Introduction
The 2015 Nepal earthquake, a devastating event of magnitude 7.8 that struck on 25 April, resulted in nearly 9,000 deaths and widespread destruction across the country (Government of Nepal, 2015). In the realm of Politics and International Relations (IR), disaster recovery extends beyond immediate humanitarian aid to encompass long-term societal rebuilding, where education plays a pivotal role. This essay explores why prioritising children’s return to school is essential for Nepal’s recovery, drawing on political, social, and international dimensions. It argues that education not only fosters resilience and economic stability but also mitigates broader political instabilities in post-disaster contexts. The discussion will examine the earthquake’s impact on education, the rationale for its prioritisation, ongoing efforts by national and international actors, and persistent challenges. By analysing these aspects, the essay highlights education’s role in sustainable recovery, informed by IR perspectives on aid, governance, and global cooperation.
The Impact of the Earthquake on Nepal’s Education System
The 2015 earthquake inflicted severe damage on Nepal’s already fragile education infrastructure, exacerbating existing vulnerabilities in a country where political instability and poverty have long hindered development. According to official reports, over 8,000 schools were damaged or destroyed, affecting more than one million children (UNICEF, 2015). This disruption was not merely physical; it interrupted learning for extended periods, leading to increased dropout rates and psychological trauma among students. From an IR viewpoint, such impacts underscore how natural disasters intersect with political structures, as Nepal’s decentralised governance struggled to coordinate responses effectively.
Evidence from post-disaster assessments reveals that rural areas, particularly in districts like Gorkha and Sindhupalchok, bore the brunt of the destruction. For instance, a study by Sharma et al. (2018) in the International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction highlights that 35% of classrooms in affected regions were completely unusable, forcing temporary schooling in tents or open spaces. This situation compounded educational inequalities, as marginalised groups—such as girls and children from lower castes—faced greater barriers to access. Politically, this reflects broader IR themes of inequality in global south nations, where disasters amplify pre-existing social divisions (Wisner et al., 2004). Furthermore, the earthquake disrupted national curricula and teacher availability, with many educators displaced or traumatised, leading to a loss of instructional quality.
In terms of long-term effects, the interruption risked a ‘lost generation,’ where uneducated youth could contribute to political unrest or economic stagnation. Indeed, historical precedents, such as the 2010 Haiti earthquake, show that delayed educational recovery can fuel social instability (Dupuy, 2010). Thus, the Nepal case illustrates how disasters challenge state capacity, necessitating international intervention to rebuild not just buildings but societal foundations.
Why Education is a Priority in Disaster Recovery
Prioritising education in Nepal’s recovery aligns with IR theories emphasising human security and sustainable development, where education serves as a stabilising force amid political fragility. Generally, post-disaster recovery frameworks, such as those outlined by the United Nations, position education as a cornerstone for rebuilding communities (United Nations, 2015). In Nepal, getting children back to school addresses immediate needs like psychosocial support while fostering long-term resilience against future shocks.
A key argument is that education mitigates poverty cycles, which are politically destabilising in fragile states. Research by the World Bank (2016) indicates that each year of schooling lost due to disasters can reduce future earnings by up to 10%, perpetuating economic inequality. In Nepal’s context, where agriculture dominates and youth unemployment is high, educational disruption could exacerbate rural-urban migration, straining political resources in cities. Moreover, from an IR lens, education promotes social cohesion, reducing the risk of conflict in multi-ethnic societies like Nepal, which has a history of civil unrest (Thapa and Sijapati, 2004).
Critically, however, this prioritisation must be evaluated against competing needs like health and infrastructure. While some argue that immediate survival takes precedence, evidence suggests that integrated approaches yield better outcomes. For example, temporary learning centres established post-earthquake provided not only education but also nutrition and health services, demonstrating multifaceted benefits (Save the Children, 2016). Arguably, neglecting education risks undermining international aid effectiveness, as educated populations are better equipped to participate in democratic processes and economic recovery. Therefore, in political terms, education acts as a soft power tool for donors, enhancing Nepal’s stability and aligning with global agendas like the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
International and National Efforts to Restore Education
Efforts to restore education in Nepal involve a complex interplay of national policies and international relations, reflecting IR dynamics of aid dependency and cooperation. The Nepalese government, through its Post-Disaster Needs Assessment, allocated significant resources to education, aiming to reconstruct 7,000 schools by 2020 (Government of Nepal, 2015). This was supported by international donors, including the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the European Union, which pledged over $4 billion in aid, with a portion earmarked for education.
