By P.R. Pradhan
The (Royal) Nepal Army has experienced many ups and downs throughout its history. During the Rana regime, it was regarded as a force loyal to the Rana rulers. Under the monarchy, it was widely perceived as an institution loyal to the King. Following the 1951 political change, the strength of the Nepal Army was significantly reduced, and the Nepal Police was established as a separate security force with greater responsibilities for maintaining internal security.
During the Panchayat era, India reportedly opposed any significant expansion of the Nepal Army. King Birendra, however, envisioned increasing the Army’s strength to around 500,000 personnel equipped with modern weaponry. He also explored the possibility of establishing domestic small-arms production for national use and potential export to South Asian countries. During the Maoist insurgency, the strength of the Nepal Army was eventually expanded to nearly 100,000 personnel.
Some political leaders, including Finance Minister Swornim Wagle and former minister Sumana Shrestha, have argued that Nepal does not require a large military because the likelihood of conventional warfare is minimal. Some have even questioned the Army’s ability to defend the country in the event of war. Since the political change of 1990, foreign influence on Nepal’s political landscape has increased significantly. Numerous international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) became active in the country, and many key state institutions—including the civil service, Nepal Police, Armed Police Force, and even the education sector—became increasingly politicized. Amid these developments, the Nepal Army largely remained insulated from partisan politics, despite repeated attempts by various groups to undermine the institution.
In many countries, the military is directly involved in commercial and industrial activities. In Bangladesh, for example, several loss-making state-owned enterprises were handed over to the military, and many reportedly became profitable under military management. In Nepal, however, when the government entrusted the Nepal Army with studying the feasibility of reopening the Hetauda Textile Industry, some self-described intellectuals and political leaders immediately criticized the proposal. The Army’s objective was not only to revive the factory but also to produce uniforms and other textile products required by the military itself.
The Nepal Army also manages a welfare fund dedicated to serving retired personnel. Through this fund, it operates schools and hospitals for serving and retired soldiers and has accumulated substantial financial resources. The Army has previously proposed investing part of this fund in commercially viable ventures, including hydropower projects, so that the profits could be used to strengthen welfare programs for former servicemen and their families. However, successive governments rejected these proposals.
Allowing the Nepal Army Welfare Fund to invest in productive industries would not place an additional financial burden on the government. Instead, it could create employment opportunities for retired military personnel while generating profits to support their welfare. Such a model could reduce dependence on government subsidies and make the welfare system more self-sustaining.
Critics, however, argue that the Army should remain focused on its professional military responsibilities rather than engage in business activities. Besides its primary defense role, the Nepal Army has played an important part in constructing strategic roads across the country and has consistently demonstrated its effectiveness during natural disasters and rescue operations, protecting national conservation projects. Nevertheless, it has faced criticism over delays in constructing the Kathmandu-Tarai Fast Track project. Although multiple factors have contributed to the project’s slow progress, much of the public criticism has been directed at the Army. Allegations of financial irregularities have also surfaced.
If such allegations are credible, they should be investigated transparently. The Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) and the Office of the Auditor General should be allowed to examine any suspected financial misconduct, and any officials found guilty of corruption or misuse of public funds should be held accountable. At the same time, the government should formulate a long-term policy that enables the Nepal Army Welfare Fund to invest in commercially viable projects capable of providing productive employment for retired personnel while strengthening their welfare through sustainable income generation.
Login to add a comment