Part 1 of the Constitution of Nepal

This clause establishes the Constitution as the supreme law of Nepal. It overrides all other laws. If any existing law or future legislation contradicts the Constitution, such law shall be invalid to the extent of the contradiction. This principle is rooted in the doctrine of constitutional supremacy, ensuring that all branches of government and laws operate within constitutional limits. It guarantees the hierarchy of norms, where the Constitution stands at the top and all other legal instruments must conform to it.

This provision imposes a mandatory civic duty on all individuals, whether they are Nepali citizens or not, to respect, abide by, and uphold the Constitution It emphasizes constitutional patriotism, encouraging people to commit to the constitutional order as a shared moral and legal framework. It also implies that any attempt to subvert or defy the Constitution can be considered a violation of national duty and may be subject to legal consequences.

Summary:

Article 1 of the Constitution of Nepal firmly declares the Constitution as the supreme and binding legal framework of the country. It nullifies any inconsistent laws and places a universal obligation on everyone to respect and uphold it. This article ensures constitutionalism, rule of law, and legal certainty, which are foundational principles of a democratic and federal republic.

Like previous constitutions of Nepal, this article continues the tradition of placing the provision of constitutional supremacy at the beginning of the constitution.

India

Article 13(1): All laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this Constitution, in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of this Part, shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be void.

Comparison:

Like Nepal’s Article 1, India’s Article 13 establishes the principle of constitutional supremacy. However, it is limited only to fundamental rights, not the entire Constitution. Nepal’s provision is broader, making the entire Constitution supreme, not just one part.

United States

Article VI, Clause 2: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof… shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby…”

Comparison:

The U.S. Constitution is supreme over all federal and state laws. U.S. courts are bound by the Constitution, just as Nepali courts must enforce constitutional supremacy. The U.S. clause binds judges and public authorities, whereas Nepal’s clause binds every person.

Germany: Basic Law (Grundgesetz)

Article 1(3): The following basic rights shall bind the legislature, the executive and the judiciary as directly applicable law.

Article 20(3): Legislation shall be bound by the constitutional order; the executive and the judiciary shall be bound by law and justice.

Comparison:

Germany’s Basic Law ensures constitutional binding authority over all organs of the state. Like Nepal, it enforces constitutionalism, but emphasis is more institutional than individual. Nepal goes further by emphasizing the duty of all individuals, not just state actors.

South Africa

Section 2: This Constitution is the supreme law of the Republic; law or conduct inconsistent with it is invalid, and the obligations imposed by it must be fulfilled.

Comparison:

This is almost identical in spirit to Nepal’s Article 1. South Africa also enshrines constitutional supremacy, invalidates inconsistent laws, and imposes a general duty to uphold it. This reflects a post-conflict constitutionalism similar to Nepal’s context.

What these differences mean

The differences in the provisions of constitutional sovereignty are due to shaped by differences in historical experiences, philosophies, and political developments. These reflect deliberate choices, known as the division between public law and private law in constitutional theory.

In traditional liberal constitutionalism (exemplified by the U.S.) and post-authoritarian reconstruction (post-WWII West Germany), and post-colonial rule (India after 1947) constitutions were conceived primarily as defensive shields against state tyranny.

The U.S. Constitution was designed to establish a government of limited, enumerated powers and to prevent both federal and state authorities from exceeding constitutional limits. Also, unlike its predecessor (i.e. the UK), it completely separated the authorities and functions of the three organs of the government: the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judiciary.

Similarly, in Germany, after the experience of Nazism, the Basic Law was deliberately designed to constrain state power and protect human dignity and fundamental rights.

Furthermore, India transitioned from British colonial rule, a system governed by parliamentary sovereignty (where the legislature is supreme). The framers of the Indian Constitution wanted to ensure that the newly empowered democratic majority could not legislate away individual liberties or minority rights. By drafting Article 13, they provided an explicit, undeniable mandate for judicial review. It served as a massive “stop sign” to the state, ensuring that the courts had unquestionable authority to strike down state or central laws that infringed upon core human rights.