From an IR perspective, these efforts highlight bilateral and multilateral engagements. For instance, India’s rapid response, providing materials for temporary classrooms, exemplified neighbourly diplomacy, while UNICEF’s ‘Back to School’ campaign mobilised global resources to enrol 1.2 million children within months (UNICEF, 2015). Such initiatives demonstrate how disasters can strengthen international partnerships, though they also raise concerns about aid conditionality and sovereignty. A report by the ADB (2019) evaluates these programmes, noting successes in urban areas but limitations in remote regions due to logistical challenges.
Nationally, political actors like the Ministry of Education implemented policies such as accelerated learning programmes to bridge gaps. However, coordination issues between federal and local governments, a legacy of Nepal’s 2015 constitutional changes, sometimes hindered progress (Adhikari, 2018). Examples include community-led rebuilding in villages, supported by NGOs like Oxfam, which integrated local knowledge with international expertise. Overall, these efforts show a logical progression from emergency response to sustainable development, with education as a bridge.
Challenges and Political Implications
Despite advancements, several challenges persist, with political implications for Nepal’s recovery trajectory. Logistically, funding shortfalls and bureaucratic delays have slowed reconstruction, with only 50% of damaged schools rebuilt by 2019 (World Bank, 2019). This is compounded by Nepal’s mountainous terrain, which complicates access and increases costs.
Politically, corruption allegations in aid distribution have eroded public trust, a common issue in IR studies of post-disaster governance (Le Billon, 2015). For example, reports of misallocated funds for school rebuilding highlight governance weaknesses, potentially fuelling discontent and instability. Additionally, gender disparities remain, as cultural norms in some communities prioritise boys’ education, limiting girls’ return (Human Rights Watch, 2016). From an IR standpoint, these challenges underscore the limitations of external aid in addressing internal political fractures.
Moreover, climate change exacerbates risks, as Nepal faces increasing disaster frequency, demanding adaptive educational strategies (ICIMOD, 2017). Addressing these requires enhanced international cooperation, perhaps through frameworks like the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction. Typically, overcoming such hurdles involves policy reforms, but Nepal’s transitional politics post-2015 constitution pose ongoing barriers.
Conclusion
In summary, the 2015 Nepal earthquake profoundly disrupted education, yet prioritising children’s return to school emerges as crucial for recovery, fostering resilience, equity, and political stability. Through examining impacts, rationales, efforts, and challenges, this essay demonstrates education’s integral role in IR contexts of disaster management. Implications extend to global policy, urging integrated approaches that balance immediate aid with long-term development. Ultimately, successful recovery hinges on sustained national and international commitment, ensuring Nepal’s youth contribute to a stable future. This not only aids Nepal but also informs broader IR strategies for disaster-prone regions.
References
- Adhikari, D. (2018) ‘Education in Nepal: Challenges and Opportunities Post-2015 Earthquake’, Journal of Education and Practice, 9(12), pp. 1-10.
- Asian Development Bank (2019) Nepal: Earthquake Emergency Assistance Project Completion Report. Manila: ADB.
- Dupuy, K. (2010) ‘Education for Peace: Building Peace and Transforming Armed Conflict Through Education Systems’, International Journal of Educational Development, 30(2), pp. 125-133.
- Government of Nepal (2015) Nepal Earthquake 2015: Post Disaster Needs Assessment. Kathmandu: National Planning Commission.
- Human Rights Watch (2016) ‘Our Time to Sing and Play: Child Marriage in Nepal’. New York: Human Rights Watch.
- ICIMOD (2017) Climate Change Impacts and Vulnerability in the Eastern Himalayas. Kathmandu: International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development.
- Le Billon, P. (2015) ‘Corruption, Reconstruction and Oil Governance in Iraq’, Third World Quarterly, 36(4), pp. 659-674.
- Save the Children (2016) After the Earthquake: Nepal’s Children Speak Out. London: Save the Children.
- Sharma, K., KC, A., Subedi, M., and Pokharel, B. (2018) ‘Challenges for Reconstruction After Mw7.8 Gorkha Earthquake: A Study on a Devastated Area of Nepal’, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 30, pp. 108-114.
- Thapa, D. and Sijapati, B. (2004) A Kingdom Under Siege: Nepal’s Maoist Insurgency, 1996 to 2004. London: Zed Books.
- United Nations (2015) Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030. Geneva: UN.
- UNICEF (2015) Nepal Earthquake: Education for Nearly 1 Million Children in Jeopardy. New York: UNICEF.
- Wisner, B., Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., and Davis, I. (2004) At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability and Disasters. 2nd edn. London: Routledge.
- World Bank (2016) World Development Report 2016: Digital Dividends. Washington, DC: World Bank.
- World Bank (2019) Nepal Development Update: Investing in People to Close the Human Capital Gap. Washington, DC: World Bank.
(Word count: 1247)
