Nepal cannot be transformed unless it is first understood, and it cannot be understood unless it is systematically measured. Effective statecraft begins not with assumptions or political slogans, but with evidence. Without rigorous measurement of changes in governance quality, institutional capability, public trust, demographic shifts, identity politics, religious dynamics, and economic performance, political reform remains reactive crisis management rather than a coherent strategy for national transformation.
The communal tensions between Hindu and Muslim communities in Kaptanganj, Sunsari, on 26 July, carrying the clear potential to escalate beyond a localized incident, once again exposed the unfinished character of Nepal’s political transformation, as well as persistent weaknesses in governance, institutional capacity, and social cohesion.
Following an initial period of silence, Prime Minister Balen Shah responded by engaging long-standing Madhesi political leaders and reaffirming Nepal’s commitment to a federal, secular democratic republic. He subsequently met the President and convened the National Security Council, signaling the state’s determination to prevent further escalation.
These steps restored immediate calm. Yet the episode raises a more fundamental question: Has Nepal merely become adept at managing political crises, or has it truly transformed the institutions and national consensus necessary to prevent them?
Frequent political changes, policy uncertainty, and weak implementation capacity have often limited Nepal’s ability to achieve long-term national objectives. Strategic autonomy requires a capable state that can formulate policies beyond electoral cycles.
While negotiations may have restored immediate calm, they have not necessarily addressed the deeper ideological, institutional, and societal fault lines that continue to resurface in different forms. Nepal has repeatedly demonstrated an ability to manage crises through political accommodation, yet it has been far less successful in transforming the underlying conditions that generate those crises. The distinction between crisis resolution and structural transformation remains one of the defining challenges of the post-2006 political order.
The recent incident of religious intolerance in Sunsari, despite appearing to conclude through a political settlement, serves as another reminder that Nepal’s political transition remains incomplete. The Sunsari incident is not an isolated event but part of a longer trajectory of unresolved political and ideological contestation. This pattern is evident throughout Nepal’s recent history and is both domestic and geopolitical.
From the Madhesh movements of 2007 and 2008, when Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala accepted federalism as a political response to a rapidly evolving crisis, Nepal has repeatedly relied on negotiated settlements to address immediate instability. These developments reshaped the national discourse on inclusion and federalism but did not fully reconcile competing visions of state identity.
The 2015 Constitution institutionalized major political reforms, yet debates over representation, citizenship, and constitutional legitimacy persisted. Likewise, the 2019 eleven-point agreement between the Oli government and C.K. Raut, and the peace agreement with the Netra Bikram Chand (Biplav) group, successfully brought a separatist movement into constitutional politics, but they did not fully resolve the competing ideological narratives, identity grievances, or institutional weaknesses that had generated the conflicts.
While these agreements changed political behavior and reduced violence, they did not necessarily resolve the underlying ideological narratives, competing identities, and institutional weaknesses that had produced the conflicts in the first place. Political settlements can end confrontations, but they rarely end the ideas that sustain them. Political agreements can change the behavior of organizations; they rarely erase the beliefs, identities, or perceptions that mobilize societies.
At the same time, Nepal has witnessed a visible expansion of religious institutions across all major faiths. Churches, madrassas, Hindu religious organizations, gurukhuls, and Buddhist gumbas have all grown following the establishment of the federal democratic republic and the constitutional protection of religious freedom.
This development is neither abnormal nor undesirable in a pluralistic society. The strategic concern arises when religious identity becomes intertwined with political mobilization, identity-based competition, foreign ideological influence, or electoral polarization.
International experience demonstrates that religious diversity alone does not destabilize states. Instability emerges when political actors instrumentalize religion, institutions fail to uphold the rule of law impartially, and external actors exploit domestic divisions. The experiences of Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Nigeria, and Sri Lanka illustrate how unresolved political and economic grievances, when fused with religious polarization, can gradually erode institutional legitimacy and national cohesion.
Taken together, these developments indicate that Nepal remains in a prolonged phase of political transition rather than having achieved genuine institutional transformation. The country’s central challenge is no longer simply negotiating the next crisis, but building resilient institutions capable of managing diversity through constitutional governance rather than recurring political bargains.
The true measure of a federal, secular democratic republic is not the absence of disagreement or religious diversity, but the strength of its institutions to uphold justice, enforce the rule of law equally, and cultivate a shared civic identity that transcends ethnicity, religion, and regional politics. Only when Nepal begins to measure these foundations systematically, and acts on the evidence, can it move beyond political transition toward enduring national transformation.
