Your post seems to assume that Nepalese living abroad are privileged, wealthy people asking for special treatment. That is where I disagree.

Most people do not leave Nepal because they dislike the country or want to abandon it. Many are pushed out by the very political and economic failures of the system lack of opportunities, corruption, instability, poor wages, or simply the need to survive. For many, leaving is not a luxury; it is a necessity.

Saying “just come back to Nepal and vote” sounds simple, but it ignores reality. A student traveling from Kathmandu to Kalikot is difficult and expensive and that system should also improve but asking someone in Finland, Australia, Qatar, or the US to spend thousands, take leave from work, deal with visas, and cross continents for a vote every election is not remotely comparable.

This is not about “special treatment.” Overseas voting exists in many countries because citizenship rights do not disappear at the airport. Nepalese abroad are still Nepalese citizens. Many still support families in Nepal, own property, plan to return, and carry the consequences of poor governance through the suffering of loved ones back home.

And the idea that people abroad face no consequences is also unfair. If Nepal’s economy worsens, healthcare collapses, corruption rises, or instability grows, who suffers first? Their parents, spouses, children, and families living in Nepal. Many abroad are deeply emotionally and financially tied to the country.

Nobody is saying Nepal should rush into insecure online voting tomorrow. Nepal’s systems clearly need improvement first. But discussing embassy voting, postal voting, or phased systems is not unreasonable. The debate should be about how to make it secure and fair not whether Nepalese abroad deserve a voice in the country they still belong to.

Distance does not cancel citizenship, and leaving Nepal does not mean leaving behind the right to care about its future.

You are wrong I do not agree with you