A few matters of disorder and mismanagement in our country

By Narayan Prasad Mishra

Whatever political, administrative, economic, or legal system is adopted in a country, it must serve the interests of the people and the nation. Likewise, whenever a new constitution, act, or law is drafted, or an existing one amended, it should be done solely for the welfare of the people and the country. Judicial decisions should also uphold national and public interest. If a verdict goes against the welfare of the people and the nation — whether due to misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the constitution or laws — such a decision cannot truly be called justice or a proper judgment. There should be no disagreement that the people and the nation must remain the central focus of every action taken at the national level.

For the past three decades, the country has had a multiparty system of governance. Elected representatives have had the freedom to work independently for the welfare of the people and the nation without obstruction. There is also a system through which any governmental or administrative structure that harms national and public interests can be changed. Necessary laws can be drafted or amended whenever required for the country’s benefit. In this context, if any responsible official claims that justice could not be delivered to the people or development could not take place because of flaws in the constitution, laws, or system, such a claim must be considered entirely false. The reason is simple: the responsibility to amend laws or systems that obstruct justice or hinder development also lies with those very officials. Therefore, the blame cannot be shifted elsewhere.

The Cooperative Victims’ Crisis and the Question of Justice

Although these truths are beyond dispute, many things over the last three decades have not served the interests of the people or the nation. There are numerous examples, but the most significant among them is the crisis faced by victims of cooperative fraud.

Whatever errors or negligence may have occurred in relation to cooperative fraud, it is the government’s responsibility to correct them and provide justice to the victims. For this, the perpetrators must be punished and the victims compensated without delay. In cooperative cases, it is already clear who the victims are and who the perpetrators are. The institutions themselves hold the records. Those who deposited money and cannot recover it are the victims, while the operators who took the money and refuse to return it are clearly the fraudsters. Therefore, identifying them should not require much time. Nor is this something that needs to be endlessly entangled in court procedures.

If government agencies promptly investigate and confiscate assets hidden, transferred, or registered under the names of relatives, associates, or friends of the perpetrators, and auction them off, justice can easily be delivered to the victims. The current government deserves praise for studying the matter seriously and issuing an ordinance related to cooperatives. However, justice will only be achieved if the government establishes a powerful, efficient mechanism similar to President Donald Trump’s DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency), capable of acting quickly and decisively. Otherwise, under Nepal’s judicial system — which often moves like a turtle and traps cases like a spider’s web — even the next three generations of victims may not receive justice.

This reality is clearly illustrated by a court case involving the fraudulent operators of Simil Savings and Credit Cooperative Institution, particularly Ichchha Raj Tamang, and the victims. In a case filed against him, the Patan High Court ordered him several years ago to prepare a repayment plan within two months and fully repay depositors within nine months. He ignored the order entirely. The victims then filed another petition at the Kathmandu District Court seeking enforcement of the judgment. They expected the court to issue a strict order requiring immediate payment in accordance with the previous verdict. However, instead of issuing such a ruling, a judge named Shakuntala Karki ordered that all related cases be consolidated. Ichchha Raj continued filing various artificial and fabricated cases to delay repayment. Merely reviewing these artificial cases has already delayed the implementation of the High Court’s decision by another 3 or 4 years.

Thus, even a High Court judgment could not be enforced through the lower court process. It is clear that victims cannot receive justice through such judicial procedures. Therefore, if the current government truly wishes to deliver justice, it must create a powerful mechanism similar to DOGE and provide immediate justice to cooperative victims — without discrimination between small and large depositors and without unnecessary delay. Otherwise, the fate of cooperative victims will resemble the Nepali saying: “Dying while merely gazing at the fruit in the sky.” The case involving Ichchha Raj and the court decisions make this painfully clear.

Foreign Migration and the Citizenship Problem

Because of the country’s deteriorating condition, disorder, and mismanagement, employment opportunities have become scarce. As a result, nearly one-third of the population — both educated and uneducated — has migrated abroad to contribute their labor, skills, education, and knowledge to benefit other countries. It is also widely acknowledged that the nation and many families survive largely because of the remittances sent by these migrant workers.

Since living abroad for many years becomes easier with foreign citizenship, some Nepalis — even reluctantly — have obtained citizenship in other countries. Yet the truth remains that, even after acquiring foreign citizenship, their love and concern for Nepal remain. Recognizing this reality, all political parties agreed to include a provision in the current constitution that allows foreign citizens of Nepali origin to obtain Non-Resident Nepali Citizenship, with economic, social, and cultural rights. Since October 17, 2023, the Government of Nepal has been issuing such citizenship certificates.

However, this citizenship appears to have become little more than a symbolic document — like the Nepali proverb about “a meaningless festival in Hadigaun.” It is said that even renewing a fixed deposit in one’s own bank account is difficult using this citizenship. This makes it clear that the current Non-Resident Nepali Citizenship issued by the government is not even useful for renewing an existing bank account and holds less practical value than the Non-Resident Nepali Identity Card itself.

There seems to be no justification for such an important document becoming practically meaningless. Therefore, it is difficult to understand why this situation has arisen in implementation. The current government must immediately address this issue.

Problems Created for the People by Systems and Procedures

Any system or procedure should exist for the convenience and welfare of the people. In our country, however, many arrangements seem designed not for the people, but as though the people exist for the system.

Examples include the many recommendation letters issued by ward offices for which large fees are charged. One wonders whether requirements such as obtaining a recommendation for a house access road — something already visible in land survey maps — or the rule that relationship certificates proving family ties between parents and children are valid for only six months, exist merely to increase the workload and income of ward offices.

Likewise, even if the same recommendation has already been obtained once for a particular matter, people are often forced to pay again and again for the same document if another related matter arises later. Such practices are certainly not in the public interest.

Bhaktapur Municipality has even made it mandatory for property owners themselves to appear in person to pay property taxes. I personally experienced the hardship of having to travel there myself because my own brother was not permitted to pay the tax on my behalf.

At one time, municipal and district panchayats issued licenses and collected fees even for bicycles and radios merely to increase revenue. In the same way, the current arrangements and fees imposed by provincial and ward governments also deserve careful review by the present government.