Newer constitutions, such as those of South Africa (1996) and Nepal (2015), operate under what legal scholars call transformative constitutionalism. These frameworks emerged out of internal conflict, systemic oppression, and social hierarchies (e.g., apartheid, class and caste discrimination). In these contexts, severe rights violations often originate from private individuals, communities, and customary practices, not just state actors. As a result, clauses like Nepal’s Article 1(2) explicitly democratize constitutional obligations, attempting to reshape civic culture and dismantle private power structures directly.

Comparison Table

Article 2 explicitly affirms that sovereignty lies with the people. The people are the supreme source of all political and legal authority. However, popular sovereignty is limited by the constitution. Any exercise of state power (making, executing, and interpreting the law, collecting taxes, using coercive authority, etc.) by parliament, executive, judiciary, or people, must adhere to constitutional norms and limits.

This article upholds the doctrine of popular sovereignty, similar to Article 1 of the Indian Constitution and the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution (“We the People…”). Any law, order, or act that violates people’s sovereignty and bypasses constitutional channels is ultra vires and hence invalid.

Historically, the concept of popular sovereignty in Nepal was first introduced in the Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal, 1990, promulgated after the people’s movement.

Article 3:

The sovereignty of Nepal shall be vested in the Nepali people which shall be exercised in accordance with the provisions set forth in this Constitution.

The Interim Constitution, 2007, which replaced the 1990 Constitution after the people’s movement of 2006, continued the provision.

Article 2:

The sovereignty and State power of Nepal shall be vested in the Nepali people.

What do the differences mean?

The Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal, 1990 did not explicitly mention that state power was vested in the people. However, the people were still the source of state power. According to Article 35, the Executive included both the constitutional monarchy as well as the democratically elected representatives, aiming to create a balance. Thus, the 1990 Constitution did not make the King the ultimate source of sovereignty, as the 1962 Constitution had done. Neither did it vest all state power directly in the people. It recognized popular sovereignty while retaining a constitutional monarchy in which the king held significant constitutionally defined powers.

The Interim Constitution, 2007, emerged from Nepal’s peace process and political transition, rather than as a permanent constitutional settlement. It declared that both sovereignty and state authority were vested in the people while omitting from Article 2 the 1990 Constitution’s express statement that sovereignty must be exercised according to the Constitution.

The answer, according to the Constitution, is: “No!” This is because as discussed before, Article 2 explicitly states that state power should be operated within the framework of the Constitution. In other words, constitutional supremacy comes before popular sovereignty. If Nepalis decide to adopt monarchy through a revolution, the Constitution has to be dissolved because its framework is inoperable in even the constitutional monarchical system. This question has been addressed in detail in this article: Can Nepal Restore Monarchy? | Stories of Sandeept

A major hiccup has been observed in the application of popular and constitutional sovereignty. The “Gen-Z revolution” led to the collapse of the Executive, the Legislative, as well as the Judiciary on September 8-9, 2025. In the aftermath, the former Chief Justice Sushila Karki was appointed by the President extra-constitutionally. Karki’s first decision was to dissolve the previously elected parliament. The reasons cited were unprecedented national crisis and extraordinary circumstance.

The constitutionality of Karki’s appointment went to the Constitutional Court, but the decision is still pending as of October 2026. The decision violates Article 2 as it was not within the procedures set forth in the constitution. However, the protesters had mandated the dissolution of the parliament and the appointment of Karki as the PM because they believed the previous government had become brutal and lost its political mandate.

The conflict between constitutional supremacy and popular sovereignty has thus surfaced and the delayed court decision has added confusion.

Such a situation is not entirely new, though. Following the dissolution of the first Constituent Assembly on May 27, 2012, and failure of the interim Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai to conduct elections, another interim cabinet had been set up on 14 March 2013 under the leadership of the reigning Chief Justice Khil Raj Regmi. The cabinet held the elections for the second Constituent Assembly. The decision was made by political parties in the name of people. Although the Interim Constitution at that time did not have strict provision to work within the constitutional framework, Regmi’s position was challenged in the court. The petitioners had claimed that it was against the principle of separation power, an important paradigm of constitutionalism.