The strategic discourse advanced by the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), centered on public aspirations, institutional reform, good governance, and Nepal’s long-term national interests, has been significantly disrupted. In its place, Madhesh politics has re-emerged as a central political issue, while religion- and identity-based mobilization is regaining prominence in the national political arena.
This shift has produced several important consequences. First, it has diverted the RSP’s reform agenda away from strengthening institutional capacity, governance, and state transformation. Second, it has revived and legitimized political forces that had largely lost public credibility and electoral relevance. Finally, it has reopened political space for religion- and ethnicity-based mobilization, increasing the salience of identity politics over governance and institutional reform.
From internal security to comprehensive national security
The recurring pattern of communal tension, political bargaining, and institutional fragility suggests that Nepal remains in a prolonged phase of political transition rather than having achieved genuine institutional transformation. The challenge before the state is no longer simply to manage the next crisis, but to build resilient institutions, strengthen the rule of law, and cultivate a shared national identity capable of accommodating diversity without repeated political settlements.
The communal violence in Sunsari should therefore be understood not as an isolated law-and-order incident, but as a strategic warning. It illustrates how unresolved political grievances, weak institutional capacity, and social polarization can converge to threaten national cohesion.
Constitutional change alone cannot secure long-term stability. Sustainable peace requires institutions that command public legitimacy, administer justice impartially, and maintain public confidence regardless of political circumstances.
This concern is increasingly reflected across Nepal’s political spectrum. Speaking in the House of Representatives on 14 July, MP Dr. Amresh Kumar Singh warned that the state itself was entering a period of crisis because of widespread public despair and urged all political parties to rise above partisan interests in addressing national challenges.
Political commentator C.K. Lal has similarly argued that the promise of the 2015 Constitution remains only partially fulfilled because governance, particularly security, continues to be heavily centralized in Kathmandu. In his view, meaningful federalism requires not only political decentralization but also more inclusive institutions, greater provincial capacity, democratic accountability, and civilian oversight of state institutions. Whether one agrees with all of his conclusions or not, his central argument reflects a broader debate about the relationship between federalism, institutional legitimacy, and national cohesion.
Dr. C.K. Raut’s political evolution illustrates another important dimension of this debate. Having abandoned his earlier separatist agenda and entered constitutional politics, he now argues for stronger provincial autonomy, more effective implementation of federalism, and inclusive governance. Following the communal violence in Sunsari, he sharply criticized the state’s handling of the situation, arguing that unresolved regional grievances and incomplete federal implementation continue to create conditions for instability. His position underscores how questions of governance, identity, and security remain deeply interconnected.
Several years ago, Nepal’s stability was primarily analyzed through the lenses of federalism, identity politics, internal security, and the integration of emerging political actors. The debate surrounding Madhesh and the agreement with C.K. Raut reflected a broader strategic concern: political settlements, while necessary, would prove insufficient unless accompanied by stronger institutions and coherent state-building.
Lasting stability would ultimately depend on governance, economic development, effective security institutions, sound diplomacy, and strategic national leadership.
Today, Nepal’s strategic environment has become considerably more complex. Beyond the unfinished tasks of political transition, the country must also navigate intensifying geopolitical competition in Asia, growing economic dependence, technological disruption, cyber threats, disinformation, climate risks, energy insecurity, and increasingly sophisticated forms of external influence. National security can no longer be defined solely in military or law-and-order terms.
Political instability remains a critical vulnerability because weak governance creates opportunities for both internal fragmentation and external manipulation. Yet stability cannot be secured through periodic political bargains alone. It must rest upon capable institutions, accountable governance, economic opportunity, an independent judiciary, professional security institutions, and sustained public trust in the state.
Nepal’s experience over the past three decades demonstrates that constitutional transformation does not automatically produce institutional transformation. Federalism, republicanism, and secularism fundamentally reshaped the political system, but their long-term success depends upon effective implementation, institutional competence, and the state’s capacity to provide security, justice, and prosperity equally to all citizens.
Nepal must therefore move beyond a narrow conception of internal security and adopt a comprehensive national security framework. Such a framework should integrate political stability, economic resilience, diplomatic agility, technological preparedness, social cohesion, environmental security, and institutional effectiveness into a single strategic vision.
