of hope and leadership that must be greatly amplified. A whole society’s effort is required. In plain terms, it means everyone must do her part to defeat the status quo.

But it also means something else: let’s have a society that by default will unleash the energies, skills, knowledge of persons living with disabilities and the ones of other vulnerable groups.

At the end, let’s also have more citizens who overcame the status quo and got rid of it so that they can write and share more of their successes and achievements not only once in a year. A more inclusive Nepal means a better and richer nation because no talents or skills have been wasted. And it also means that much more real leaders are out there to work for a better society.

With the country set to graduate from the group of least developed countries in 2026, it is an imperative for Nepal to be able to attract foreign investments. The nation, in order to turn itself into a lower middle-income country with a clear pathway ahead for further economic growth, is compelled to diversify its economy, overcoming its dependency on foreign remittances.

Tourism and hydropower are showing high potential and, in recent years, some efforts have been made at making the national economy more attractive for global companies looking for new markets to produce and sell their products. With its low manpower costs, Nepal could become an important destination for global investments.

Yet, it is equally important that the country creates conducive conditions to boost its national GDP without jeopardizing local communities and while safeguarding its unique biodiversity and intangible customs and traditions that are often at risk of being disrupted by business interests.

That’s why the agenda of Business and Human Rights becomes so relevant not just to ensure, in a tokenistic fashion, some nice optics on the way Nepal is pursuing its national growth. Rather, it should become an essential, indispensable core component of any national strategy aimed at laying the ground for a successful graduation from the grouping of least developed countries.

When we talk about Business and Human Rights, we refer to a niche area of human rights laws and practices at a crossroads with many other legislations and regulations. Businesses intersect with and impact a multifold array of sectors and areas, from labor to customer protection, to customary and indigenous rights to gender and environmental related legislations and regulations.

There are many cases of business and human rights infringements.

Cases of labor exploitation, lack of consultations with local communities before breaking ground, denial in giving proper compensation when private lands are expropriated, exploitative working conditions and illegal but silently tolerated disruptions of the local environment are some of them. So, it is essential to ensure that business houses, especially those reaching a certain turnover, are operating not only by upholding the law but also by adhering to the highest standards stemming from international law and practices.

This is particularly essential in a country like Nepal.

Here we normally witness a weak rule of law characterized by a political class often marred in controversies with the private sector, a slow judiciary often accused of lacking transparency and integrity and a generally feeble enforcement of rules and regulations. As I write, the 13th United Nations Forum on Business and Human Rights is unfolding at the United Nations in Genève.

The gathering is the most important venue to discuss challenges and best practices related to business and human rights and it is normally preceded by regional forums around the world. 

For example, back in 2023, Nepal hosted, for the first time, the fourth edition of the South Asia Forum on Business and Human Rights. At the beginning of 2024, with a lot of delays, the government officially launched its first ever National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights. This represents an important milestone for Nepal but there is a high probability that such a plan will only remain a lifeless document, unread and forgotten, a plan that, like many others, will never be brought to action because of lack of enforcement.

But the document is not only at risk of being ignored. The plan is also problematic because of its nature and way it was designed. Because the area of business and human rights is very vast, the Action Plan covers a multitude of issues that are extremely complex on their own. 

How could we, for example, downplay the plague of child labor, for example? What about the necessity of creating awareness-raising programs on the rights of the consumers, who are so often deceived by the private sector? What about the need for developing industrial waste processing mechanisms or the formulation and revision of the law relating to import, sale, distribution and justified use of pesticides?

These are all essential items of policymaking included in the Action Plan that, if put into practice through effective legislation and regulations, could make a real difference for the lives of millions of citizens. 

Yet the whole plan is missing the point. Rather than being a checklist of disparate and unrelated actions to be undertaken by the legislator and executive, the plan should have focused on key essential items. At the foremost should have been the Corporate Sustainability and Human Rights Due Diligence legislation.

