Submit your Article

Before the first rays of dawn pierce the horizon over the quiet village of Karmohana in Nepal’s southwestern district of Banke, Naresh Chidimar is already awake.  Following a routine passed down through generations of farming families, he yokes his buffaloes, hoists a heavy wooden plough onto his shoulder, and makes his way through the dim light toward his fields.  The morning air is cool as he begins the grueling labor of turning the soil, working continuously until the sun rises high enough to signal a brief respite. 

Taking a short break on a raised dirt field bund after finishing roughly half a plot of land, he reaches first for a container of water to quench his deep thirst. When questioned about the specific crop he is preparing to cultivate this season, the 35-year-old farmer answers without a moment of hesitation that he is planting Radha-4 variety of rice. 

However, when asked why he chooses not to grow a fine, highly aromatic variety like Radha-4, a look of genuine surprise crosses his face. Chidimar admits that despite spending his entire life working the land, he has never even seen authentic Basmati rice growing, nor does he know what it looks or tastes like.

This simple admission from a lifelong farmer reveals a sobering and deeply concerning reality that extends across the vast plains of Tarai region. Traditional, indigenous aromatic rice varieties are quietly but rapidly disappearing from the agricultural landscape, transforming from vibrant seasonal crops into distant memories.

The dramatic decline of Basmati and other historic landraces, such as the legendary Kalanamak, cannot be attributed to a simple lack of seeds or a sudden change in climate alone. Instead, the shift is driven by harsh, unforgiving economic realities that dictate the daily survival of smallholder farmers. While authentic Basmati is celebrated globally for its exquisite aroma, slender grain texture, and premium market value, it yields significantly less grain per hectare compared to modern, coarse varieties. 

For small-holder agriculturalists operating on minimal landholdings, choosing to cultivate a low-yield variety is a financial gamble they simply cannot afford. For these communities, the immediate priority remains household food security. High-yielding coarse varieties like Radha-4 continue to dominate the fields because they reliably provide enough total volume of grain to sustain families through the entire year, shielding them from the threat of hunger.

This crisis of agricultural heritage extends far beyond the borders of Banke, mirroring a broader ecological and cultural loss affecting both the lowlands of the Tarai and the steep terrace farms of Nepal’s hill regions. Despite the scale of the problem, the critical question of who carries the responsibility for protecting and conserving these endangered indigenous crops remains largely unanswered, with local governments showing remarkably little interest in creating localized preservation frameworks. 

The weight of this institutional neglect is felt heavily by farmers like Abdul Rashid Bagwan, a resident of Banjare village, who has grown entirely disillusioned with the grandiose political promises of an imminent agricultural revolution regularly delivered by elected leaders. Standing at the edge of his muddy plot during the grueling transplanting season, Bagwan points out over his land and laments that Kalanamak has already effectively vanished from the local ecosystem to the point where finding viable seeds has become an impossible task. He fears that Basmati and another traditional aromatic variety, Shyamjira, are rapidly accelerating down the exact same path of extinction.

There was a time when these indigenous aromatic rice varieties swayed in abundance across the fertile Tarai plains, defining the very identity of the region. Their disappearance is not merely a loss for agricultural statistics; it represents a profound erosion of culinary culture and communal history. Elders in the villages frequently recall an era when cooking a pot of traditional rice would fill an entire neighborhood with a rich, unmistakable fragrance. 

The texture of varieties like Kalanamak was exceptionally soft, and the taste was so distinctive that farmers still claim that once a person has tasted authentic Kalanamak, all other modern rice varieties seem utterly bland by comparison. This legendary fragrance was not confined solely to the kitchen, as the scent would drift across the open landscape for long distances when the crops ripened in the autumn sun. Today, these treasured grains are cooked only occasionally during major cultural festivals in a small handful of households. In the past, families would proudly welcome honored guests by serving Kalanamak rice as a profound symbol of prestige, hospitality, and mutual respect, a social tradition that is fading alongside the crop itself.

As these varieties face extinction in open fields, the battle to save them has shifted to the sterile environments of scientific laboratories and gene banks, where samples of endangered rice can be cryogenically preserved for anywhere between 10 and 100 years. Researchers are currently utilizing these stored genetic resources to develop modified strains by crossbreeding indigenous varieties with modern rice lines, hoping to inject high disease resistance and sturdier stalks into the ancient plants. Yet, the timeline for scientific salvation offers little immediate comfort to struggling farmers. 

