(Candidates for the 21st Falgun election are reaching out to the public with their manifestos. They are presenting their agenda. At this time, Kantipur is launching a special series, Kantipur Discussion: Manifesto, to present the people's agenda to parties and candidates. You too can write a manifesto for this series, focusing on a specific area. We will give space to manifestos that are based on facts, figures, and logic.)

Even after seven constitutions and five different political systems, Nepal is still in search of a stable and effective system of governance. The federal republican and secular structure institutionalized by the 2072 constitution appears to be under serious pressure today, which has raised questions about the strength of the pillars of democracy—the judiciary, parliament, and the instruments of governance. Even the Nepali Army, considered the country's most trusted national institution, has not been able to remain completely untouched by this growing crisis of trust.

In the wake of the Generation-Z (Gen-G)-led movement and the widespread loss of public and private property, the interim political system oriented towards elections provides at most a 'strategic pause'. While it ensures procedural continuity, it appears to fail to resolve the deep structural, institutional, and legitimacy crisis facing the Nepali state. Elections held in such circumstances run the risk of becoming a means of temporary rehabilitation rather than a strategic solution to long-term political stability.

Trust in International Institutions and the Challenges of Small States

Multilateral international institutions (especially the United Nations system) that ensure the security and justice of small states have been weakening in recent times. As powerful states 

prioritize their narrow national interests and deviate from international rules and commitments, the effectiveness of the rules-based international order has decreased. The aggressive and unpredictable behavior of the permanent members of the Security Council has weakened the predictability of the system, which has had a direct impact on small states. 

The United States has so far taken steps to withdraw membership or reduce support from 66 international organizations. In February 2022, Russia launched a military attack on Ukraine, and in January, the US challenged the limits of sovereignty in decisions regarding Venezuela. And, China has raised questions about regional stability by claiming Taiwan as its ‘core national interest’.

Global and Regional Environment

The international geopolitical environment after Davos-2026 reflects a transitional period driven by intense great power competition and the realignment of national strategies. The international geopolitical environment after Davos-2026 reflects a transitional period driven by intense great power competition and the realignment of national strategies. The United States National Security Strategy-2025 and National Defense Strategy-2026 have redefined strategic competition, integrated deterrence, and alliance-centered security architecture in the Indo-Pacific region as long-term priorities. This indicates that the world has begun to shift its focus from mere crisis management to long-term strategic competition. In this, technology, supply chain strengthening, and the coordinated capabilities of security forces have become extremely important. 

The strategic concept and overall framework for China's national security were presented in the white paper "China's National Security in the New Era-2025" on May 16, 2025. This white paper is an important policy document reflecting China's "comprehensive national security" concept and policy direction in the context of current global geopolitical changes. It attaches special importance to political security, economic stability and international cooperation. 

National security is presented in conjunction with China's modernization and globalization process. The document puts forward the priority of building a common future for the world community, strengthening its role, promoting stability, and security and development as interrelated priorities. Governance stability, economic security and strategic depth in its periphery have become central concerns. This approach has further strengthened Beijing's sensitivity to buffer and peripheral countries, emphasizing the inseparable relationship between internal stability and external strategic situations. India's evolving strategic policies are linked to its aspiration to establish itself as an emerging great power.

Strategic autonomy, neighborhood-firstness and multi-engagement have become India's major policy foundations. New Delhi is trying to manage both competition and cooperation with China while balancing its engagement with the US and the West, where South Asia is seen as both a sphere of influence and a security buffer. In the shadow of rapidly reshaping international and regional balances of power, regional competition, and external strategic pressures, Nepal occupies a sensitive strategic location—a buffer state at the crossroads of overlapping spheres of influence, but not entirely without options.

This environment presents Nepal with challenges to maintain independent decision-making, national security, and international credibility. As domestic politics is also being redefined, it is imperative to identify its strategic options. The political debate is no longer limited to regime change or electoral arithmetic. Rather, it is transforming into a struggle between competing narratives about the nature of the state, the legitimacy of governance, and the direction of national priorities.

Nepal’s contemporary political landscape is shaped and guided by four competing political narratives and six key stakeholders. These political narratives reflect different generations, perspectives on governance, and understandings of national sovereignty. Relying solely on traditional multilateral structures is no longer enough. Rather, it is imperative to build private strategic options and a shared national consensus. Nepal still has a limited but decisive opportunity to shape the outcome through subtle strategic awareness, internal unity, and institutional resilience. 