This is basically a regulation that would force corporations to uphold mandatory standards and behaviors by demanding them to report and explain how their business practices respect human rights across their value chain. This provision is entirely missing from the plan whose first activity, just to give the reader an idea, is to “formulate national policy on business and human rights” that is supposed to be implemented in the third year of implementation.

The contents of such a policy, its purpose and its key features are still a mystery. Nepal, like many other nations, needs a binding Due Diligence legislation. Designing such legislation won’t be easy. It is a complex task that would require a continuous engagement with stakeholders, starting from the business sector that would probably push back against it.

Yet, it is essential to compel the private sector to undertake binding rather than voluntary commitments. This is the major lesson learned over the years while trying to implement the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. 

This is a voluntary framework that provides corporations with the key expected behaviors and important principles like the right of the people that are affected by alleged and presumed abuses by the private sector to have multiple pathways toward a remedy.

Such an approach did not work.

That’s why many developed states have enacted mandatory Due Diligence regulations, including the EU with the most ambitious legislation, the ‘EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive’ that entered into force for all its members on 25 July 2024. It is a regulation that will be fully implemented in the coming years on the basis of a gradual, step by step timeline by giving enough time for corporations to be ready for its compliance by identifying, addressing and providing remedy for their negative impacts.

It is a legislation that attracted a lot of resistance and it is still being fiercely criticized but is setting the standards. Developing or emerging nations should not just wait and watch for developed nations to take the lead. For a country like Nepal, there is an opportunity to lead in its own way with a less complex but solid legal framework that would ensure highest practices on the part of the corporate sector.

If corporate houses take a long view, they will realize that, ultimately, that it is in their own interest to embrace this road. Better business practices, more attentiveness toward the rights of the citizens, will bring stronger financial returns even though due diligence legislations will force them to change many aspects of their business models.

Shortcuts won’t be tolerated any more. For example, Environmental Impact Assessments or the so-called Free Prior Informed Consent that gives special rights to indigenous people when dealing with land inhabited by them, are both often not taken seriously and taken too much for granted. There is no doubt that this type of legislation will only work if the state is serious about implementing them and at creating the conditions for these regulations to do their job.

The ongoing forum in Genève is focused on the so-called “smart mix”, a combination of voluntary and mandatory regulations at local and national levels. In the case of a nation with a strong rule of law culture, such an approach could make sense even though the mandatory, binding components of any Business and Human Rights legislations should be stronger and more prevalent than the voluntary ones.

Perhaps, a country like Nepal would need a gradual approach based on a strong core of mandatory provisions to be accompanied by voluntary ones. In matters of Business and Human Rights, it is now proved that it is better to have a strong stick and few carrots to make sure corporations can thrive while championing human rights. 

We often hear that youth are the future; the next generation of leaders. However, this statement can sometimes ring hollow, reduced to mere tokenism. Yet, many young individuals are making real strides in addressing critical challenges, particularly in climate action and disaster management.

Recently, through LinkedIn, I connected with Prabina Raut, a consultant with Liquid Trees and a passionate climate advocate. Liquid Trees employs an innovative approach to pollution control by cultivating microscopic silica algae (diatoms) in open water bodies. These algae neutralize pollutants like fertilizers, heavy metals, microplastics, and CO2. In short, they work to purify river waters contaminated by agricultural chemicals and wastewater. Raut’s expertise extends beyond this role; she is also an Environment Leadership Fellow with WWF.

Given my interest in breaking down knowledge silos to foster cross-sector solutions, I reached out to Raut to hear her views on the recent disasters caused by incessant rainfall across Nepal. I wanted to explore the intersection between climate action and disaster management.

In an interview conducted via email, Raut shared her insights, based on extensive research and analysis.

First, she identified a key obstacle to progress: Nepal's failure to enforce its Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) and Disaster Risk Reduction Management (DRRM) policies. “While Nepal has several DRR and DRRM policies, they remain largely unenforced at both the national and local levels,” she explained. “The government often prioritizes short-term development projects over long-term disaster preparedness.”

