In Nepal today, there is a growing feeling that things must change, and change fast. Many people are tired of corruption, political hiring and systems that do not work as they should. In such a moment, when strong and decisive actions are taken, it is natural to feel a sense of relief. Finally, something is moving. Finally, someone is acting. But at the same time, there is also unease. Not everyone is comfortable with the speed, the method or the consequences. This tension is not a weakness. It reflects the complexity of the situation we are in. There are generally two ways societies evolve.
One is gradual, where change happens slowly through learning, participation and institutional development. The other is more abrupt, where leaders try to break existing systems and introduce new rules quickly. Nepal at this moment seems to be experiencing more of the second. This is not surprising. When problems become deeply rooted, slow reform often feels insufficient. People lose patience. They begin to prefer action over discussion. Yet action without process brings its own questions. One example is the use of ordinances to pass decisions without full parliamentary debate. For some, this is necessary to avoid delays and resistance from within the system. For others, it raises concerns about legitimacy.
Debate is not just a procedural step. It is where different voices are heard, where policies are tested, and where unintended consequences can be identified early. When this space is reduced, even well intentioned policies can feel imposed rather than agreed upon. The issue of sukumbasi (informal) settlements shows how difficult this balance is. There are cases where people misuse public land, claiming to be landless when they are not. Addressing this is important. A system cannot function if rules are constantly bypassed. At the same time, there are families who genuinely have no alternative. They live on public land not by choice, but by necessity. When both groups are treated just the same, the line between justice and hardship becomes unclear.
Clearing settlements may solve a structural problem, but it creates a human one if people are left without support. Promises of rehabilitation are important, but they need to be timely, clear and trustworthy. Otherwise, people experience the policy not as reform, but as displacement.
A similar pattern appears in everyday economic policies. New customs rules on small cross border purchases may be designed to bring discipline and reduce leakage. From a national perspective, this can make sense. But for people living near the border, or those with limited income, these small transactions are part of daily life. They are not exploiting the system. They are surviving within it. A policy that looks minor on paper can feel heavy in practice. This is where rapid change often struggles. It treats society as if it is uniform, but in reality, people experience policies very differently depending on their situation.
What feels like progress to one group may feel like loss to another. At the same time, relying only on gradual change is not always realistic. In systems where problems are deeply embedded, slow reform can be absorbed, delayed or even quietly resisted. It can create the appearance of change without changing much at all. This is why moments of disruption emerge. They reflect accumulated frustration, not just political ambition.
So Nepal stands between two pressures. The need to act, and the need to act carefully. In such a moment, the role of citizens also becomes complicated. There is a tendency to think that we must either fully support or strongly oppose. But reality is not so simple. Constant criticism can weaken the momentum needed for reform. It can turn every action into a controversy. At the same time, blind support can remove the checks that keep power accountable. Without questioning, even good intentions can lead to poor outcomes. The challenge is not to choose one side, but to hold both responsibilities at once: To support the need for change, while also asking how that change is being carried out. Another concern is how easily change becomes tied to individuals. When a leader or a small team becomes the symbol of reform, people begin to place their hopes in that person. This can be inspiring, but also risky. Systems should not depend on personalities. If change is not built into institutions, it may not last beyond the current leadership. What is achieved quickly can also disappear quickly. There is also a deeper layer to consider. Society is not only shaped by laws and policies. It is shaped by habits, relationships and shared understandings. These evolve slowly.
Even the strongest policy cannot immediately change how people think or behave. If this cultural dimension is ignored, reforms may face resistance or fail to take root. Today, this complexity is amplified by the divide between online and offline spaces. Social media often presents issues in extreme terms. People are either for or against. There is little space for nuance. But on the ground, life continues in more complicated ways. People adapt, negotiate and find ways to cope, often outside the simplified narratives we see online.
