Nepal’s inclusion commissions are broke, powerless and mostly used as waiting rooms for politicians

A decade after the 2015 Constitution aimed to rectify historical injustices through seven inclusion commissions, these institutions are largely dysfunctional. Born from significant social movements, they are now ornamental fixtures within Nepal's state apparatus, starved of resources and power. As the constitutionally mandated ten-year review approaches, the state faces a critical juncture: either empower these commissions or acknowledge the inclusive project as mere political window-dressing.

The current state of ruin is a direct result of deliberate institutional neglect. Financial records reveal a stark imbalance: in fiscal year 2023-24, the Tharu Commission allocated a mere Rs900,000 to community programs out of a total expenditure of Rs38.78 million. Similarly, the Indigenous Nationalities Commission received Rs35.66 million for FY 2024-25, with only Rs1.1 million designated for capital expenditure. When salaries and office rent consume approximately 99 percent of a commission's budget, their role shifts from advancing social justice to serving as taxpayer-funded waiting rooms for political appointees.

Compounding the financial woes is a severe lack of legal authority and pervasive government indifference. Recommendations from these bodies are frequently treated as mere suggestions, with the executive branch feeling entitled to disregard them. The Indigenous Nationalities Commission has seen only six of its 95 recommendations implemented, and the National Dalit Commission reports that less than 5 percent of its advice was acted upon over five years. Furthermore, the Constitution creates a hierarchy of rights by defining specific powers for Women and Dalit commissions while leaving others to be determined by federal law, undermining the principle of equality.

The integrity of these commissions has been further eroded by political cronyism. Instead of appointing experts, governments have used these constitutional positions as consolation prizes for loyalists. This lack of meritocracy prevents the commissions from effectively challenging the status quo. The absence of permanent leadership in several commissions, currently managed by acting officials, signals a broader lack of state commitment to their success.