During a conversation over a cup of coffee, a friend who works in a local reputable commercial bank made a mid-sip interjection that caught me off guard: ‘Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) fabricate their reports to make money.’ The statements that ensued from this initial comment highlighted his deep-rooted skepticism of NGO work. Given his limited encounters with the sector in his personal and professional life, I was initially surprised. But as we delved deeper into our conversation, I realised his mindset of mistrust over NGO actors is far from new in Nepal’s public rhetoric. Cynicism over NGO work has been brewing for generations. Today, NGO work is likely one of the least trusted and most criticised approaches to development in Nepal. The sector is primarily slammed for its reliance on projects funded by International Nongovernmental Organizations (INGOs) and international donors. Because of their associations with International groups, NGOs are often contorted to represent foreign values and, by proxy, are often viewed by traditionalists with deep suspicion. It is important to challenge this narrative by highlighting the sweeping generalisations made in these debates. 

 

 To substantiate the claim that ‘NGOs mismanage their funds by focusing solely on Kathmandu’, many people leverage the fact that ‘eleven NGOs exist to serve a thousand people in Kathmandu valley while only one NGO exists outside the valley for the same number of people.’ In other words, many people discredit the sector because roughly two thirds of the total number of organisations exist in Kathmandu valley. While the numbers are true to reality, one must understand that since these organisations are not self-contained, the key to their survival is the ability to acquire and maintain key resources. Hence, NGOs tend to be in areas where they can meet their needs, be it financial, human resource, or otherwise. Often, NGO head offices are based in Kathmandu while provincial staff or deployed to local areas. This is a common global practice among NGOs as it serves as a way to ensure that offices are working at full capacity with access to essential resources and infrastructure. This in turn ensures the quality of their work. A majority of NGO offices in developing countries such as Kenya, Brazil and Bangladesh are also found in the capital cities of the respective countries. 

 We have reasons to cherish this number as it captures the associational revolution Nepal has gone through. It took 24 years for us to have our first 314 NGOs and 27 years to have an additional 46,000. These numbers are an indication of a healthy democracy and associational life. It is also an indication of the rise of civic awareness and participation in the affairs that matter to communities. 

 While it is important to challenge organisations that misuse funds and engage in dodgy accountability practices, it is not productive to apply a one-size-fit-all understanding of NGO work throughout the sector. By applying blanket generalisations, we are harming the development of a strong civil society in the country. Challenging this narrative will become increasingly more important as the current government continues to introduce stringent measures to monitor, scrutinise and limit NGO work in Nepal. The draft and subsequent passing of the National Integrity Policy was seen as a major setback to NGO work as it included a list of overly stringent blanket policies that promote the assumption that all NGOs come to Nepal with the malintentions. Many NGOs in the country are now not only faced with the pressure to enact developmental change but are now also grappling with increasing political pressure. There will always be a few bad apples but applying sweeping generalisations to a community that has largely supported Nepal through several developmental interventions is not a fruitful endeavor.