Submit your Article

Land is more than an economic asset; it has historically shaped social structures and power dynamics. Across the world, land ownership has been a critical factor in defining economic stability, political power and social mobility. However, land reforms have often faced resistance from elites, loopholes in legislation and poor implementation. Past policies continue to influence present land governance, making meaningful reforms difficult to achieve. Analyzing land policies in the United States, Nepal, India and England reveals recurring challenges such as institutional failures, demographic pressures and agrarian struggles that obstruct fair land distribution.

Land is also an instrument of social control, often manipulated by ruling classes to maintain economic dominance. In countries where land reforms have been attempted, the most significant obstacles have been corruption, elite influence and the challenge of balancing modernization with traditional land rights. The experiences of different nations provide important lessons for Nepal as it attempts to navigate its own land reform policies.

Reforms amid controversy

The Government of Nepal recently introduced an ordinance amending multiple land-related acts, including the Land Act (2021), National Parks Act (2029) and Forest Act (2076). The ordinance aims to regulate real estate development, public land use and forest management while addressing encroachment and ownership disputes. The key provisions focus on allowing licensed real estate companies to develop and sell land within specified limits, protecting public and indigenous lands, and legalizing certain settlements for landless communities. It also revises land classifications, including religious forest areas, and reclassifies encroached lands under national park and forest regulations without affecting local ownership rights, among others.

The government has argued that the ordinance is necessary to bring structure and clarity to Nepal’s chaotic land governance system. The ordinance, it says, is intended to prevent illegal land encroachment, promote responsible development and ensure fair land distribution. However, the ordinance has sparked intense political debate. Opposition parties have criticized its provisions, leading to delays in tabling for parliamentary approval. Critics argue that the ordinance prioritizes commercial interests over the rights of landless communities and marginalized groups. There are also concerns about its implementation, as previous land laws have often been undermined by bureaucratic inefficiencies and corruption.

The ministry holds the authority to issue directives for the ordinance’s implementation, but concerns remain over its potential misuse and long-term impact on land distribution. If not managed carefully, there is a risk that the ordinance could deepen existing inequalities rather than resolve them. The government must ensure transparency in enforcement and address the concerns of those who stand to be affected by the reforms.

Federal vs state conflicts

The US land policies, as analyzed by Paul W Gates (1976), show how land privatization shifted from federal control, enabling monopolization and speculation. The Land Ordinance of 1785 established structured ownership, but Alexander Hamilton’s 1790 policies allowed large-scale speculation. The Homestead Act of 1862, meant for small farmers, was misused by elites to amass land. Similar conflicts between federal and state land management in the US reflect Nepal’s current struggles in implementing fair land policies.

The lessons from the US show that without stringent enforcement, well-intended land policies can lead to unintended consequences. The dominance of wealthy landowners and real estate speculators can stifle opportunities for small farmers and vulnerable populations. Nepal’s government must be cautious in ensuring that the ordinance does not enable similar trends.

Population Growth and Land Pressure in Nepal

The research by Hrabovszky and Miyan (1987) highlights how rapid population growth has increased land fragmentation, resource depletion and deforestation in Nepal. The population doubled from 8.3m in 1951 to 16.7m in 1985, intensifying competition for limited arable land. The ‘Great Turnabout’ migration, where people moved from the mountains to the Tarai plains, led to increased land-use conflicts and encroachment. This demographic pressure remains a central issue in Nepal’s land governance today.

As Nepal’s population continues to grow, the pressure on land resources is expected to escalate. Unchecked migration and informal settlements are likely to increase unless there is a comprehensive strategy to balance population distribution and land development. The land ordinance must consider long-term demographic trends to prevent further degradation of natural resources and ensure sustainable land use.

India’s struggle with reforms

Koshy (1974) discusses how India’s land reform efforts were undermined by legal loopholes that allowed landlords to evade land ceilings. Nayak (2013) examines the National Land Records Modernization Program (NLRMP), which improved transparency through digitization but shifted the focus away from redistribution toward market efficiency. This led to increased commercialization of land, leaving small farmers vulnerable. Nepal faces similar risks if land reforms prioritize market forces over equitable distribution.

