A few years ago, a young man who had returned from abroad opened a small tea and coffee shop in his village. The place was good, the tea was tasty, the treatment was friendly. But the shop closed after a few months.

When asked the reason, he said, “It took 6 months to prepare government documents, I couldn’t withstand local pressure, and the tax payment process was so complicated that I got tired.” There was infrastructure, money, and willpower, but the ‘culture’ within which he had to work overwhelmed him. This shows the core problem of our development.

Development is not just roads, bridges, and buildings. Development is also the invisible environment in which a citizen can fulfill his dreams. That environment is created by culture – the culture of the state, society, and individuals.

Culture is our way of thinking, our pattern of behavior, and the values ​​we adopt when making decisions. The culture of any society or state is not only written in the law, it is alive in people's daily behavior, office tables, market transactions and political decision-making processes.

The state must redefine its role in the future development culture. Citizens are not 'subjects' of the state, they are taxpayers and citizens with rights. This thinking should not only be written in the law but also implemented in the system of employee training, promotion standards and accountability. The debate on Nepal's development most of the time focuses on 'what to do', which road to build, which industry to bring in, how much budget to allocate. But the question of 'how to do it' and 'with what mind to do it' often falls into the shadow. This shadowed subject is also culture. The biggest challenge for future development is the transformation of this culture.

Nepal's statehood has worked for a century in the culture of 'governing', not in the culture of 'serving'. From the palace to the panchayat, from multi-party to federalism, the framework has changed, but the basic behavior of the state has remained largely the same. The citizen stands before the state as a petitioner, the state behaves like a donor.

Every Nepali has had the experience of a government office. The employees there have a more arrogant attitude of saying, "Tell me what you need" than "I am here to serve you." This is not a personal fault, it is the result of institutional culture. The culture in which employees are raised is reflected in their behavior.

The state must redefine its role in the future development culture. Citizens are not "subjects" of the state, they are taxpayers and entitled citizens. This thinking should not only be written in the law, but also implemented in the system of employee training, promotion standards and accountability.

Politics is the most powerful factor in Nepal's development journey, in both positive and negative senses. We have seen that political will can bring about great transformations. But we have repeatedly experienced that the same political culture can also obstruct development. There is a deep problem in our political culture: development is presented as a 'contribution', not as a 'right'. Leaders say - 'Our party built this road, gave this school.' In such language, citizens become beneficiaries, not rights holders. When development comes as a blessing, it depends on the support of the party that gives it, not on quality and need.

Development is not just about roads, bridges and buildings. Development is also that invisible environment in which a citizen can fulfill his dreams. That environment is created by culture – by the culture of the state, society and the individual. The political culture of development now should be one where no leader gives the credit for development to 'people's taxes', not 'me'. Where budget allocation is not based on party lines, but on the basis of priority of need. Where the role of the opposition is not to create obstacles, but to constructively review.

It is not possible to blame the state and politics alone. Society's own culture can also become an obstacle to development. In our society, there is a culture of inaction that says 'someone else will do it'. For example, when we see garbage in a public place, we walk around saying 'the municipality will clean it up'.

Second, the culture of 'our own people'. For example, there is a thought that people from our party, our caste, our region are needed to get work done. Third, the defeatist culture of saying 'no'. When we bring in new ideas, we are told 'that doesn't happen in Nepal'. These three mindsets should be challenged in the culture of the future. A sense of civic responsibility, appreciation of quality and belief in possibility – these should be the new pillars of culture.

A contradiction is seen when talking about entrepreneurship in Nepal. On the one hand, millions of Nepali youth can take risks by working in extremely difficult conditions abroad, on the other hand, many cannot muster the courage to start a business in their own country.

The reason for this is often not economic, but cultural. In our family and social culture, ‘people who eat jobs’ are given more respect than ‘people who do business’. Failure is seen as a stigma, not as a learning experience. Becoming a young entrepreneur in this environment also means fighting social pressure. The current culture should glorify entrepreneurship as a ‘power to create jobs’ rather than an ‘alternative to unemployment’.