Clean Leaders Alone Can’t Make Nepal a Ram Rajya

Dr. Rajendra K. Panthee

Imagine for a moment that Nepal is suddenly ruled by the most corruption-hating leader in the world. Let us say someone like Lee Kuan Yew, the founding father of Singapore, who is globally known for turning a corrupt and underdeveloped port into a clean and efficient economy. Or perhaps Estonia’s reformers, who built a digital governance model that many countries admire. Imagine his cabinet ministers are equally clean, selfless, and devoted only to the nation. In one magical day, Nepal becomes a Ram Rajya. Honest. Efficient. Benevolent. No more rigged tenders. No more ghost schools. No more money laundering through cooperatives.

Still, Nepal might not change or develop. For a few stubborn reasons.

1. The people
Too many of us do not think about the nation as a shared project. We think about personal benefit, party loyalty, and who will protect our group. Blind support for a party becomes more important than policy, integrity, or long term vision. We say we want clean leaders, but when it comes to our own people, we say, he is not corrupt, he is our guy, he feeds us, he protects us, he is like family.

We want clean leaders at the top, but we also want our own people to be protected, promoted, and let off the hook. We want the system to work for us, not for the nation. We want to be the exception, not the rule.

Even a perfect government gets worn down by our own cynicism, favoritism, and indifference to the public good. We ask for Ram Rajya, but we do not want to live in it. We protest against corruption, but we also protect our corrupt uncle. We vote for clean candidates, but we also vote for the one who gives us a job, a contract, or a favor.

Nepal will not change because we do not want to change. We want the system to be clean, but we do not want to be clean.

2. The political class
There is another ugly truth. Many Nepali political leaders and their supporters also make India into a convenient political weapon. When they feel close to India, everything suddenly feels normal. When they feel ignored, less useful, or less favored than other leaders, they quickly start saying India is playing a game or interfering in Nepal’s affairs.

This is where the hypocrisy becomes obvious. On one hand, some of them are ready to become a puppet of India when it suits their own power. On the other hand, they pull out the nationalist card and shout anti India slogans to emotionally blackmail simple Nepali people. They do not use nationalism as principle. They use it as a tool.

This pattern is dangerous because it turns foreign policy into a domestic performance. Instead of speaking honestly about Nepal’s interests, they use India either as a shield or as a villain depending on what benefits them politically at that moment. That is not patriotism. That is manipulation.

India, as a big and powerful country with its own strategic interests, will never ignore Nepal completely. That much is obvious. But Nepali leaders also help create this cycle by using India whenever it helps them defend themselves, attack rivals, or distract the public from their own failures.

The result is always the same. The public gets confused, the debate gets emotional, and serious national issues become cheap slogans.

The bitter reality
Nepal’s future is not just about cleaning up corruption at the top. It is about how we, as citizens, act. It is about whether we can stop being blind supporters of one party and start being citizens who demand accountability. It is about whether we can stop thinking about personal benefits and start thinking about the nation as a shared project.

It is also about whether our leaders stop using India as a political mask whenever it suits them. A weak political class cannot build a strong state by playing nationalist theater on one side and foreign dependence on the other.

Nepal is stuck between pride and weakness, between sovereignty and dependency, between slogans and reality. Even Ram Rajya in Nepal would struggle, not because leaders alone are bad, but because the people are divided and the political class is often dishonest about bigger forces at play.

What can we do
We can stop being blind supporters. We can stop protecting our corrupt uncle. We can stop voting for the one who gives us a job and start voting for the one who gives us a future. We can start asking questions, demanding transparency, and holding our leaders accountable. We can also stop falling for the same tired game where leaders pretend to defend the nation while using India only when it suits their own power.

We can start being citizens, not just loyalists.

Conclusion
Even if Nepal gets Lee Kuan Yew as its Prime Minister, even if his cabinet is made of angels, even if Nepal becomes Ram Rajya overnight, it will not change or develop unless we change first. Unless we stop being blind supporters. Unless we stop protecting our corrupt uncle. Unless we stop letting leaders use India as a political weapon whenever they want sympathy or advantage.

