Submit your Article

In the life of an individual, graduation is a moment to cherish—forever. This holds true for a nation as well.

Come 2026 and Nepal is set to graduate from the club of Least Developed Countries (LDCs), a grouping of 44 countries from Africa (32), Asia (8), Caribbean (1) and Pacific (3), leaving behind its 54-year association with the club, as the club chair on her last legs.

Of the three criteria for graduation—gross national income (GNI) per capita, human assets index (HAI) and economic vulnerability index—Nepal has fallen a bit short of the first criteria but met the other two, becoming the first country to graduate without meeting the GNI criterion.

Let’s revisit Nepal’s scores against the three indices over the past decade.

In 2015, also the year of a massive Gorkha earthquake that left behind a trail of deaths and destruction, followed by a blockade, Nepal’s GDI per capita stood at a paltry $659 against the minimum threshold of $1248. In 2018, 2021 and 2024, its GDI stood at $745, $1027 and $1300 against the minimum thresholds of $1230, $1222 and $1306.

On the two other parameters, Nepal has consistently performed alright.

But, as they say, a miss is as good as a mile and this rings true on the GDI front, from 2015 to 2019 (the year of the Covid pandemic) and beyond.

Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, while addressing the National Assembly recently, when the ‘hallowed’ hall was fully awake (most probably), read the upcoming graduation in an albeit different light. According to the chief executive, this shows that the implementation of (his vision) ‘Prosperous Nepal, Happy Nepali’  has begun yielding results.

What does this graduation mean for the country and the people? Per the PM, the improvement in the parameters in question and the upcoming graduation is an indication of Nepal heading toward self-reliance and a rising global profile of the country.

While the graduation indicates that Nepal has grown richer, how much of the riches have trickled down to the bottom rung over the years is an open question.

Analyses suggest that graduation means Nepal will no longer have easy access to cheaper international loans, that it will impact international support and assistance that Nepal has been enjoying, the number of scholarships for Nepali students will go down and that the country will have to strive harder for bringing in foreign investment, so on and so forth.

Here’s hoping that our government will be able to make the best of the opportunities that come with the graduation as well as some shocks that come with it.

Experts say that diplomacy comes handy in such situations.   

Indeed, as Eleanor Roosevelt says, the future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams. 

Two major coalition partners, the Nepali Congress (NC) and CPN-UML, are reviewing the performance of government ministers, with plans to dismiss those deemed ineffective. Ministers were informed at the time of their appointment that they would face evaluation after one year and could be removed based on their performance. Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli and NC President Sher Bahadur Deub have begun consultations for a cabinet reshuffle. However, the move is likely to stir discord within both the NC and UML.

Overall, ministerial performance has been unsatisfactory. While ministers made lofty promises and generated noise, tangible results have been lacking. Meanwhile, CPN (Maoist Center) Chairperson Pushpa Kamal Dahal is once again pursuing the unification of fringe communist parties to bolster his political position. With his attempts to spark friction between the NC and UML proving ineffective, he has shifted focus to party unification.

Dahal has reached out to CPN (Unified Socialist) Chairperson Madhav Kumar Nepal for immediate unification. However, many CPN (US) leaders and cadres prefer to return to the UML rather than merge with the Maoist Center. Should Nepal decide to unify with Dahal’s party, it could trigger a split in the CPN (US). Meanwhile, the UML has taken stricter measures to curb former President Bidya Devi Bhandari’s activities within the party.

The UML has issued a circular instructing party units not to engage in any debate over Bhandari's potential return to active party politics. Intra-party tensions are also mounting in the Maoist Center, with Chairperson Dahal and senior leader Janardan Sharma exchanging public barbs. Dahal has accused internal forces of spreading false rumors that he is planning to split the party.