She emphasized the consequences of this neglect. “Despite having policies and research, the government’s lack of enforcement leaves communities vulnerable. Poor coordination between government agencies and ineffective urban planning regulations have magnified the impact of disasters,” she added.

Raut proposed a series of essential actions. The first is to confront the scientific realities of climate change. “We can no longer afford to ignore scientists’ warnings. Building a resilient future requires immediate action and long-term planning,” she warned.

Another priority is overhauling Nepal’s Early Warning Systems. “We need real accountability and expanded technical and financial support to upgrade these systems across the country,” she urged. Despite advancements, early warning systems are not universally accessible, particularly in rural and marginalized communities. “Public awareness on disaster preparedness is limited, and insufficient planning has led to tragic losses that could have been mitigated.”

Raut also advocated for a stronger role for local governments in disaster management. “We must decentralize disaster risk management, but making it effective will require allocating more resources and decision-making power to local authorities.” Local governments should have the authority to initiate community-based early warning systems and disaster response training, which would enhance local resilience.

She also stressed the importance of integrating climate resilience into national development plans. “We need to prioritize sustainable infrastructure and empower local governments to take a more active role in disaster management,” she said. Urban resilience is another crucial area, particularly in Kathmandu Valley, where unregulated urbanization exacerbates floods and landslides. “Stricter building codes and land-use planning, along with green infrastructure solutions like rainwater harvesting, are urgently needed.”

Raut called for the creation of a National Task Force for DRR Implementation to address the inadequacies of the existing National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Authority (NDRRMA). “A dedicated task force could ensure better coordination across departments, from hydrology to urban planning, and ensure that DRR policies are enforced at all levels,” she said. This task force could act as a stopgap measure while a more permanent, bottom-up approach to policy making is developed.
Such a bottom-up approach should involve experts from diverse fields coming together to discuss the shortcomings of the NDRRMA. These deliberations could form the basis for meaningful policy changes. Raut emphasized that enabling young professionals like herself to be recognized as knowledgeable contributors could make a significant difference. “Young people can offer expertise, ideas, and help raise local awareness.”

Raut also pointed out the lack of public awareness regarding the link between climate change and disasters, particularly in rural areas. “Community engagement is weak, and inadequate knowledge about disaster preparedness leads to higher losses during floods and landslides.” She stressed the importance of connecting local needs with international mechanisms, such as the Loss and Damage Fund approved at COP28. “International support, like the Loss and Damage Fund, will play a pivotal role in helping Nepal recover from recurring disasters.”

Finally, Raut highlighted the importance of ensuring that any international financial aid, such as climate financing, reaches local governments. “Local elected bodies must build expertise to ensure that no international climate financing is wasted,” she said.

In conclusion, Raut reflected: “Addressing the recent monsoon havoc in Nepal requires effective policy implementation, better coordination among government departments, stronger early warning systems, and international financial support. Despite the existence of policies and research, the government must move beyond short-term solutions to build long-term resilience. We cannot afford any further delays.”

With more frequent glacial lake outburst floods occurring in Nepal and with the Secretary General of the United Nations, Antonio Guterres, launching an SOS from the South Pacific Nation of Tonga asking for nations to “Save our Oceans”, climate action is not an option but an imperative.

We should paraphrase and recontextualize the advice given by Michelle Obama during the recently held Democratic National Convention when she encouraged her fellow democrats in the USA “to do something” to win the elections in November. Indeed, we need to “do something” to stem climate warming and repurpose our industries and societies towards a meaningful and net zero scenario. Pathways must be found to give a voice to youths because without their engagement and advocacy, climate action won’t really happen.

While there are many ways for youths and the general population to be, not only part of the conversation on climate warming but also be truly engaged on it, it is paramount to create platforms where young people can truly express their concerns and provide new ideas and propositions.

