Submit your Article

Nepal’s financial system has disbursed loans totaling Rs 5.55trn to approximately 1.94m borrowers. Governor Biswo Poudel recently highlighted this trend while presenting new data on small borrowers—defined as those with loans under Rs 10m. On that occasion, the chief of the central bank, Nepal Rastra Bank (NRB), raised concerns about the concentration of large loans among a small group of individuals and whether such lending practices are contributing meaningfully to economic productivity.

Around 1.94m Nepali people have accessed loans from commercial banks, development banks and finance companies. Of these, approximately 1.869m small borrowers have taken loans totaling
Rs 1.99trn.

These small borrowers include lower-middle-class individuals who often borrow to start small businesses, send family members abroad for work or fund vocational training. Many also take loans to purchase land or vehicles, or to build homes. However, this group is financially vulnerable. According to NRB data, 28.8 percent—equivalent to Rs 549.85bn—of their loans have become non-performing, accounting for 4.34 percent of total lending.

Mid-level borrowers, defined as those with loans between Rs 10m and Rs 100m, are also under financial stress. This segment includes approximately 6,793 borrowers, holding Rs 1.254trn in loans. Roughly 11 percent of this amount is non-performing, indicating severe repayment challenges, especially post-covid, as many small and medium enterprises failed to recover.

At the other end of the spectrum are large borrowers—those with loans exceeding Rs 100m. This group consists of just 7,763 borrowers, who collectively hold Rs 2.39trn. Even more concentrated, 1,552 individuals manage over Rs 1.34trn in loans, highlighting a stark imbalance in credit distribution. Despite handling large sums, the rate of non-performing loans in this group is significantly lower.

The data indicate that the larger the loan, the lower the likelihood of it being classified as non-performing. Borrowers in the higher brackets often have the advantage of restructuring loans, accessing new credit to service old debt and leveraging networks within the banking system. This circular lending practice, often facilitated by banks themselves, poses systemic risks and raises ethical questions.

Loans in the Rs 10–500m range account for 95 percent of Rs 1.048trn in outstanding loans, with a non-performing loan (NPL) ratio of 22.14 percent (Rs 232bn). Notably, NPL ratios decrease as loan sizes increase. For loans between Rs 50–100m, the NPL rate drops to 4.83 percent, and for
Rs 100–200m, it falls to 3.01 percent, with the highest loan brackets seeing NPLs as low as 0.04 percent.

There is a stark contrast in Nepal’s loan distribution and associated credit risks across borrower categories. While small and mid-level borrowers (with loans below Rs 100m) collectively hold significant portions of the total loan portfolio—Rs 1.99trn and Rs 1.254trn, respectively—they also exhibit alarmingly high non-performing loan (NPL) ratios of 28.8 percent and 11 percent, indicating financial vulnerability and limited resilience. In contrast, large and very large borrowers (with loans above Rs 100m), though few in number, control disproportionately high volumes of credit—up to
Rs 2.39trn—with remarkably low NPL ratios (3.01 percent and 0.04 percent). This inverse relationship between loan size and credit risk reveals a systemic concentration of financial resources among a limited elite, raising concerns about financial equity and governance. The findings underscore the need for regulatory reforms to rebalance credit flows, safeguard small borrowers, and address emerging issues of financial inequality and systemic risk.

This disparity raises concerns over the governance and equitable distribution of financial resources. NRB data reveal that out of 1.94m borrowers, just 194 individuals—0.01 percent—have accessed loans exceeding Rs 2.25trn, or 3.9 percent of the total loan volume. On an average, each of these individuals has taken loans of over Rs 1.11bn. These statistics underscore a critical issue: a limited number of individuals control a disproportionate share of banking sector credit.

This concentration of financial power has drawn attention in parliamentary discussions. In a recent meeting of the Finance Committee of the House of Representatives, clause-by-clause deliberations on the amendment of the Banks and Financial Institutions Act (BAFIA), 2073, are underway. The proposed amendments aim to address conflicts of interest, ensure fair loan distribution and introduce stricter governance measures to prevent the undue concentration of credit.

The ongoing legislative review seeks to establish clearer guidelines on eligibility for loans and address the structural weaknesses that allow such imbalances. Key concerns include whether bank directors and affiliated individuals are receiving favorable treatment and whether existing legal frameworks are sufficient to prevent misuse of financial resources.