The Supreme Court decided. But it was already 2016 and the petition against Regmi’s appointment had become irrelevant. The final decision accepted, however, that Regmi working as both the Chief Justice and the head of the government of the interim cabinet was against the principle of separation of powers.

Conflicts between the “will of the people” of the “spirit of the constitution” have actually been observed on several occasions from 2001. Beginning from the dissolution of the parliament by the then Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba, the subsequent expulsion of him by the king for inability to conduct general elections and eventual direct rule of the king, protests against the king’s actions, extra-constitutional restoration of the parliament, unexpected entry of secularism, federalism, and republicanism, retrospective approval from the people through elections with limited choice, and so on have tested the resilience of the constitution and the people themselves.

In short, we have been through repeated vicious cycle of political crisis, especially after 2001, where there is a political deadlock, exceptional decisions (including extra-constitutional) are made, a new political settlement is done, but the legality is challenged. The cycle demonstrates the inability of political actors to anticipate the crisis and make decisions that are suitable for the situation. However, the solution for current crisis also invokes future crisis. This cycle has also bred constant conflicts regarding the supremacy of revolution over constitution.

The Constitution of Nepal defines nation not based on a certain ethnicity, religion, or language, but acknowledges the diverse characteristic of Nepal’s society. The nation is based on shared aspirations and loyalty despite the pluralistic and diverse position. The common national identity is based on:

• National independence and sovereignty
• Territorial integrity
• National interest
• Prosperity

The constitution promotes national unity without erasing local identities, embodying the principle of “unity in diversity.” and builds the foundation for inclusive nationalism, rejecting chauvinistic or exclusionary models. Thus, Article 3 is a result of the ideas related to demands of federalism, inclusion, and identity that emerged after the 2006 movements.

This clause offers a composite identity of Nepal, shaped by its political transitions and constitutional evolution. It uses eight key descriptors:

As stated in the discussion of the Preamble, the definition of secularism is an attempt to keep everybody happy but a failure to do so. Nepal’s secularism does not mean absence of religion (as in the French model), but rather equal respect and protection of all religions and traditional cultures. This reflects Nepal’s Hindu-Buddhist syncretic heritage and accommodates its diverse spiritual practices, while ensuring minority rights.

However, the process through which the topic of secularism was settled has been problematic. On Jestha 4, 2063, the first meeting of the restored parliament (dissolved in 2001) decided on secularism. The parliament was not only extra-constitutionally restored but also consisted of unelected warring Maoists. People were fearful of new conflict. As a result, the agenda got approval despite grievances in the background.

The Constituent Assembly had promised referendum on matters related to secularism and federalism, but it did not even pay heed to the written suggestions of the people. Twenty years hence, secularism and federalism are still the focus of major political conflicts.

Many critics point out that the mention of “socialism-oriented” is a hindrance in international support. However, in Nepal’s context, it means:

1. Commitment to social justice for reducing economic inequality, class discrimination, and exploitation. It aims to uplift the poor, marginalized, and historically excluded communities.

2. Welfare state principles that ensure free or affordable access to health, education, housing, and social security. They expand the state’s responsibility in securing basic needs of the population.

3. Regulated economy with public control over strategic sectors. The state may control or regulate natural resources, public utilities, and essential industries. It does not abolish private property or free enterprise but may guide them toward national priorities. Critics of free market often see such government intervention as uncompetitive and a challenge to entrepreneurship.

4. Democratic Governance. The political system remains multiparty and democratic. Citizens enjoy civil liberties, fundamental rights, and universal suffrage.

Federalism is a system of government where power is shared between a central authority and autonomous regional units, each having constitutionally guaranteed functions, responsibilities, and institutions.

Core paradigms of Federalism include:

1. Constitutional Division of Powers: The central and regional governments have clearly defined responsibilities.
2. Autonomous Units: Provinces or states have their own governments, laws, and budgets.
3. Multiple levels of Sovereignty: All the levels of government derive their power from the Constitution.
4. Dispute Resolution Mechanisms: Constitutional or judicial systems exist to resolve disputes between levels of government.
5. Fiscal Federalism: Revenue generation and sharing mechanisms are in place to fund subnational units.