The Indian experience serves as a warning for Nepal, demonstrating that modernization without addressing fundamental inequalities can worsen land-related disparities. Nepal must be careful in ensuring that legal loopholes do not allow wealthy landowners to consolidate even more land under the new ordinance.

Influence of absentee landlords

Melton (1978) explores absentee land ownership in 17th century England, where estates were managed remotely by financial trustees. The case of the second Duke of Buckingham demonstrates how non-residential landowners influenced agricultural wealth distribution. Nepal faces comparable challenges, with corporate landowners exerting control over vast areas, often at the expense of local farmers.

Absentee land ownership weakens local economies by diverting wealth away from agricultural communities. If Nepal’s land ordinance does not address this issue, it may perpetuate a system in which rural farmers remain economically disadvantaged while landowners benefit disproportionately from land-related profits.

Gender disparities and landlessness

Rajuladevi (2000) highlights the struggles of female agricultural laborers in Tamil Nadu, showing how caste and gender deepened economic marginalization. Dalit women faced lower wages and seasonal unemployment, reinforcing cycles of poverty. Nepal mirrors this trend, where women and marginalized groups often lack secure land rights, worsening their economic vulnerability.

Women’s land rights in Nepal remain a significant issue, as land inheritance laws and societal norms often prevent them from owning land. The new ordinance must actively promote gender-inclusive land policies to ensure women are not further excluded from land ownership opportunities.

Future of land reforms in Nepal

A global comparison of land policies illustrates challenges in achieving equitable land distribution highlighting that land governance remains a contentious issue. This comparative study reveals how historical institutionalism, agrarian transition theory and political ecology provide critical insights into the persistence of land inequalities

Nepal must learn from these experiences and implement a balanced approach that prioritizes fair land distribution, sustainable development and inclusive policies. The land ordinance must be carefully structured to prevent elite capture, promote rural development and address the needs of marginalized groups. Without a transparent and just system, the risk of perpetuating land inequality remains high.

Given land’s sensitive and historically contentious nature, the government must consult all stakeholders before proposing reforms. Such measures should be introduced as parliamentary bills, not ordinances, allowing full legislative debates before they become laws.

The government must ensure the ordinance’s effective enforcement and introduce mechanisms to monitor its long-term impact. Sustainable land management, community engagement and fair policies must be the foundation for Nepal’s land reforms. Only then can the country achieve a more just and equitable land distribution system for future generations.

While teaching communication to master’s students, I often reflect on its deeper  significance—not just in theory but in real-world applications. Communication is  fundamental to human existence. It begins at an interpersonal level, extends to spiritual and societal dimensions, and even governs the biological processes that sustain life. As Dr David Sinclair discusses in Lifespan, cells constantly exchange signals to maintain function. When communication breaks down, whether in the body, society or  governance, disorder follows.

Communication and its challenges 

At its core, communication consists of a messenger (sender), a message, a channel and a  receiver. For effective communication, both the sender and the receiver must have a shared understanding of the message. When this fails, miscommunication occurs, leading  to inefficiency, misalignment or even conflict. 

In class discussions, we often explore why miscommunication happens. Several key  factors contribute to it: the intention behind the message, the clarity of the message itself, the reliability of the communication channel and the receiver’s interpretation of the message. External noise (such as misinformation and disinformation), biases in the media and  differences in perception further complicate the process.

A critical debate in communication studies is how information should be structured.  Should it flow through a centralized system for consistency, or should it be decentralized for flexibility? Both approaches have their strengths and weaknesses. Centralized systems  provide clarity but can be rigid, while decentralized models encourage adaptability but may  lead to fragmentation. 

Jürgen Habermas, in his discussion of the system and the lifeworld, examines how institutionalized structures interact with everyday communication. The system refers to institutionalized structures like government or bureaucracy, while the lifeworld encompasses the everyday communication and experiences of individuals. In Nepali  politics, this tension is evident in the struggle between formal governance structures and  public discourse. Bureaucratic systems and political institutions often dictate the flow of information, shaping narratives that serve political elites rather than fostering genuine civic engagement. This disconnect undermines transparency and weakens public trust, as  political messaging shifts from dialogue to control.