Agricultural scientists openly admit that developing a stable, viable crossbred variety is a slow, meticulous process that typically takes between 10 to 12 years, with absolutely no guarantee of ultimate success. A specialized research initiative dedicated solely to reviving Kalanamak is projected to take at least another five years just to finalize testing. Furthermore, experts acknowledge that traditional aromatic varieties are naturally highly susceptible to localized plant diseases and lodging—a condition where the heavy top of the grain stalk falls over in high winds—making the un-modified crop increasingly unattractive to modern farmers who require predictable returns.

The structural crisis is further compounded by national agricultural policies that critics argue have long neglected indigenous landraces. While the Ministry of Agriculture provides substantial financial subsidies, subsidized fertilizers, and technical support to farmers who choose to cultivate modern improved and imported hybrid rice varieties, those who desperately attempt to stick with traditional landraces are largely excluded from state assistance. 

This policy gap leaves farmers feeling abandoned by the state. In the village of Ramuwapur, a seasoned farmer named Munnu Barma echoes these frustrations, explaining that many of his peers abandoned Basmati cultivation not because they wanted to lose their heritage, but because the government consistently failed to provide the baseline agricultural infrastructure—such as reliable year-round irrigation systems, dependable fertilizer supply chains, and high-quality certified seeds—needed to sustain its fragile production requirements.

In response to this growing emergency, international organizations have stepped in to collaborate with domestic agencies. The International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), working alongside the Nepal Agricultural Research Council (NARC), has initiated a breeding project aimed at producing seeds for an improved, shorter-statured iteration of Kalanamak designed to resist lodging. However, agricultural administrators urge caution regarding these scientific interventions. Sagar Dhakal, the Provincial Programme Manager of the High-Value Agriculture Commodities Promotion Programme under the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Environment in Bhairahawa, explicitly notes that these newly engineered, shorter-statured varieties are fundamentally distinct from the historic, traditional aromatic Kalanamak or the pure indigenous Basmati lines. Dhakal admits that while limited conservation efforts are actively underway, the scale remains minimal, and the newly developed NARC seeds have yet to successfully transition from experimental research stations into the actual hands and fields of everyday Nepali farmers.

While these traditional crops are quietly vanishing from the very soil that birthed them, they have paradoxically become the subject of high-stakes international legal warfare and intellectual property disputes. Rice is deeply woven into the fabric of human civilization across the Asian continent, where more than 60 percent of the global population relies on it as their primary staple food. Scientifically classified as Oryza Sativa, the grain has been meticulously cultivated for thousands of years, with nearly 90 percent of the world's total rice supply produced and consumed within Asia. Nepal’s immediate geopolitical neighbors, India and China, together command roughly half of this massive global production. Because of this immense economic and cultural footprint, authentic indigenous Basmati has become a highly contested commodity on the world stage, sparking intense legal battles over ownership and regional identity.

The modern history of these international legal conflicts dates back to 1997, when a United States-based agricultural biotechnology firm named RiceTec sought to claim legal ownership over various Basmati rice lines and specific breeding methods. Operating out of Texas, the private corporation successfully secured several US patents covering hybrid varieties that closely mimicked the traditional characteristics of grains cultivated for centuries across South Asian nations, including Nepal, India, and Pakistan. The aggressive corporate move immediately triggered widespread international outrage and condemnation, particularly from the government of India, which fiercely challenged the validity of the patents in international courts, arguing that the American company’s actions constituted a flagrant act of biopiracy against a traditional, communal South Asian crop. Following a protracted legal battle and intense global scrutiny, the majority of RiceTec’s sweeping patent claims were ultimately withdrawn or struck down, preventing the private entity from establishing an exclusive commercial monopoly over the name and genetics of Basmati.

In recent years, the geopolitical battlefield over the grain has shifted directly to the bureaucratic halls of the European Union, where the government of Nepal has formally asserted its historic rights over the aromatic rice. The conflict escalated dramatically after India submitted an official application to the European Union seeking to register Basmati as its own exclusive Geographical Indication (GI) product. Recognizing that an exclusive Indian GI tag would legally bar Nepali farmers from marketing their own native crops as Basmati in lucrative European markets, the government of Nepal mobilized a formal opposition in Dec 2020. This decisive counter-action followed a high-level joint meeting of secretaries from Nepal’s then Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development alongside the Ministry of Industry, Commerce, and Supplies, where leaders unanimously determined that the country must aggressively contest the unilateral Indian application to protect domestic agricultural interests.