While Dahal shows no intention of relinquishing party leadership, a power struggle is underway. Senior leaders Sharma and Barshaman Pun are positioning themselves as his successors. In the Dahal-Sharma tussle, Pun appears to be aligning with Dahal to gain favor. All three major parties—NC, UML, and Maoist Center—face looming leadership crises as Deuba, Oli, and Dahal approach retirement.

The UML’s circular may hinder Bhandari’s ability to organize political events, as party leaders now fear disciplinary action. Since the party revoked her membership, many of her vocal supporters have stopped attending her programs. Though Bhandari has expressed her intent to stay active in politics, recent party decisions are likely to restrict her activities significantly.

Amid rumors of a challenge to Deuba’s leadership, Shekhar Koirala has admitted that his faction lacks the numbers to replace him as parliamentary party leader. Speaking publicly, Koirala said even Deuba is aware of this reality. Still, Koirala continues to ride the wave of anti-incumbency sentiment within the party to strengthen his own position, criticizing both the party and government leadership.

Deuba remains in a relatively secure position as Koirala and General Secretary Gagan Thapa, despite both wanting to prevent Deuba from returning as prime minister, remain rivals and are not working together. Their push to hold the party’s general convention before the 2027 election seems unlikely to succeed, as unresolved issues over active membership persist. Within the NC, realignments and the formation of new factions are expected in the coming days, as Deuba has announced he won’t contest the presidency again.

Meanwhile, the Nagarik Unmukti Party has expelled Chairperson Ranjita Shrestha over her alleged involvement in a corruption scandal. Once an emerging force in the 2022 parliamentary elections, the party had recently withdrawn its support to the government and now finds itself mired in internal conflict. In Nepal, intra-party power struggles have become a political norm, often resulting in splits.

The controversy surrounding the land-related bill remains unresolved. The ruling NC has proposed a five-point amendment to address differences, particularly with UML. Madhes-based parties have expressed dissent on several provisions. Upendra Yadav, chairman of the Janata Samajbadi Party Nepal, has said the bill violates the constitution and plans to challenge it in court. The Rastriya Swatantra Party has called for the bill to be returned to the Agriculture Ministry.

Parties are also preparing for the by-election in Rupandehi-3. It is still unclear whether the NC and UML will form an electoral alliance. Candidate selection is underway, and the by-poll is expected to serve as a barometer for current public support for political parties.

In Bagmati Province, the government faces renewed instability due to internal party rifts. Indra Baniya has been elected the party’s parliamentary leader, defeating incumbent Chief Minister Bahadur Singh Lama. Lama is under pressure to resign after losing control over his own party. Though the province had seen stability for the past year due to the NC-UML coalition, tensions are now resurfacing.

On a different front, the US government has officially confirmed that Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) projects will continue in Nepal, ending months of uncertainty. Both the Biden and Trump administrations have viewed MCC in Nepal as a counter to China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

Nepal’s decision to sign the BRI framework agreement with China earlier this year increased pressure on Washington to retain MCC support. A bipartisan consensus exists in the US on countering China’s growing influence, and the continuation of MCC underscores Nepal’s strategic importance, despite broader aid cuts.

Finally, Prime Minister Oli is scheduled to visit Turkmenistan from Aug 5–8 to participate in the Third UN Conference on Landlocked Developing Countries. Preparations are also underway for his likely visit to India in September, though the date has not been confirmed.

Despite being in the midst of the monsoon season, Madhes Province continues to face severe drought, leaving farmers in deep distress. With irrigation facilities available on only 49 percent of the province’s total cultivable land, the impact on agriculture is becoming increasingly dire.

The provincial and federal governments have declared Madhes a drought-affected and crisis-hit area, respectively. However, farmers and local officials report that no substantial action has yet been taken to address the crisis.

According to the Madhes Province Dry Zone Study Report—submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development to Singha Durbar on July 28—poor management and a lack of maintenance of irrigation infrastructure lie at the heart of the problem. Of more than 1,000 deep tubewells installed since the Panchayat era by both the government and the private sector, over 50 percent are no longer operational.