Political communication in Nepal 

Applying this model to Nepali politics reveals significant challenges. Ideally, political communication should create a shared understanding of national interests. However, it  often serves to promote individual or party narratives rather than collective progress.

The challenges begin with the messengers—political leaders—whose messaging is often  influenced by party agendas rather than national priorities. Messages should be  transparent and reflective of reality, yet they are frequently ambiguous, selectively framed or shaped to fit specific political narratives. The media plays a crucial role in message dissemination, but concerns over bias and political affiliations sometimes hinder the  public’s access to objective information. The rapid spread of unverified content on social media further complicates the landscape, making it difficult for citizens to differentiate  between fact and political rhetoric.

Nepali political discourse often lacks coherence due to internal party conflicts, shifting alliances and fragmented messaging. For instance, the ongoing debate between those advocating for the reinstatement of the monarchy and Hindu statehood versus those supporting the current federal democratic republic system has created a highly polarized political environment. Additionally, the controversial dismissal of Kulman Ghising has  sparked widespread debate. Some view his removal as a politically motivated act  influenced by party rivalries, while others believe it reflects the government’s dissatisfaction with his management of the energy sector. Furthermore, the aggressive use of social media by influential figures through posts that stir public sentiment exacerbates  these divisions. These conflicting narratives—both online and offline—contribute to  uncertainty, divert attention from critical governance issues and fuel political instability. The fragmentation of political messaging weakens governance, delays policy  implementation, and erodes public trust.

Feedback is key

One of the critical aspects of Nepali political communication is feedback. Effective  communication should be a two-way process, allowing for dialogue and accountability. While elections provide periodic feedback, they occur infrequently, leaving limited  opportunities for continuous public engagement. Political discussions are often one-sided,  with leaders relying on speeches and rallies rather than meaningful interaction with  citizens. Public dissatisfaction, when expressed through protests or debates, is sometimes  met with defensive responses rather than constructive dialogue. 

To strengthen political communication, there must be a shift toward transparency,  inclusivity and responsiveness. Independent media should be reinforced to ensure that communication channels remain neutral and informative rather than instruments of  political influence. Mechanisms for public engagement should be expanded, providing citizens with opportunities to voice concerns beyond election cycles. Equally important is  public awareness—critical thinking and media literacy can help individuals navigate  political messaging more effectively.

Moving forward 

Scholars in communication studies often note that “perfect communication is a myth.” This  doesn’t imply that communication can’t be improved, but rather that political discourse  must acknowledge its inherent complexity, context and evolving perspectives. For Nepal, this underscores the urgent need for institutional reforms that promote transparency,  foster open dialogue and establish continuous channels for civic engagement.  Strengthening public forums, independent media and participatory governance structures can ensure that political communication serves the broader national interest rather than  partisan agendas. 

While perfect communication remains unattainable, it is essential to recognize that  meaning is shaped by context, perception and interpretation. In Nepali politics, communication has the potential to unite and drive progress. However, when manipulated  as a tool for influence rather than genuine understanding, it leads to polarization and stagnation. In line with Habermas’ theory, “transparent and accountable  communication” is crucial for bridging the gap between the system and the lifeworld. By  improving communication strategies in Nepal, we can align institutional structures more  closely with the public's needs and aspirations, promoting a more inclusive and  democratic society. 

Addressing these challenges requires a shift from rhetoric to meaningful action. Political  institutions must adopt communication strategies that are structured, responsive and foster ongoing dialogue. Transparent, accountable communication will build a stronger foundation for governance and national development. Moving forward, fostering responsible discourse should be a shared priority among political leaders, media and the public. Without this shift, misinformation, mistrust and missed opportunities will continue to undermine progress.

Whether it is a good or bad thing to view politics through the lens of political intermediaries and what they do (example: mediation) is a matter of debate. Intermediaries can be defined as a mixed group of actors (political intermediaries, political parties, interest groups, movements) that act as a bridge between two or more levels, social institutions; while mediation, as a process, includes all the medications that these actors make to keep the political system intact. Intermediaries mediate contests across different spheres and areas. These acts and practices of mediation are diverse, multi-level, multi-form and involved. 