In this context, Nepal’s central strategic challenge and potential strategic bridge solution lies in the concept of the ‘Kathmandu Declaration’. This declaration needs to be put forward not just as a symbolic political consensus, but as a common national minimum consensus for strengthening institutional capacity, restoring national stability, and rebuilding international credibility. Rising above reactive diplomacy and internal divisions, such a consensus can provide the basis for re-establishing Nepal as a predictable, credible, and capable nation in an increasingly competitive geopolitical environment.

Nepal’s contemporary political landscape is shaped and guided by four competing political narratives and six key stakeholders. These political scenarios reflect different generations, perspectives on governance, and understandings of national sovereignty. 

The first storyline is based on political nationalism, which prioritizes sovereignty, statehood, and stability over party interests, using political power as a lever. 

The second storyline represents reform-oriented youth leadership, which advocates for structural change, accountability, transparency, and patriotic governance. The third storyline is about emerging youth political forces, which are experimenting with alternative governance models, grassroots mobilization, and participatory politics. 

Finally, the fourth storyline is in favor of the restoration of the monarchy, which advocates for national unity, traditional values, and more effective governance according to their claims. 

Stakeholders include traditional political forces, new and recently emerged parties and movements at various stages, civil society groups representing the grievances and discontent of the people, and the thoughts and aspirations of the Gen-G generation. All these narratives highlight the tension between symbolic nationalism, institutional reform, and generational change. 

Nepal’s future stability will likely depend on its ability to integrate these perspectives into constructive governance, where institutions are strengthened, youth aspirations are addressed, and domestic priorities and international engagement are balanced.

Nepal’s Unfinished National Security Challenge

National security in the 21st century is not limited to military defense alone. However, contemporary security studies, especially for small and developing states, emphasize a holistic security concept. It considers political legitimacy, economic capacity, social cohesion, environmental resilience, and cyber governance as pillars of security. As a small nation nestled between regional powers like India and China, these non-traditional security dimensions are increasingly crucial for Nepal. In the context of Nepal, instability stemming from governance failure, economic dependence, or social divisions can be as dangerous as external aggression. National security, therefore, is the ability of a state to maintain sovereignty, legitimacy, and resilience.

Despite going through significant stages of political transformation, Nepal has yet to institutionalize a coherent national security strategy that is in tune with the changing internal realities and external environment.

The Gen-G uprising of 2025 was a turning point. The impetus for this uprising was dissatisfaction with unemployment, corruption, political inertia, and widespread emigration, more than ideological. It exposed the gap between state institutions and citizen expectations—especially among the younger generation. When discontent among the youth becomes widespread, it becomes a systemic security risk rather than a temporary political event.

Externally, strategic competition between India, China, and Western powers has increased pressure on Nepal. Infrastructure investment, trade dependence, and diplomatic engagement have security implications. Without a clear national security framework, Nepal could be pushed toward reactive alignments, which could undermine sovereignty and international credibility.

Internal dimensions of national security 

First, the theoretical framework: holistic national security can be considered. The traditional realist approach associates national security primarily with military power. However, contemporary security studies, especially for small and developing countries, give importance to the holistic concept of security. It considers political legitimacy, economic capacity, social cohesion, environmental resilience, and cyber governance as pillars of security. Even on sensitive issues like national security, national consensus has not been built.

When the state itself is unstable, no security strategy can be effective. Internal political conflicts demoralize institutions and provide opportunities for external forces to expand their influence. In the context of Nepal, instability arising from governance failure, economic dependence, or social division can be as dangerous as external attacks. Therefore, national security is the ability of a state to maintain sovereignty, legitimacy, and resilience. It can be divided into four parts.

When the state itself is unstable, no security strategy can be effective. आन्तरिक राजनीतिक संघर्षले संस्थाहरूको मनोबल घटाउँछ र बाह्य शक्तिलाई प्रभाव विस्तार गर्ने अवसर दिन्छ । नेपालको सन्दर्भमा शासन असफलता, आर्थिक निर्भरता वा सामाजिक विभाजनबाट उत्पन्न अस्थिरता बाह्य आक्रमण जत्तिकै खतरनाक हुन सक्छ । First – Political instability, governance crisis, and institutional weakness. Frequent changes of government and coalition politics have weakened long-term policy continuity. Security-related decisions are often guided by short-term political interests, which has reduced crisis management capacity and international credibility. 