Nepal’s future is not just about clean leaders. It is about clean citizens. It is about clean institutions. It is about honest politics. And it is about refusing to be emotionally blackmailed by nationalist slogans every time leaders want to hide their weakness.

Members of Parliament Don’t Know Parliamentary Language and We Call It Okay

Dr. Rajendra K Panthee

I teach David Bartholomae’s “Inventing the University” where he says entering a community means learning its language AND its culture. Understanding mere words, grammar, sentences is not enough. You must learn the values, the norms, the ways of thinking. Now look at our Parliament. Many MPs today have learned the words of democracy but not the culture of democracy. They can say accountability but skip Parliament when questioned. They can say the people but ignore parliamentary procedure. They can say revolution but refuse to learn the institution that gives them power.

This is populism at work. Populism teaches the vocabulary of change but not the culture of accountability. It teaches you to say the people but not to submit to institutions that represent them. It teaches you to say democracy but not to respect the rules of democracy. When Prime Minister Balen Sah skips Parliament and avoids answering questions, when MPs do not know parliamentary procedure and followers call it anti establishment, this is not revolution. This is performing ignorance and calling it virtue.

Balen Sah’s behavior is wrong. It is not just about one party. Other leaders like Harka Sampang are no better. But RSP has been especially responsible for ignoring the superiority of Parliament and normalizing this anti institutional attitude. The party has helped create a culture where skipping Parliament is acceptable, where parliamentary procedure is elite, and where accountability is optional.

Bartholomae would say you cannot participate in a community you refuse to learn. Parliamentary culture means the Prime Minister answers questions even when uncomfortable. It means rules apply to everyone not just the opposition. It means accountability through institutions not social media. It means respecting debate even when you disagree. It means you submit to the institution even when it costs you politically.

Many MPs have the words but not the culture. They have democracy vocabulary but not democracy practice. They have the appearance of representation without the substance of accountability. This destroys institutions built over decades. When leaders treat norms as optional, democracy erodes. When followers accept anti intellectualism as virtue, institutions lose authority. When populists say institutions are corrupt, they weaken representative democracy itself.

This is the destructive nature of populist anti-intellectualism. Populism while potentially serving as a corrective force poses significant threats to democratic norms. The pattern is clear. Institutional erosion happens when leaders treat norms as optional. Democratic accountability disappears when followers accept anti intellectualism as virtue. The research shows we need to strengthen checks and balances to counter the appeal of populism. But first we need to recognize what is happening. We need to name it. We need to teach people why institutions matter. We need to teach them that culture matters as much as words.

When we lose parliamentary literacy, we lose the ability to hold power accountable through institutional means. When we lose parliamentary culture, we lose the values that make accountability possible. We lose the ability to debate respectfully. We lose the ability to build consensus. We lose the ability to protect minority rights. We lose the ability to govern effectively.

What we gain is chaos. What we gain is personal rule. What we gain is the illusion of representation without the reality of accountability. What we gain is the words of democracy without the culture of democracy.

We need to teach democratic literacy the way we teach academic literacy. We need to teach students and citizens how institutions work. We need to teach them why rules matter. We need to teach them that accountability is not optional. And we need to teach them the culture of democracy, not just the vocabulary.

David Bartholomae taught us that learning a new language is hard. It requires effort. It requires humility. It requires practice. Entering a new community means learning to speak like its members. But it also means learning to think like its members. It means learning its values. It means learning its culture.

Entering a democratic community means learning the language of democracy. It means learning parliamentary procedure. It means learning to hold power accountable through institutions. It means learning that rules protect us all not just the elite. And it means learning the culture of democracy, which means submission to process even when it is uncomfortable.

When MPs refuse to learn this language and culture they are not revolutionaries. They are illiterates. And when their supporters say it is okay they are complicit in the destruction of democracy.