The Kamala Irrigation Project under the Samruddha Tarai Madhes Irrigation Special Program has also faced major setbacks. In Saptari, Siraha, and Mahottari districts, only 98 out of 236 installed deep tubewells are functional. The remaining 138 are idle due to incomplete infrastructure, such as pump houses and electrification. Additionally, 68 deep tubewells constructed in fiscal year 2024/25 remain nonfunctional because their supporting structures have yet to be built.

Adding to the challenges, 13 deep tubewells in four districts have been rendered unusable due to the theft of key components like transformers and panel board wires. Others are blocked by debris—stones, bricks, and sand—or remain idle due to disputes between local water user committees and farming groups.

Older irrigation systems have also broken down. Under the now-defunct Janakpur Agricultural Development Plan, only 85 of 242 deep tubewells remain functional. Many of the rest—installed between 1984 and 1994—have failed due to issues such as clogged filters, outdated diesel engines, or overall technological obsolescence.

In rural areas, the need for shallow tubewells has become urgent, as surface irrigation systems like canals and dams remain insufficient or unevenly distributed.

Out of Madhes’s total 542,580 hectares of cultivable land, only 52,224 hectares are currently under cultivation this season. Rainfed rice, which relies entirely on monsoon rainfall, has been planted across 362,344 hectares, while Chaite rice covers 20,839 hectares.

Although rivers, canals, and lakes provide some irrigation, the main sources remain underground—primarily shallow and deep tubewells. The Ministry of Land Management, Agriculture and Cooperatives has warned that without urgent upgrades and investments, these systems will continue to fail farmers.

Districts like Saptari, Rautahat, Sarlahi, Bara, and Parsa are served by major canals such as the Koshi Chandra, Bagmati, and Gandak. However, large parts of Siraha and Dhanusha remain dependent on increasingly unreliable underground systems.

As the drought worsens and food insecurity looms, farmers are calling for immediate government intervention—repairs, subsidies, and the construction of new infrastructure. Without such action, Madhes could face a severe agricultural collapse in the coming months.

When former President Bidya Devi Bhandari attempted to re-enter active politics through the CPN-UML—the very party she helped build—she was blocked by a decision that hides behind constitutional dignity while exposing a deeper problem in Nepal’s political culture. The move to sideline her isn’t just a power play—it is an act of political exclusion steeped in patriarchy, internal insecurity and disregard for constitutional freedoms.

The CPN-UML’s Central Committee, led by KP Sharma Oli, denied Bhandari’s return, arguing that a former president must remain above party politics to preserve the sanctity of the office. Yet this rationale collapses under scrutiny—legally, politically and morally. This is not simply about Bhandari’s personal ambitions. This is about how we define democracy in Nepal. Are we a system that allows experienced leaders—regardless of gender—to remain engaged in shaping the country’s future? Or do we selectively retire people when their political presence becomes inconvenient?

Both Dev Gurung of the CPN (Maoist Center) and Tank Karki of the UML itself have forcefully challenged the party’s decision, calling it unconstitutional and unjustified. Gurung points out that the move violates Article 17 of Nepal’s Constitution, which guarantees political freedom and fundamental rights to all citizens, including former officeholders. Once a president steps down, they are no longer bound by the symbolic or ceremonial obligations of that office. The Constitution does not categorize former presidents as non-citizens. Any restriction on their political participation would require strong legal justification—such as actions threatening national sovereignty—which clearly does not apply in Bhandari’s case.

What is more surprising is Gurung warns that political parties registered under the constitution cannot make internal rules or take decisions that override or undermine constitutionally-protected individual rights. In this case, the UML’s action amounts to a political overreach with no constitutional basis.

