The next chapter for Nepal can no longer be written in a foreign hand or through incremental fixes
Stability in Nepal is not just a local necessity; it is now a regional and even global imperative. The recent Gen Z uprising, triggered by the government's sweeping social media ban, laid bare decades of frustration with entrenched corruption, stagnant opportunities, and a national leadership that felt increasingly distant from its youngest generation. For nearly half a century, Nepal's political cycles have routinely swapped heads, but not the system, leaving state institutions fragile and public trust eroded. The combustible mix of economic despair and institutional drift finally boiled over in September 2025, catalysed by an ageing political elite's heavy-handed response to dissent. In moments, the usual symbols of "stability", coalition cabinets, donor-funded initiatives, and external validation were rendered irrelevant, underscoring that proper stability runs far deeper than the absence of violence or the presence of a technically functional government.
In the Nepalese context, stability must be defined as the creation of lasting capacity for self-governance, credible rule of law, and an open economic future. It means more than managing elections or containing protests. It speaks to a society's ability to mediate disputes, deliver direct benefits to its people, and give hope to a rising generation that the country is not merely an exporter of workers and students, but a place where their future can be built. This has been neglected for too long. Fifty years of shuffling the same few political actors has left young Nepalis sceptical that either electoral politics or imported reform agendas can deliver meaningful change. If stability is to be more than a surface calm that masks chronic dysfunction, Nepal must pursue deep reform of its institutions-and this cannot happen while distraction and dilution persist.
Here, the outsized presence of international agencies and donors, for all their historical contributions, has become part of the problem. Nepal's capital remains crowded with embassies, UN agencies, and INGOs whose mandates often overlap and sometimes contradict one another. Donor "ownership" of agendas long ago created a climate of dependency. On paper, agencies like the United Nations Development Programme celebrate improvements in human development and governance; yet, for most Nepalis, these gains remain intangible. The UN Resident Coordinator's office, for all its purported power to harmonise efforts, is invisible save for the regular churn of high-salaried appointments and the perennial talk of UN "Nepo Kids" being slotted into coveted posts.
Yet, stability will not be achieved through agency workshops or increased diplomatic traffic. Drawing inspiration from other countries, Nepal would do well to cap the number of international agencies and NGOs permitted to operate in the country, allowing only those whose mandates clearly align with pressing national priorities. Where agencies add marginal value, their budgets and staff should be trimmed; where their missions have expired or are simply unjustified (as with UNHCR, UNFPA, UNAIDS, or UN Women), operations should be scaled back or wound down.
Responsibilities should be handed over to capable local groups. Salaries in the aid sector must match those of government, stanching the unsustainable flow of talent to externally funded jobs and levelling the field for public service. Ethiopia and Ghana, for instance, have both capped INGO presence and strictly controlled salary scales, not only saving public resources but also ensuring that national priorities, not donor incentives, remain central.
Similarly, the unhealthy intimacy between government ministers and agency heads or ambassadors should end. In France and Southeast Asia, direct access to senior government is tightly controlled: high-level meetings are formal, documented and rare, preventing a "second government" from emerging through endless informal lobbying. Nepal should insist on transparency and distance, requiring all interactions to be scheduled, recorded, and justified. This would also signal to the next generation of Nepalese technocrats that their future depends on national reform, not foreign approval.
The issue of stability cannot be separated from Nepal's place in its wider region. The collapse of government in Kathmandu, echoing youth revolts in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, has sent a chill through both Delhi and Beijing. For China, Nepal is a crucial link in the Belt and Road Initiative and a buffer in the Himalayan arc. For India, instability in Nepal disrupts open borders, creates fears of refugee surges, and feeds anxiety about eroding regional influence. Both powers prefer a stable, predictable Nepal-yet heavy-handed influence from neighbours has often done as much harm as good. The challenge for Nepal is to engage India and China as constructive partners, insisting upon an ethos of respect, restraint, and transparency from their representatives. Indian diplomats, in particular, should be encouraged to view Nepal not as a junior partner or a strategic pawn, but as a sovereign neighbour whose stability serves the interests of both countries.
For Nepal, practical stability must rest on strengthening the Election Commission, the bureaucracy, the courts, and security sector reform, to ensure both domestic accountability and technical feasibility. Agencies that foster dependency or confusion should make way for governance that is leaner, smarter, and driven by Nepal's own vision. The government should rebuild its relationship with the people, restoring hope for sustainable economic growth that isn't hostage to remittances or fleeting donor priorities.
The next chapter for Nepal can no longer be written in a foreign hand or through incremental fixes. It must be owned, vocally and visibly, by Nepalis themselves, especially the young. Suppose stakeholders within and beyond Nepal can support this, step back when needed, and prioritise national ownership. In that case, stability will not remain a mirage. The reward will be a more resilient Nepal: not merely stable, but finally able to thrive on its own terms.
Prof Peela is a geopolitical and security expert on South Asia and Asia Pacific