Democracy requires language. It requires culture. It requires institutions. It requires people who know how to participate in the code even when it is uncomfortable. Populism promises to give power to the people but it delivers power to the leader. It promises to disrupt the system but it disrupts democracy itself. It teaches the words but not the culture. It teaches the vocabulary without the values.

Balen must answer questions in Parliament. MPs must learn parliamentary procedure. RSP must stop normalizing disrespect for institutions. Other populist leaders must stop treating Parliament as optional. Accountability is not optional. That is the point.

Democracy is not a protest. It is a practice. And you cannot practice if you do not know the language or the culture.

A Reflection on Rabi Lamichhane’s Hindustan Times Article

Dr. Rajendra K Panthee

I started reading Rabi Lamichhane’s article “How can an aspirational Nepal and rising India reconnect?” in Hindustan Times and felt compelled to share some thoughts on how we remember Nepal’s recent political transformation.

The article frames Nepal’s transformation as a “peaceful ballot-box revolution” focused on development and aspirational vision. However, the historical record shows that the 2026 election was called because of the September 2025 Gen Z protests, which resulted in:

  • 19 people killed when police opened fire on protesters
  • Over 300 injured with tear gas, rubber bullets, and live ammunition
  • Parliament building damaged during the protests
  • $21 billion in damage — half of Nepal’s annual GDP
  • School kids in uniforms brought to the streets

More than 800,000 new voters registered—two-thirds of them Gen Z. The movement wasn’t about RSP specifically; it was about accountability, anti-corruption, and demanding a political system that serves ordinary citizens. The 2/3 RSP majority we see today is a direct result of this Gen Z movement.

When the article describes this as a “peaceful ballot-box revolution,” it risks erasing the young people who died to make this election possible. The families of the martyrs deserve to be acknowledged in any narrative about Nepal’s transformation.

On border relations, the article’s call to “resolve disputes through dialogue” is constructive, especially after PM Balen’s recent parliamentary remarks on border encroachment sparked debate. What would strengthen Nepal-India ties is not just aspirational vision but transparent governance, accountability for all parties, and respect for democratic institutions.

The warm reception Rabi received in India reflects genuine interest in Nepal-India cooperation, which should be welcomed. However, for that cooperation to be sustainable, both countries need leaders who balance diplomatic engagement with domestic accountability.

When RSP’s 2/3 majority enables governance, it also brings responsibility to ensure that power serves all citizens, not just party interests. True reconnection between Nepal and India will come not from rewriting history, but from building relationships grounded in mutual respect, transparency, and honoring the Gen Z generation whose uprising made this new political moment possible.

We should all remember: accountability today strengthens democracy tomorrow.

On Questions, Critique, and the First 60 Days of RSP Government in Nepal

Dr. Rajendra K Panthee

Two months into the RSP-led government, I find myself reflecting not only as a critic but also as a citizen who wants this political movement to succeed.

My critique of the Prime Minister and this government does not come from hostility. It comes from expectation. I want them to do well because their success would mean something better for Nepal.

There is undeniable hope among ordinary people right now. You can hear it in everyday conversations and see it in the growing frustration with the past 35 years of Congress and UML politics. That frustration has turned into a strong desire for change. At the same time, this hope is also being shaped by populist narratives. Some are clearly benefiting from this mood. This tension deserves careful attention rather than blind support or easy dismissal.

We also need to stay grounded in reality. The people now in power did not come into politics because they had already proven themselves in governance. They came as alternatives. That creates an opportunity, but it also brings responsibility. The recent Human Rights Commission report is a reminder that performance must be examined carefully and not assumed.

As a teacher, I have learned something important over the years. The students who question me the most at the beginning of a semester often become the ones who understand my work best by the end. Questioning, when it is taken seriously, builds trust. Silence does not.

I approach this government in the same spirit. Questions are not threats. They are part of accountability. People who speak should not be feared. What should concern us is the culture of silence that has shaped much of our political leadership, including the current Prime Minister.