I am referring to enabling youths to be involved in the sphere of policy making, by ensuring that their contributions, either in the forms of projects or in terms of innovative approaches for new progressive laws and regulations, do matter and are taken into consideration. With Nepal preparing its 3rd Nationally Determined Contributions or NDC, the document that each signatory party to the Paris Agreement must present with its commitments to reduce greenhouse emissions, having youths firmly involved in climate related decision making, can make a huge difference.

One venue for them to start working at policy level is the Local Conference of Youth or LCOY, a national forum under the umbrella of YOUNGO that is officially recognized as the constituency of young people within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

At the beginning of August, Nepal held its own national version of LCOY over two days of intensive discussions.

It was jointly organized by Youth Action for Sustainable and Eco Nepal (YASEN) and Sustainability Week Kathmandu (SWK) after months of hard work that included a myriad of in person and online interactions with a main national event bringing together 200 young leaders. I approached the organizing team to have a better understanding of the initiative and its significance.

If the federal government in Kathmandu is truly committed to work with young people, then a platform like LCOY can turbocharge innovative ideas and ensure that bold commitments are going to be included in the NDC 3.0.

The Focal Point of LCOY Nepal, Dikshya Subedi who is also the Founder of YASEN shared her reflections. "LCOY Nepal 2024 was a powerful demonstration of youth-led climate action, bringing together diverse voices from across the country to address the pressing issue of climate change”

“I have witnessed firsthand the dedication, passion, and collaboration that made this conference an extraordinary platform for youth engagement and climate action. LCOY Nepal 2024 was more than just a gathering; it was a testament to the power of collective action and the unwavering commitment of young individuals to drive positive change”.

“This year's conference brought together diverse voices from across Nepal, each contributing unique perspectives and innovative solutions to the pressing issue of climate change. Our goal was to create a platform where young people could contribute innovative solutions and be recognized as key stakeholders in global climate discussions”.

Subedi recounted how the overarching preparation was a huge task across multiple interlinked sectors with a real effort to involve youths from all backgrounds as diversity and inclusion are two essential features to ensure climate justice.

“It was intense, requiring immense dedication and collaboration from our team and partners. We discussed critical themes like indigenous knowledge, climate resilience, and sustainable practices, leading to actionable resolutions”.

For Ganesh Paudel, the Technical Lead, LCOY Nepal 2024, the whole experience was “transformative”.

“Our mission was to gather youth from various regions to address climate change issues, pushing back against the false notion that this event was just for certificate seekers. We wanted to empower young people to voice their concerns and take action against the climate crisis. The success of this event is a testament to the dedication of our organizers, volunteers, and partners. I’m proud of the collaboration and impact we’ve achieved, and I’m confident that the discussions and resolutions from LCOY Nepal 2024 will resonate in global forums like COP."

Hemanshu Kafle who, as Design Lead, was in charge of putting together all the sessions in coherent flow, believes that the whole process, not only the two days of final discussions, was a game-changer.

He highlighted to me that an initiative like LCOY” truly enables youths to lead in global climate discussions”.

Indeed, we need both a new process of decision making in the field of climate action centered around empowerment, the dynamics that help young people build and strengthen their agency and ownership.

And yes, we need tons of shared, grounded but at the same time bold, values-based leadership among young people to tackle climate change head on.

Kafle also echoes the win-win approach based on multi-stakeholders’ involvement.

“The event’s success was the result of meticulous planning and support from partners like UNICEF Nepal, ICIMOD, UNDP, Nelis Nepal, WYCJ, SHE CHANGES CLIMATE. We tackled vital themes like indigenous knowledge, climate resilience, and sustainable forestry”.

What about the way forward?

The second day of the LCOY focused on drafting a so-called National Youth Statement, a series of key priorities that should be addressed by the Federal Government while drafting its NDC 3.0.

It is a blueprint centered around the importance of building the capacity of young people while meaningfully allowing them to have a real voice, a voice that should not be discounted, a voice that instead should be taken into account by politicians.