As the debate continues, it has become evident that financial inequality is deepening. There is a pressing need for reforms to ensure that credit distribution contributes to inclusive growth, supports small and medium enterprises, and reflects principles of transparency and social justice.

The author is a senior fellow and program executive at SNG Solution

This is a challenging time for legacy media. As an editor, I frequently encounter concerns about the financial health of media houses. It is evident that society is becoming increasingly aware of the problems that the media industry is facing. Traditional media outlets are in the midst of an existential crisis, as both advertisers and audiences are migrating to digital platforms. 

Historically, the media has weathered technological shifts. The rise of radio in the 1920s did not significantly impact print, and radio itself managed to survive the television era despite visual’s strong appeal. However, the emergence of digital platforms is different; it is pushing all traditional media to the brink. This is why legacy media are now desperately working to develop a viable blueprint for survival. At this point, the primary goal for legacy media is to survive, if not thrive. To this end, for better or worse, they are working on two broad areas.

First, they are restructuring newsrooms to reduce staffing and administrative costs. While most layoffs have already been carried out, the new model, referred to as the integrated newsroom, is still taking shape. At the same time, media houses are exploring alternative revenue streams, as income from traditional sources, particularly advertisement, is fast declining. The idea of integrating radio, television and print newsrooms into a single space has gained momentum since the 2000s. In principle, it holds promise, especially if the goal is to foster collaboration among journalists across platforms, thereby enriching content. However, if the integration is pursued purely to cut costs, it risks undermining the very strengths of radio, television and print in the long run.

We must recognize that radio, television and print each have unique characteristics that have enabled them to survive for over a century. While they may report on similar issues, each platform has its own style of storytelling, audience engagement and distinct target audience. For instance, radio content often caters to both literate and illiterate audiences. This is something print and television may not fully accommodate. Delivering the same content across all platforms may offer short-term financial relief, but it will ultimately weaken the media’s overall impact. In Nepal, some experiments have already been done and they have been proved harmful rather than good outcomes in terms of securing the advertisement. 

Consider this: why did radio survive in the age of television? Because it offered something television could not. It had unique strengths that remained relevant despite the appeal of video. Over sixty years ago, Marshall McLuhan introduced the ‘medium is the message’ concept, suggesting that the characteristics of a communication medium influence how messages are perceived. Applying this idea today, we must be cautious about full-scale integration which may reduce costs marginally but compromise content quality and diversity in the long term.

International experiences show that poorly executed integration often leads to generic, homogenized content, sacrificing depth and specialization. In reality, if a media house is committed to delivering quality content, integrated newsrooms offer limited cost savings; perhaps only in administrative overheads or rent. In some cases, integration has even led to revenue losses, as clients are unwilling to pay separately for nearly identical content across platforms.

In the pursuit of financial sustainability, media houses are now experimenting with new revenue models. However, they are still unsure which model works best in Nepal.  Globally, dozens of new models are being tested, but most are still in the experimental stage. One thing is clear: While no alternative has matched the scale of advertising revenue, these new streams are providing a crucial lifeline for media houses, at least for survival. The Nepali context is even more complex. While internationally available revenue models can be useful for academic discussions, they may not be practical in Nepali society. A copy-paste approach to these models risks losing existing readers and audiences, especially if implemented without a clear understanding of Nepali society and its media consumption patterns.

Since the late 16th century, advertising has remained the dominant source of income for media; first for print, and later for television, radio and digital platforms. In addition, the print industry has long relied on subscription and circulation models, while television adopted the pay-TV model. The late 1940s saw the rise of advertorial content—paid content blending advertising and editorial, which, while still present, now contributes far less to overall revenue.

Advertisement continues to be the main revenue source for both legacy and digital media. However, the advertising landscape has changed significantly. Ads are now spread across both journalistic and non-journalistic platforms, ending the long-standing monopoly of legacy media. As a result, advertising alone can no longer sustain either traditional or digital outlets. This is not just a crisis of legacy media; it also affects digital media. That is why media organizations are desperately seeking to adopt new revenue models already in use internationally. Let’s consider the current revenue crisis and examine the strengths and weaknesses of some emerging models. One income stream that Nepali media houses have increasingly embraced is organizing events focused on political, economic and social issues.