Federalism in Nepal

Nepal adopted federalism officially in 2015 with the promulgation of its new Constitution. Key features include:

• Three-tier governance:
  • Federal (central government)
  • Provincial (7 provinces)
  • Local (753 municipalities and rural municipalities)
  • Districts (77; as coordinators between the provinces and local levels. District Coordination Committees (DCCs) comprise of elected representatives from provinces and local levels but administration is still controlled by the federal government)
• Schedules 5–9 of the Constitution define the distribution of powers:
  • Exclusive powers to each level
  • Concurrent powers to be shared
• National Natural Resources and Fiscal Commission (NNRFC) for financial coordination.
• Proportional representation and inclusivity as guiding principles in all levels of governance.

Achievements in Nepal

1. Elections for all levels held successfully.
2. Provincial assemblies, chief ministers, ministries, and bureaucracy has been established.
3. Local empowerment with local governments actively involved in health, education, and infrastructure development.
4. Fiscal transfers through the federal and provincial budgets.

Challenges and gaps in Nepal

1. Federal ministries still dominate many areas meant for provinces and local levels
2. Lack of clarity and duplication in concurrent powers.
3. Absence of important federal laws, particularly those governing bureaucracy, education, and infrastructure development.
4. Provinces and local governments lack skilled staff, legal frameworks, and resources.
5. Provinces depend heavily on grants from the federal budget. Local levels depend on provincial grants.
6. Despite mechanisms for resolving disputes over laws, land, or functions in the constitution, it has not become active.
7. Some provinces (like Bagmati) are more developed and assertive; others (like Karnali, Sudurpaschim) lag behind.

What needs to be done if federalism is to be made effective?

• Short-Term Reforms
  • Clarify roles and responsibilities in Schedule 9.
  • Finalize and implement federal civil service law.
  • Expand revenue assignment to provinces (e.g., natural resource royalties).
• Long-Term Strategies
  • Strengthen coordination mechanisms (e.g., NNRFC, Inter-Provincial Council).
  • Improve provincial planning and budgeting systems.
  • Promote political decentralization—not just administrative.

The legal and institutional framework exists, but the system is still heavily centralized in practice, and many provinces lack the capacity to fully exercise their powers. True federalism demands more than new maps and elections. It requires resources, legal clarity, political culture, and mutual respect between all levels of government.

This clause defines the boundary of Nepal. Instead of defining rigid boundaries, it is indicative. It not only acknowledges the current area of the state but also envisions the area that can be annexed to Nepal in the future.

Consequently, Nepal adopted a new map in 2020 accommodating the Lipulek-Limpiyadhura area in the north-western part which had been wrongly omitted in previous maps. Because the map of Nepal is an integral part of the coat of arms provisioned in the Constitution, Nepal amended the Constitution on June 18, 2020.

In conclusion, Article 4 is foundational. It defines what Nepal is, and what it is not. It is a declaration of:

• Sovereignty and self-determination,
• A progressive and inclusive vision of the state,
• Commitment to federal democratic values, and
• The safeguarding of cultural, religious, and territorial integrity.

It reflects the post-conflict restructuring of Nepal into a modern republic, while maintaining continuity with its heritage.

Article 5(1) provides a comprehensive and constitutional definition of “national interest.” It includes the following 9 interests:

These are non-negotiable components of Nepal’s national policy and security architecture.

Article 5(2) provides a legal safeguard against violations of national interests. This implies that not just the state, but also citizens, officials, and institutions are bound by this principle. Acts of espionage, treason, smuggling, corruption that harms sovereignty, or attempts to disintegrate the nation can be prosecuted under national interest. It encourages the drafting of laws that define and penalize acts against Nepal’s sovereignty and wellbeing.

