KATHMANDU: In the past three years, more than Rs 158 billion has been allocated to just eight districts—the home constituencies of some of Nepal’s most powerful political leaders—raising serious concerns about potential misuse of state resources for political favoritism.

The districts include Tanahun (President Ram Chandra Paudel), Jhapa (Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli), Dadeldhura (Nepali Congress President Sher Bahadur Deuba), Chitwan (Maoist Center Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal), Rupandehi (Finance Minister Bishnu Paudel), and Kathmandu (Urban Development Minister Prakash Man Singh), among others.

The total amount allocated to these leaders’ districts is greater than the estimated cost of constructing the 900 MW Upper Karnali Hydropower Project—one of Nepal’s most ambitious infrastructure undertakings.

After KP Sharma Oli, Chairman of the CPN-UML, first assumed the office of Prime Minister on October 12, 2015, the inaugural decision of his cabinet was to eliminate all ‘tuins’ —hand-powered cable and pulley systems used to cross rivers—across the country within two years. Ten years have passed since that pledge. Coincidentally, Oli is once again the Prime Minister.

Ironically, on July 15, 2025, Narayan Budhathoki, 28, from Darchula went missing after falling into the Mahakali River when a ‘tuin’ collapsed. Despite the promise made a decade ago, citizens continue to risk their lives on these dangerous ropeways.

Even in Jhapa—Oli’s home district and far more accessible than Darchula—three ministries (Physical Infrastructure, Urban Development, and Youth & Sports) allocated Rs 25.47 billion over the past three fiscal years.

An analysis by Nepal News of budget allocations over the past three years reveals that influential leaders have misused state funds, channeling Rs 158.79 billion into eight key districts.

During Oli’s second term, Rs 400 million was initially allocated to construct a view tower in Jhapa. The project was ultimately completed at a cost of Rs 1.79 billion.

Meanwhile, remote districts like Darchula, lacking even the most basic infrastructure, remain severely neglected by the state.

Because government resources and development plans are often funneled into the constituencies of powerful leaders, the cabinet’s decision to replace ‘tuins’ with safer alternatives remains unimplemented. Had suspension bridges been built, Narayan Budhathoki’s life might have been spared. But this tragedy has failed to move the powerful elites in Singha Durbar.

An analysis by Nepal News of budget allocations over the past three years reveals that influential leaders have misused state funds, channeling Rs 158.79 billion into eight key districts.

This figure includes allocations solely from the Ministries of Physical Infrastructure, Urban Development, and Youth & Sports.

The “special” districts that received disproportionate funding tied to political influence include: Jhapa (KP Sharma Oli), Dadeldhura (Sher Bahadur Deuba), Kathmandu (Prakash Man Singh), Rupandehi (Bishnu Paudel), and Tanahun (Ram Chandra Paudel).

In addition, heavy allocations went to Chitwan (home district of Maoist Centre Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal), Gorkha (Dahal’s electoral constituency), and Nuwakot (home district of influential Nepali Congress leader Dr. Prakash Sharan Mahat).

The total budget funneled into these eight districts over the last three fiscal years exceeds the estimated Rs 120 billion cost of the 900 MW Upper Karnali Hydropower Project.

Channeling maximum budgets to leaders’ home districts and constituencies during annual budget planning is not new. In fiscal year 2024/25, the coalition government led by the Nepali Congress, Maoist Centre, and Unified Socialist had Prime Minister Dahal, Finance Minister Dr. Mahat, and Physical Infrastructure Minister Prakash Jwala in key roles. The budget that year was heavily focused on Gorkha (Dahal’s constituency), Nuwakot (Mahat’s home district), and Salyan (Jwala’s district). In Gorkha alone, the Urban Development Ministry allocated Rs 1.52 billion. This year, the same ministry allocated Rs 109 million to Gorkha. Dahal now serves as the leader of the main opposition party.

The current fiscal year’s budget continues the pattern. For Prime Minister Oli’s home district of Jhapa, the three ministries have collectively allocated Rs 12.78 billion. Jhapa is also the home district of the current Physical Infrastructure Minister, Devendra Dahal.

Rupandehi—home district and constituency of Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Bishnu Paudel—has also received an unusually high allocation. The three ministries collectively allocated Rs 11.06 billion. Six projects under the Butwal Link Road alone received Rs 180 million. The Urban Development Ministry allocated Rs 5.65 billion, while the Youth & Sports Ministry committed Rs 120 million. Notably, in the previous fiscal year, Rupandehi received just Rs 1.88 billion—when Paudel was not Finance Minister and the UML was in opposition.

Meanwhile, Urban Development Minister Prakash Man Singh has allocated Rs 696.2 million to projects in his home district of Kathmandu—many in the names of his late father, Ganeshman Singh, the supreme commander of the 1990 democratic movement, playing a pivotal role in restoring democracy in the country, and mother, Mangala Devi.

Every citizen has an equal right to access development benefits distributed proportionally across the country. However, such preferential allocations by those in power deprive ordinary citizens of development opportunities and push residents of poorer districts deeper into poverty.

The total budget funneled into these eight districts over the last three fiscal years exceeds the estimated Rs 120 billion cost of the 900 MW Upper Karnali Hydropower Project. 

Budget favoritism is particularly evident in Rupandehi. With Finance Minister Paudel, UML vice-chair, representing the district, the Urban Development Ministry alone allocated Rs 5.65 billion this fiscal year. The projects range from Rs 600,000 for suspension bridges to Rs 2.5 billion for settlement development.

In contrast, when Oli was not Prime Minister last year, Jhapa received just Rs 2.65 billion from the Urban Development Ministry. This year, the same ministry allocated Rs 4.81 billion to Jhapa.

