Prakash Sharan Mahat Says Nepal’s New Budget Is Too Ambitious and Underfunded

Former Finance Minister Dr. Prakash Sharan Mahat has sharply criticized Nepal’s proposed Rs 2.124 trillion budget for the upcoming fiscal year, arguing that it is too ambitious for the country’s current economic conditions and lacks reliable funding sources.

Speaking at a program in Kathmandu, Mahat said the budget’s scale goes beyond what the economy can realistically support. He also questioned the government’s 7% economic growth target, calling it impossible to achieve under the present fiscal setup.

Why Mahat says the budget is unrealistic

Mahat argued that the government has not clearly secured the resources needed to carry out the spending plan. According to him, the budget is weak on resource management and risks creating pressure on public finances if revenue and financing do not materialize as expected.

He warned that without assured funding, the state could end up adding to the debt burden on citizens while struggling to implement its own priorities.

A familiar critique of oversized budgets

The former finance minister described the budget as ambitious and said it exceeds the country’s actual economic capacity. His comments reflect a broader concern often raised during budget season in Nepal: that headline targets can look strong on paper while remaining difficult to execute in practice.

At the same time, Mahat acknowledged that the proposal does include some positive provisions, even as he questioned its overall realism.

Growth target under scrutiny

The government’s 7% growth goal is one of the biggest points of contention. Mahat said such expansion is not achievable unless the budget is grounded in practical assumptions about revenue, investment, and implementation capacity.

His criticism suggests that the key issue is not just the size of the budget, but whether the fiscal plan matches Nepal’s current economic constraints.

What this means for the debate ahead

Mahat’s remarks are likely to add pressure on the government as it defends the budget’s assumptions and financing strategy. If lawmakers and economists share his concerns, the debate may shift toward how the plan will be funded, how much can realistically be spent, and whether the growth target should be revised.

For now, Mahat’s message is clear: a larger budget does not automatically mean a stronger one if the resources behind it are not secure.