To build a robust, legally binding counterclaim, the Nepali state worked through the specialized frameworks of NARC and the National Agriculture Genetic Resources Centre, widely known as the National Gene Bank, located in Khumaltar. Experts and historians painstakingly compiled a wealth of indisputable historical, cultural, and scientific evidence to present before the European Union’s reviewing bodies. The official evidence submitted by Nepal definitively demonstrates that Basmati rice has been actively cultivated since ancient times within its territory, particularly throughout the fertile Tarai plains and the Inner Madhesh valleys, holding immense cultural, religious, and historical significance within the tapestry of Nepali society. From a purely scientific standpoint, the state highlighted the extensive catalog of the National Gene Bank, which successfully houses and conserves a wide array of distinct indigenous Basmati landraces, including rare and biologically unique variations such as Black Basmati and Red Basmati.

Furthermore, Nepal’s legal defense rigorously argued that more than 130 distinct varieties of indigenous Basmati have been documented and cultivated across more than 60 of the nation’s 77 districts. The documentation also highlighted that since the early 1960s, Nepal’s national agricultural research institutions and state-backed breeding initiatives have formally registered, developed, and conserved multiple Basmati lines through official state channels. Unlike a patent, which legally protects a brand-new scientific invention or technological process, a Geographical Indication serves to legally recognize the specific geographical origin, environmental conditions, and traditional reputation that give a product its unique characteristics. With both Nepal and Pakistan having filed formal, detailed objections to India’s claim of absolute exclusivity, the complex geopolitical matter remains under active consideration by the European Union. Nepal firmly maintains that Basmati is the collective, shared heritage of the entire South Asian subcontinent, insisting that the fundamental rights, history, and economic interests of Nepali farmers must be fully recognized and legally protected under any final international trademark framework.

Yet, as international lawyers debate the technical nuances of Geographical Indications in Brussels, the immediate reality for the men and women working the soil of western Nepal remains unchanged. The grand international disputes offer no remedy for the empty seed bags in Banjare village or the lack of irrigation canals in Ramuwapur. For farmers like Naresh Chidimar, the daily struggle is entirely local, measured not in intellectual property rights, but in the weight of the harvest and the ability to feed a family. As the ancient, fragrant varieties are slowly locked away in cold storage gene banks to await a distant scientific resurrection, the vibrant agricultural heritage of the Tarai plains continues to quietly slip away, leaving a legacy of unforgettable aromas trapped in the memories of a fading generation.

Nepal currently stands at a very sensitive juncture in history. On the one hand, we have a glorious document of political system change and a strong framework of a federal democratic republic, while on the other, we have a rapid exodus of youth, a stagnant domestic production sector, increasing foreign debt and a serious form of corruption. Nepal is basically a country with multi-ethnic, multilingual and multicultural characteristics. The different ethnicities, languages ​​and historical cultures scattered across the Himalayas, hills and Tarai are the real identity and collective strength of Nepal.

However, the long-standing traditional political centralism, neoliberal policy weaknesses and the state machinery controlled by a few cronies have not been able to address the aspirations of the general public. In particular, the historically backward marginalized, indigenous peoples, Madhesi, Dalit and minority communities are still in a state of economic and social oppression and deprivation.

To overcome this serious structural failure and transform Nepal into a genuine welfare state, it is imperative to formulate and implement a concrete, practical, and scientific roadmap. Development is not just an abstract economic indicator or lifeless physical infrastructure. Development is sustainable and just only when the citizen standing at the doorstep of society feels his meaningful ownership and identity in the state.

The welfare state and the Nepali context

A welfare state is a socio-economic system where the state guarantees the minimum needs of every citizen—such as quality education, universal health care, decent employment, and complete social security. This concept is based on the belief that a market economy and open capitalism alone cannot raise the living standards of people at the bottom of society.

Although the Constitution of Nepal has declared the country a “socialism-oriented” state, the fundamental rights and welfare systems enshrined in the constitution have not yet been translated into the daily lives of ordinary citizens. Until the indigenous, Madhesi and marginalised people living in remote areas, including the Chepang, Musahar, Raute or the poor citizens of Karnali feel that the state is their guardian and that they also have a stake in its policies, socialism written on paper will have no meaning. Therefore, it is too late to formulate a concrete and practical ‘action plan’ according to the philosophy of inclusive progressivism, ensuring the identity, representation and access of every caste.

Five key pillars of a new plan

To make Nepal a truly welfare state and establish ownership of all communities in it, a concrete action plan should be implemented focusing on five main areas:

Valuing identity and cultural justice

When Nepal’s historical statehood promoted only a single cultural and linguistic identity, the majority communities fell into linguistic oppression and cultural marginalization. The first condition of inclusive progressivism is ‘cultural justice’.

