The communal violence that recently erupted in Dewanganj, Sunsari, following a dispute that reportedly began over the use of a DJ, sent shockwaves across Nepal. It also deeply disturbed Nepalis living abroad, many of whom watched with concern as tensions threatened to spread across parts of the Tarai. For a brief moment, there were fears that a localized dispute could escalate into a wider communal conflict. Fortunately, restraint prevailed. Community leaders, security agencies, political actors and ordinary citizens acted to restore calm, demonstrating that Nepal’s long-standing tradition of social harmony remains resilient. Yet the incident also served as a timely reminder that such harmony should never be taken for granted.
Religion, at its core, teaches humanity to live together with compassion, dignity and mutual respect. It is not a contest to establish the superiority of one faith over another. Across much of the contemporary world, however, religion is increasingly intertwined with identity politics, electoral competition and ideological polarization. In many societies, faith has become less a source of moral guidance than a tool for political mobilization, deepening divisions rather than fostering understanding.
Against this backdrop, Nepal offers an important lesson.
For centuries, Nepal has cultivated a culture in which people of different faiths have lived side by side with remarkable harmony. Hindus and Buddhists have shared sacred spaces and religious traditions, while Muslims, Kirats, Christians, Jains, Sikhs and indigenous communities have all contributed to the country’s diverse cultural landscape. Across the country, temples, monasteries, mosques, churches and indigenous sacred sites have coexisted for generations. Religious festivals have often transcended doctrinal boundaries, with communities participating in one another’s celebrations as expressions of shared cultural heritage. In a world where religious identity has frequently become a source of conflict, Nepal has quietly demonstrated that diversity can strengthen rather than weaken national unity.
This tradition did not emerge by chance. It evolved through centuries of accommodation, cultural interaction and mutual respect. Nepal’s greatest strength has never been the dominance of one religion over another, but the willingness of different communities to recognize their shared humanity while preserving their distinct identities.
Pandit Bhawani Prasad Khatiwada, a respected scholar of the Puranas and Nepali history, believes Nepal’s tradition of tolerance offers an enduring lesson for humanity. According to him, genuine coexistence rests on the understanding that one’s own security and well-being are inseparable from respecting the rights and dignity of others. He argues that Nepalis have traditionally viewed themselves first as human beings and only then as followers of different religions or communities. That philosophy has enabled Nepal to preserve a culture of coexistence that many wealthier and more powerful nations continue to struggle to achieve.
This historical experience also helps explain one of the most significant developments in Nepal’s democratic journey. The transition from a Hindu kingdom to a secular federal democratic republic represented not a rejection of the country’s religious heritage but an effort to establish a constitutional framework that guarantees equal citizenship for all. The objective of secularism was neither to diminish Hinduism nor to elevate any other faith. Rather, it was to ensure that every citizen enjoys equal dignity, equal rights and equal protection under the law regardless of religious affiliation.
The Constitution reflects this careful balance. It defines Nepal as a secular state while recognizing the protection of religions and cultures practiced since ancient times. This constitutional arrangement seeks to reconcile two important principles: respect for Nepal’s historic civilizational heritage and the state’s obligation to remain impartial toward all religions.
According to Professor Dhruba Prasad Bhattari of Mahendra Sanskrit University, Nepal’s model of secularism should be understood within its own historical and constitutional context rather than through the experience of other countries. He argues that constitutional secularism does not require abandoning Nepal’s religious heritage. Rather, it requires the state to remain impartial among all faiths while respecting the country’s rich historical and spiritual traditions.
Even so, nearly two decades after the adoption of secularism, Nepal continues to witness vigorous debate over its meaning and implementation. Calls for restoring the Hindu state have become more pronounced, while discussions surrounding religious conversion, minority rights and secularism have grown increasingly polarized. Such debates are natural and legitimate in any democratic society. The real challenge is ensuring that political disagreement never undermines constitutional equality, social trust or communal peace.
It is equally important to distinguish between Hinduism as a religion and majoritarianism as a political ideology. Hinduism is among the world’s oldest and most diverse religious traditions and has profoundly influenced Nepal’s philosophy, literature, art, ethics and civilization. Critiquing majoritarian politics is therefore not a criticism of Hinduism or its followers. Majoritarianism refers to the use of numerical or cultural dominance to shape state institutions and public policy in ways that weaken the equal standing of minority communities. Democratic societies function best when citizenship, rather than religious identity, remains the foundation of constitutional governance.
