TIME IN NEPAL – WHY ARE WE ALWAYS LATE?

 

Punctuality is a social norm that varies significantly across cultures. In many Western countries, being “on time” is considered a sign of professionalism, respect, and discipline. In contrast, Nepal has a widely recognized cultural tendency toward flexible or fluid time management, often summarized in the half-humorous, half-critical phrase, "Nepali Time." This habitual lateness is not merely an individual flaw or laziness; it is embedded in Nepal’s historical, socio-cultural, political, and institutional fabric. Examining this tendency critically offers insight into how time is perceived, negotiated, and practiced in Nepali society.

The concept of time in Nepal is rooted in a more relational and event-based orientation rather than a clock-based precision. Anthropologically, many South Asian cultures operate on what Edward T. Hall described as “polychronic time,” where multiple activities may occur simultaneously, and interpersonal relationships are prioritized over rigid schedules (Hall, 1983). In such cultures, being late is often not perceived as disrespectful unless it affects social harmony. In Nepal, where community obligations, rituals, and informal networks dominate daily life, time is more flexible and adaptive.

Colonial legacies and postcolonial development further shaped how time is institutionalized. While Nepal was never colonized, it inherited many administrative norms from British-influenced India, including the structure of bureaucracy and timekeeping. However, these external systems were imposed on deeply traditional, rural societies without accompanying cultural shifts. The result was a mismatch between imported expectations of punctuality and the lived realities of Nepali society, where infrastructure delays, political instability, and economic uncertainty make rigid timekeeping difficult to enforce (Pigg, 1992).

Social hierarchy and power dynamics also affect punctuality. In many institutional settings in Nepal—from government offices to academic institutions—those in power are often expected to arrive late as a sign of superiority or importance. Time, in this context, becomes a tool of social status rather than shared accountability. The normalization of delays in public programs, meetings, and official appointments reinforces a culture where punctuality is neither demanded nor rewarded (Bhattarai, 2017).

On a structural level, systemic inefficiencies also contribute to a broader culture of lateness. Public transportation is unreliable; traffic congestion in urban areas is often unpredictable; and power outages, bureaucratic delays, and sudden strikes (bandhs) frequently disrupt schedules. People often arrive late not due to personal disregard for time but because of systemic constraints beyond their control (Shrestha, 2020). This blurs the line between cultural disposition and infrastructural challenge.

Nevertheless, the consequences of chronic lateness are real. In the globalized era, Nepali businesses, students, and professionals increasingly engage with international standards where punctuality is critical. Being consistently late in global contexts is perceived as unprofessional and may disadvantage Nepalese individuals and institutions. Moreover, the culture of delay can breed inefficiency, low productivity, and public dissatisfaction in governance and service delivery. It can also inhibit economic growth when time-sensitive industries, such as tourism or manufacturing, face disruptions due to avoidable delays.

Importantly, a new generation of Nepalis—especially urban youth exposed to international education and digital technology—is beginning to challenge this cultural norm. Punctuality is becoming more emphasized in sectors such as aviation, information technology, and corporate management, where global timelines are non-negotiable. However, these changes remain uneven and largely urban-centric.

In conclusion, the tendency to be late in Nepal is a multifaceted issue rooted in cultural values, historical contexts, institutional inefficiencies, and systemic limitations. It reflects a deeper divergence in how time is conceptualized—relational rather than mechanical, flexible rather than fixed. While it may serve specific social purposes within traditional settings, this approach clashes with the demands of modern institutions and global engagement. Addressing this issue requires more than just behavioral change; it calls for infrastructural improvement, education reform, institutional accountability, and a cultural rethinking of time as a shared and respected resource.