• Education in the mother tongue: The right to quality education in the mother tongue for children of indigenous, tribal and indigenous communities from the primary level should be fully implemented in a practical manner. This not only enhances learning capacity, but also raises their cultural self-esteem and morale.
• Preservation of indigenous knowledge: The state should recognize the traditional skills, unique arts and indigenous knowledge of endangered and marginalized communities as national capital and protect and promote it.

Meaningful representation and structural equality

Although the current inclusive and reservation system implemented in Nepal appears technically positive, its real benefits have not reached the oppressed classes at the grassroots level. Only a few elites and elites within each community are taking advantage of it. In the spirit of inclusive progressivism, reservation should not be a mere technical means of fulfilling quotas. It should ensure a direct and meaningful voice of the disadvantaged citizens from Musahar, Chepang, Raute communities or Karnali at the highest levels of policymaking. Under the action plan, the policy of positive discrimination should be revised and restructured to reach the target groups based on population ratio and indicators of socio-economic deprivation.

Free and quality services

The backbone of the welfare state is free and quality education and health services. The rapid commercialization and brokering of education and health should be completely and strictly prohibited. When education and health become a business, the gap between the rich and the poor deepens. This will end social justice.

• Strengthening education and health: The state should double its budgetary investment in health and education and upgrade government schools and hospitals to make them superior to the private sector.
• Social security from the womb to the grave: The scope of unemployment allowance, maternity allowance, disability assistance, and old age allowance for all citizens should be made scientific and transparent, so that market fluctuations do not put the lives and security of citizens at risk.

Local priority over resources

The lives of most indigenous and Dalit communities in Nepal are directly linked to water, land and forests. However, in the name of infrastructure development or when distributing natural resources, local communities are being displaced and their lands are being taken away. Inclusive progressivism emphasizes the ‘priority’ of local communities over natural resources. Before embarking on projects like hydropower, roads or eco-tourism, the full consent of the local communities, the protection of their cultural centers and their share in the profits of the project should be ensured. Economic justice is not possible without transferring the actual ownership of the land to the landless squatters and oppressed classes like Haliya and Harawa-Charwa.

An inclusive economic model

A welfare state cannot be sustained by distributing social allowances or relief alone, it requires a strong and self-sufficient economic base. The current remittance-based model is sending the country's demographic dividend abroad and emptying our villages. Only by developing professional entrepreneurship at the local level by combining the indigenous skills of each community with modern technology can youth migration be stopped and the country’s economy become sustainable.

Ethnic unity: A growth engine

Although various political movements in Nepal have vigorously raised the issue of identity and rights, they have sometimes risked turning toward narrow ethnic polarization. Diversity is not a weakness of Nepal, it is the engine of prosperity and musical plurality. When the state treats all castes and communities equally and distributes economic resources fairly, then the sense of belonging and patriotism among citizens towards the nation becomes stronger.

This action plan should not be an administrative plan imposed solely from the center. This plan should be developed through extensive discussion, dialogue and consensus of representatives of all communities from the rural municipality, municipality and provincial levels. The key to its success is to formulate a participatory plan from the grassroots level, embracing the progressive principle of ‘leaving no one behind and leaving no one behind’.

Conclusion

The main objective of declaring Nepal a federal democratic republic was to establish a non-discriminatory, just and prosperous society. Even though the political system has changed today, the condition of the common people has not changed. The country is suffering from poverty, high prices and unemployment. To overcome this situation and build a strong nation, there is no other option than to implement an action plan in line with the philosophy of inclusive progressivism, taking all castes into confidence. 

The state should now position itself not as a mechanism to protect the interests of a limited class, but as a guardian of the entire oppressed and working community. Only through the joint efforts and active participation of all Nepalis can the dream of an equitable, prosperous and welfare state be realized. This should be the real roadmap of Nepal in the 21st century.

While the domestic political sphere is sparked due to “desperate border argument” depicted by the country’s potentate, no conscious attention has been drawn to the severity of digital border and national sovereignty. With the advancement of tech, AI and techno-geopolitical rivalry, a country’s national security is likely more vulnerable beneath a digital border than the traditional border and security system. None of the institutions, thus far, have incorporated the concept of ‘digital border’ in academic courses yet, while the author has proposed this concept in one of the security institutions of the country, where he serves as the faculty head. Undeniably, prioritizing digital sovereignty is now critical for broader border and national security.