The study of political change through intermediaries reveals the interrelationships of locality, social power and political intermediaries in policy, politics, public distribution and the multiple roles that intermediaries perform at different scales of these processes. It has become public that the government faces a challenge in appointing the 18th Governor by cutting off the interference of business groups. The chief of the central bank (Nepal Rastra Bank) should be selected from among a group of capable and qualified persons. Party and other interests should not be considered in this. However, there is a widespread opinion that business groups and middlemen are now dominating the selection of the governor, and even that this position has been exchanged with the clan. 

Of course, each political party also has its own interests. No one disagrees with the appointment of an independent and capable person as governor because this is a purely technical position and plays the role of an advisor to guide the country. Yes, the country should feel the shift from caste-based and single-caste rule to inclusiveness. When various interest groups lobby for a certain candidate as the governor, this raises questions about the autonomy of the central bank itself. In general, an interest group is any association of individuals or institutions, usually formally organized, that, based on one or more common concerns, attempts to influence public policy in its favor. 

Where a think tank differs is that it goes beyond analysis, observation and lobbying, advocacy, debate, and actively provides insights to influence policies at the global, regional and national levels. The job of a lobbyist is to persuade and communicate key points of information to politicians in order to change their minds, vote a certain way or influence policy change. Many lobbyists are professionals, but ordinary people can lobby with their political representatives on issues they feel strongly about. 

Some organizations may use their communications team to fulfill this role, rather than employing a professional lobbyist. A lobbyist typically performs this role face-to-face. While it is perfectly legitimate to communicate with politicians about key issues, representing or attempting to persuade them of the views of key stakeholders, unethical lobbyists may seek to persuade them either through overt or covert bribery or other means (such as blackmail).
A pressure group is an organization that attempts to influence decisions. This is a group that engages in lobbying a politician or decision-maker. They employ strategies other than lobbying to try to persuade and influence change. For example, they may engage in media relations campaigns, advertisements, protests, and so on. These should not have undue influence. 

Why should one group have more say in policy than others? This may represent a corruption of democracy, in that the government should be in the best interests of the majority of the people. The suspicion is that lobbyists influence policies to the benefit of the few, and that big business gains undue influence as a result of their ability to use such strategies. 

But lobbying can be benign and not always professional. Think tanks produce research that attempts to work in the public interest by convincing politicians that wearing seat belts reduces road deaths and that pressure groups formed by victims’ parents will save lives by changing laws. 

Are think tanks, lobbyists and pressure groups a threat to democracy? The question arises. Let’s start by understanding what these groups are, and then look at how they affect democracy.

There is no clear definition of what a think tank is. It is a group of individuals whose job is to provide ideas, commentary and sometimes research on a key topic. There are many types of think tanks and their work overlaps with that of industry analysts and researchers within higher education institutions such as universities.
Lobbying is the activity of influencing decision-makers (usually politicians). People who do this are called lobbyists. The job of a lobbyist is to persuade and communicate key points of information to politicians in order to change their minds, vote a certain way, or influence policy changes. Many lobbyists are professionals, but ordinary people can lobby their political representatives on issues they feel strongly about. 

Some organizations may use their own communications team to fulfill this role, rather than employing a professional lobbyist. A lobbyist usually performs this role face-to-face. While it is perfectly legitimate to represent or attempt to persuade key stakeholders when talking to politicians about major issues, unethical lobbyists may seek to persuade through either overt or covert bribery or other means (such as blackmail). 

Pressure groups 

A pressure group is an organization that attempts to influence decisions. This is a group that engages in lobbying a politician or decision-maker. They employ strategies other than lobbying to try to persuade and influence change. 

For example, they may engage in media relations campaigns, advertising, protests and so on. These should not be biased in favor or against. Why should one group have more say in policy than others? This can represent a corruption of democracy, which is supposed to serve the interests of the majority of the people.
Indeed, Nepal’s political life is dominated by interest groups that do not communicate with each other. Leaders therefore talk less to each other and to the public than to the media. The political culture of the media, however, is marked by dualism: private media tend to portray the leadership in a very negative light.
Private media, relatively free from government censorship, have fallen into the hands of economic and political tycoons who use them to manipulate public consciousness and provoke leaders to fight each other by exposing illegal practices. It is not a good sign that money is in the hands of middlemen, setting business with politicians. 

