By Our Political Analyst
The Balen Government has finally done what it is legally required to do, and somehow still managed to raise more questions than it answered. The asset declarations of the Cabinet led by Prime Minister Balen Shah are now public. On paper, this looks like a step toward transparency. However, in practice, the amount of wealth possessed by the cabinet ministers leaves public scratching their heads.
Start with the Prime Minister. He reports Rs 14.6 million in bank deposits, earned through social media platforms, along with land in Dhanusha and Mahottari held in his parents’ names. His wife’s 190 tola of gold, silver, and diamond jewelry is described as ancestral. Finance Minister Swarnim Wagle appears even more financially secure, with Rs 19 million in bank savings, four houses and apartments across Lalitpur, Kavre, and Tanahun, and 45 tola of gold. He cites employment, property sales, loans, and borrowing as sources.
The rest of the Cabinet does not exactly project modest living either. Foreign Minister Shishir Khanal lists land in multiple districts and holdings in gold, silver, and cash. Home Minister Sudhan Gurung reports land across three districts, 89 tola of gold, 6 kilograms of silver, bank savings, and shares in four companies. Industry Minister Gauri Kumari Yadav stands out with land in five locations, 180 tola of gold, and additional jewelry. Labour Minister Ramji Yadav discloses extensive landholdings, 80 tola of gold, and 150 tola of silver.
Others follow the same pattern, just in varying quantities. Energy Minister Biraj Bhakta Shrestha, Physical Infrastructure Minister Sunil Lamsal, and Education Minister Sasmit Pokharel all report gold, silver, land, and bank deposits. Health Minister Nisha Mehta holds 8 bigha of land. Federal Affairs Minister Pratibha Rawal and Law Minister Sobita Gautam show moderate savings and jewelry holdings. Even Women Minister Sita Badi, with relatively smaller assets, reports gold, silver, bank savings, and livestock. By the time one reaches Communications Minister Bikram Timilsina and Agriculture Minister Gita Chaudhary, a pattern is clear. This is not a Cabinet struggling to make ends meet.
Now comes the part that actually matters. Possessing wealth, by itself, is not a crime. A minister can be rich and still be clean. But wealth without a clear trail invites suspicion. A basic question follows naturally. How did they earn it? What are the exact sources? And have taxes been paid properly on those earnings? The disclosures offer fragments of answers but avoid full clarity. Terms like “ancestral property,” “income,” or “loans” appear frequently, but they remain broad enough to mean almost anything. In a country where public trust in institutions already runs thin, vague explanations do not help.
This is where Harka Sampang makes a point that is hard to dismiss. Declaring assets without disclosing their sources leaves the door open to doubt. His argument is blunt but logical. If the source is not clear, people will assume corruption, whether direct or indirect. That assumption may not always be fair, but it becomes inevitable when transparency stops halfway.
The timing also raises eyebrows. Just two weeks ago, the government had announced plans to form a body to investigate the assets of those who have held power since 2046 BS. That sounded ambitious, even necessary. Yet the body has not materialized. Instead, the government released the asset details of its own ministers first. The sequence feels off. It invites a different kind of scrutiny, one that the government may not have intended.
Public reaction reflects this unease. Many, especially online, are asking whether this Cabinet is any different from its predecessors. Nepal’s political history is not short on examples where leaders entered office promising reform and left with expanded personal wealth. The current disclosures, rather than settling doubts, risk reinforcing them.
To be fair, publishing asset details is better than hiding them. It creates a starting point. It allows scrutiny. It gives citizens something concrete to examine. But transparency is not just about listing numbers and properties. It is about explaining them in a way that can withstand public questioning.
Right now, that second part is missing. If the government wants credibility, it needs to go further. Each minister should provide a clear, verifiable breakdown of how their assets were acquired over time. Tax compliance should not be implied. It should be demonstrated. The proposed investigation body should not remain a promise. It should be formed and allowed to operate independently.
Until then, these declarations risk becoming a ritual. They show wealth, but not its journey. And in politics, the journey matters more than the destination. The Cabinet may insist that everything is above board. That claim would carry more weight if it came with evidence, not just inventory. Without that, the public is left connecting dots on its own. And when people start doing that, they rarely arrive at flattering conclusions.
Login to add a comment