“Moving forward, we aim to translate the energy from LCOY into actionable outcomes, presenting our resolutions at COP events and continuing to strengthen youth networks across Nepal” Kafle shared.

Subedi added, “We are serious at ensuring that the voices of Nepali youth are heard on the global stage”.

For her, the LCOY 2024 “is just the beginning of a broader movement, and we are committed to continuing our work towards a more resilient and equitable future."

Indeed, this is just a start but ideally, we should find ways to institutionalize events like LCOY rather than being a once in a year process. This for me it’s the real challenge that goes at the heart of the current governance system. It is a general problem, not only specific to Nepal but governance at national and local levels should be reformed in a way to truly give a permanent voice to young people.

Consultative processes are good but actually we need a major reform of the entire system, creating a new space to ensure young people’s right to participate and have a role in the decision-making process. Will politicians, in Nepal and elsewhere, realize the urgency of taking bold actions by involving and engaging young people? What should it take for them to really have agency and a seat where decisions are made?

LCOY like events are important because they can help us imagine a different way of doing “politics”. Climate change could become not only the spark of a new wave of civic engagement but a stepstone to rethink democracy in its entirety.

The last few days have seen a modest surge of interest in the fact that citizens belonging to the Dalit community are, once again, not represented in the Federal Cabinet. 

Just a few days ago, on Aug 10, there was a march at the center of Kathmandu in which activists were demanding a fair representation of Dalits in the national institutions. 

In the recently-appointed federal government, there is only one state minister, a junior position within the cabinet, belonging to the community, Rupa BK who was appointed with the Forests and Environment portfolio. 

As several news reports have highlighted, the lack of inclusiveness, especially in relation to the political rights of Dalits, is a consistent feature of national politics. 

Even the previous government under Pushpa Kamal Dahal, in theory a big supporter of Dalits ‘rights, did not have any full ranking minister representing the community. 

Dahal, just a few months ago, in the beginning of June, had announced that an effort was on to establish a Dalit Development Authority. 

While the details of such an initiative were never disclosed, there is a high probability that such an idea will never see implementation. 

Even if such an entity were to be established, its performances would be insignificant, most probably, not too dissimilar from the performance of the National Dalit Commission, a constitutional body that has as its core mission, the empowerment of the community. 

Like many other inclusiveness-focused bodies (for example the Tharu Commission or the Muslim equivalent or even the National Human Rights Commission), the institution has not been able to propose or actuate any noteworthy initiative. 

Even if they lack teeth, these bodies could help generate a national narrative that would be instrumental in reaching a new understanding of the suffering facing minority groups. 

Above all, citizens from the Dalit community really deserve the nation’s special attention and consideration. 

The real problem is that the country is not even close to that.

This is for me a key point and it is one of the most intricate policy conundrums facing the nation.

It is not that policies are not important; it is not that they do not count, they do as, ultimately, any change must have legal sanctions and policy discussions are paramount.

For example, the last’s march National Assembly resolution aimed at ending discrimination toward Dalits could be seen as a good blueprint to advance new practical actions to challenge and ultimately change the status quo. 

I do sincerely hope that the sub-committee in charge of monitoring the implementation of the resolution becomes effective in creating more accountability among ministries’ officials and among members of both chambers belonging to different communities. 

If such deeds are enforced, these would be real stepping stones but for real progress, we need something at much deeper and more personal levels, to begin with. 

Yet, the ultimate challenge is generating an interest among the people on the lack of political representation of citizens from the Dalit community. 

How can we ensure that rallies like the one that happened on Aug 10 can generate a buzz among citizens from different communities, especially the so-called “dominant” communities, who have almost an implicit monopoly on holding key power positions? 

In particular, what puzzles me is how to involve and engage youths in embracing the cause of Dalits. 

