By Deepak Joshi Pokhrel
While the world’s attention has been focused on the ongoing FIFA World Cup, jointly hosted by the United States, Canada, and Mexico, Nepal Police arrested former finance minister and CPN-UML Vice Chair Bishnu Poudel in Surkhet in connection with an ongoing money laundering investigation. This is hardly the first time that a prominent political figure has been implicated in a financial scandal. Over the years, such reports have become increasingly common in Nepal. Simply put, many Nepalis have grown accustomed to these stories and now regard them as routine.
According to media reports, Bishnu Poudel was arrested on allegations of helping controversial businessman Deepak Bhatta secure undue business advantages. Reports further claim that Poudel pressured a businessman to sell shares in his company to Bhatta’s company at a significantly reduced price. When the businessman questioned the benefit of selling his shares so cheaply, the former finance minister allegedly promised to facilitate four favorable decisions in return. While some of these commitments were reportedly fulfilled during Poudel’s tenure as finance minister, others remain unfulfilled. Investigators are examining these allegations as part of the money laundering case. If proven true, the case would represent yet another example of political leaders abusing public office for private gain.
What is particularly puzzling is that immediately after Poudel’s arrest, CPN-UML organized a press conference in Kathmandu, claiming that the arrest was politically motivated. The party even threatened nationwide protests unless he was released. Such a response raises serious questions about political accountability. Rather than allowing the legal process to take its course, the party chose to rally behind a leader facing serious allegations.
Corruption has permeated almost every sector of Nepalese society. From politicians and bureaucrats to public institutions, private businesses, and even non-governmental organizations (NGOs), corruption has become deeply entrenched. According to Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index 2025, Nepal ranked 109th out of 182 countries and territories, scoring just 34 out of 100, where 0 represents a highly corrupt country and 100 a very clean one.
Politicians are not the only ones under scrutiny. Nepal’s bureaucracy has also earned a reputation for corruption. Many bureaucrats enjoy lavish lifestyles, driving luxury vehicles worth millions of rupees, spending weekends at expensive resorts, and owning substantial movable and immovable assets across the country. Their frequent trips to exotic destinations often fuel public suspicion that their wealth far exceeds what could reasonably be earned through official salaries.
With an average monthly salary of less than Rs 70,000, such lifestyles are beyond the reach of ordinary civil servants. Their legal income simply does not correspond to their extravagant standard of living. This naturally raises an important question: how can such wealth be accumulated through legitimate means alone?
Corruption is perhaps most visible in public offices across the country. Anyone who has visited a government office is familiar with the routine. Public officials often demand unofficial payments to expedite services—an unethical and illegal practice. If citizens refuse to pay, their files are left untouched, and they are repeatedly told that their documents are incomplete or additional procedures are required. Even after fulfilling every requirement, applicants often continue to face unnecessary delays until they resort to paying a bribe.
For many citizens, bribery has become less a choice than a necessity. Frustrated by endless bureaucratic hurdles, they eventually give in simply to receive services to which they are legally entitled.
Over the past several decades, NGOs have played an important role in Nepal’s development and have contributed significantly to community empowerment. However, many have also been criticized for promoting nepotism and favoritism in recruitment and management. Some operate more like family-run organizations than independent civil society institutions. Leadership positions are frequently occupied by relatives or close associates who may lack the necessary qualifications and professional experience. Ironically, organizations that demand accountability from the government are themselves often accused of lacking transparency and accountability.
Political influence within the NGO sector is another growing concern. Many organizations are perceived to be aligned with particular political parties and tend to recruit individuals who share similar ideological beliefs rather than selecting candidates based on merit. As a result, NGOs are increasingly categorized according to their political affiliations rather than their missions. Issues such as human rights, social justice, federalism, secularism, minority rights, and gender equality are often viewed through a political lens, further eroding public confidence in the sector.
In principle, NGOs are expected to remain non-governmental, non-partisan, and non-profit. In practice, however, many appear to have close political affiliations. Finding an organization that is genuinely independent of political influence has become increasingly difficult.
Equally concerning is the role of international donors. Many donor agencies fail to rigorously assess the institutional capacity of their local partners before providing financial support. Weak oversight often results in poorly implemented projects, wasting both time and resources. At the end of a project, lengthy reports—sometimes prepared in expensive resorts by self-proclaimed consultants—are submitted to donors, who often accept them with little independent verification of whether the projects actually achieved their intended objectives. Greater transparency and accountability are needed not only among implementing organizations but also among donor agencies themselves.
Nepal’s new government, led by the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), has pledged to adopt a zero-tolerance policy toward corruption. Many citizens hope it will take decisive action against corrupt politicians, bureaucrats, and other public officials. Although it is still too early to judge its performance, the government’s initial actions suggest a willingness to pursue corruption cases more aggressively than its predecessors. Whether these efforts will translate into lasting institutional reform remains to be seen.
Login to add a comment