By Dr Janardan Subedi
A few days ago, while browsing the internet, I came across a short clip of Dinesh Satyal, widely known as Saurav, in which he highlighted five flaws in the current Nepali constitution that could threaten our sovereignty. For someone of his intelligence, this was not just a casual comment but a severe warning. It made me revisit the constitution with a new perspective and wonder whether our political leaders have truly safeguarded the nation’s long-term interests. After all, once sovereignty is lost, it is nearly impossible to regain—and Nepal is dangerously close to that point today. The urgency of this situation cannot be overstated.
When Nepal adopted its constitution in 2015, it was celebrated as the culmination of a long and challenging transition. After years of civil war, the abolition of the monarchy, and prolonged deadlock, the new constitution aimed to promote peace, inclusion, and stability. However, a decade later, the same document reveals cracks that compromise Nepal’s sovereignty. Sovereignty is not just an abstract concept; it is the lifeblood of small states, a fragile barrier against pressures from larger neighbors and global interests. Today, that barrier is weakening — not only because of flaws in the constitution but also because of a political class that is either unable or unwilling to defend it. The interim government slips into paralysis, while the Gen-Z generation has risen to challenge a stagnant system. This moment demands clarity: Nepal’s sovereignty is at risk, and the gates are wide open.
Constitutional Vulnerabilities
Five provisions in the current constitution pose a threat to sovereignty. These are not merely theoretical discussions—they are tangible issues impacting Nepal’s future.
First, the rules for international treaties and agreements (Article 279) permit even sovereignty-sensitive treaties to be ratified by a simple majority in parliament. For a small state caught between India and China, this poses a significant risk. Treaty ratification should require the broadest possible consensus—ideally a two-thirds majority—especially when natural resources, borders, or security are involved. The current rule facilitates the formation of short-term political coalitions that can sign binding agreements under pressure from powerful neighbors.
Second, the structure of federalism is dangerously fragile. The provinces were established through strong identity-based mobilization, and the constitution allows for their restructuring in response to political or popular pressure. Instead of stabilizing the country, this flexibility risks undermining national unity. Provinces with ethnic majorities are susceptible to external support for secessionist movements or demands for special cross-border ties. Federalism without a unifying national core becomes a tool for disintegration.
Third, the distribution of power over natural resources (Articles 59, 60, 251–253) decentralizes control over hydropower, water, forests, and minerals to provincial and local governments. While intended to democratize development, this allows foreign corporations and governments to bypass Kathmandu and negotiate directly with local elites. In a resource-rich but weakly governed state, this can result in exploitative deals that burden the country’s assets. A small municipality eager for revenue might sell the rights to a river or forest without considering national interests.
Fourth, the constitution’s citizenship provisions (Articles 11–14) remain unclear and open to debate. The unresolved issues of descent and naturalization—especially those related to cross-border marriages—create a gray area. When politicized, citizenship can become a strategic tool. In a borderland country like Nepal, this poses a risk of demographic manipulation. If large-scale naturalization is used for political reasons, the country’s sovereignty may be weakened, as the voting population no longer accurately represents a stable national community.
Fifth, the system for appointing members to constitutional bodies—the judiciary, the Election Commission, and anti-corruption agencies—has been compromised through partisan negotiations. These institutions were intended to be defenders of sovereignty, capable of resisting both domestic overreach and external pressure. Instead, they have become extensions of party cartels. A judiciary that answers to politicians cannot defend the constitution; an oversight body beholden to party leaders cannot protect national resources. Sovereignty without independent institutions is sovereignty in name only.
Taken together, these five vulnerabilities have eroded the shield of sovereignty. For years, they hid behind claims of progress and inclusivity. Today, they are exposed to political paralysis and the voice of a generation refusing to accept decline. The situation is dire, and immediate reforms are necessary.
The Interim Government’s Paralysis
The interim government, set up to steer a period of instability, has failed to establish a clear path forward. Key decisions are being postponed indefinitely, including the rollout of new citizenship laws, the terms for foreign investment in energy projects, and the long-overdue restructuring of federal units. Instead of providing leadership, the interim administration causes stagnation.