The same principle applies across every religious community. Extremism, coercion, misinformation and hate speech must be rejected regardless of whether they originate from Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, and Christian, Kirat or any other religious organization. Constitutional democracy cannot survive if intolerance is condemned selectively while being overlooked when it comes from one’s own community.
Nepal must also remain attentive to broader regional developments, particularly the growing political influence of Hindu majoritarianism in India. Hinduism itself should not be confused with Hindutva, just as the religious beliefs of ordinary Hindus should not be equated with a political ideology. Hindutva is a modern form of Hindu nationalism whose intellectual and organizational roots go back to the early twentieth century. Its political influence has expanded substantially in recent decades, particularly with the rise of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The BJP returned to power for a third consecutive term after the 2024 general election, although with a reduced parliamentary majority and in coalition with its allies. The growing role of Hindu nationalist politics has significantly influenced public debate about religion, national identity and citizenship in India.
The issue, however, is not that India has become more conscious of its Hindu heritage. A civilization as old and diverse as India’s has every right to celebrate and preserve its cultural and religious traditions. The concern arises when religious identity becomes a basis for determining who belongs more fully to the nation, or when the political majority begins to regard the rights and aspirations of minorities as secondary to the cultural preferences of the majority. Human Rights Watch has in recent years documented concerns regarding discrimination, hate speech, violence and other forms of pressure affecting religious minorities in India. These concerns deserve attention not because they define Indian society as a whole, but because they illustrate the risks that can arise when religious majoritarianism becomes closely connected with political power.
These developments should not be interpreted as a judgment on all Indians, all Hindus or India’s entire political and social system. India remains a deeply complex and plural society, and millions of Indians continue to defend democratic pluralism and religious coexistence. Nor should criticism of majoritarian politics be transformed into hostility toward India itself. The important question is whether the increasing political use of religious identity can weaken the principle of equal citizenship and create a model that other societies may seek to imitate.
The consequences of such ideological developments need not remain confined within India’s borders. India occupies a unique position in South Asia because of its demographic weight, cultural influence, media reach, economic power and extensive social connections with neighboring countries. Political narratives originating in India can travel rapidly through television, social media, digital platforms, diaspora networks and cross-border cultural exchanges. Nepal, because of its close historical, cultural and people-to-people relationship with India, cannot assume that it is completely insulated from these ideological currents.
This influence can be both cultural and political. Religious symbols, narratives about civilizational identity and arguments concerning the relationship between religion and the state can easily cross borders. Social media has made this process even faster, allowing emotionally charged material, misinformation and communal narratives to reach Nepali audiences within minutes. A local dispute can therefore acquire a regional ideological dimension far more quickly than it could in the past.
Nepal must nevertheless be careful not to interpret every expression of Hindu identity through the lens of Hindutva. Nepal has its own Hindu traditions, its own history and its own constitutional experience. Hindu civilization in Nepal predates contemporary political movements by centuries and cannot be reduced to any modern ideological project. Similarly, a Nepali citizen’s pride in Hindu culture should not automatically be treated as evidence of political extremism.
The distinction becomes particularly important when discussing demands for the restoration of a Hindu state in Nepal. Such demands are legitimate subjects of democratic debate as long as they are expressed peacefully and constitutionally. But Nepal should decide this question through its own democratic process, historical experience and constitutional framework, rather than allowing developments in another country to determine its internal political direction.
The broader danger is the normalization of a politics in which religious identity becomes the primary measure of national belonging. Once political competition is organized mainly around religious identity, minorities can gradually begin to feel that they are guests rather than equal owners of the nation. Social trust may weaken long before open violence occurs. Political rhetoric, misinformation, provocative symbolism and selective appeals to religious sentiment can create an environment in which relatively minor local disputes become communal flashpoints.
Nepal should therefore neither ignore nor exaggerate the influence of Hindu majoritarian politics in the region. It would be unrealistic to assume that Nepal is completely insulated from the ideological currents shaping India and South Asia. But it would be equally wrong to portray Hinduism itself as a threat. The appropriate response is to distinguish religious faith from political extremism and to protect the constitutional rights of every citizen.
Nepal should regard the spread of far-right religious majoritarianism as a broader democratic and constitutional challenge rather than as a threat from one particular religion or one particular neighboring country. The response should not be hostility toward India or suspicion of Hinduism. Nepal can maintain close and respectful relations with India while making clear that its constitutional identity and internal social order are matters for the Nepali people to determine. Diplomatic friendship does not require ideological imitation.