Both legacy and digital outlets have generated substantial revenue from these events. Many advertisers now prefer sponsoring such events over placing traditional ads. While this approach is not new or particularly innovative, it has become competitive, with media outlets vying to host high-profile events to generate income. Another growing trend is video advertising, particularly through social media platforms. The volume of digital advertisements is gradually increasing. Some outlets are earning respectable sums from platforms like YouTube and Facebook though some legal hassles remain. Even small revenue from these platforms is offering much-needed support to struggling media houses.

Over the past few years, there has been a debate about the feasibility of a paywall subscription model in Nepal. While the online news portal Setopati has implemented this model, another popular portal Onlinekhabar remains hesitant due to fear that it may lose readership. We, at Annapurna Media Network, are also considering this model. However, we have concluded that further preparation and deliberation are necessary before moving forward.

Broadly speaking, digital platforms offer two types of subscription models: premium where users pay to access content, and freemium where basic content is free and only select content is behind a paywall. The paywall model cannot succeed without ensuring consistent quality in both text and video content. Readers will not be willing to pay for content that is superficial or poorly produced. Without significantly scaling up our current content, this model is likely to fail. At the same time, we must avoid the mistake of comparing ourselves with international media. The fact is that only a small segment of the Nepali population is willing to pay for content, even when it is of high quality.

A close study of quality content produced by media houses shows that very few people are actually reading it. One major reason is that the private sector, intellectuals, academia and society as a whole have become highly politicized and polarized. As a result, a wider section of the population tends to consume partisan and biased news that reinforces their perceptions and views rather than content that is accurate, balanced and impartial. While Nepal’s population is not small, the country’s economic conditions limit people’s ability and willingness to pay for news content. In short, the first major challenge is to consistently produce high-quality content tailored to different segments of the population.

As mentioned earlier, there is no lack of revenue models; the real challenge lies in identifying which models are suitable for our context. Potential models include live streaming, monetizing content through social media, generating income from memberships and newsletters, corporate social responsibility (CSR) support from businesses and funding from international organizations, among others. Unlike in the past, no single platform or model now dominates the media landscape. The only viable way forward, therefore, is to adopt a mix of revenue sources. Doing so, however, requires a broad strategic plan and upfront investment in these diverse areas. Since advertising alone cannot sustain media houses, it is time to re-imagine how they operate.

One bold step could be to transform media houses into non-profit entities, which would enable them to seek contributions from various sectors of society to support media sustainability. However, the current ownership structure may limit the ability to implement all possible revenue-generating models. Over the past three decades, Nepali media have rarely embraced innovation or entrepreneurship, primarily because they could rely on steady income from advertising. They also did little to engage with or respond to readers’ preferences and feedback. Today, innovation, entrepreneurship and the ability to adapt to changing expectations of readers are not just optional; they are essential for survival.

Nepal’s School Education Bill, long awaited to operationalize Article 31(2) of the Constitution—which guarantees every citizen the right to free and compulsory education up to secondary level—is now mired in conflict and controversy. Initially introduced to provide equitable, quality education, the Bill’s process has become a battlefield of political interests, pressure groups, and conflicting ideologies. Instead of upholding learners’ rights, the Bill now appears to be tilting toward protecting vested interests.

On April 30, the Nepal Teachers’ Federation reached a deal with the chief whips of the Nepali Congress and CPN-UML, halting its month-long protest on the understanding that the Bill would be endorsed by June 29. The Education, Health, and Information Technology Committee had initially agreed to a provision allowing permanent appointment of temporary, relief, and contract-based teachers through a 60 percent internal and 40 percent open competition model. Earlier, this was adjusted to a 50–50 ratio while presenting in parliament. However, the Federation insisted that 100 percent of permanent appointments be reserved for internal candidates, arguing they had “sacrificed” long enough.

In response to this demand, Education Minister Raghuji Panta requested the committee to withhold the Bill. This action drew sharp criticism and revived public distrust, evoking memories of the controversial cooling-off period in the Civil Service Bill. The credibility of the Parliament’s legislative sovereignty is now under scrutiny, as it appears increasingly vulnerable to organized lobbying. The key issue at stake is whether sacrifice can override constitutional principles such as fairness, competition, and inclusivity in public service. Can the Parliament remain accountable to the wider public—students, parents, and future educators—or will it continue to serve organized interest groups?