दोस्रो– युवा र सामाजिक असन्तोष । जेन–जी विद्रोहले नेपालको राजनीतिक व्यवस्थासामु पुस्तागत चुनौती प्रस्तुत गरेको छ साथै इतिहासमा महत्त्वपूर्ण मोड हो । उच्च बेरोजगारी, राजनीतिक दलप्रतिको अविश्वास र सीमित सामाजिक गतिशीलताले व्यापक असन्तोष जन्माएको छ । ठूलो जनसंख्या राष्ट्रनिर्माण प्रक्रियाबाट विमुखता, राजनीतिक प्रक्रियाबाट अलग हुँदा दीर्घकालीन अस्थिरताको जोखिम बढ्छ । त्यसैले युवाको समस्या समाधान गर्नु सामाजिक नीति मात्रै होइन, राष्ट्रिय सुरक्षा नीति हो ।

तेस्रो– साइबर, सूचना र जलवायु सुरक्षा छ । डिजिटल युगमा साइबर आक्रमण, गलत सूचना र सामाजिक सञ्जालमार्फत अस्थिरता सिर्जना गर्न सजिलो भएको छ । नेपालमा साइबर सुरक्षा संरचना कमजोर छ । साथै जलवायु परिवर्तनका कारण बाढी, पहिरो र प्राकृतिक विपद्ले पनि राष्ट्रिय सुरक्षालाई चुनौती दिएको छ । 

चौथो– आर्थिक निर्भरतालाई सुरक्षा जोखिमका रूपमा 

रेमिट्यान्स र आयातमा अत्यधिक निर्भरता नेपालको रणनीतिक स्वायत्ततामा बाधक बनेको छ । व्यापार घाटा, सीमित औद्योगिकीकरण र ऊर्जा क्षमताको अपर्याप्त उपयोगले राज्यको लचकता घटाएको छ । यसले रक्षा आधुनिकीकरण, विपद् तयारी र सामाजिक सेवामा समेत असर पार्छ । दोस्रो बुँदा बाह्य र उदाउँदा सुरक्षा चुनौतीलाई दुई भागमा विभाजन गर्न सकिन्छ । पहिलो— भू–राजनीतिक प्रतिस्पर्धा र रणनीतिक दबाब । नेपालको भौगोलिक अवस्थाले अवसरसँगै जोखिम पनि ल्याएको छ । स्पष्ट राष्ट्रिय सुरक्षा सिद्धान्तको अभावमा बाह्य संलग्नता रणनीतिक दबाबमा रूपान्तरण हुन सक्छ ।

दोस्रो— गैरपरम्परागत र हाइब्रिड खतरा । साइबर असुरक्षा, गलत सूचना अभियान, जलवायुजन्य विपद् र सीमापार अपराध नयाँ चुनौती हुन् । यस क्षेत्रमा संस्थागत क्षमता कमजोर हुँदा सार्वजनिक विश्वास र पूर्वाधार जोखिममा पर्छन् ।

तेस्रो– लक्ष्य सुसंगत राष्ट्रिय सुरक्षा रणनीतितर्फ तीन भागमा हेर्न सकिन्छ । पहिलो, रणनीतिक तटस्थता र सक्रिय कूटनीति । नेपालले गतिशील गैरसंरेखण नीति संस्थागत गर्नुपर्छ । प्रमुख शक्तिसँग सन्तुलित सम्बन्ध राख्दै सैन्य संलग्नता अस्वीकार गर्नु आवश्यक छ । बहुपक्षीय संस्थामा सक्रियता रणनीतिक स्वायत्तताको आधार बन्न सक्छ ।

दोस्रो– आर्थिक र युवाकेन्द्रित सुरक्षा । आर्थिक लचकतालाई सुरक्षा प्राथमिकता बनाइनुपर्छ । उत्पादनमूलक क्षेत्र, ऊर्जा निर्यात र प्रविधि नवप्रवर्तनमा लगानी आवश्यक छ । साथै रोजगार सिर्जना र राजनीतिक समावेशमार्फत युवा सशक्तीकरण राष्ट्रिय सुरक्षा योजनामा समावेश हुनुपर्छ ।