I remain critical, and I remain hopeful.

For the sake of all those who continue to believe in the possibility of change, I sincerely wish this government success.

When Our Distress Becomes Someone Else’s Investment

Dr. Rajendra K Panthee

A group from Montreal is about to spend $500 million buying up unsold condos across the GTA—often at about half the original presale price. These are the very projects that many of our people walked away from after pouring in hard‑earned savings, assignment fees, and years of waiting. Now, the same “problem” that broke individual buyers’ backs is being treated as a “golden opportunity” for big investors.

For months, we watched neighbours cancel assignments, forfeit deposits, and quietly admit defeat. Some families had to choose between sinking more money into overpriced units or walking away with nothing. Many chose the latter—not because they didn’t want to own, but because the market turned against them. Yet, when ordinary people retreat, institutions step in with deep pockets, buying in bulk at deep discounts.

This is not just a real‑estate story. It’s a story about who bears the risk and who reaps the reward. When the market booms, the fantasy is sold to small investors, diaspora families, and first‑time buyers. When the bubble cools, those same buyers are left holding the losses, while corporations quietly acquire entire buildings as “value plays.” Our fear, our stress, our sacrificed savings become their balance‑sheet assets.

What’s even more troubling is what this signals for the future. Those who can buy at half‑price today will likely rent the units back to us at market‑rate or higher tomorrow. Instead of a market correction that brings affordability, we may simply get a transfer of power—from overstretched buyers to consolidated landlords. Public policy and housing regulations have done little to intercept this process. Housing is being treated as a financial instrument, not as a basic human need.

For our community, this moment should be a wake‑up call. We need to stop seeing every presale project as a guaranteed “investment” and start asking: Who really benefits when we are forced to walk away? We need to push for policies that protect small buyers, cap speculative land banking, and ensure that when the market crashes, ordinary people are not left alone to pay the price.

This is not just about losing money in a condo deal. It’s about who controls housing, who gets bailed out, and who gets erased from the story. If we don’t speak up now, our pain today will be written off as “market correction” in textbooks—while the profits quietly go to those who knew exactly when to buy at the bottom.

When Fraud Wears a Suit: The Quiet Rise of Financial Crime in Ontario, Canada and Beyond

Dr. Rajendra K Panthee

What would you do if your life savings disappeared not through a robbery, but through documents you believed you could trust?

Across the Greater Toronto Area and beyond financial crime is becoming harder to see and easier to fall into. It no longer happens in dark alleys. It moves through contracts investment pitches and professional networks that appear legitimate on the surface. Some of the most damaging crimes today wear suits speak confidently and promise opportunity.

What makes this even more concerning is how risk now cuts across industries we normally trust Insurance real estate and investment spaces are not immune. Whether it is a policy that is not fully explained a property deal that hides risk or an online investment promising life changing returns the pattern is often the same. I came close to falling into one of these traps myself. A few years ago I saw an online promotion claiming that Elon Musk wanted Canadian ordinary people to become millionaires through a limited opportunity. It looked convincing professional and urgent. That is exactly how these schemes work not by appearing suspicious but by appearing credible.

Financial fraud is not victimless, and it is rarely obvious. In Ontario patterns have emerged through warnings and reported cases. Misuse of real estate trust funds high risk promissory notes marketed as safe mortgage fraud through misrepresentation and unregistered investment schemes are becoming more visible. Vulnerable groups including seniors newcomers and those unfamiliar with financial systems are often targeted. Organizations like the Ontario Securities Commission and the Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario continue to issue alerts, yet many people only encounter these warnings after losses occur.

There is also a growing frustration that nothing seems to happen when financial crime occurs. The truth is more complex. These cases involve extensive documentation multiple actors and the challenge of proving intent. Investigations take time and legal thresholds are high. This creates a gap between public expectation and visible accountability. That gap slowly erodes trust and discourages victims from speaking out.

