Topics
On June 2, public transport vehicles across Kathmandu and potentially much of Nepal stopped running. What began as a one-hour protest has now escalated into a full-fledged indefinite shutdown. Organised by the Federation of Nepalese National Transport Entrepreneurs and allied associations, the strike is a response to the Gandaki provincial government's new ride-sharing guidelines, which allow private, red-plated vehicles to operate commercially through apps like Pathao and inDrive.
The entrepreneurs contend that these guidelines legalise the commercial use of private vehicles, threatening the very foundation of traditional public transport businesses. They argue that this policy jeopardises the livelihoods of over 1.5 million public transport sector workers. Meanwhile, as policymakers and transport leaders wrestle over legality and regulation, it is the everyday commuter who suffers most.
Nepal's urban population depends heavily on public transportation. Students, nurses, factory workers, street vendors and civil servants – all rely on affordable and regular buses, micros and tempos to get to their destinations. With these vehicles now off the roads, people are stranded. Taxis and ride-shares are too expensive for most. And for those living in peripheral areas, even that isn't an option.
This isn't just about missed classes or late punch-ins. For many, it means lost income, disrupted education and increased risk – especially for women and the elderly. Many are now forced to walk long distances in unsafe conditions, miss important appointments or rely on costly ride-sharing apps.
The rise of digital ride-sharing platforms like Pathao and inDrive offer undeniable convenience and modernisation. But the transition must be inclusive, legal and just. Allowing private vehicles to earn money without meeting the same standards or paying the same dues as public transport providers creates an unfair imbalance. It also raises questions about long-term sustainability, accountability and road safety.
The government's failure to clearly regulate this space – and to harmonise provincial and federal laws – has created confusion and conflict. But more critically, it has exposed a deeper issue: that public transportation in Nepal is treated more as a business battleground than a basic public service.
If this strike continues, it will not only paralyse urban mobility but also deepen inequalities. Those who can afford to drive or use apps will move on. Those who can't will fall further behind.
Transportation is not just about vehicles. It's about access. It's about opportunity. And above all, it's about people. Right now, the government must act decisively – not merely as a mediator between conflicting parties, but as a guardian of the public's right to mobility and dignity.