I do not want to overlook the neglect in political representation experienced by other groups, including sexual minorities and persons with disabilities but Dalits’ rights cannot be deprioritized. 

How can we generate the same excitement that exists among youths to fight for climate change also for the discrimination facing Dalits? 

I tend to agree with Dalits rights activist and academician Mitra Pariyar. 

“Dalits should form strong lobbies, watchdogs and pressure groups to apply pressure on ministers, junior ministers, government secretaries, CDOs and judges to think more about Dalit identity and rights and to contribute in that direction”, he wrote in a recent opinion piece.

Yet this strategy can only be successful in the medium and long run, if a new awareness, together with a new consciousness, is created among other members of the society. 

It is not that Dalits should stop vigorously reclaiming their rights, including, as explained for this paper by Sushil Darnal, on the need to establish stronger affirmative legislations that benefit them. 

But a major effort on the part of the society, starting from non-Dalit youths, must happen if Nepal truly wants to become truly equal and inclusive. 

First Dalits and non-Dalits youths need to have more opportunities to work together on issues related to social injustices and discrimination but also on other issues of contemporary importance. 

For example, how many Dalits youths are advocating for climate and biodiversity action? 

Those strong and bold enough do advocate for their own rights, but they might not have the strengths or simply enough “bandwidth” to get into other important issues. 

Those climate and biodiversity champions could make an effort to reach out to their peers from Dalit communities and establish joint coalitions, even if at very informal levels, even if with small goals of joint collaborations.

Embassies in Kathmandu, which have been championing youth empowerment, could uniquely support this attempt at coalition building. 

Yet, ownership should come from the youths themselves, who, ideally, must truly embrace this new “front” of cross-cutting themes-based collaborations. 

Possibly working groups or as I prefer to call them, a community of practitioners comprising youths from different backgrounds could be established, trying to formulate common policy proposals, identifying the links between caste and climate injustices. 

Inclusion and social justice have a myriad of facets and different angles but the overarching goal of the 2015 Constitution is achieving a more just and fair nation for everyone. 

Perhaps the debate on changing the threshold for proportional representation that the new government is pushing could be seen as a welcome opportunity as long as a wider discussion is also welcomed: The one focused on a stronger and mandatory quota for Dalits citizens. 

But even with such transformative measures in place that, as per now, are a long shot, we need people, especially youths from different backgrounds and castes, coming together. 

The biggest changes at societal levels do happen only when truly inclusive alliances are established. 

It happened in the USA during the Civil Rights Movement and the similar though different dynamics unfolded in South Africa to bring an end to the Apartheid regime. 

Let’s not forget, it can also happen in Nepal.

View are personal

I started thinking about this question after attending the town hall meeting organized on May 24 in honor of Agnès Callamard, the secretary-general of Amnesty International, during his visit to Nepal.

Callamard covered a wide spectrum of issues while answering questions from both the moderator, journalist Dil Bhusan Pathak and from the audience. It was an interesting talk as the Amnesty chief was able to link the inevitable focus on some of the most pressing human rights issues of Nepal with what’s going on globally.

One of the key takeaways was the role of youths. Perhaps encouraged by a large presence of young people in the hall, Callamard underscored the importance of youths playing a leading role to uphold and strengthen human rights.

At the same time, I do wonder if most of the young people do care about them. While I have been working and collaborating with a number of astounding young people who are eager and determined to change the status quo for better, I am not entirely convinced that a vast majority of them really feel that they have a stake in the debate.

Surely there are many pressing issues, of more tangible and practical nature that young people have to think about, especially if they come from vulnerable, and low-income families. Those who struggle the most have to think about more essential things like surviving gruesome urban centers that do offer almost endless opportunities for the better-off but can be nightmares for those who have no privileges nor status.

But what about those young people from middle-class families that do not live a life of luxuries but at the same time are doing quite ok? I believe that involving and engaging this vast “middle” that, according to many statistics, is dwindling because of out-migration to far places like Australia and Canada, is paramount.

