National Security Council: Constitutional shield in a storm
Nepal’s interim government is operating amid a deep national crisis. Public trust in the state is weak. Institutions are working at cross purposes. Citizens, especially the youth, are demanding change on the streets, while political factions and external actors closely watch for any weakness to push their own agendas. The government’s mandate is limited but crucial: conduct national elections within six months, of which one month has already passed. This cannot be achieved through short-term political arrangements or by simply reacting to every crisis. The state must fix its weak institutional foundations. Fortunately, the Constitution offers a clear instrument for this task: the National Security Council (NSC). This is one of the government’s most strategic, but most underused, institutions.
Nepal’s instability is not happening in isolation. Youth groups are demanding structural change, while political parties that lost power after the dissolution of the lower chamber of the bicameral parliament (the House of Representatives) see this as a chance to make a comeback. At the same time, supporters of a return to the erstwhile royalist order are becoming more vocal, presenting themselves as an alternative political force. External actors are also watching the situation closely.
A weak and distracted Nepal suits the strategic interests of some regional and global powers. The longer state institutions remain uncoordinated, the more space internal and external actors will find to influence national affairs. The current situation, latent inter-agency rivalries, uncoordinated responses, and widespread public anger reflect a deep crisis of coordination and command. If this gap remains, it could become very difficult to control later.
The NSC, established under Article 266 of the Constitution, was created precisely for such a situation. It is meant to serve as the strategic brain of national security, bringing together the Prime Minister and the Ministers of Defense, Home, Finance, and Foreign Affairs. However, successive governments have allowed the NSC to remain a ceremonial body, meeting rarely and acting even less. This interim government can change that. Reactivating the NSC requires no new law or constitutional amendment, only political will. The NSC offers a neutral platform to depoliticize security discussions, the authority to bring all security agencies under a common plan, and a legally sound way for an interim government to address security challenges.
Reviving the NSC should not mean only holding closed meetings. It should become a real center for coordination, planning and communication. The government can give it three immediate tasks. First, the NSC should issue a clear public directive explaining which agency does what during a crisis. This simple step will reduce confusion and close the gaps that opportunistic actors currently exploit. Second, intelligence and security agencies must be required to share information and work on the basis of a common threat assessment as fragmented works allow destabilizing elements to take advantage of blind spots. Third, the NSC should hold regular briefings to inform citizens about the security situation and present a common narrative. This is not about revealing sensitive information; it is about preventing rumours, misinformation and disinformation from filling the gap. While the NSC membership is constitutionally fixed, its processes can be more inclusive. It should consult representatives from the private sector, civil society, scholars, technology experts and youth groups as these stakeholders bring perspectives from the ground that government officials often miss.
Given limited time and high risks, the government’s approach must be focused and realistic. In the first phase, the government should activate the NSC by holding a serious, substantive meeting and publicly declaring it as the central coordinating body. This will signal both to the public and to external observers that there is a clear hand on the wheel. It should also launch an independent inquiry by forming a time-bound, judge-led commission to investigate recent protest violence. Showing accountability will strengthen public confidence and deny critics their strongest arguments. Alongside this, the government should establish a crisis communication desk to serve as a single, trusted source for verified information. When rumors spread about “foreign hands” or hidden agendas, citizens should know exactly where to get the truth.
In the second phase, the NSC’s policy directives must be translated into operational orders across all security agencies. In sensitive districts, local security committees made up of officials, police and community leaders should be set up to identify grievances early and prevent external exploitation.
The interim government’s success will not be measured only by whether the streets become quieter for a short period. Its real success will be judged by whether it leaves behind a more coherent, trusted and functional state than it inherited — one that is less vulnerable to internal manipulation and external pressure. The NSC can and should be the central instrument to achieve this. By reactivating the NSC and using it strategically, the government can provide clarity, restore coordination, and close the gaps that currently invite instability.
The author is a self-practicing social analyst. Through her independent study of Nepali society, she provides a unique perspective on societal norms