The central question confronting Nepal is no longer merely how to manage domestic political differences. It is whether the state can build sufficient national capacity to remain resilient, cohesive, and strategically autonomous in an increasingly uncertain regional and global order.
Ultimately, the lesson from Sunsari extends far beyond communal harmony. It is a reminder that national security begins with national cohesion, and that enduring cohesion cannot be sustained through recurring political compromises alone.
It requires institutions that are trusted, laws that are applied impartially, and a shared national purpose that binds citizens more strongly than the divisions that seek to separate them. Only then can Nepal complete its journey from political transition to genuine institutional transformation.
From political stability to institutional strength
The experience of Nepal’s political transformation demonstrates that constitutional change is only the beginning of state-building. A country cannot preserve independent decision-making if its institutions remain weak, its economy remains vulnerable, and its policies change with every political transition. The effectiveness of any political system depends on institutions, governance capacity, accountability, and public trust.
The objective is neither majoritarianism nor communal appeasement, but equal citizenship, institutional neutrality, and a shared national identity capable of accommodating Nepal’s diversity.
Frequent political changes, policy uncertainty, and weak implementation capacity have often limited Nepal’s ability to achieve long-term national objectives. Strategic autonomy requires a capable state that can formulate policies beyond electoral cycles.
Nepal requires stronger strategic institutions capable of assessing emerging challenges and providing long-term policy direction. National security cannot be treated only as a military issue; it requires coordination among political leadership, diplomatic institutions, economic agencies, security organizations, and experts.
A modern state must possess the ability to anticipate crises rather than merely respond to them. This requires investment in strategic policy planning, professional diplomacy and capacity, capable security institutions, technological advancement, economic resilience, energy security, and effective governance.
The absence of long-term strategic planning has often forced Nepal into reactive decision-making. The country now needs to develop a culture of strategic thinking in which national interests remain consistent despite changes in government.
From political management to strategic transformation
Nepal has experienced several major political transformations over the past decades. The end of the monarchy, the peace process, federal restructuring, and the emergence of new political forces represent significant milestones. However, political transformation must now evolve into state transformation.
The next phase of Nepal’s journey should focus on building a capable and resilient nation. Political competition must be balanced with national responsibility. Democratic participation must be accompanied by institutional discipline. Economic growth must become a foundation of national power.
The lesson from Nepal’s past is clear: political agreements can resolve immediate tensions, but they cannot substitute for strategic vision. Stability requires more than managing crises; it requires creating conditions in which crises become less likely.
The lesson from Nepal’s past is clear: political agreements can resolve immediate tensions, but they cannot substitute for strategic vision. Sustainable stability requires more than managing crises; it requires building institutions and political conditions that make crises less likely to emerge.
Strategic lessons from comparative experience
Comparative experience offers an important warning. In Lebanon, institutionalized sectarian politics contributed to political paralysis and prolonged conflict. In Iraq, post-2003 sectarian polarization weakened state institutions and contributed to insurgency. In Syria, political grievances became increasingly intertwined with sectarian conflict.
Nepal’s future stability will depend on its ability to transform its political achievements into strategic capacity by combining domestic cohesion with external engagement. The country must learn to navigate geopolitical competition without becoming trapped by it.
In Sudan, religious, ethnic, and political divisions interacted with exclusion and weak governance to produce prolonged instability. In Nigeria, religious polarization has intersected with ethnic, regional, and socioeconomic grievances to intensify communal violence in parts of the country. Sri Lanka, meanwhile, demonstrates how religious nationalism can periodically deepen tensions with minority communities even after the end of armed conflict.
These cases do not demonstrate that religion inevitably produces instability. Rather, they illustrate a more important strategic principle: religious identity becomes politically destabilizing when political mobilization, institutional weakness, and unequal enforcement of the law reinforce one another.
Three conditions are particularly important:
Political elites mobilize religious identity for electoral, ideological, or political advantage.
State institutions fail to enforce the law impartially, creating perceptions of unequal citizenship or selective justice.
External ideological, financial, or geopolitical influences reinforce domestic polarization, turning local grievances into broader political narratives.
Nepal’s strategic challenge, therefore, is not to manage one religion against another, but to prevent religious identity from becoming a substitute for national citizenship. A resilient federal, secular republic must protect freedom of religion while ensuring that all religious organizations, political actors, and institutions remain subject to the Constitution and the rule of law.
