By P.R. Pradhan

From the very beginning of the federalism debate, we have been firm in our opposition. Federalism, we argued, would undermine Nepal’s sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity. Unfortunately, through what can only be described as a political conspiracy, federalism was forced upon the country—along with the declaration of Nepal as a secular republic—despite significant opposition.
Political leaders, media professionals, intellectuals, and members of civil society—many of whom are linked to INGOs sponsored by the Open Society and other foreign interests—deliberately ignored these concerns. We warned early on that federalism, republicanism, and secularism would push the nation into a dark tunnel with no visible way out.
Today, many leaders from mainstream political parties have admitted—albeit privately—that Nepal’s current system was imposed through foreign interference. Yet, fearing political consequences and driven by self-interest, they remain silent. These leaders, enjoying the perks of power on a rotational basis, refuse to speak out against a system that is clearly harmful to Nepal’s future.
My longtime journalist colleague and now Nepali Congress activist, Chandramani Gautam, recently wrote on Facebook:
“Nepal doesn’t need federalism. It is undemocratic, unwanted, divisive, and one of the greatest mistakes committed by our leaders.”
Even Baburam Bhattarai, who chaired the Constitution Drafting Committee in the Constituent Assembly, acknowledged in an interview with Bhushan Dahal that the constitution needs to be amended—particularly with regard to issues of national identity, religion, and possibly even the restoration of the monarchy.
Recently, the Dhulikhel Municipal Assembly passed a resolution urging the federal government to dissolve provincial structures altogether. This suggests that even elected local representatives now realize the mistake made during the drafting of the new constitution.
If political actors can set aside personal and party interests and unite for the greater good, there is still hope. A new national consensus is possible—one that upholds unity, preserves our sovereignty, and respects our shared identity as Nepalis. This identity will only remain intact if Nepal continues to exist as a sovereign nation. Imagine the consequences if Nepal were to become a colony or be annexed by a foreign power. Therefore, our top priority must be to safeguard the nation and make it economically self-reliant and strong.
Defending Nepal’s sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity is a duty for all citizens. For economic growth, we must cut down spending on unproductive sectors and channel investment into productive areas. But current economic trends show otherwise.
In the fiscal year 2082/83, the national budget exceeds NPR 13 trillion, while expected revenue is only around NPR 8 trillion. The government plans to fill this gap through internal and foreign loans. Meanwhile, approximately NPR 4 trillion is needed just to service debt and interest payments. Annually, Nepal is forced to take out new loans worth NPR 5 trillion. Of the total budget, only NPR 4 trillion is allocated for capital expenditure—far too little to meet infrastructure development goals.
A significant portion of government revenue is consumed by non-productive sectors. One of the main drivers of this burden is the federal structure itself. Without reducing or eliminating the seven provincial governments, economic relief will remain impossible. The federal setup has created unsustainable financial liabilities, which in turn, has weakened our capacity to invest in development.
Conclusion: A Return to Stability
To save Nepal from further decline, we must rethink the current political model. The 1990 Constitution, though not perfect, provided a far more stable, efficient, and nationally cohesive framework. Unless we make bold decisions now—starting with dismantling the costly and divisive federal structure—Nepal may find itself facing irreparable damage. It is not too late to correct course. But time is running out.
Comments:
Leave a Reply