The Inevitable State of Development in Nepal Beginning in the early 19th century, all countries began to diverge away from each other in terms of development. Before this time, all countries were relatively equal in terms of wealth, life expectancy, mortality rate, and other factors of development. Then, all of these countries began to become wealthier, healthier, and more education, but some grew faster than others based on their location, history, government policies, economic policies, and social policies. One country in particular had some of the most detrimental effects on the construction of its policies in terms of development due to the upbringing of its system of government. Nepal today is seen as one of the poorest countries
…show more content…
The monarch system began with the settlement of the Malla Empire in the 13th century, followed by the more prominent Shah Empire in the 18th century. Throughout the Shah Empire, Nepal plunged into many wars. In many of these cases, Nepal acted as a buffer between neighboring states due to its landlocked location and mountainous regions. Acting as a buffer when the country was already not entirely stable in itself had detrimental effects on those who had been caught between the crossfire. Nepal did not have the means to re-establish and renovate, therefore it created a hostile environment that increased the difficulty to progress in terms of infrastructure, government policies, and social justice. In other cases of war, Nepali soldiers were required to aid the British in its wars and in exchange, the country would not be colonized. The fact that Nepal was able to maintain its independence was quite an accomplishment considering the country’s development had begun to stagnate, again making the country a susceptible target. In the middle of it all, Nepal faced its own version of solitary confinement between 1846 and 1951 with the rise of Jung Bahadur, who established the Rana …show more content…
When these qualities are considered obtainable and stable, a country can be considered developed. When we compare Nepal to the United States, there is an obvious gap between the degree of development. The most relevant quality to consider when comparing these countries development index is poverty; why is there a smaller percentage of people that lie under the International Poverty Line in the United States than Nepal? The answer lies in the upbringing of each country’s government. The United States was originally a settler colony, where its people settled with the objective to grow and prosper in the new world. Although the United States was not originally an established democracy, the country was already for the most part stable when the colonists demanded reform. Once democracy was established in the United States, the system of government continued to function as it does today. On the other hand, Nepal had an extreme and unstable government until relatively recently. Nepal was luckily never colonized, but its government exerted its power in an extremely similar fashion as those who controlled extractive colonies. The empires that ruled Nepal did not necessarily enslave their citizens or send raw materials back another land, but they did establish a dominant reign over the people, forcing them to
The monarch system began with the settlement of the Malla Empire in the 13th century, followed by the more prominent Shah Empire in the 18th century. Throughout the Shah Empire, Nepal plunged into many wars. In many of these cases, Nepal acted as a buffer between neighboring states due to its landlocked location and mountainous regions. Acting as a buffer when the country was already not entirely stable in itself had detrimental effects on those who had been caught between the crossfire. Nepal did not have the means to re-establish and renovate, therefore it created a hostile environment that increased the difficulty to progress in terms of infrastructure, government policies, and social justice. In other cases of war, Nepali soldiers were required to aid the British in its wars and in exchange, the country would not be colonized. The fact that Nepal was able to maintain its independence was quite an accomplishment considering the country’s development had begun to stagnate, again making the country a susceptible target. In the middle of it all, Nepal faced its own version of solitary confinement between 1846 and 1951 with the rise of Jung Bahadur, who established the Rana …show more content…
When these qualities are considered obtainable and stable, a country can be considered developed. When we compare Nepal to the United States, there is an obvious gap between the degree of development. The most relevant quality to consider when comparing these countries development index is poverty; why is there a smaller percentage of people that lie under the International Poverty Line in the United States than Nepal? The answer lies in the upbringing of each country’s government. The United States was originally a settler colony, where its people settled with the objective to grow and prosper in the new world. Although the United States was not originally an established democracy, the country was already for the most part stable when the colonists demanded reform. Once democracy was established in the United States, the system of government continued to function as it does today. On the other hand, Nepal had an extreme and unstable government until relatively recently. Nepal was luckily never colonized, but its government exerted its power in an extremely similar fashion as those who controlled extractive colonies. The empires that ruled Nepal did not necessarily enslave their citizens or send raw materials back another land, but they did establish a dominant reign over the people, forcing them to