Tank Karki echoes these concerns from within the party. He questions how any political organization can assume the authority to limit a citizen’s right to participate in politics, especially when no such restriction is mandated by the Constitution. Karki invokes multiple precedents to dismantle the UML leadership’s justification: Ramchandra Paudel returned to Nepali Congress after serving as Speaker, Subash Nembang resumed active roles within UML post-speakership, Khilaraj Regmi became Prime Minister while serving as Chief Justice and Nanda Bahadur Pun held a senior Maoist position while serving as Vice-president. These examples make it abundantly clear that returning to politics after holding high office is not new, nor is it constitutionally inappropriate. Karki rightly asks: “Are we truly democratic if we restrict political participation for someone who is no longer in office?” His question reveals the core contradiction of the UML’s decision—it is less about constitutional dignity and more about political control.

Indeed, Bhandari’s assertiveness and her public hint at contesting leadership within the party were likely perceived as a direct threat by Oli, who has ruled UML unchallenged for years. But attempting to eliminate opposition through procedural justifications is not leadership—it’s suppression. And suppressing a leader like Bhandari, especially after her decades-long contribution to Nepal’s democratic movement, is not just unfair—it’s self-defeating for a party that claims to represent democratic ideals.

What’s more troubling is the gendered nature of this exclusion. When men return to active politics after high office, they are often hailed for their experience. When a woman does the same, she is told it undermines her dignity. This is a classic patriarchal double standard. It elevates women only when they are silent, symbolic and submissive—but excludes them when they seek actual power.

The logic used to bar Bhandari, wrapped in notions of “respect,” “republican values,” and “national unity,” is in fact a tool of silencing. It offers ceremonial honor in exchange for political irrelevance. But true dignity for women in politics lies in allowing them to lead, compete and challenge—just as their male counterparts do.

This sends a deeply discouraging message to Nepal’s women: that the presidency is not a platform for further leadership but a dead-end. That political achievements are valid only until they challenge existing male authority. That even after reaching the highest office, women must gracefully disappear from the political stage.

Nepal’s democracy cannot afford to send such a message.

Bhandari is not asking for favors. She is asserting a right she has earned through decades of political struggle—from student activism in the late 1970s to her contributions in constitutional processes and women’s representation. She remains one of the few women in Nepal with both national recognition and grassroots political experience. Silencing her does not protect democracy—it weakens it.

At a time when Nepal’s political environment is marked by fragmentation, volatility and declining public trust, the exclusion of a credible and experienced leader like Bhandari is a strategic blunder. Her return could help stabilize internal party conflicts, promote left unity and offer a counterbalance to male-dominated power blocs. Her leadership represents continuity, not disruption. Moreover, allowing her back into politics could rejuvenate faith among Nepal’s younger generation—especially women—that political space is open to all, not just a privileged male few.

Let’s also set the legal record straight: there is no constitutional clause that prevents a former president from joining a political party. The arguments being made in UML’s decision—the so-called “spirit” of Article 61—are interpretive at best. The same “spirit” was never invoked for male figures returning from constitutional positions. Why now?

Some claim that Bhandari’s political re-entry might damage the symbolic sanctity of the presidential office. But symbols don’t build nations—leaders do. And leaders must be allowed to evolve, contribute and contest. The presidency was a chapter in Bhandari’s political journey—not the conclusion. Letting her rejoin politics is not an attack on the republic—it is a celebration of its openness. Her participation will not break the system. In fact, excluding her weakens the very democratic spirit the UML claims to be protecting.

Democracies do not function by freezing capable leaders into statues of respect. They thrive when voices—especially those of women—are free to speak, challenge and lead. Nepal cannot claim to support women's empowerment while pushing its most experienced female politician into a corner. Ultimately, this is not just about Bidya Devi Bhandari. This is about what kind of republic we want to be. One that fears women’s power or one that embraces it?

Let her lead again—not as a symbol, but as a politician, a woman, and a citizen. Because the strength of Nepal’s democracy will be measured not by how well it confines women, but by how freely it lets them rise.

The author is a political observer and advocate for inclusive democratic processes