Dr. Janardan Subedi
In theory, Non-Resident Nepali (NRN) organizations represent one of the greatest opportunities for Nepal’s transformation. With financial capital, global exposure, and transnational networks, the Nepali diaspora is uniquely positioned to contribute to nation-building beyond remittances. And yet, the potential of this transnational community is being squandered. The question today is not whether the NRN movement is a force for good or a disease (“rog”), but why something with so much promise has become so contested, even distrusted.
From Vision to Vanity
The NRN Association (NRNA), launched with the noble goal of connecting the diaspora to the homeland, was meant to serve as a bridge — economic, intellectual, and emotional — between Nepal and its global citizens. Over the past two decades, the organization has seen some genuine achievements: philanthropic work, policy lobbying, and occasional investment facilitation. However, these successes are often overshadowed by factionalism, political interference, and personal ambition.
The degeneration of NRNA into a replica of Nepal’s domestic political dysfunction — replete with power struggles, lobbying, and elite capture — reveals the deeper malaise of our political culture. When organizational leadership becomes a symbolic throne rather than a service platform, the result is an international projection of national failure.
Hijacked Hopes: How NRN Leadership Became Surrogates of Nepal’s Political-Economic Mafia
The degeneration of NRN leadership from visionary mobilizers to self-serving actors is not a matter of accidental mismanagement — it is a systemic absorption into the broader political economy of Nepal’s elite corruption. What began as a transnational civic movement has become, in many parts of the world, an extension of Nepal’s party-state patronage network. The term “Non-Resident Nepali” now carries the tragic irony of being both “non-residential” and “non-representative.”
From Diaspora to Durbar: The Reproduction of the Old System Abroad
At its inception, the NRNA was imagined as an autonomous platform representing the diverse Nepali diaspora — people of varied professions, regions, and ideologies. But over time, Nepal’s entrenched political actors realized the symbolic and financial capital embedded in the diaspora. As a result, they began planting loyalists, mobilizing election slates, and using the NRNA as a power-projection mechanism abroad.
Party leaders in Kathmandu — whether from Congress, UML, Maoists, or other groups — began informally endorsing NRN leadership candidates based on political proximity rather than performance or vision. These candidates, in return, sought political backing at home to gain influence abroad. This clientelist exchange has become a norm, not an exception.
Just as Nepal’s ministries and commissions are staffed by unaccountable appointees, the NRNA too is riddled with unelected advisors, honorary titles, and fictitious “task forces,” none of which produce credible outcomes.
Political Surrogacy and Economic Opportunism
This capture of NRN spaces is not only political — it is deeply economic. The leaders of major NRN chapters have begun aligning with corrupt contractors, bank defaulters, and rent-seeking intermediaries who operate transnationally. These actors — who often launder reputations (and sometimes money) — use NRN platforms for:
– Image laundering through philanthropy that is never audited
– Access to government favors back home via symbolic diaspora titles
– Gatekeeping of investment opportunities for personal or political gain
Instead of channeling remittances into collective development, these networks turn diaspora wealth into a personal revenue stream. In this sense, NRN organizations have become soft laundering zones, where the symbolic currency of patriotism is traded for personal enrichment.
The Psychological Capture: From Public Servants to Power Brokers
Perhaps more insidious than financial corruption is the psychological shift among many NRN leaders. Rather than viewing themselves as bridge-builders or diaspora stewards, they begin behaving like ministers in exile, seeking proximity to power rather than proximity to problems.
Conferences become coronations.
Missions become manipulations.
Public service becomes self-promotion.
Such leaders not only mimic the arrogance and secrecy of Nepali politicians, but also reproduce the culture of exclusion — where decisions are taken by a few, for a few, with little accountability to the broader diaspora community.
Erosion of Democratic Culture and Civic Space
Even within diaspora meetings, deliberation has been replaced by domination. Elections are marred by irregularities, intimidation, and politicization. Women, youth, and minority voices are often tokenized. Critics are sidelined. Financial reports are vague. Nepotism is rampant.
In essence, NRN organizations are no longer democratic platforms; they are franchises of Kathmandu’s political cartels, operating under the guise of patriotism. The original dream — of NRNs as ambassadors of innovation, development, and ethical leadership — has been replaced by a transplanted version of Bagmati-style power politics.
Remaining Apart with Purpose: A Personal Note
As someone who has lived in the United States for over four decades, I have observed the rise and erosion of the NRN movement with a mix of hope and dismay. Many have asked why I have never joined or contested leadership within the NRNA framework. The answer is simple: I refused to become part of a system that no longer serves its stated purpose. While I have remained actively committed to Nepal’s development through scholarship, mentorship, and principled civic engagement, I have also deliberately distanced myself from what I now recognize as an institutional rog — one that increasingly mirrors the same patterns of patronage, tokenism, and elite capture that plague Nepal’s internal politics. My distance is not apathy; it is a form of protest.
The Indian Contrast: NRI Engagement with Purpose
To understand what is possible, consider the Non-Resident Indian (NRI) experience. While not without its own challenges, India’s diaspora strategy has been more institutionally coherent. The Indian government engages with NRIs through structured channels such as the Pravasi Bharatiya Divas, overseas citizenship mechanisms, and investment platforms like Invest India. Moreover, several NRI intellectuals and entrepreneurs have risen to prominent advisory roles in Indian policy and academia — not through political posturing, but on the merit of ideas and action.
India’s diaspora success is rooted in a few key choices:
– Minimizing partisan politics in diasporic spaces
– Creating enabling institutions for diaspora investment
– Tapping intellectual capital alongside financial remittances
Nepal, in contrast, has allowed its political parties to seep into every institutional corner, including the diaspora. As a result, many NRNs now resemble party cells abroad, and meetings are filled with the same patronage, polarization, and procedural stagnation familiar back home.
The Real Crisis: Diaspora Without Direction
It would be a grave mistake to assume that the NRN movement is a failure by design. The Nepali diaspora is still full of patriotic energy. But that energy is directionless, fractured, and often co-opted. Instead of nurturing innovation, community solidarity, and return-oriented investment, NRNA has become a stage for self-aggrandizement. Elections are more contested than constructive; conferences are more ceremonial than strategic.
The deeper problem lies not just in leadership personalities but in institutional vision. There is no long-term diaspora strategy from the Nepali state. Dual citizenship is still a limbo. Investment mechanisms are unclear. And meaningful collaboration with academia, research, or national planning remains elusive.
Toward a New Diaspora Ethic
What Nepal needs is not just reform within NRNA, but a reconstruction of diaspora politics itself. That requires three urgent shifts:
1. Depoliticization: NRN organizations must guard against party-based infiltration and promote issue-based civic leadership.
2. Decentralization: Instead of Kathmandu-centric gatekeeping, regional chapters should be empowered for grassroots mobilization.
3. Accountability: Annual transparency reports, independent audits, and rotating leadership can institutionalize trust.
The diaspora is not a disease. It is a reservoir — of knowledge, capital, and lived experience. But left unchannelled, it can become stagnant or even toxic — a rog.
Conclusion
The choice is stark: either the Nepali diaspora evolves into a constructive transnational force or it decays into a transplanted version of domestic dysfunction. To blame the entire NRN movement as a rog is to give up on its potential. But to ignore its current crisis is equally dangerous.
We must ask ourselves: Do we want our global citizens to be symbolic donors or strategic partners?
The answer will determine not just the fate of NRNA, but the broader future of Nepal’s development beyond borders.
(Dr. Janardan Subedi is a Professor of Sociology at Miami University, Ohio, USA. He has lived in the United States for over four decades and has been an active scholar and civic mentor focused on Nepal’s development.)