Additionally, President Ram Chandra Paudel’s home district, Tanahun, has also received a significant budget allocation. Similarly, Dadeldhura—home district of Sher Bahadur Deuba—has seen a sharp increase in funding. Last year, the Urban Development Ministry allocated only Rs 320 million to Dadeldhura; this year, that figure has jumped to Rs 1.44 billion.

Lawmakers lash out at Finance and Physical Infrastructure ministers

The scenes that unfolded in Parliament following the presentation of the current fiscal year’s budget laid bare the growing frustration over biased budget allocations.

Purna Bahadur Tamang, an MP from coalition partner Nepali Congress, took to the rostrum and declared, “Remembering Buddha and Pashupatinath, I flip through this book and wish that both Deputy Prime Ministers lose the 2027 elections.” The “book” he referred to was the budget booklet, and his pointed remarks were aimed at Finance Minister Bishnu Paudel and Physical Infrastructure Minister Prakash Man Singh.

Every citizen has an equal right to access development benefits distributed proportionally across the country. However, such preferential allocations by those in power deprive ordinary citizens of development opportunities and push residents of poorer districts deeper into poverty.

Rajendra Lingden, chairman of the Rastriya Prajatantra Party, expressed his outrage by tearing the budget booklet on the Parliament floor. “Generally, I am a calm person who seldom expresses anger, but ever since I held the Physical Infrastructure Ministry’s budget booklet, I have been so inflamed that I felt like tearing it apart. Since doing that would violate parliamentary decorum, I leave it here on the podium instead,” he said.

Independent MP Amaresh Kumar Singh voiced his discontent by suggesting a dramatic solution: “I urge the government to keep the five lucky districts in Nepal and lease the remaining 72 districts to the U.S., China, and India.” He emphasized that while taxes are collected from all districts, the resulting budget is not distributed fairly.

The Constitution envisions proportional and equitable distribution of state resources and assets. Yet those in power, who are entrusted with upholding the Constitution, appear to be prioritizing election-oriented projects and directing funds accordingly.

Former National Planning Commission (NPC) member and economist Dr. Chandramani Adhikari criticized this trend, stating, “Powerful leaders have violated constitutional provisions by concentrating budgets in their own regions. The Constitution calls for balanced development across regions and geography and a fair distribution of resources. Unfortunately, a few leaders have captured the budget, engaged in undemocratic practices, and misused state resources.”

Extreme dishonesty

This year, the National Planning Commission introduced a guideline stipulating that projects costing less than Rs 30 million would not be included in the federal budget. The National Planning Bank Standard–2081 was implemented to ensure that small or fragmented projects are handled by provincial and local governments. Finance Minister Bishnu Paudel himself announced in Parliament that the federal government would no longer allocate funds to projects below this threshold.

However, the budget statement presented by Minister Paudel included projects worth only a few thousand rupees—inserted at his own discretion. Powerful and influential leaders frequently bypass official policy when preparing the budget. Former Vice-Chair of the National Planning Commission, Deependra Bahadur Kshetri, commented, “Those who carry the bag tend to think they are supreme. Leaders have not acted according to political duty.”

Had budget allocations been limited to projects listed in the National Planning Bank, distribution would have been more proportional, and implementation more effective—since only feasible, properly vetted projects are included in the plan bank. Instead, arbitrary allocations to discretionary projects favored by the powerful have led to a rush to spend funds at the end of the fiscal year in Ashar (mid-June to mid-July).

This last-minute spending frenzy is largely driven by such unplanned, discretionary allocations. Economist Keshav Acharya stated, “There is extreme dishonesty in budget allocations by the political leadership. They have continuously deceived Parliament and the public. Arbitrary funding of projects outside the plan bank is a clear act of dishonesty.”

Had those in power acted fairly and equitably, the stark disparities between districts like Jhapa and Mugu, Rupandehi and Humla, or Dadeldhura and Darchula would not exist. This kind of haphazard favoritism would not persist.

Programs tailored to MP preferences

A new approach has been adopted in the current fiscal year’s budget to appease Members of Parliament (MPs). Previously, budgets were sometimes allocated under names like the “Constituency Development Fund” or the “Local Infrastructure Development Partnership Program,” giving MPs discretionary spending powers. However, in August 2023, the Supreme Court put an end to this practice, banning MPs from spending arbitrarily from such development funds.

Since then, the government has found indirect ways to satisfy MPs’ demands. This year, the Ministry of Physical Infrastructure and Transport allocated funds under the label of “Strategic Road Plans for Constituencies.”

Similarly, the Urban Development Ministry’s budget includes allocations under programs such as Settlement Development, Intensive Urban Planning, and Road Infrastructure Development—focusing funds on MPs’ constituencies. The ministry has distributed constituency-centered budgets to municipalities nationwide for road improvements, settlement development, and other local infrastructure projects.

Dr. Chandramani Adhikari commented, “This is essentially a new version of the previously notorious MPs’ development fund and goes against principles of financial discipline.”

For the current fiscal year, the Urban Development Ministry initially had a budget ceiling of Rs 51.89 billion. However, after adding constituency-focused projects, the ministry’s budget ballooned to Rs 118.344 billion.

The National Planning Commission had reduced the Urban Development Ministry’s budget by the largest proportion—about 24 percent—when setting the ceiling. Yet, when final allocations were made, this ministry received the largest budget overall.

Moreover, the biggest allocations were concentrated in the areas of powerful and influential leaders, disguised under programs like intensive urban development and settlement development. For instance, for 91 settlement development projects, the Urban Development Ministry allocated Rs 3.08 billion to Jhapa alone. Rupandehi received Rs 2.44 billion under the same program.