Traditional sovereignty is largely centered on a state’s exclusive right to govern its physical land and resources, and safeguarding territorial integrity. Border issues are generally based on various aspects—history, legacy, geography, defense and strategic bolster, identity and nationalism, economy and resources among other leverages—of the countries starting from the origin of the nation-state system in the history of world politics and Westphalian Sovereignty.  Since then, the world has been witnessing major conflict, disputes, diplomatic standoffs and wars because of these issues.

The classical paradigms of international relations—historically defined by territorial borders, military alliances, and physical buffer states—are undergoing a radical transformation. The modern threat landscape has shifted defensive priorities toward securing decentralized network perimeters. Unlike land, rivers or mountain ranges, digital borders are fluid, invisible, cosmic and constantly under siege by foreign state and non-state actors.

It is now geo-strategically imperative to make a cautious move from conventional “non-alignment” to “techno-economic multi-alliances”. Yet, the pertinent concern is—how can smaller powers like Nepal ensure digital sovereignty to defend against weaponized technology and data-driven threats? This article highlights that securing digital borders and implementing soft security strategies—focusing on human-centric AI and data governance over mere digital connectivity—are essential to maintaining sovereignty, dignity and national security in a shifting global paradigm.

Today, the global balance of power is no longer dictated solely by conventional weaponry. Instead, it is navigated by a ‘techno-polarity’ led by high-tech superpowers, including China and the US, who blame the critics. With the mounting techno-geopolitico-polarity, global alignments are shifting toward technological infrastructure, making data and digital sovereignty essential for statecraft and national security. For small powers and non-aligned nations like Nepal, surviving this shift requires a profound restructuring in foreign policy.

National security must now transcend physical geography to fiercely protect digital sovereignty, enforce digital borders, secure big data, and construct proactive cyber defenses. If the rulers compromise on national security, for the immediate political gain, by delaying to govern virtual frontiers, it would not only be costlier, but also be irreparable for the country’s future course of foreign policy and national security. This would invite catastrophic data breaches and external political subversion. For a strategically leveraged nation like Nepal, these existential threats certainly escalate due to potential techno-geo-political maneuverability in the foreseeable future. The unmonitored flow of critical infrastructure, telecommunications routing, and citizen data across borders will certainly trigger a crisis of sovereignty. Establishing a digitized border is fundamentally non-isolationist. Instead, this defensive posture is a vital prerequisite for survival and territorial integrity within a borderless cloud ecosystem.

Although managing cross-border data flows poses significant challenges, “National digital sovereignty is often associated with the need to store data within national borders.” For a country like Nepal, digital sovereignty is an essential goal that goes well beyond the conventional focus of powerful nations. Nepal’s data can be routed through servers in neighboring countries due to the lack of a centralized server. It is said that over 170trn data is breached every year globally. Considering this digital havoc, Nepal must concentrate its national strategy on building robust digital infrastructure, enforcing stringent data protection legislation, securing cross-border connection, and advancing safe digital transformation in order to achieve real digital sovereignty.

Another aspect of national security vulnerabilities lies in “data colonialism” and “weaponization of AI”. The possibility that the tech giants and tech-superpowers, under the pursuit of “digital hegemony”, could harvest citizen data, extract its value and exploit to exercise structural and behavioral control over weaker states is going much higher, now. For them, ‘data’ has been the “new oil” and a fungible source of income like gold, natural resources and minerals in the past. More importantly, data, especially “Big Data”, has been an essential ‘fuel’ for AI.

Amid a sophisticated algorithmic era, AI has evolved from a commercial luxury into an instrument of statecraft and military superiority. Tech superpowers actively utilize AI for mass cognitive surveillance, deep-level psychological operations, and automated warfare. The symbiotic relationship between AI and foreign policy means that algorithms can now reshape global power dynamics, create "tech tyrannies," and induce digital dictatorships. For smaller nations to avoid becoming mere collateral damage or data colonies, they must implement strict national AI governance frameworks. They cannot afford to blindly adopt foreign algorithms that carry embedded geopolitical biases; they must develop localized technological competence. No single power, irrespective of tech and AI strength, can absolutely govern AI or navigate AI sovereignty, yet digital sovereignty can be circumnavigated by a preventive measure of a country.