Politics, administration and even entrepreneurs have fallen into the setting business in recent days. Policy decisions have started to be made according to the influence of middlemen, ie interest groups. Therefore, now it is not a good sign to come to the social network that says, ‘Where is the money?’ It is not a good sign at all. In fact, a scary situation has started to arise in Nepal, setting before decisions. Who will be promoted? Who will be transferred?  The opinion that interest groups and middlemen have already set it is becoming more and more popular.

In the private sector, the tendency to make money at any cost rather than being reasonable has started to dominate. In recent days, the private sector has been working to inspire politicians in setting, middlemen and policy corruption.

And, there is also a tendency to discredit politicians and employees who are not cooperative with their plans. In particular, let's develop competitive capabilities, demand equal treatment, regulation and environment from the state, but it is not good to go beyond that and become overly ambitious. The topics of debate about international intermediaries, national intermediaries, local civil society and civil movements have already started to appear in Nepal. With the money given by donors, various international NGOs used to work using their own administrative and technical mechanisms. Services and facilities would reach the people directly. 

All this affects those with the most money the most. 

Accountability and transparency

Accountability is not always an issue. The best think tanks and lobbyists are clear about where their money is coming from, and what they stand for; but some do not disclose who is paying for their services. We need to know who is paying the bill because it enables us to detect and explain bias. 

But in Nepal, it has become a matter of great concern and concern among the public that a very bad culture is developing in which people pay money to get their own decisions and appointments made in their favor. The most ethical firms clearly state who is sponsoring their work, and coordinate their work with policy to keep it correct, such as reviewing it, using methods to ensure independence or accuracy. However, the use of cutting-edge technology to influence politicians and voters is also questionable.

Poverty in Nepal remains widespread, especially in rural areas. Many poor people struggle to earn enough to meet their basic needs, relying on small, often unproductive pieces of land. This land doesn’t produce enough crops or generate enough income, making poverty more severe in rural areas compared to urban ones.

In 2010-11, about 25 percent of Nepal’s population lived below the poverty line. By 2023-24, this number had decreased to 20.3 percent, a reduction of 18.8 percent. While this shows some progress, many people still struggle to make ends meet. A 19 percent reduction in poverty over a decade is but a small improvement. Progress has been slow, and many still face difficulties, especially in rural areas. Efforts to fight poverty have not been strong enough to make a significant impact. According to a recent World Bank report, most of the poverty reduction can be attributed to remittances. This suggests that government efforts alone have not been enough to bring significant change.

This highlights the need for more action within Nepal to tackle poverty. There should be more local job opportunities, better access to education and healthcare, and better support for farmers so that people can improve their lives without having to migrate. While remittances help, they are not a long-term solution to poverty. The government and relevant organizations need to address the root causes of poverty and provide local opportunities for growth.

To reduce poverty further, Nepal must improve conditions for rural communities. This includes better access to education, healthcare, and technology, as well as improving farming practices. It’s also important to create more job opportunities outside of farming, so people don't have to rely solely on agriculture for survival.

Meanwhile, inequality in income or spending has decreased. In 2010-11, the Gini coefficient (GC), which measures income distribution, was 0.33. By 2023-24, it dropped to 0.30, a three percent decrease. The Gini coefficient ranges from zero (perfect equality) to one (extreme inequality). A GC of 0.3 shows that while inequality has decreased, it is still at a moderate level, meaning there is still a gap between the rich and the poor in how resources are shared.
Although the reduction in inequality is a positive sign, more work is needed. The three percent decrease suggests that efforts to reduce inequality are moving in the right direction, but there is still a long way to go to ensure fairer distribution of wealth and opportunities across Nepal. The government and organizations must focus on policies that help reduce inequality further. This could include improving access to education, healthcare and job opportunities for everyone, especially those in rural areas or from poorer backgrounds. By creating more equal opportunities, Nepal can continue to reduce inequality and move toward a more balanced society.

In conclusion, while poverty and inequality have decreased in Nepal, the changes are still not enough. Stronger and more effective efforts are necessary, particularly in rural areas. Remittances have played a key role, but they are not a long-term solution. The government needs to create more local opportunities for people to improve their lives and address inequality to ensure a fairer distribution of resources and opportunities across all communities.