Challenges in Interpreting National Interest

• Vagueness and subjectivity: What constitutes “national interest” can vary by context. Risks exist of misuse against dissent or opposition.
• Balancing with rights: If not clearly defined, Article 5(2) could be invoked to suppress fundamental freedoms in the name of security.
• Lack of comprehensive law: Nepal still lacks a codified National Security Law that clarifies threats and legal thresholds under Article 5.

In summary, Article 5 is the constitutional compass of Nepal’s sovereignty. It defines what must be protected—not only from foreign encroachment but also from internal erosion—be it through corruption, secessionism, or economic exploitation.
However, the state must ensure that “national interest” is not used as a political weapon, but as a legal and ethical principle to preserve Nepal’s independence, unity, and prosperity.

This article recognizes every mother tongue spoken in Nepal as a national language.

• It is an explicit constitutional acknowledgment of Nepal’s multilingual identity.
• There is no hierarchy among languages in terms of cultural value or national identity.

Nepal is home to 124 languages (according to the 2021 Census) spoken across various ethnic and regional groups (e.g., Maithili, Tamang, Tharu, Magar, Limbu, Newar, Gurung, etc.). Article 6 ensures that:

Each of these languages is equally “national”, as a symbol of cultural dignity and belonging.

It is important to note:

• Article 6 addresses national languages (symbolic and identity-based).
• Article 7(1) defines the official language for administrative and legal purposes: “The Nepali language in Devanagari script shall be the official language of Nepal.”

So, while Nepali is the official working language, all mother tongues are nationally recognized.

Implications of Article 6

Challenges in Implementation

Despite Article 6, some issues persist:

Related Provisions in the Constitution

• Article 7(2): A province may choose additional official languages spoken by the majority.
• Article 32: Right of every community to protect and promote its language, script, and culture.
• Directive Principles (Article 50): State to promote linguistic and cultural diversity.

In conclusion, Article 6 is a powerful symbolic affirmation of Nepal’s multicultural foundation.
It says: “To speak your mother tongue is to belong to the nation.”

But to turn this symbolic equality into practical inclusion, Nepal must:

• Promote mother tongue education,
• Enable local language use in governance, and
• Protect linguistic minorities from cultural erosion.

Although all the mother tongues are defined as national languages, this article specifies the Nepali language written in the Devanagari script as the lingua franca. This creates uniformity in the use of official languages.

This clause allows the provinces to select their own official languages along with Nepali based on the majority within the provinces. Bagmati Province has adopted Nepal Bhasha and Tamang as official languages, pioneering in the application of this article.

Article 8 textually describes the national flag of Nepal. Schedule 1 gives the visual as well as the construction method. The national flag and its construction method had been standardized in the 1962. Despite several discussions on changing the flag in and outside the Constituent Assembly, the flag has continued and remains as the most unique national flag.

In 2012, YouTube channel Numberphile called it “the most mathematical flag,” and demonstrated the construction method.

The method of construction as in Schedule 1:

(a) Method of making the shape inside the border
(1) On the lower portion of a crimson cloth draw a line AB of the required length from left to right.
(2) From A draw a line AC perpendicular to AB making AC equal to AB plus one third AB. From AC mark off D making line AD equal to line AB. Join B and D.
(3) From BD mark off E making BE equal to AB.
(4) Touching E draw a line FG, starting from the point F on line AC, and parallel to AB to the right hand-side. Mark off FG equal to AB.
(5) Join C and G.

(b) Method of making the moon
(6) From AB mark off AH making AH equal to one-fourth of line AB and starting from H draw a line HI parallel to line AC touching line CG at point I.
(7) Bisect CF at J and draw a line JK parallel to AB touching CG at point K. (8) Let L be the point where lines JK and HI cut one another.
(9) Join J and G.
(10) Let M be the point where line JG and HI cut one another.
(11) With centre M and with a distance shortest from M to BD mark off N on the lower portion of line HI.
(12) Touching M and starting from O, a point on AC, draw a line from left to right parallel to AB.
(13) With centre L and radius LN draw a semi-circle on the lower portion and let P and Q be the points where it touches the line OM respectively.
(14) With centre M and radius MQ draw a semi-circle on the lower portion touching P and Q.
(15) With centre N and radius NM draw an arc touching PNQ at R and S. Join RS. Let T be the point where RS and HI cut one another.
(16) With centre T and radius TS draw a semi-circle on the upper portion of PNQ touching it at two points.
(17) With centre T and radius TM draw an arc on the upper portion of PNQ touching at two points.
(18) Eight equal and similar triangles of the moon are to be made in the space lying inside the semi-circle of No. (16) and outside the arc of No. (17) of this Schedule.

