By Deepak Joshi Pokhrel
A few days ago, the civil society activists across the country were taken aback, compelling them to criticise the government. The reason: the Home Ministry unveiled a bill formulated to amend and integrate the law on NGO registration, regulation and management. The NGO fraternity alleges that the bill is nothing but an intention to control and regulate NGOs under the pretext of monitoring.
The bill integrates the National Directives Act (1961), the Association Registration Act (1977), and the Social Welfare Act (1992) and proposes dissolving the Social Welfare Council (SWC) and replacing it with a new social welfare act under the Home Ministry. Soon after the bill was made public, the NGO Federation, an umbrella organisation, issued a statement calling the bill retrograde and cumbersome. It added that most of its provisions are intended to further constrain and control civil society organisations rather than facilitate and strengthen them and reduce the role of citizen participation.
In order to avoid public criticism, the government has sought citizen consultation over the bill. The government says that the bill will only be finalised after incorporating their constructive feedback and suggestions. But the social activist says that this is just a formality rather than a genuine effort to listen to their grievances and address them accordingly.
According to the Social Welfare Council, a government body to govern NGOs and INGOs in Nepal, there are over 50,000 NGOs in the country. To say, in the three decades since Nepal’s democratic transition, civil society has grown from a scattered community network of community efforts into a diverse ecosystem of non-governmental organisations, community organisations and emerging social enterprises. The number of registered NGOs exploded from a few hundred in 1990 to over 22,000 in 2000 and surpassed 54,000 in 2025. Today, the country is home to more than 100,000 formal and informal civil society organisations. Their activities range from empowering Dalit communities in Tarai to advocating for indigenous land rights in the hills; NGOs have been playing a pivotal role in plugging the gaps left by the state.
But despite its immense contribution to nation-building socially, economically and politically, the NGOs in Nepal often come under the government scanner. Why does the government time and again introduce bills to regulate and control NGOs and INGOs across the country? Why does the government feel that NGOs are a threat to national security and integrity? I will try to provide a close to perfect answer.
Ever since the restoration of democracy, NGOs in Nepal have been playing a key role in nation-building. From the empowerment of marginalised communities to the democratisation process, NGOs have always remained at the forefront, leading the moment. Furthermore, it acts as a watch and cautions the government, making it more accountable to the people. Similarly, NGOs have supported the government in translating its commitment made on the international stage into reality.NGOs are also active in a wide range of specialised roles such as conflict resolution, human rights, cultural preservation, environmental activism, policy analysis, and research and information provision. In many vibrant democracies across the globe, NGOs are a pivotal sector. It is for this reason that it is often said that the more vibrant the NGOs, the more vibrant the democracy.
But it is very interesting to note that the same NGOs often face the wrath of the people across the country. It is a universally accepted truth that NGOs are meant to serve the people, especially marginalised communities in the far-flung areas. But the research reports say that NGOs are more concentrated in comparatively developed areas, questioning their legitimacy and credibility. For example, Kathmandu district, which is in Bagmati province, has a high concentration of NGOs.
The report also blames the fact that some NGOs are operated by members of the family or close relatives. They accused NGOs of promoting nepotism and favouritism. This argument cannot be ruled out altogether because many NGOs in the country have their Board of Directors from the same family or close relatives, as if it were just a private or family business. Membership is also denied to outsiders, or it is very limited. Apart, many NGOs lack transparency in terms of financial and service delivery issues. As if this were not enough, some NGOs are often reported for their active involvement in religious conversion in far-flung areas of the country. All these are truly deplorable.
However, this is not to say that all NGOs are working against the interests of the country. They are not. There are many NGOs that are truly committed and dedicated to serving the needy people, mainly in the far-flung areas of the country. Their support has enabled people coming from vulnerable communities to interface with the government, demanding accountability and transparency on issues that matter to them. They really have empowered people socially, economically and politically. Likewise, they have penetrated the areas where the presence of the government is almost negligible. It is for this reason the government should not view every NGO with scepticism. In plain words, the government should not keep every NGO under one basket.
As Nepal moves forward, graduating from the least developed country status by 2026, the role of NGOs will be even bigger thereafter. Given the existing situation, the government alone cannot march forward without the support of NGOs in sustaining the graduation. It needs support from all quarters, including NGOs. Any attempt to shrink the civic space will be a catastrophe for a country like Nepal, which is still in labour pains in terms of democratisation.
This pen pusher is not advocating for NGOs across the country. My submission is that if there are any NGOs that are found involved in anti-national activities, they should be brought to justice as per the law of the land. The decision to put every NGO in one basket under the veil of controlling and managing them is not a prudent move.
Login to add a comment