Behind every case there is a human story. Financial fraud takes more than money. It takes security dignity and peace of mind. People have lost retirement savings home equity compensation funds and years of stability. Victims are not reckless. Many are careful people who believed they were making responsible decisions. Families trying to build a future seniors seeking stability and newcomers trying to navigate a new system often carry the heaviest burden.

Unlike street crime financial fraud hides behind legitimacy. It uses complex paperwork, legal language trusted intermediaries, and emotional connection. It often relies on urgency and familiarity. By the time doubt appears the damage is already done.

There are warning signs that should never be ignored. Promises of high returns with little risk pressure to act quickly lack of transparency unverified professionals and appeals based on trust or community. If something feels rushed or unclear it is worth pausing. That pause can protect everything you have worked for.

In a complex financial environment awareness becomes your strongest protection. Verifying credentials through the Ontario Securities Commission or the Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario seeking independent legal advice and asking direct questions are no longer optional steps. They are necessary habits. Reporting suspicious activity to organizations like the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre also helps protect others.

This is not about creating fear. It is about closing the gap between trust and understanding In fast growing regions like the Greater Toronto Area opportunity and risk move together. Fraud thrives where awareness is low and blind trust is high.

A healthy society does not rely only on punishment after damage is done. It builds people who can recognize deception before becoming victims. When fraud wears a suit awareness becomes the first line of defense.

Before trusting a financial promise remember that due diligence is always cheaper than regret.

RSP’s First Month: Visible Action, But the Real Test is Still Ahead

Dr. Rajendra K Panthee

The RSP government has opened its tenure with speed, energy, and a clear effort to project competence. Its one-month progress report is packed with concrete measures, from telecom and postal reforms to digital service upgrades, cybersecurity steps, and administrative discipline tied to the 100-point governance roadmap. That is a promising start. But a promising start is not yet proof of lasting reform.

What stands out most in the report is its focus on visible, everyday services. Extending prepaid package validity, introducing choice in PAYG billing, improving data-usage alerts, advancing 5G readiness, expanding one-time KYC, and improving passport delivery are practical changes people can understand. In a political culture where governments are often accused of producing more slogans than results, that kind of specificity matters. It gives the administration something tangible to point to.

The report also suggests a government that understands that reform is not only about high-level announcements. Its emphasis on zero pending files, business process re-engineering, and better coordination across agencies shows some awareness that the machinery of government must be fixed if public service is to improve. That is a welcome sign. Administrative reform is often boring, but it is usually the difference between public frustration and public trust.

Still, one month is too short a period to treat these measures as full achievements. Many of the report’s items appear to be starts, not finishes. A policy can be introduced, a system can be launched, and a directive can be issued without yet producing durable institutional change. That distinction matters. Citizens do not ultimately judge governments by the number of announcements they make, but by whether those announcements improve the way the state actually works.

That is why the 100-point roadmap should be read as a test, not a trophy. Roadmaps are useful only if they can be translated into deadlines, measurable outcomes, and real accountability. The report shows movement, but movement is not the same as transformation. Some projects appear to be operational, while others are still at the stage of preparation or coordination. The real challenge is whether this initial momentum can survive beyond the first month.

There is also an important political dimension here. Every new government wants to create a story of competence early in its tenure. That is normal. But the more strongly a government advertises early success, the more closely it will later be judged on whether that success endures. Public trust is not built by momentum alone. It is built by consistency, follow-through, and visible results that ordinary people can feel.

So the fairest reading of the report is balanced. The RSP government has made a fast and visible start, and that should be acknowledged. But it has not yet proven that this start will become a sustained record of reform. The one-month report shows intention, direction, and energy. What it does not yet show is whether the government can turn those qualities into lasting change.

