Today’s Nepal is passing through a transitional period in which democracy exists, but democratic culture is weak; there is a constitution, but constitutional conduct is questionable. And there is political freedom, but the absence of moral responsibility is clearly visible. In such times, remembering Mahatma Gandhi is not merely historical worship but becomes a necessary ideological intervention. The question is not whether Gandhi is ‘still relevant today or not’, but whether present Nepal’s political ecosystem can learn from Gandhian thought for a better future.

Nepal, today, is facing two crises simultaneously: One visible and the other slowly seeping into the veins of society. The first crisis is climate change, manifesting in the form of melting Himalayan glaciers, erratic monsoons, floods, droughts and livelihood crises. The second crisis is the erosion of social harmony, which is deepening due to identity politics, unequal development and power-centric discourse. The mistake of viewing these two crises separately is Nepal’s greatest political and moral failure. Gandhi’s vision teaches us that violence done to both nature and society ultimately springs from the same moral decay.

For Gandhi, the meaning of politics was the impact on the life of the weakest person. If Gandhi were to see Nepal today, he could ask: Isn’t the burden of the climate crisis falling first on the poor, Dalits, indigenous groups, Madheshis and marginalised hill communities? And isn’t this merely an extension of social injustice? In Gandhi’s vision, the climate crisis is not a technical problem but the result of a greed-based development model. Nepal’s current development discourse speaks the language of this very greed, such as excessive mining, uncontrolled road expansion, the exploitation of rivers and the turning of forests into ‘project sites’.

The Himalaya is not merely a geographical structure but the foundation of civilisation. In Gandhi’s vision, the relationship with nature is not one of use but of coexistence. But today, the Himalaya is being viewed as a resource in the language of electricity, stone, tourism and profit. When glaciers melt and sudden floods occur, it is called a ‘natural disaster’, whereas in Gandhi’s language, this is human-made violence. This violence is not neutral. Its greatest burden falls on those very communities whose voices do not reach the corridors of power. This is the point at which the climate crisis begins to break social harmony because unequal suffering ultimately gives birth to unequal politics.

Nepal’s diversity is its strength—ethnic, linguistic, cultural and geographical. Gandhi considered diversity not as a cause of conflict but as the basis for dialogue. But when the state consistently leaves certain regions and communities behind in the name of development, diversity produces discontent rather than harmony. Today, social tension in Nepal is not merely a question of identity but of the distribution of resources, like who owns the water, whose land, whose forest and who decides. Gandhi said that harmony without justice is an empty slogan. The same is necessary to confront the climate crisis through a genuine participation of local communities in decision-making processes. But today, even environmental decisions are imposed from above. Neither is the consent of affected communities taken, nor is their knowledge valued. Gandhi would consider this a violation of modern Ahimsa (non-violence), where no bullets are fired, but the basis of life is snatched away.

Climate justice and social justice are the same struggle. The central tenet of Gandhi’s politics was justice. Today, at the global level, there is talk of ‘climate justice’, but in Nepal’s context, it remains incomplete until it is linked with social justice. A society that is divided from within cannot protect nature. And development that advances by crushing the poor cannot be sustainable. Gandhi’s solution was less technical and more moral, i.e., simplicity, restraint and community. For a country like Nepal, this is not backwardness but the most practical path. Small-scale development, conservation of local resources and limits on consumption are the central principles of Gandhi’s environmental philosophy.

Development for whom? Who is paying the price? And whose future is secure? When nature is weighed in the language of profit and loss, we should understand that justice has remained only in constitutional documents. The time of viewing social harmony and the climate crisis separately is over. Gandhi reminds us that Ahimsa must be not only towards humans but also towards nature and the future. If Nepal wants a sustainable, just and peaceful future, it will have to change the grammar of development from greed to need, from competition to cooperation, and from power to morality.

The deepest crisis visible in Nepal’s politics today is the moral crisis—unprincipled alliances, opportunistic ideologies, the tendency to normalise corruption and the mentality that considers power itself as the measure of success. Gandhi said, “The purer the means, the holier the end.” In Nepal today, the opposite trend prevails: Claiming ‘democratic’ goals through impure means. Gandhi would have been the biggest critic of this tendency. For him, it was not power, but truth and public welfare were supreme. This vision is a harsh mirror for today’s Nepal.

Nepal has witnessed a decade-long armed conflict. Even after that, society has not become fully non-violent. Today, violence is not limited to weapons, but there is violence of language, violence of identity, violence of exclusion, epistemological violence and structural violence of the state. Gandhi’s Ahimsa is often dismissed as ‘weakness’ or ‘idealistic romanticism’. But it is not cowardice, as it demands moral courage. It says: Resist, but target not the human being, but injustice. The growing polarisation in Nepal in the name of caste, region, language, religion and identity makes Gandhi’s Ahimsa even more relevant. Here, Ahimsa is the name of social dialogue, coexistence and democratic patience, which is the very thing most lacking today.

Today’s Nepal is not untouched by global trends such as populism, misinformation, emotional politics and social media-based truth. For Gandhi, truth was not a strategy; it was a way of life. Today, when politics has become a competition of ‘narrative building’, Gandhi’s insistence on truth feels inconvenient. But democracy without truth remains merely a numbers game.

Gandhi’s development model was against big projects, massive capital and centralised power. He was an advocate of villages, local production and self-reliance. This idea is even more relevant today for a country like Nepal, where youth migration is increasing, villages are emptying, and the economy is import-dependent. Gandhi’s vision of Swadeshi (self-reliance) can become not a slogan of nationalism in today’s Nepal but economic wisdom in the form of local agriculture, small industries and environment-friendly development. These are the kind of ground-level issues that should be debated during the elections. There needs to be a public audit of our past conduct and behaviour. But the signs of that happening are very few.