(c) Method of making the sun
(19) Bisect line AF at U, and draw a line UV parallel to AB line touching line BE at V.
(20) With centre W, the point where HI and UV cut one another and radius MN draw a circle.
(21) With centre W and radius LN draw a circle.
(22) Twelve equal and similar triangles of the sun are to be made in the space enclosed by the circles of No. (20) and of No. (21) with the two apexes of two triangles touching line HI.
(d) Method of making the border
(23) The width of the border will be equal to the width TN. This will be of deep blue colour and will be provided on all the side of the flag. However, on the five angles of the flag the external angles will be equal to the internal angles.
(24) The above-mentioned border will be provided in case the flag is to be used with a rope. On the other hand, in case it is to be hoisted on a pole, the hole on the border on the side AC can be extended in accordance with requirements.
Explanation: The lines HI, RS, FE, ED, JG, OQ, JK and UV are imaginary. Similarly, the external and internal circles of the sun and the other arcs except the crescent moon are also imaginary. These are not shown on the flag.
Note: The size of the National Flag of Nepal shall be as determined by the Government of Nepal.

The national anthem of Nepal as given in the Schedule 2 of the Constitution:

Sayaun Thunga Phool Ka Hami Eutai Mala Nepali
Sarvavhaum Vai Failiyeka Mechi Mahakali
Prakitika Koti Koti Sampada Ko Aanchala
Bir Haruka Ragata Le Swatantra Ra Atala
Gyana Bhumi Shanti Bhumi Terai Pahad Himala
Akhanda Yo Pyaro Hamro Matri Bhumi Nepal
Bahul Jati Bhasa Dharma Sanskriti Chan Bishala
Agragami Rastra Hamro Jaya Jaya Nepal.

Following the 2006 People’s Movement, Sayaun Thunga was adopted as the national anthem on 3 August 2007. The lyrics was penned by Byakul Maila and music was composed by Amber Gurung.

The previous national anthem, Srimān gambhir Nepāli was formalized in the 1962 Constitution, albeit with only the first verse was played. Written by Chakrapani Chalise and composed Bakhat Bahadur Budhapirthi, it was also known as the Shree Panch ko Salaami (the Royal Guard of Honour) before 1962.

Srimān gambhir Nepāli
Pracanḍa pratāpi bhupati
Sri pāñch sarkār Mahārājādhirājako sadā rahos unnati
Rākhun cirāyu isale
Prajā phailios, pukārauñ jaya premale
Hāmi Nepāli sārāle.

The coat of arms of Nepal as provisioned in the Schedule 3 of the Constitution:

The emblem was first adopted on May 28, 2008. As mentioned in the explanation of Article 4(2), the emblem was updated on June 18, 2020, after Nepal’s map was corrected to include the Lipulek-Limpiyadhura in the north-west.

Article 9(3) mentions the national flower, national colour, national animal and national bird of Nepal. These symbols act as visual and emotional representations of the state and its people.

Embedding these symbols in the constitution, legally protects them from arbitrary alteration, imposes moral and legal respect for their sanctity, and prevents their use for partisan or sectarian purposes.

Despite a decade-long civil war and abolition of monarchy, Nepal retained most of these symbols due to shared pride and attempt for a national consensus. The continued inclusion of these elements in the Constitution was part of the broader project of nation-building.

Nation-building and state-building are often used interchangeably, but they refer to distinct processes. Both of these are critically addressed (implicitly and explicitly) in the Constitution of Nepal (2015).