तेस्रो– रक्षा सिद्धान्त र सुरक्षा सुशासन । नेपालको रक्षा सिद्धान्त प्रतिरक्षात्मक र सार्वभौमिकताकेन्द्रित हुनुपर्छ । सीमा व्यवस्थापन, विपद् प्रतिक्रिया, साइबर रक्षा र शान्ति मिसनमा क्षमता अभिवृद्धि आवश्यक छ । यसले क्षेत्रीय तनाव नबढाई प्रतिरोध क्षमता बलियो बनाउँछ ।

चौथो– राष्ट्रिय सुरक्षा र परराष्ट्र नीतिको समन्वय सम्बन्ध हो । सुसंगत राष्ट्रिय सुरक्षा रणनीतिले परराष्ट्र नीतिका प्राथमिकताहरू— सार्वभौमिकता संरक्षण, आर्थिक कूटनीति, बहुपक्षीय संलग्नता र सौम्य शक्ति—निर्देशित गर्नुपर्छ । परराष्ट्र नीति अल्पकालीन राजनीतिक लाभभन्दा राष्ट्रिय लचकताको सेवामा हुनुपर्छ ।

अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय अनुभवबाट सिक्नुपर्ने पाठ

नेपालको वर्तमान राजनीतिक संक्रमणलाई केवल आन्तरिक समस्याका रूपमा हेर्नु अधुरो विश्लेषण हुनेछ । संरचनागत कमजोरी र स्पष्ट राष्ट्रिय दिशाको अभाव भएका देशहरू प्रायः बाह्य शक्ति प्रतिस्पर्धाको खेलमैदान बन्ने गरेका छन् । इतिहासले देखाएको छ—जब राज्यहरू आफ्ना आन्तरिक संस्थागत समस्या समाधान गर्न असफल हुन्छन्, तब बाह्य शक्तिहरूको प्रभाव स्वतः बढ्छ र संकट गहिरिँदै जान्छ ।

रणनीतिक निष्कर्ष

नेपाल अहिले रणनीतिक अस्पष्टतामा उभिएको छ । यदि संविधान, संघीयता, शासन क्षमता, आप्रवासी नागरिकको समावेश र आर्थिक मोडलका प्रश्नहरूलाई निरन्तर टारिँदै गयो भने नेपाल पनि श्रीलंका वा लेबनानजस्तो बाह्य प्रभावप्रति झन् संवेदनशील बन्न सक्छ ।

नेपालको भू–रणनीतिक अवस्थाले यो जोखिम अझ बढाउँछ । भारत, चीन र पश्चिमी शक्तिहरूबीचको प्रतिस्पर्धा बढ्दै जाँदा, आन्तरिक रूपमा कमजोर नेपाल स्वतः दबाबको केन्द्र बन्छ । बलियो र विश्वसनीय राष्ट्र बन्ने एक मात्रै बाटो भनेको—आफ्ना घरका पर्खाल बलियो बनाउनु हो ।

अबको राज्य भनेको संविधान संशोधन, रणनीतिक संरचनामा पुनरावलोकन, अति दलीयकरणबाट मुक्ति/स्वतन्त्रता/छुटकारा र नेपालको संस्कृति र परम्परागत संस्कृतिको संरक्षण हो । काठमाडौं घोषणा र यसका नीति–सुझावहरूले नेपाललाई अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय रूपमा विश्वसनीय राष्ट्रमा रूपान्तरण गर्ने अवसर दिन्छ । मार्च ५ को निर्वाचन लोकतान्त्रिक रूपमा महत्त्वपूर्ण छ । तर, यसलाई अन्तिम समाधानका रूपमा प्रस्तुत गर्नु भ्रम हुनेछ । अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय अनुभवले स्पष्ट देखाउँछ— संरचनागत सुधार नगरेका देशहरू निर्वाचनकै बीचमा पनि संकटतर्फ धकेलिन्छन् । र, सुधार गरेका देशहरूले सीमित स्रोत, कठिन भू–राजनीतिका बाबजुद स्थायित्व हासिल गर्छन् । त्यसैले निर्वाचन साधन हो, समाधान होइन । नेपाल अहिले रणनीतिक विराममा छ र रणनीतिक समाधान खोजिरहेको छ । 

