The devastating flash floods have left Nepal confronting a tragedy whose full scale is still unfolding. Lives have been lost, families displaced, infrastructure destroyed and communities isolated. At a time like this, strong government leadership is not only desirable; it is essential.
We must also recognise those already carrying the enormous burden of the response: security personnel, rescue and health workers, local representatives, volunteers, community organisations and ordinary citizens working in extremely difficult circumstances. Prime Minister Balen Shah’s presence in affected areas matters too. Political leadership should see the devastation firsthand, listen to affected communities and understand the challenges faced by those responding on the ground.
But the scale of this disaster raises another question: How do we bring every useful and available capability into the response?
The government’s decision to coordinate relief through a one-door system has an understandable purpose. Fraudulent fundraising, misuse of donations, misinformation and duplication are genuine risks during disasters. Coordination, transparency and accountability are essential.
But coordination does not have to mean centralisation. The argument is not that everyone who wants to help should be free to act independently. It is that genuine and useful capabilities should not be wasted simply because they sit outside the government.
A national disaster requires a national response — but “national” should mean the whole nation, not only the government.
Capacity beyond government
No central authority, however capable or committed, can be everywhere at once during a disaster of this magnitude.
Those coordinating nationally may be dealing simultaneously with rescue operations, damaged roads, hospitals, communications and emergencies across several districts. Yet someone closer to an affected community may know something the centre does not. A local representative may know which settlement has received food and which has not. A community organisation may know which route remains accessible. A nearby business may have suitable vehicles or machinery. A doctor may already be close enough to help.
When roads, electricity and communications are disrupted, as we are seeing in places such as Rasuwa, communities can become isolated precisely when they most need to be visible. This is not necessarily a failure of the government. It is the nature of a disaster of this scale.
Knowledge is distributed. So is capability. The challenge is to connect them.
Importantly, Nepal does not have to create all this capability from scratch. Over decades, a network of local organisations, NGOs, INGOs and humanitarian agencies has developed across the country. Their value is not simply in how much money they can contribute. Among them are organisations with trained personnel, specialist expertise, logistics, established local relationships and access to national and international resources.
We saw the value of this capacity after the 2015 earthquake, when local organisations and humanitarian agencies worked alongside the government and security forces, including in communities that were extraordinarily difficult to access. Not every organisation will have the same capability, and not every offer of assistance will be useful. That is precisely why coordination is necessary.
NCP Chairman Dahal claims to bring in whole nation in the upcom...
But perhaps the question should not only be, “How much can you contribute to the relief fund?”
We should also be asking: “What can you contribute, and where is it most useful?”
The diaspora is part of the response
Nepal has another extraordinary network: its diaspora.
Here too, we do not have to imagine what might be possible. We have seen it before.
Following the 2015 earthquake, Nepalis around the world mobilised through community organisations, professional networks and grassroots initiatives to raise funds and support relief and recovery.
During the Covid crisis, the diaspora mobilised again. When Nepal faced a desperate shortage of medical oxygen, Nepali organisations and networks around the world raised funds and helped send oxygen cylinders, concentrators and other essential equipment to Nepal.
These experiences remind us that the diaspora is not simply a source of remittances or donations. It can become part of Nepal’s emergency capacity.
A Nepali living in London may have parents in an affected village. Someone in Sydney may have cousins there. An overseas community organisation may have members directly connected to a particular district. Within those same communities are doctors, engineers, humanitarian professionals, business owners and people capable of mobilising resources quickly.
There is, however, a danger. A village with a large and prosperous diaspora could attract significant assistance while an equally devastated but less connected community receives little.
That is precisely why government coordination remains essential.
Community and diaspora networks should supplement the national response, not determine its priorities. The government must retain the wider picture and ensure that remote, less visible or less connected communities are not forgotten.
Prevent fraud without preventing help
But preventing fraud and enabling genuine help are not mutually exclusive.
Nobody is arguing for an uncontrolled free-for-all. People should not be able to collect money in the name of disaster victims without accountability. Organisations should not simply arrive in affected areas with supplies without knowing what is needed. Volunteers should not interfere with professional rescue operations.
But the alternative does not have to be complete centralisation.
Fundraising organisations could be registered and required to report what they collect and how it is spent. Local authorities could verify needs. NGOs and community organisations could coordinate proposed activities with municipalities. Businesses could register available machinery, vehicles or logistical resources. Professional groups could offer relevant expertise. Diaspora organisations could support verified requirements through accountable local partners.
Protect the public from those who would exploit their compassion, without preventing genuine compassion from becoming action.
Perhaps this is also how the one-door system could evolve.
Instead of every resource having to pass through one institution, there could be one coordinated picture of what Nepal needs and who is responding.
Imagine local authorities identifying verified requirements: food for 300 families, medicines for a health post, an excavator for a blocked road or a medical team for an isolated settlement.
An NGO could provide the medical team. A construction company could provide the excavator. A community organisation could provide food. An INGO could provide emergency sanitation equipment. A diaspora organisation could fund a verified requirement through an accountable local partner.
The government would remain at the centre — verifying needs, setting priorities, coordinating access and recording what has been committed and delivered.
It would not lose oversight. It could actually gain greater visibility while increasing the capacity of the response.
That is still a one-door system — but one door for coordination rather than one door through which every act of compassion must pass.
Leadership that multiplies capacity
Other countries already work with a broader understanding of national disaster response. Australia brings different levels of government together with industry, civil society and not-for-profit organisations during national crises. The United States and United Kingdom formally incorporate voluntary and community organisations into emergency response. The Philippines incorporates local governments, civil society, private organisations and volunteers into its disaster-management framework.
Nepal does not need to copy another country’s system. Our geography, institutions and communities are different. But there is a principle worth considering.
Government leadership and wider participation are not opposites.
Government must lead. It must establish priorities, mobilise security forces, coordinate major infrastructure, maintain oversight and ensure that communities without powerful voices are not forgotten.
But leadership during a catastrophe should be measured not only by what the government itself can do, but by what the nation collectively achieves: whether the stranded are reached, the hungry are fed, the injured receive treatment, those who have lost everything are helped to stand again — and how effectively the government can mobilise the nation’s total capability to make that happen.
There are capable, willing and compassionate people across Nepal and around the world. Some have money. Some have expertise. Some have equipment. Some have local knowledge. Some have networks and access to resources.
Not everyone should be allowed to do whatever they want. But neither should useful capability remain unused.
Coordinate it. Verify it. Regulate it where necessary. Hold it accountable. But enable it.
And while we discuss how the system can become stronger, we must not forget those already carrying its enormous burden. Asking how more people can participate does not diminish their contribution. It asks how we can put more capable hands beside them.
Ultimately, the success of this response will not be measured by how much money passed through one account or how many organisations operated under one authority. It will be measured by whether the stranded were reached, the hungry were fed, the injured received treatment and those who lost everything were helped to stand again.
A national disaster requires a national response — and “national” must mean the whole nation, not only the government.