Reflections on the purpose of education

Meanwhile, the core idea of education itself is being missed in this debate. The Latin root educare means “to draw out” or “to lead from darkness to light.” In the words of the Upanishads: Asato ma sadgamaya, tamaso ma jyotirgamaya—“From falsehood to truth, from darkness to light.” However, when education becomes limited to securing permanent jobs for insiders, its transformative essence is lost. Education risks becoming a bureaucratic entitlement rather than a fundamental right.

Globally, education has often swung between these two poles: liberation and control. Caroline Veniero’s legal-historical research in the U.S. shows how the Freedmen’s Bureau (1865–1872) helped African Americans acquire literacy after slavery, reinforcing the connection between literacy and citizenship. In stark contrast, the Boarding Schools for Native Americans forcibly assimilated Indigenous children under the slogan “Kill the Indian, save the man.” These examples highlight how education can be used either to empower or to dominate.

Additionally, India’s legal evolution offers further insights. In Unnikrishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993), the Indian Supreme Court linked Article 45 (Directive Principle) with Article 21 (Right to Life), recognizing education as fundamental to human dignity. This marked a doctrinal shift by merging Directive Principles with enforceable Fundamental Rights. Literacy was seen not just as a skill but as a condition for democratic participation. Yet, as Anil Sadgopal argues, this principle was soon undermined. Sadgopal’s critique of India’s Right to Education Act (2009) reveals how it created a segmented system: elite private schools for the rich, under-resourced public schools for the poor. He described it as a “Fundamental Right to Unequal Education.” His alternative vision was a Common School System based on Neighbourhood Schools, where children from all backgrounds would study together in the same public institutions. Nepal could draw from this model as it reconsiders its own Bill.

Alongside domestic policy debates, international frameworks have shaped education’s trajectory. The Jomtien Declaration (1990) and the Dakar Framework (2000), both endorsed by the World Bank, promoted education reform through “basic” and “life skills,” encouraging public-private partnerships and reducing state responsibility. Education was recast as a service to meet market needs rather than a public good. In India, this led to an emphasis on voucher systems and minimum learning benchmarks, gradually disconnecting education from its democratic and egalitarian roots.

Moreover, these global and regional influences carry serious implications. Historian Badri Raina reminds us how access to education has historically been denied to preserve privilege. The stories of Eklavya, Karna, and Shambuka from epics show how caste and class boundaries were enforced through educational exclusion. Colonial policy continued this pattern. Lord Macaulay’s 1837 Minute on Indian Education proposed to create a class of intermediaries loyal to the colonial state by limiting education to the privileged few.

Raina argues that postcolonial policies like the National Education Policy (1986) also reproduced inequality by assuming poverty as permanent and designing education around that assumption. If Nepal’s School Education Bill moves in the direction of institutionalizing privilege by excluding open competition and undermining local autonomy, it may replicate these unjust patterns.

A call for rights-based and inclusive education reform

Further, this risk becomes even more pronounced when education is evaluated against four international standards of rights-based provision: availability, accessibility, acceptability, and adaptability. A meaningful education system must provide sufficient infrastructure and qualified teachers (availability), ensure non-discriminatory access (accessibility), uphold quality and relevance (acceptability), and remain responsive to diverse learner needs (adaptability). Without addressing all four pillars, any reform risks being incomplete.

The current proposal, as shaped by union demands, fails on all four counts. It limits access for new and future educators, prioritizes job security over learner outcomes, resists decentralization, and risks undermining the constitutional authority of local governments. By shifting decision-making back to central and freezing competitive recruitment, the Bill sets a precedent for political capture over public accountability.

If passed in its current form, the law will likely protect the system but not the students. It will reward seniority over merit, representation over performance, and status quo over innovation and departure. It risks becoming what one might call a “School Staff Bill” rather than a “School Education Bill.”

In this context, the haunting phrase from US history—“Kill the Indian, save the man”—becomes relevant once more. It shows how education, if misused, can erase identities, suppress change, and maintain control. Nepal must choose another path. It must adopt a law that empowers rather than protects, that includes rather than excludes, and that looks ahead rather than backwards.

Nepal’s School Education Bill was introduced to fulfill the constitutional right to free, equitable education. But under political and institutional pressure, it risks becoming an instrument of exclusion rather than inclusion. The demands for 100 percent internal recruitment, the delay in committee meetings, and the withdrawal of agreed provisions all point to a system more concerned with safeguarding employment than delivering justice.