The seamless digital sovereignty, however, is nearly impossible today. The countries can, at least, secure tangible sovereignty. Digital sovereignty is not merely a theoretical stance but a supreme national requirement. Even the smaller powers like Nepal can dictate where data subsists, who controls the underlying infrastructure, and under whose legal jurisdiction it falls. For this, a critical step needs to be undertaken, including the establishment of localized, sovereign data centers and cloud architectures. Relying entirely on foreign cloud providers—which are bound by the domestic laws of their own home states—leaves a country legally and operationally exposed. A nation’s technical choices, such as selecting ICT hardware suppliers, choosing telecommunications vendors, and establishing national data repositories, must be evaluated strictly through a lens of absolute realism and national interest rather than cost, convenience, political ideology, or alliances. The country can prepare or produce AI and data experts such that they could effortlessly sense potential vulnerabilities in digital infrastructures and employ proactive measures before they become susceptible. Furthermore, sensing the true nature, trustworthiness, and validity of any ICT components or digital devices against deliberate state-sponsored espionage or spying is a preemptive measure in navigating the threat landscape, including the threat perceptions, threat vectors, and threat actors.

Without a proactive cyber security and pragmatic tech diplomacy, countries can hardly strengthen national defense mechanisms. For this, states must stop managing digital threats through slow, fragmented, and bureaucratic channels. Instead, foreign policy and national security architectures must converge to form a dedicated, expert-led national cyber intelligence unit. Establishing a cyber-intelligence unit, indeed, requires immense resources, expertise, dedication and devotion. This specialized agency must move away from ‘reactive’ cybersecurity and pivot toward a ‘proactive’ stance focusing on both ‘threat intelligence’ and ‘security intelligence’. By analyzing and predicting cross-border cybercrimes, ransomware campaigns, and algorithmic vulnerabilities before they happen, a proactive mechanism can neutralize internal digital disruptions before they morph into full-blown diplomatic crises. Furthermore, because cyber threats are inherently transnational, the state must opt for a strategic techno-economic cooperation cum collaboration with neighboring countries and international partners to share the ‘shareable’ intelligence and pool defensive resources. To protect the citizens’ data and secure their future, nations must rationally pursue digital sovereignty by defining clear digital borders, resisting data colonialism, executing independent technical choices, and deploying state-of-art cyber intelligence systems.

Nevertheless, no single state, irrespective of tech strength, can achieve absolute digital and cyber security. By building techno-strategic alliances with neighboring countries and other powers, countries can participate in collaborative threat-intelligence sharing networks. This collective defense framework would certainly help bridge the capability gap, allowing nations to protect their digital borders and preserve their national sovereignty against non-state actors and techno-geopolitical predators.

Essentially, from a techno-strategic perspective, foreign policy must integrate tech, digital and cyber literacy into its core strategy. Tech policy and foreign policy now need to be inter-linked. National security can no longer be protected solely at physical or territorial borders; it requires the enforcement of digital boundaries. By appointing specialized tech envoys—integrating engineers, academics, computer scientists, and IR and Data experts into diplomatic corps—the country can  effectively negotiate on techno-economic issues, including infrastructure procurement and international tech standards. In addition, achieving a rational and democratic digital future demands rigorous national regulation and accountability. Enforcing digital sovereignty is conceivable by building localized data centers, implementing robust privacy frameworks, and transitioning from ‘reactive’ cybersecurity to ‘proactive’ cyber intelligence. The sensible techno-economic diplomacy is, indeed, an essential mechanism to resist data and digital colonialism, protect democratic governance, and preserve national sovereignty in a hyper-connected world.

Nepal was the first country in the world to introduce climate budget tagging, tracking which portions of government spending address climate risk, in 2012. More than eighteen countries have since adopted the practice. In its FY 2024/25 review, Nepal’s climate budget recorded the lowest spending utilisation of all seventeen Sustainable Development Goal categories, the gap between a genuine policy innovation and what it produces on the ground.

Nepal’s per-person greenhouse gas footprint is 1.6 metric tonnes, against a global average of 6.76. The country caused almost none of the warming now affecting its mountains and plains, and that injustice is real. But it obscures something closer examination reveals: Nepal has built its economic architecture on the same resource climate change is making unreliable, an architecture that has so far worked, generating revenue and household income while accumulating structural risk. The hydropower, the migration, the remittances substituting for a rural economy in decline: each appears, at its own scale, to be working. The question is what they collectively produce.

This piece examines four nodes of that system: the glaciers whose depletion Nepal’s legal framework was not designed to track; the hydropower strategy that subordinates upstream communities to export revenue; the migration and remittance flows that relieve pressure on highland investment; and a policy apparatus that measures climate risk more precisely than it manages it.