The objective is neither majoritarianism nor communal appeasement, but equal citizenship, institutional neutrality, and a shared national identity capable of accommodating Nepal’s diversity.
The strategic lesson is simple: religious diversity need not threaten national unity; institutional failure and the political exploitation of that diversity can.
The emerging strategic choice for Nepal
Nepal now faces a choice between two approaches.
A reactive Nepal will continue responding to crises after they emerge, relying on temporary political solutions and external assistance. Such an approach risks increasing vulnerability in an era of geopolitical uncertainty.
Nepal’s future will be determined not only by political arrangements but by the strength of its institutions, the quality of its leadership, and its ability to make long-term strategic choices.
A strategic Nepal, however, will develop a long-term national vision based on institutional strength, economic resilience, balanced diplomacy, and strategic autonomy. It will recognize that sovereignty in the 21st century is protected not only by borders but also by strong institutions, technological capability, economic independence, and diplomatic flexibility.
Nepal’s future stability will depend on its ability to transform its political achievements into strategic capacity by combining domestic cohesion with external engagement. The country must learn to navigate geopolitical competition without becoming trapped by it.
Conclusion: Towards a resilient and strategic Nepal
There comes a decisive moment in the life of every nation when it ceases to struggle for its national interests and begins to struggle within itself. For Nepal, that moment can no longer be treated as a distant possibility; it is an emerging strategic warning. The recent communal tensions in Madhesh should not be viewed as isolated disturbances, but as signals of deeper social, political, and institutional vulnerabilities.
If left unaddressed, such divisions could gradually shift the nation’s focus from safeguarding sovereignty, prosperity, and its strategic future toward managing internal conflict. History demonstrates that when internal polarization begins to eclipse national purpose, the costs to stability, governance, and development can be profound.
Nepal must therefore reaffirm a shared national identity while strengthening the institutions that bind the country together. The response cannot be fragmented or reactive. It requires a “whole-of-government” and “whole-of-nation” approach, bringing together political leadership, security institutions, provincial and local governments, civil society, and communities around a common national objective.
Federalism must strengthen inclusion without fragmenting sovereignty; secularism must protect religious freedom without permitting communal politics to override citizenship; and republicanism must be sustained through accountable and capable institutions.
The strategic objective should be clear: Nepal must not allow political competition, regional grievances, or communal differences to displace the national interest. A resilient Nepal is one in which diversity strengthens rather than fractures the state, institutions command public confidence, and every citizen can see their identity, dignity, and future within one constitutional nation.
Nepal’s greatest strategic asset is not merely its geography, but its capacity to remain united in purpose, confident in its national identity, and determined in the pursuit of its national interest.
The strategic concerns that have shaped Nepal’s political discourse for decades remain relevant, but they now exist within a far more complex geopolitical, economic, and security environment. Issues of identity, federalism, and internal stability are no longer isolated domestic challenges; they are increasingly connected to broader questions of state capacity, strategic autonomy, and national resilience.
Nepal’s future will be determined not only by political arrangements but by the strength of its institutions, the quality of its leadership, and its ability to make long-term strategic choices. The country must transition from crisis management to strategic planning, from dependency to resilience, and from its traditional perception as a buffer state toward becoming a strategic bridge between competing interests.
The coming decade will be a defining period for Nepal. Its success will depend on transforming its unique geography into strategic opportunity, strengthening national capabilities, and pursuing a foreign and security policy firmly anchored in the national interest. Political transformation has created the foundation; strategic transformation will determine the future.
The lessons of the past demonstrate that political settlements may resolve immediate challenges, but only capable institutions, economic resilience, social cohesion, and long-term strategic vision can secure lasting stability and prosperity.
Nepal must therefore move beyond managing its vulnerabilities to building its capabilities, beyond reacting to crises to anticipating them, and beyond political transition to strategic transformation.
Nepal’s greatest strategic asset is not merely its geography, but its capacity to remain united in purpose, confident in its national identity, and determined in the pursuit of its national interest.
Nepal’s next chapter must therefore focus on building capabilities rather than managing vulnerabilities, shaping outcomes rather than merely responding to events, and ensuring that every strategic decision, domestic or international, is guided by one enduring principle: Nepal’s national interest must remain at the center of its strategic choices.
(Basnyat is a Maj. Gen. (Retd.) of the Nepali Army and writes on international affairs and geopolitical strategy. He is also a researcher affiliated with Rangsit University in Thailand.)
Comment