राजनीति जनसेवाको माध्यम हुनुपर्ने हो, तर नेपालमा यो धेरै हदसम्म अपराध तथा भ्रष्टाचारबाट जोगिने साधनका रूपमा प्रयोग भएको देखिन्छ । यसलाई अन्त्य गर्न कानुनको शासन बलियो बनाउनु, न्यायालय–अनुसन्धान निकायलाई स्वतन्त्र बनाउनु, राजनीतिक दलमा सुधार ल्याउनु र कडाइका साथ कानुन कार्यान्वयन गर्नु अत्यावश्यक छ । नेपालको राष्ट्रिय सुरक्षा चुनौती मूलतः शासन, समावेशिता र रणनीतिक दूरदृष्टिसँग सम्बन्धित छ । जेन–जी विद्रोहले सैन्य सीमाभन्दा बाहिर सुरक्षा पुनःपरिभाषा गर्नुपर्ने आवश्यकता स्पष्ट गरेको छ ।

अबको राज्य भनेको संविधान संशोधन, रणनीतिक संरचनामा पुनरावलोकन, अति दलीयकरणबाट मुक्ति/स्वतन्त्रता/छुटकारा र नेपालको संस्कृति र परम्परागत संस्कृतिको संरक्षण हो । काठमाडौं घोषणा र यसका नीति–सुझावहरूले नेपाललाई अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय रूपमा विश्वसनीय राष्ट्रमा रूपान्तरण गर्ने अवसर दिन्छ ।

नेपालका ठूला राष्ट्रिय चुनौतीलाई साहसी राष्ट्रिय समाधानको आवश्यकता छ । काठमाडौं घोषणाले ‘जटिल चुनौतीहरूलाई सँगै समाधान गर्ने’ सिद्धान्तको प्रतिनिधित्व गर्छ । यसले सबै सरोकारवालाहरूलाई एकत्रित गरेर समावेशी, लचिलो र दिगो विकास प्रवर्द्धन गर्न नवीन समाधानहरू अनि वित्तीय उपकरणहरू प्रदान गर्छ । साथै राष्ट्रिय रणनीतिक स्थिरता सुनिश्चित गर्दै अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय विश्वसनीयता बढाउँछ ।

काठमाडौं घोषणा – मुख्य स्तम्भहरू

१. संस्थागत क्षमता र शासन सुधार : प्रशासन, संसद् र न्यायपालिकामा पारदर्शिता, दक्षता र जवाफदेहिता सुनिश्चित गर्दै संस्थागत क्षमता सुदृढ पार्ने ।

२. राजनीतिक स्थिरता र राष्ट्रिय सहमति  :  चार वटा मुख्य कथानकबीच न्यूनतम साझा सहमति निर्माण गरी दीर्घकालीन राजनीतिक स्थिरता कायम गर्ने ।

३. नागरिक–सैनिक विश्वास र सुरक्षा सन्तुलन : लोकतान्त्रिक नियन्त्रणभित्र सुरक्षा बलको स्थायित्व सुनिश्चित गर्दै नागरिक–सैनिक विश्वास सुदृढ बनाउने ।

४. युवा सहभागिता र पुस्तान्तरणको समायोजन : युवा नेतृत्व र नवप्रवर्तनलाई नीति निर्माणमा सक्रिय रूपमा सहभागी गराउने ।

५. विदेश नीति सुसंगति र रणनीतिक स्वतन्त्रता : सुसंगत, हितकेन्द्रित र रणनीतिक स्वतन्त्र विदेशी नीति अपनाउने ।

६. आर्थिक विश्वसनीयता र विकास सततता : पारदर्शी बजेट, दीर्घकालीन योजना र सार्वजनिक–निजी साझेदारीमार्फत आर्थिक विश्वसनीयता र सतत विकास सुनिश्चित गर्ने ।

७. कानुनको शासन र न्याय पहुँच : स्वतन्त्र, सबल र नागरिक सुलभ न्याय प्रणालीमार्फत भ्रष्टाचार र अनियमितता घटाउने ।

नीति–सुझावहरू

१. संस्थागत क्षमतालाई बलियो बनाउनु आवश्यक छ ।