The glacier that appears on no balance sheet

The Hindu Kush Himalayan range holds 63,700 glaciers across 55,782 square kilometres, the largest cryosphere outside the poles. Nepal-specific surveys show close to a quarter of glacier area lost since the late 1970s, the rate doubling since 2000. Two ICIMOD assessments published in 2026 found up to twenty-seven metres of ice thickness lost since 1975, and snow persistence recently hit its lowest level in twenty-three years.

What those measurements describe is more precisely understood as depletion than as disaster. A glacier does not simply melt. It depreciates. The ice Nepal is losing is stored natural capital accumulated over millennia, the water-storage function that releases meltwater slowly through the dry season, regulating the rivers the highland economy and the energy strategy depend on. When that capital is drawn down, it generates no replacement capital elsewhere in the national accounts. The write-down appears nowhere until the systems it underwrote have failed, arriving as lost agricultural productivity, diminished hydropower reliability, or a sudden glacial lake outburst.

This invisibility is partly legal. The Water Resources Act 1992, the primary law governing Nepal’s water, predates the climate era by three decades and makes no reference to glacial retreat. It treats water as a fixed stock, written for a watershed that had not yet begun to retreat. Tajikistan, with comparable mountain geography, enacted a dedicated Law on the Protection of Glaciers in January 2024. Nepal, home to the largest mountain cryosphere outside the poles, has not. The ice enters Nepal’s legal architecture only as a disaster-relief expenditure, a post-failure accounting rather than an early-warning system.

The wager and the statute behind it

Nepal’s primary policy response to its resource endowment has been to monetise it. The roadmap targets 28,500 megawatts of installed capacity, with most of the conditional NDC commitment aimed at export, requiring tens of billions over a decade. Nepal became a net electricity exporter for the first time in 2024. The logic is simple: Nepal has the rivers; the region has the demand. This monetisation reveals two disconnects, one institutional, one physical.

The first disconnect is institutional. There is nothing wrong, in principle, with giving hydropower its own statute, regulator, and long licensing terms; most countries do this, since power generation needs investment certainty a general resource law rarely provides. Nepal’s Water Resources Act 1992 ranks water uses explicitly, drinking water first, hydroelectricity fourth, then carves hydropower out of that hierarchy entirely under a dedicated Electricity Act with its own regulator. What is harder to defend is what happened to the sectors ranked above it: no equivalent statute, no comparable regulator, no comparable financing. Agriculture still receives one to two percent of national energy consumption, and in the wet season of 2025 surplus generation exceeded India’s import ceiling and was spilled rather than redirected to the irrigation the law ranks first. The asymmetry is not that Nepal wrote a contradictory law. It is that having named four priorities, it built durable institutions for only the fourth.

The second disconnect is physical. The rivers being monetised are the same rivers being destabilised by the glacial retreat that determines their flow. Floods have repeatedly damaged the hydropower fleet, from thirty-four projects hit between 2015 and 2020 to thirty-two more in October 2025 alone. The single largest loss came in July 2016, when a glacial lake and landslide-dam failure swept away the Upper Bhotekoshi plant, with damage near four hundred and seven million dollars. A 2014 Asian Development Bank assessment projected annual climate-related losses reaching 2.2 percent of GDP by 2050; extreme years already approach that threshold. Nepal is capitalising on a resource simultaneously generating revenue and accumulating physical risk, and neither the royalty structure nor the water law prices the second into the first.

The migration economy and the political signal it sends

Most hill farmland is unirrigated and dependent on rainfall and snowmelt timing; shifts in water availability translate into crop failure, income loss, and a decision to leave. In the Karnali basin, thirty-eight percent of mountain farmland and twenty-one percent of hill farmland lies abandoned; thirty-two hill and mountain districts now record negative population growth. Structural poverty is consistently the primary driver, climate stress an accelerant of a threshold the economy had already set low. What leaves with a departing family is more than labour: mountain water has long been governed through local, community-enforced arrangements that depend on the people who maintain them, recognised in formal law only as licensing exemptions, not protected rights. When a village empties, that governance dissolves with it, and the unfarmed terrace erodes, raising sediment and risk in the river corridors feeding the hydropower infrastructure below.

Nepal’s remittances reached 28.2 percent of GDP in FY 2024/25, among the highest in the world, and careful research finds they measurably improve household food security. At the household scale, the strategy works, which is why this is a governance challenge rather than a simple failure: the positive signal relieves pressure on investing in highland agriculture. The Foreign Employment Act 2007 does not extend to migration toward India, the largest single destination for climate-relevant departure; under the 1950 Treaty of Peace and Friendship Nepalis move there without a labour permit, so a significant share of Nepal’s GDP moves through a channel the law cannot see.