छिटो सुरुवात। ठूला प्रतिबद्धता। तर अझ ठूला प्रश्नहरू।

Dr. Rajendra Panthee

रास्वपा सरकारको एक महिनाको प्रगति प्रतिवेदनबारे मैले जानकारी पाउनु पनि कम रोचक थिएन—माननीय सञ्चारमन्त्रीज्यू (जो संयोगवश मेरा प्रिय भाइ तथा पूर्वविद्यार्थी डा. विक्रम तिमिल्सिना पनि हुन्) को फेसबुक पोस्टमार्फत। राजनीति बदलिएको छ कि सम्बन्धहरूले समाचार छिटो पुर्‍याउने तरिका मात्र बदलिएको हो, त्यो छुट्टै बहसको विषय रह्यो।

रास्वपा सरकारको एक महिनाको प्रगति प्रतिवेदनले स्पष्ट सन्देश दिएको छ—यो नयाँ सरकार छिटो काम गर्न चाहन्छ, परिणाम देखाउन चाहन्छ, र सुधारको राजनीतिक गति आफ्नो पक्षमा राख्न चाहन्छ। दूरसञ्चार सुधारदेखि राहदानी वितरण, डिजिटल सेवा विस्तार, साइबर सुरक्षा सुदृढीकरण र प्रशासनिक अनुशासनसम्मका उपलब्धिहरूले सरकार आफ्नो १०० बुँदे मार्गचित्र केवल नारामात्र होइन, कार्यान्वयनको दस्तावेज हो भन्ने प्रमाणित गर्न आतुर देखिन्छ। तर सबैभन्दा ठूलो प्रश्न सरकारले के घोषणा गर्‍यो भन्ने होइन—यी प्रारम्भिक कदमहरू साँच्चिकै दीर्घकालीन परिवर्तनमा रूपान्तरण हुन्छन् कि हुँदैनन् भन्ने हो।

यही बीचमा कार्यकारी आदेशहरूको बहसलाई नजरअन्दाज गर्न मिल्दैन। जनताले बिर्सेका छैनन्—आज सत्तामा रहेका धेरै नेताहरूले हिजो यस्तै माथिबाट थोपारिने निर्णयहरूको सामाजिक सञ्जालमा खुलेर आलोचना गरेका थिए। तर आज उही शैलीलाई ‘तात्कालिकता’ र ‘सुधार’को नाममा उचित ठहर्याइँदैछ। यहीँबाट वास्तविक राजनीतिक परीक्षा सुरु हुन्छ—सरकार कति छिटो निर्णय गर्छ भन्ने मात्र होइन, उसले हिजो अरूबाट मागेका लोकतान्त्रिक मूल्य, पारदर्शिता र सिद्धान्तप्रति आज आफैं कति इमानदार रहन्छ भन्ने प्रश्न अझ गम्भीर बन्छ।

प्रारम्भिक प्रगति स्वागतयोग्य छ। तर उत्तरदायित्व त्यत्तिकै अपरिहार्य छ। जनताको विश्वास माग्ने सरकारले त्यो विश्वास निरन्तरता, पारदर्शिता, आत्मअनुशासन र समान मापदण्डद्वारा कमाउनुपर्छ। विपक्षमा हुँदा जुन नैतिकता र जवाफदेहिताको पाठ पढाइन्थ्यो, सत्तामा पुगेपछि त्यसैलाई व्यवहारमा उतार्न सकिएन भने परिवर्तनको भाषण केवल अर्को राजनीतिक कथामात्र बन्न सक्छ।

यो सरकारको भविष्य केवल एक महिनाको प्रतिवेदनले तय गर्ने छैन—यसले ती वाचाहरूलाई वास्तविक उपलब्धिमा बदल्न सक्छ कि सक्दैन, त्यसैले निर्धारण गर्नेछ। जनताले अब भाषणभन्दा बढी प्रमाण खोजिरहेका छन्, नाराभन्दा बढी नतिजा, र छविभन्दा बढी चरित्र।

छिटो सुरुवात। ठूला प्रतिबद्धता। तर अझ ठूला प्रश्नहरू।

अहिलेको नेपालको कथा यही हो।