A. Nation-Building in the Constitution

While the word “nation-building” is not used explicitly, the Constitution embraces its core values in:

1. Preamble:

• Acknowledges diversity as foundational, not a threat.
• Expresses commitment to social harmony, tolerance, and solidarity, the key ingredients of nation-building.

2. Article 3 (Nation):

• Defines the “Nation” as all Nepali people, united by allegiance to independence, integrity, and prosperity.
• Redefines “nation” not as ethnic or religious identity, but as shared civic belonging.

3. Directive Principles (Part 4):

• Calls for building an egalitarian society, ending discrimination based on caste, language, region, religion, and gender.
• Implies that inclusion, justice, and mutual respect are essential to national unity.

4. Language and Culture Provisions (Articles 6, 32):

• Recognizes all mother tongues as national languages.
• Protects indigenous cultures, faiths, and traditions.

B. State-Building in the Constitution

The Constitution is fundamentally a state-building document. It:

1. Establishes a New Political Order

• Declares Nepal a sovereign, federal, democratic, republic (Article 1 and 4).
• Ends monarchy, centralism, and feudalism.

2. Defines Institutional Framework

• Sets up three-tier governance: federal, provincial, and local.
• Separates powers among legislature, executive, and judiciary.
• Creates independent commissions (e.g., CIAA, Human Rights, National Inclusion Commission).

3. Commits to Rule of Law

• Emphasizes fundamental rights, constitutional supremacy, and judicial review (Articles 16–47, 128–133).

4. Prioritizes Inclusive Governance

• Ensures proportional inclusion in state organs (Articles 18, 42).
• Protects minority and marginalized rights.

C. Tensions Between Nation-Building and State-Building

In Nepal, these two goals are sometimes in conflict:

D. Have nation-building and state-building in Nepal succeeded?

I. State-Building:

Gains

1. Constitutional Transformation
    2015 Constitution established federalism, republicanism, secularism, and multiparty democracy.
    Aimed to dismantle historical feudal, unitary structures.
2. Institutional Framework
    Creation of three tiers of government: federal, provincial, and local.
    Establishment of constitutional bodies (e.g., National Human Rights Commission, CIAA, Inclusion Commission).
    Legal framework for separation of powers, judicial independence, and rights enforcement.
3. Decentralization of Power
    Local governments empowered through Schedules 8 and 9 of the Constitution.
    Fiscal and administrative devolution is ongoing.
4. Basic Service Delivery
    Notable expansion in education, health, and social security.
    Use of digital governance, e.g., national ID systems, tax portals.

Persistent Challenges

1. Weak Rule of Law: Political interference in police, courts, and appointments.
2. Party Capture: State institutions often work for ruling parties, not public good.
3. Corruption and clientelism: Pervasive at all levels; local units replicate old patterns.
4. Bureaucratic Inertia: Slow service delivery, poor coordination, and limited innovation.
5. Judicial Trust Deficit: Public perception of partiality and delayed justice.

II. Nation-Building:

Positive Steps

1. Recognition of Diversity
    Constitution embraces a multi-ethnic, multi-lingual, multi-cultural nation.
    Recognition of all mother tongues as national languages (Article 6).
    Special provisions for Dalits, Janajatis, Madhesis, and backward regions.
2. Inclusive Representation
    Reservation policies in civil service, parliament, and security forces.
    National Inclusion Commission and other constitutional bodies created.

Unresolved Fractures

1. Identity-Based Movements: Demands for Tharuhat, Limbuwan, Madhesh autonomy remain unresolved.
2. Cultural centralism: Critics from identity-based movements often criticize the Khas-Arya dominant symbols in the Constitution.
3. Language Policy Confusion: Nepali remains dominant in administration and courts, marginalizing other languages. But it has also been difficult to adopt multiple languages, educate people, and train bureaucrats in region-specific language.
4. Social Distance: Caste-based untouchability and geographic disparity persist.
5. Lack of Shared National Narrative: Nepal still lacks an emotionally binding story that everyone owns.

In summary, Nepal has built a state that can govern. But it has not yet built a nation that everyone feels they belong to. They must reinforce each other for Nepal to perform optimally.