The IMF has modelled the compound shock: when climate stress and remittance contraction arrive together, food imports surge, outmigration accelerates further, and household assets fall by more than three and a half percent in a single cycle. The Gulf states absorbing most of Nepal’s migrants have no stable foundation either, cycling through conflict, oil-price swings, and labour-nationalisation drives like Saudi Arabia’s Nitaqat quotas, each tightening demand for Nepali migrant work for reasons that have nothing to do with Nepal’s glaciers. Nepal has not diversified away from a fragile income source so much as moved it offshore, into a labour market less stable than the rivers it replaced.

The architecture that measures what it cannot govern

Nepal’s climate governance framework is substantive on paper: a National Climate Change Policy, a National Adaptation Plan to 2050, a third NDC submitted in 2025, and the climate budget tagging system it introduced before any other country. Three indicators reveal the gap between what these measures and what it governs.

The first is the utilisation rate already noted: Nepal tags its climate spending more precisely than most comparable economies yet converts less of it into expenditure than the category’s own importance implies, a product not of insufficient allocation but institutional discontinuity. Nepal’s political landscape has seen considerable instability since 1990, with more than thirty governments and no administration completing a full term; the consequence is that no highland water or agricultural policy has survived long enough to build an implementation record worth continuing.

The second is the financing behind Nepal’s own commitments. The National Adaptation Plan costs an estimated $47.4bn through 2050; Nepal’s own contribution is $1.5bn, the rest contingent on finance that Climate Action Tracker finds roughly ninety-six percent of Nepal’s NDC targets depend on, contingent rather than binding.

The third is the legal gap for displacement. The Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act 2017, Nepal’s primary climate-crisis statute, was designed for sudden-onset events, not the decade-long agricultural decline that empties a village or the aquifer that falls out of reach over twenty years. Nepal’s own National Adaptation Plan acknowledges ghost villages as a real outcome, yet offers no response mechanism, and no bill defining a climate-displaced person has ever been tabled. The gap has been judicially identified: in December 2018, Nepal’s Supreme Court found the Environment Protection Act 1997 inadequate for the country’s climate commitments and ordered a dedicated Climate Change Act, with provisions for compensating those harmed by environmental degradation. That order is now eight years old. The Law Commission has prepared a draft. The current parliament, with a political durability no recent government has had, holds both the judicial mandate and the conditions to act on it.

The pattern across all three is the same: a governance architecture built for measurement and international reporting, at a level of sophistication that exceeds many wealthier economies, with the implementation layer, the statutes, the institutions to sustain policy across political cycles, left as the distance between commitment and condition.

What the moment now requires

Nepal’s claim on international climate finance is legitimate, but a set of institutional and legislative deficits within domestic reach sits between that claim and what Nepal can absorb, regardless of when external finance arrives. The March 2026 election, following the interim government’s tenure, is the first chance in a generation to test whether a parliament can complete a legislative cycle long enough to matter.

What connects every gap this piece has examined is not a shortage of diagnosis: a Supreme Court order has already named the need for dedicated climate legislation, a National Adaptation Plan has already named ghost villages as a real outcome, a water law has already named drinking water, not export revenue, as the country’s first priority. Each diagnosis has produced an instrument built to the scale of the political cycle that wrote it, not the scale of a challenge that compounds across decades. Average government tenure since 1990 has been little more than a year; a glacier does not retreat on that timeline, nor a village empty on it. This is a local version of what Mark Carney, then governor of the Bank of England, called the tragedy of the horizon: a crisis whose worst costs arrive beyond the time horizon of the institutions meant to prevent them. Carney was describing financial markets. Nepal’s version is harder to miss: a government measured in months, regulating a glacier on a fifty-year clock.

A genuine reorientation is less a checklist than a change in method: legislation built to survive the government that drafts it, slow-onset decline treated as its own legal category, and value extracted from a resource returned to the places it comes from. Tajikistan moved from no glacier law to a dedicated one inside a single legislative term, proof this is achievable for a country with no greater capacity than Nepal’s. What Nepal has lacked is not diagnosis, but the durability to carry one law from the page it was written on to the decade it was written for.

The mountains are not waiting. The terraces above the Karnali are not recovering on their own. The arithmetic of abandonment does not pause for an election cycle.

Nepal can keep refining the instrument that measures this problem, or it can build the one that would govern it. The difference will not show up in next year’s budget utilisation report. It will show up in whether the highland villages this piece has described still have anyone living in them.