Conclusion

This is the moment for the Parliament to show courage. It must listen to students, parents, and prospective teachers—not only to organized interest groups. The Bill must be reframed to center education as a public good, grounded in constitutional ethics, democratic participation, and equity. Ultimately, the choice is clear: a law that leads Nepal from darkness to light, or one that leaves it circling in the shadows of inequality. Let this Bill become a beacon of justice—not a symbol of another missed opportunity.

After spending decades in government, I found myself at a crossroads, eager to channel my extensive experience into a new pursuit. My background spans a wide array of government sectors—from public and development administration to financial management, revenue, accounting, auditing and public procurement. While some might label this a “jack of all trades, master of none,” I see this diverse knowledge as oftentimes better than being a master of one. The Public Service Forum quickly emerged as the perfect platform. In this unifying field, my numerous experiences could converge, ultimately leading me to dedicate my post-retirement focus to public service reforms.

My drive for reform stems from a deep-seated, persistent dissatisfaction that citizens feel about public service delivery, especially in an increasingly digital world. My recent experiences navigating various government bodies for personal matters vividly highlighted the confusion, uncertainties and delays. Despite having spent over 4.5 decades in policy formulation, regulation, and oversight, I felt a strong urge to contribute more directly to service improvement. “The UN Public Service Forum 2025” offered an opportunity to support my thoughts.

A global perspective

The global conversation on public service reform offers invaluable insights. The United Nations Public Service Forum 2025, held in Samarkand, Uzbekistan, from June 23 to 25, resonated with its theme: “Five Years for 2030: Accelerating Public Service Delivery for a Sustainable Future.” Co-hosted by the UN and the Government of Uzbekistan, the forum powerfully underscored the urgent need to accelerate progress in public administration to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals, with a strong emphasis on digital transformation, innovation and collaboration.

I had the privilege of attending this significant forum, which gathered approximately 1,000 participants. Among them were high-ranking officials, including Navid Hanif (Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations) and the Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia, as well as nearly two dozen ministers from various ministries related to public service worldwide. Notably, from Nepal, this writer and Bidhan Sharma, Managing Director of Air Charge Nepal, participated through personal initiative.

The three-day program primarily revolved around innovation, digitalization and the latest advancements in information technology for public services. Referring to the UN E-Government Development Index, 12 countries were recognized for their significant strides in digital government: Albania, Armenia, Colombia, Ecuador, Jordan, Mexico, Mongolia, the Philippines, South Africa, Turkey, Ukraine and Uzbekistan.

The forum highlighted significant advancements in public service. Numerous presentations showcased public service systems and reforms in countries that have made services easier, simpler and more efficient through digital governance. Uzbekistan is showcasing remarkable reforms. They achieved a 30 percent reduction in executive staff, abolished numerous licenses and permits, and simplified over 70 public services. Their ‘e-government’ system is widely utilized, offering 350+ online services and training a million citizens in digital literacy to enhance civil service readiness. Since Jan 2023, they've further streamlined their government by reducing independent bodies and ministries.

Hanif of the UN reiterated in his remarks that humanity outweighs files and documents, and being a civil servant is an honor defined by achievable results. He stressed that innovation requires long-term planning and a fundamental shift in the mindset of both leadership and staff. He advocated for citizens to be organically connected with the government through policies and programs, not merely trained in participation, fostering a collaborative journey forward.

The forum’s success, marked by the consistent presence of high-level officials like Hanif of the UN, various ministers, including Uzbekistan’s Minister of Digital Technologies, Sherzod Shermatov, and contributions from speakers, among others, Vincenzo Aquaro (UNDESA), Derek Alton (Apolitical), Luanna Faira (LA-BORA Gov) and Robin Bennett (Creative Bureaucracy), underscored a strong commitment to reform. It was announced that the next Public Service Forum will be held in Georgia in 2026.

Key takeaways

The forum’s plenaries, Innovation Lab, and workshops centered on AI and Innovation, emphasizing AI’s crucial role in our current era. A key takeaway highlighted the need for a balanced approach: leveraging technology to enhance human intelligence and judgment, not replace it. The forum concluded by outlining the following four key points:

• AI and the public sector: AI holds transformative potential, but its adoption is fragmented, requiring foundational investment and addressing obstacles like data literacy, outdated infrastructure and strategic alignment.
• Innovation in the public sector: Innovation must be purpose-driven, citizen-centric, built on trust, collaboration and adaptable systems. It should solve real problems, ensuring the voices of marginalized citizens are heard, and empowering public servants with tools, training and authority.
• Capacity-building in civil service in the age of AI: Digital transformation hinges on building the capacity of civil servants and institutions, involving technical skills alongside ethical, regulatory and operational considerations of AI. Strategic commitment and central platforms are essential.
• Mindset change and strategic vision: Lasting innovation necessitates cultural change, adaptive leadership and a long-term vision that encourages learning, experimentation and inclusivity. Innovation is not optional; it’s a necessity.

