Every country has actors: with actors having causes and interests – and always an institution advocating on behalf of these causes.

Scholars have long advised that these articulatory channels are pillars of civic society. In a generic sense, a trade union is an institution that collectively carries the will of the labourers, a political party of its voters' interest; a profit-making company harbours the will of its stakeholders.

But what does a non-profit, non-governmental organisation carry as its will? The answer most NGOs will give will be specific to their mission. But a ubiquitous answer is 'an NGO and INGO aim to extend basic support to all humanity.' Along the same line, the World Bank has defined NGOs and INGOs as 'private organisations that pursue activities to relieve suffering, promote the interest of the poor, protect the environment, provide basic social service, or undertake community development.' These aims paint a rosy picture of NGOs. Like that of a temple, church or mosque – however, not even the temple, church or mosque has retained such sanctity.

The active discourse in Nepal has suggested how a sharp blade accompanies the NGO cause. The distrust of NGOs in Nepal is not a novel thing. Hindu fundamentalists believe NGO walas are padres distributing envelopes replenished with cash and the Bible.

Communists think NGOs' mission is towards 'furthering the bourgeois agenda'. Moreover, those NGOs devoted to the environmental cause are bikas birodhi (anti-development).

Similarly, activism in favour of the LGBTQ, or sexual liberation, is spreading the Western aberrant behaviour.

Overall, the consensus is there is a mala fide agenda of NGO activists.

The effectiveness of NGOs is another question.

But right now, we must ask, why have NGOs gained 'bad repute'? When their cause is high and mighty, why has trust dwindled so much among the people?

The plight of this NGO scepticism had risen when the government got involved in the 'holy wine' scandal. The Universal Peace Federation, an NGO, taught the people how potent NGOs are. For an NGO programme, the government had locked the entire valley. Moreover, all the big political faces, including the Prime Minister, graced the programme organised by a mere NGO. For what? This single incident shows how influential NGO lobby is here in Nepal.

NGOs are powerful lobby groups in Nepal: power reaches far and wide. The above-mentioned example is a single case.

While working as an intern in the Federal Parliament, I had walked into some ministries, and the presence of foreign NGOs was universal. Various presentations, workshops and trainings, organised by NGOs, are running ceaselessly as part of their effort to further their cause.

Moreover, the systemic approach to getting things done is respected – sometimes even admired – in the chaotic bureaucratic mess of Singha Durbar. Some-times, NGOs seem more like political action campaigns than humanitarian cause-bearing organisations.

For a long time, NGOs have advanced the 'liberalist agenda'.

By artificially implanting laws advancing their cause.

Materially, NGOs and INGO do contribute: the resources and technology they bring into the country are enormous. During the earthquake, we could see the power of the NGOs.

From immediate response to reconstruction, the role of INGO and NGOs is not negligible. The money they bring, the human resources they acquire, and the intervention they make can make a tangible difference.

However, as the old saying goes, rather than feeding fish to people, we should teach them to fish for themselves. Hence, how long can such 'dependency' on NGO largesse sustain? Shouldn't we learn to 'help ourselves than always 'seek help'? Besides material elements, the psychological impact NGOs have is also there. The layman's argument against NGOs is simple: how can their five-star seminars understand our earthly problems and give solutions? The paper approach of NGOs is not grounded enough to bring any practicality.

Laws created from an intense seminar in star hotels with 'progressive realisation' is not apt to solve anything.

The general public finds this a disrespect to their stature. Moreover, NGOs have a more professional and mediatory approach that is not palatable to Nepali causes.

However, the problem with NGOs is that rather than solving real-life problems, NGOs are advancing certain political ideologies.

In Nepal, NGOs are trying to become 'pressure groups'. They are trying to lobby certain political parties to work this way or that way or trying to sway public opinion in a certain way.

But rather than working in their favour, these ideas have flopped.

Laws inspiringly made by NGOs are unimplemented because of their incapacity to triumph over customs. Moreover, the mushrooming of NGO has made them lose their credibility.

And their political shenanigans have made them suspicious among the Nepali mass.

If INGO and NGOs want to retain their credibility again in the Nepali society, they have to let go of their politicisation. Rather than working for their ideology, they should work for humanitarian causes.

Moreover, they should work on enhancing their transparency and accountability.

An NGO's role is diverse: from protecting and preventing, to promoting and transforming. By understanding these 'diverse' roles, NGOs should transform themselves.

A version of this article appears in the print on October 14, 2022 of The Himalayan Times.