Climate change has been so devastating that it has finally become an issue that can grab their attention. And after all, climate activism is a great way of upholding and seeking respect for human rights but what about other issues?

What about caste discrimination about which Amnesty International recently launched a report specifically focused on the deprivations and humiliations that citizens from the Dalit community have to face? What about other issues like freedom of expression, the fight against abuses committed by the state and other powerful entities?

I feel that many youths in Nepal are feeling a bit complacent about what’s going on. Perhaps it is fair enough. After all, as I have already highlighted, it is difficult to think about human rights when there are other issues to deal with. Others, perhaps, are just maximizing their shot at being successful. Amid problems and issues concerning the nation, there are a good number of young people who just try to make it big.

Fair enough, I would say.

Callamard, during her talk, spoke widely about the risks of a breakdown of the international, rules-based order. “If a neighboring country adopts a law against freedoms, there are high risks that such laws will be exported” she told the audience.

Somehow, Nepal has been shielded, insulated from many issues affecting the planet. The country fully internalized that there was a war raging in Ukraine, only when some of its youths were discovered to fight and die in the invading Russian Army.

These days, there has been an uproar about press freedom because the chairman of the biggest private publishing and TV house was jailed. But how much are the youths invested on this issue? With reading habits dropping abysmally, too few of them really know what’s going on. So, the fundamental question is not just asking if young people do care about human rights.

The right question is: How can young people be engaged and recommit to civic and public affairs? Not only those who can afford it in virtue of their family related privileges or those, the active minority, who have some sort of special interest to work at the service of the public good.

We need to engage and involve the silent middle. Schools, both public and private, should play a much bigger role. Resources to enable new programs about civic education and human rights are not a real problem. If alternative Fridays can be conceived, designed and implemented to offer students a more practical type of education, why not also think about “Civic” Thursdays? I am sure that local youth clubs, NGOs could do a lot in this area even with very scarce resources.

A challenge is to make civic education, not the one being already taught, I would say quite ineffectively, much more appealing and interesting. An idea: The major metropolitan governments of the country could launch a competition for schools and not-for-profit organizations and youth groups that, partnering together, would come up with innovative ways to do civic engagement.

We do not only have to find better ways to teach it but also create innovative learning pathways to make students experience and practice it. With civic engagement, I do mean focusing on issues like human rights, education for sustainable development and climate action and public policies as well. If you reflect on it, we need to embed the local curricula, formal and informal, in the classrooms and outside of them, with tons of ethical leadership.

Students, especially those less engaged and less prone to active actions, must be challenged in a positive way because they must understand that they also have a role to play, they have some stakes in the discussion.

Callamard highlighted that youths must get organized and protest but they must do it in a smart way, rather than risking their lives. She is right but I do not think we are nearly close enough to have a majority of youths even ready to play their part in the society.

Good governance is for them the most unappealing and boring thing that they can even conceptualize and imagine. They don’t really have a clue about it, why should they have it considering the state of national politics? Good governance is essential if Nepal wants to reach a higher league of nations.

But such type of governance does not happen just through top-down approaches. Real good governance means inclusive governance where citizens have a voice and agency. In practice, they are not just electing their representatives but they are part of the decision-making. Unfortunately, such a vision is still far, it is still a chimera.

Only by providing cutting-edge curricula and practical opportunities through service and volunteering experiences that elicit their enthusiasm, the vast majority of young people can commit and make the difference and bring that vision on the ground. Human rights do matter because without them Nepal would be a much worse place to live in.

They matter because they are the foundations of the nation’s democracy that, while imperfect, is still the bright and shining story. Youths can stand up and do their best to even improve the state of national affairs but they need some guidance. “Hope is something that we must all build”,  Callamard said in her final remarks. Yes, youths should be the nation’s “Hope Builders” whose contributions are simply indispensable. Can we help them?

The author is the co-founder of ENGAGE and of The Good Leadership