This forum has highly motivated me to continue using my experience to improve public service in Nepal and around the globe. I extend my sincere thanks to the United Nations Public Service Forum for this incredible opportunity, and I look forward to potentially meeting again in the next forum in Georgia in 2026.

State of public service in Nepal

Nepal is actively pursuing public service reform through the adoption of Information Technology (IT) and digital governance systems, a core component of its 2019 “Digital Nepal Framework” (DNF). The clear goal is to enhance the efficiency, transparency and accessibility of public services for everyone. Significant strides have been made, building on IT policies and the broader DNF. The framework identifies eight key sectors for digital transformation: digital foundation, agriculture, health, education, energy, tourism, finance and urban infrastructure

Currently, the Government of Nepal provides a range of essential public services via IT and digital governance systems. This includes managing identity and personal documents, taxation and revenue services, financial transactions, various local governance functions, and access to employment and social security benefits, largely facilitated by platforms like the Nagarik App. There are many perfect IT operation systems in government business. For instance, in revenue administration, financial management, public procurement, and government auditing, fully electronic systems are in place, where over ninety percent of the work is IT-based.

Despite the introduction of IT systems and other reforms over the past years, the working environment at most service delivery points still requires significant improvement. In the past, manual work might have caused minor delays; in the digital era, there seems to be increased confusion among service-seekers. Many organizations now use a hybrid system that often merely adds a data entry step, rather than genuinely streamlining processes. Overall, citizens are eager to find an easy way to access services across various sectors, including through IT systems.

Shifting to an IT system from manual labor is not an easy task. It needs continuous effort, curiosity, habit and confidence to work in the system. It takes years to fully come to perfection, specifically for the old generation. People using mobile phones are becoming habituated to using IT systems, but there are still many government officials from the old generation who feel comfortable working manually only because of a lack of knowledge, skill and confidence to operate an IT system.

Over nearly four decades in IT, I’ve witnessed Nepal’s remarkable shift from “ICU-like” computer rooms to full digital reliance. Manual transactions have given way to widespread digital payments, including direct bank transfers, now common in the single treasury account system—a trend that was a novelty even in developed countries just decades ago. Yet, inconsistent information and a fragmented regulatory landscape still significantly hinder Nepal’s electronic service delivery, leaving it behind more dynamic global approaches.

The path forward

Nepal’s public service needs a significant digital transformation to enhance citizen well-being and national development. While progress has been made, the immediate focus must shift to thorough business process re-engineering, robust cybersecurity and boosting digital proficiency for both civil servants and the public. Achieving this modernization demands sustained, high-level political and administrative commitment, alongside the establishment of a single, dedicated coordinating agency, much like a Ministry of Public Service found in other countries.

Advancing Nepal’s public service through IT systems requires further dynamism. This future necessitates a multifaceted approach: embracing artificial intelligence, adopting innovative ideas, building the capacity of both employees and citizens, fostering a transformative mindset, securing unwavering commitment from leadership, and developing a clear strategic plan. Crucially, we must cultivate a culture where Nepal’s progress in public service is actively showcased at international forums, enabling vital exchanges of experience and the emulation of global best practices.

Transforming Nepal’s public sector requires a strategic shift toward IT-driven public service, digital governance and AI integration. This vital reform hinges on adopting global best practices and investing in extensive training for both public service employees and citizens. Government training must evolve beyond traditional regulations, prioritizing the development of citizen-centric services through IT. Simultaneously, empowering service-seekers with practical digital literacy will facilitate more efficient interactions, initiatives like Uzbekistan’s plan to train a million citizens in digital literacy to enhance civil service readiness.

Ultimately, public service encompasses all goods, services and facilities provided by the state for the welfare of its citizens. Public service is a fundamental right of citizens, and its system is in dire need of comprehensive and sustained reforms.

The author is a former auditor general of Nepal