Nepal’s journey toward federal democracy was born from promises of justice, inclusion, and equal recognition for all its people. Those promises remain unfulfilled for many. Nearly two decades after the fall of the monarchy, the political system is under increasing strain—not just from economic challenges or geopolitical pressures, but from a deepening failure to address the ethnic identity question that federalism was supposed to resolve.
If the demands of historically marginalized communities continue to be sidelined, the consequences will not be confined to political noise or temporary unrest. The very foundation of the republic—its legitimacy, unity, and sovereignty—could begin to unravel.
The Roots of a Fragile Peace
The 2006 People’s Movement and subsequent republican transition were watershed moments. They offered an opportunity to correct the structural exclusion that had defined the Nepali state for centuries. From the Madhesi plains to the Indigenous communities in the hills and mountains, voices that had been long ignored were finally heard. Federalism, secularism, and inclusion became the rallying cries of a new Nepal.
The Maoist insurgency, despite its violence, brought ethnic identity into the mainstream political discourse. The demand was simple yet transformative: a state that recognized its own diversity—not just in words, but through representation, autonomy, and dignity. The post-war period saw a surge in mobilization by Janajatis, Madhesis, Tharus, and Indigenous nationalities. These groups demanded a new social contract, one that dismantled the old unitary, centralized system and replaced it with a federal model that gave all communities a stake in the nation.
Yet when the 2015 Constitution was unveiled, it fell far short of these expectations. The structure of federal provinces ignored calls for identity-based demarcation. The electoral system diluted proportional representation. The language of inclusion was present, but the architecture of power remained largely unchanged.
Ethnic Discontent Has Not Disappeared—It Has Reorganized
The state may have believed that the new constitution marked the end of identity-based agitation. In reality, it merely pushed it into new forms. Today, the frustrations of excluded groups are channeled through regional and ethnic parties—Janata Samajbadi Party, Loktantrik Samajbadi Party, and others—whose agendas are built on the very grievances left unresolved by the federal transition.
These parties are not temporary players. They are products of long-standing structural marginalization. They have electoral bases, grassroots networks, and a growing ability to disrupt national politics. What they lack, however, is the ability to influence national policy from within a fragmented system that treats them as peripheral partners rather than equal stakeholders.
Their rise should not be dismissed as identity politics gone too far. It should be recognized for what it is: a warning sign that the federal system is not delivering on its central promise.
When Identity Is Ignored, National Unity Is Put at Risk
A democracy that cannot integrate its own diversity will always remain vulnerable. The current political architecture offers participation, but not power. It offers symbolism, but not substance. And when communities feel permanently locked out of real decision-making, they begin to disengage—or worse, resist.
This disengagement is already visible. Ethnic identity movements are becoming more assertive and less trusting of central authority. The gap between Kathmandu and the provinces is widening. Disillusionment is spreading, particularly among youth who see their identity as a political liability rather than a cultural strength.
If this trajectory continues unchecked, Nepal risks reaching a point where ethnic discontent transforms from agitation to alienation. At that point, no amount of constitutional amendments or development budgets will be able to rebuild the trust that is now eroding.
The High Cost of Political Fragmentation
The consequences are not only social but structural. Federal governance, already plagued by weak institutions and power struggles, becomes unworkable when ethnic and regional parties are seen as outsiders rather than partners. Coalition governments are constantly hostage to local demands, legislative paralysis is routine, and national policy becomes reactive rather than visionary.
Most dangerously, this fragmentation spills into foreign policy. Regional parties often view international relations through the lens of their specific geographic and cultural interests. In the Terai, where familial and cultural ties with northern India run deep, pro-India positions are common. In contrast, parties seeking to counter Indian influence often turn toward China.
This internal divergence has made it easier for foreign powers to exploit Nepal’s divisions. Strategic infrastructure deals are stalled or rushed based on which party holds influence. Cross-border tensions are politicized domestically. Instead of presenting a unified front in international affairs, Nepal appears divided, inconsistent, and manipulable.
A nation that cannot speak with one voice externally because it is divided internally is not only weakened in diplomacy—it is weakened in sovereignty.
What Must Be Done—And Done Now
Time is running out to correct the course. Addressing the ethnic identity question is no longer just about inclusion—it is about national survival.
First, the state must re-engage with marginalized communities not as adversaries, but as foundational partners in the republic. This means taking seriously the demands for greater autonomy, cultural recognition, and fair representation—not treating them as threats to national unity, but as the basis of it.
Second, federalism must be deepened, not just defended. Provinces should have meaningful fiscal and administrative authority. The delineation of federal boundaries should be reopened for dialogue, particularly in areas like the Madhes where dissatisfaction is most intense. Identity-based federalism does not mean ethnic enclaves—it means provinces that reflect the social and cultural realities of the people who live in them.
Third, national political parties must stop instrumentalizing ethnic and regional actors for short-term coalition survival. They must build genuine alliances based on shared governance, not political expediency.
Fourth, and perhaps most urgently, Nepal’s foreign policy apparatus needs structural reform. A non-partisan, constitutionally mandated foreign policy council should be established to shield critical strategic decisions from domestic fragmentation. External relations must be guided by long-term national interest, not shifting internal alliances.
The Cost of Inaction Is Too High
Nepal’s history has shown what happens when the state ignores legitimate demands for dignity and recognition. The Maoist insurgency, the Madhes movements, and the rise of identity politics are all chapters in a single story—the story of a diverse nation seeking a political system that acknowledges its full complexity.
Federalism was supposed to be that system. But federalism without meaningful inclusion is merely a new framework wrapped around old inequalities.
The stakes could not be higher. The country stands at a crossroads. One path leads to deeper democratization, shared prosperity, and social harmony. The other leads to a slow but steady unraveling of the national fabric, where mistrust, division, and external manipulation take the place of unity and purpose.
Ethnic identity is not the enemy of national unity. Ignoring it is.