Nepal should also resist the temptation to answer one form of religious extremism with another. If Hindu majoritarianism becomes more visible in the region, the answer cannot be the political mobilization of another religious community against it. Such a cycle would merely reproduce the same logic of exclusion. The more sustainable response is to strengthen institutions that protect every citizen equally, regardless of whether the citizen is Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, Christian, Kirat or belongs to another faith or tradition.
This requires a strong and impartial state. Political leaders should resist exploiting religious identity for short-term electoral gains. The media must report sensitive issues accurately and responsibly, avoiding sensationalism that can inflame tensions. Educational institutions should promote constitutional literacy, civic responsibility and critical thinking, while religious and community leaders should strengthen interfaith dialogue by emphasizing the ethical values shared across different faith traditions.
Former Deputy Inspector General of Police Janak Bhattarai offers an important practical perspective. He observes that leaders of different communities, together with the overwhelming majority of citizens, genuinely support peaceful coexistence. Yet communal violence is often triggered by the actions of a small number of individuals who exploit local disputes or social tensions. Preventing such incidents therefore requires identifying and addressing their underlying causes before they escalate. His observation also highlights an important reality: communal conflict is rarely the product of religion alone. Economic hardship, misinformation, political manipulation and weak local institutions often create conditions in which religious differences can be exploited. Strengthening social harmony therefore demands not only effective law enforcement but also inclusive development, responsible political leadership and active community engagement.
Government has an equally important role. State institutions must never become instruments for advancing the interests of any particular religious ideology. Public policy should be guided by constitutional principles, the rule of law, scientific reasoning, human rights and the broader national interest. While democratic governments may engage constructively with religious organizations on matters of public concern, such engagement should never compromise constitutional neutrality or the equal rights of citizens. Public confidence in the state ultimately depends upon its fairness and impartiality.
Nepal must also recognize that the challenge is not limited to Hindu majoritarianism. Religious extremism and exclusionary nationalism can emerge in different forms and within different communities. A consistent democratic principle therefore requires Nepal to oppose intolerance irrespective of its source. The test of secular democracy is not whether the majority is allowed to practice and celebrate its faith; it is whether minorities can do so with the same dignity, security and constitutional protection.
Reasonable people will continue to hold different views about Nepal’s religious history and constitutional development. Such differences are inevitable and healthy in a democratic society. What is difficult to dispute, however, is that Nepal’s history has been characterized far more by coexistence than by sustained religious conflict. Its greatest inheritance is not only its temples, monasteries, mosques, churches and indigenous sacred sites, but also the enduring culture that has enabled these traditions to flourish together.
Nepal’s future does not lie in privileging one religion over another, nor in weakening the country’s rich spiritual heritage. Its strength lies in preserving a democratic order in which every citizen feels equally respected regardless of faith. Constitutional secularism should therefore be understood not as hostility toward religion but as the constitutional guarantee that every religion is treated with equal respect and every citizen enjoys equal protection under the law.
At a time when religious nationalism is becoming an increasingly powerful political force in parts of South Asia, Nepal has an opportunity to demonstrate that cultural pride and constitutional equality do not have to be enemies. The country can celebrate its Hindu and Buddhist civilizational heritage, preserve its indigenous traditions and respect its Muslim, Christian and other communities without turning any of them into political outsiders.
Nepal may not possess all the answers to the challenges of religious polarization. But it possesses something increasingly valuable: centuries of lived experience demonstrating that people of different faiths can build a society based on dignity, equality and mutual respect. Protecting that inheritance requires vigilance against every form of extremism, including far-right religious majoritarianism, while refusing to turn legitimate religious identity into a source of collective suspicion.
The lesson for Nepal is therefore clear. It should neither abandon its religious heritage nor allow that heritage to become a political instrument for excluding others. It should maintain friendship with its neighbors without importing their ideological conflicts, defend its constitutional order without hostility toward religion, and ensure that citizenship remains stronger than sectarian identity. In doing so, Nepal can preserve not only its secular democratic framework but also the plural civilizational tradition that makes its society distinctive. That may ultimately be Nepal’s most meaningful contribution to an increasingly polarized South Asia.
The author is Executive Editor of Rastriya Samachar Samiti (RSS), the National News Agency of Nepal, and writes on international affairs, diplomacy and regional geopolitics.
Sharachchandra Bhandary
Executive Editor
National News Agency (RSS)