This paralysis is not harmless; it is a serious condition. When a state becomes weakened, sovereignty is not lost suddenly through coups but gradually eroded silently. When the government does not respond, others step in to fill the void. Provincial leaders make agreements with foreign companies. Business elites work directly with embassies. Political parties build patronage with foreign powers. The state essentially relinquishes its control over sovereignty not through formal surrender but through neglect.
For Nepal’s neighbors, this paralysis offers an opportunity. A divided and indecisive Kathmandu allows external actors to bypass the central government and influence outcomes through local intermediaries. Sovereignty becomes less a constitutional guarantee and more a bargaining chip. The international community, including neighboring countries and global organizations, has a role in addressing these vulnerabilities and ensuring Nepal’s sovereignty remains protected.
Gen-Z and the New Sovereignty Struggle
The Gen Z movement has filled this void. This is a significant development, as it signifies a new wave of activism and a potential force for change in Nepal. Young Nepalis, disillusioned by corruption and betrayal, have mobilized across cities and villages. Their demands range from accountability to systemic reform, but at its core, their protests represent a fight for sovereignty. They feel that the state no longer acts in the interests of the people but instead serves external masters and internal syndicates.
For Gen-Z, sovereignty isn’t just an abstract principle of international law. It’s immediate: the right to jobs not controlled by crony networks, the right to education not corrupted by patronage, the right to borders not easily manipulated. Their anger isn’t solely directed at government failures but also at the more profound sense that Nepal is being drained from within.
However, the risk is that this energy could be misused or exploited. Political elites, recognizing the power of youth, might try to redirect their anger toward limited gains, weakening the movement’s impact. External actors may also attempt to manipulate unrest by working with various factions. Unless Gen-Z’s movement stays focused and anchored in a shared vision, its passion could burn brightly but only briefly.
Who Will Save the Nation?
The sovereignty crisis can’t be solved just with youth protests or by interim governments that dodge responsibility. It requires a collective recognition that sovereignty isn’t automatically assured; it has to be actively guarded.
Several steps are urgent. Treaty ratification must be strengthened to require a supermajority approval. Federalism needs recalibration to empower provinces without causing fragmentation. Resource management should be centralized at a strategic level, ensuring local benefits without losing national control. Citizenship laws require clarification to prevent demographic manipulation and to guarantee fairness and impartiality. Most importantly, the appointment of judges and constitutional officers must be protected from party influence, restoring institutional independence.
However, institutional reform alone will not be sufficient. The greater challenge is cultural: Nepali politics has shifted into transactional bargaining, where sovereignty is treated as a negotiable commodity. This cynicism has fostered disillusionment among Gen-Z. Unless sovereignty becomes the fundamental principle of governance, no reform will be sustainable.
The youth have already sounded the alarm. They will not tolerate a government that mortgages its resources, manipulates its demographics, or defers to foreign capitals. But their protest must develop into a clear sovereignty plan—calling for constitutional reform, institutional independence, and leadership accountability.
A Moment of Reckoning
Nepal’s sovereignty is at a critical point. The constitution, although progressive, has opened dangerous gaps. The interim government, ineffective and compromised, has failed to safeguard them. The Gen Z movement has mobilized the nation, but it still risks being co-opted.
Currently, the silence of established leaders is overwhelming. Their hesitation to address the sovereignty issue is, in itself, a betrayal. History will not remember the treaties they signed or the speeches they delivered; it will remember whether they allowed Nepal’s sovereignty to be compromised under their watch.
The challenge is clear. If Nepal continues on its current path, sovereignty won’t be lost suddenly but will gradually erode—through treaties signed without proper agreement, provinces influenced by outside forces, resources sold piece by piece, citizenship tightly controlled, and institutions gradually taken over. The decline will be so slow that by the time the country recognizes it, the fortress will already be compromised.
The gates are open. Vultures are circling. The youth are awake. The government remains asleep. The question is no longer academic; it is existential: Who will defend Nepal’s sovereignty?
Login to add a comment