KATHMANDU, May 15: The government’s latest restructuring of ministries has triggered unease among former administrators and serving bureaucrats, with many questioning the rationale behind the mergers, renaming and redistribution of portfolios.
Much of the criticism surfaced after the Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration was merged with the Ministry of Land Management and Cooperatives to create the newly named Ministry of Land Management, Cooperatives, Federal Affairs and General Administration.
Former bureaucrats argue that the two ministries operate on fundamentally different mandates, making the merger administratively impractical.
Dr Ramesh Prasad Singh, former member of the National Planning Commission and former secretary at the erstwhile Ministry of Urban Development, said the ministries differ significantly in nature and purpose.
Impunity for politicians encouraging physical assault on bureau...
“The Ministry of Land Management deals with land administration and development, whereas the Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration is concerned with governance and public administration. Their functions are not of the same character,” Singh said, suggesting that the land management ministry would have been a more logical fit with the agriculture ministry.
Singh also voiced concern over the dissolution of the Ministry of Urban Development, which has now been folded into the infrastructure ministry. According to him, the decision risks pushing critical urban issues to the margins.
“Merging urban development with infrastructure appears administratively irrelevant and could prove counterproductive in the long run,” he wrote on social media, warning that concerns such as urban poverty, informal settlements and inclusive urbanisation may receive less attention. He added that international practice generally favours maintaining a separate ministry dedicated to urban development.
Former administrator Sharada Prasad Trital also criticised the restructuring, remarking that land management would have aligned more naturally with the forests ministry rather than an administrative body.
Concerns have also emerged from within the bureaucracy itself. A senior official at the land management ministry said the merger may not reduce administrative burden as intended, noting that the differing responsibilities of the two entities would still require separate secretaries to function effectively.
Meanwhile, the government’s decision to rename the Ministry of Women, Children and Senior Citizens has also drawn criticism. The ministry is now called the Ministry of Children, Gender and Sexual Minorities and Social Security — a title some officials consider unnecessarily lengthy. “One official remarked that the name sounds more like that of an NGO than a government ministry,” a source familiar with the matter said.
According to a statement issued by the President’s Office on Thursday, the revised structure brings the total number of ministries to 18, including the Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers.
The newly reorganised ministries include Finance; Industry, Commerce and Supplies; Energy, Water Resources and Irrigation; Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs; Agriculture; Forest and Environment; Home; Foreign Affairs; Infrastructure Development; Land Management, Cooperatives, Federal Affairs and General Administration; Women, Youth, Labour and Employment; Defence; Science, Technology and Innovation; Education and Sports; Information and Communication; Culture, Tourism and Civil Aviation; and Health and Food Safety.
Prime Minister Balen Shah is currently overseeing three ministries — Defence, Home, and Science, Technology and Innovation. While he had already retained the defence portfolio, he assumed responsibility for Home Affairs following the resignation of Sudan Gurung.
