Submit your Article

The Sushila Karki Cabinet is still incomplete, though she has included ministers in two lots. Perhaps, she is finding it difficult to choose ministers as she has to balance between the nominees of different GenZ groups on the one hand and their efficiency and honesty, on the other. The GenZ movement overthrew the Oli government through mass protests held on Sept 8 and 9 after the government crackdown on social media, which had been giving a people fed up with rampant corruption, bad governance, nepotism, lavish lifestyles of political leaders and their near and dear ones, political instability and an uncertain future, a platform to vent out their anger and frustration. 

The rally, which saw a significant number of students in school uniform, was almost without any leadership. The unleashing of the police force in the massive protest resulted in the death of 19 protesters, which sparked counterviolence that turned government buildings, media, business houses, banks and hotels etc into a cinder throughout the country.

Sadly, the mass, which lacked leadership, was hijacked by those groups who wanted to take revenge against not only the political leaders but also against government institutions and commercial institutions against whom they had some grudges like those who were dissatisfied with the present democratic setup, living standards of the leaders and their relatives and deprived of misusing of the state fund and natural resources. The security agencies were unable to stop the arson and vandalism.

The present condition is not the outcome of the failures of one government or two. It is an accumulative effect of the past, as rulers did not care for the welfare of the commoners. The Nepali state always remained a political project and never became a peoples’ project. Of course, the present predicament hastened the scenario to unfurl. The  country has enough foreign exchange due to increasing remittances, on the one hand and about 5-6m workers working aboard and about two thousand departing daily by air despite a large number of people from the western districts going to India, on the other.

The Nepal valley (the Kathmandu valley) became a Nepal state with the political project of Gorkha King Prithvi Narayan Shah of expanding the boundaries of his tiny principality. It materialized with the capturing of the Kathmandu valley, in 1769. Its boundaries  went on expanding until it was stopped by Kangra (India) and the British East India Company, which was equally expanding its territories. The company squished the border through a (controversial) Treaty of Sugauli in 1816. The Rana regime extended support to the British in both World Wars to keep them in good humour and keep their political project intact.

However, the resentment among the people, dissatisfaction of King Tribhuvan and Nepali Congress’ armed revolution in 1950 needed negotiations in Delhi, which resulted in a ‘Compromise Formula’ that pledged to establish democracy through a constitution promulgated through an elected Constituent Assembly (CA), provide recognition to the King, give continuity to the Rana Prime Minister and form a coalition government with the Nepali Congress. The deal was not fully implemented.

The resurrected Shah dynasty continued its earlier stand on its political project. King  Mahendra ignored the CA issue and proclaimed a constitution to hold parliamentary elections. Within 18 months, he dissolved the elected government and parliament, and introduced a partyless Panchayat system. King Birendra followed suit.

The 1990 people’s movement reintroduced the parliamentary system. But it could not last long due to the internal bickering of the Nepali Congress and the decade-long Maoists insurgency. After the assassination of King Birendra, King Gyanendra, who sought to rule directly, forced the seven political parties to join hands with the Maoists against the monarchy. Consequently, another people’s movement in 2006 overthrew it. The elected CA adopted an all-inclusive constitution with federalism in 2015.

During the last 74 years (1951-2025) there were 59 changes of government. Significantly, the instability continued as the latest government is the 15th since 2006.The frequent changes were necessitated only to satisfy the insatiable greed of leaders to acquire power and continue to hold as long as possible and also to accumulate unlimited wealth by any means that led to corruption and misrule. 

The challenges before the GenZ movement are enormous. It was easy to overthrow a beleaguered government but eradicating deeply-entrenched corruption will be a Herculean task. The strong collusion between politicians, bureaucracy, security agencies and judiciary will not allow any effort to eliminate it, as each of them will defend the rest for its own safety. To ensure that the government does not deviate from their chosen direction, GenZs have to keep a close watch; otherwise their sacrifice will be fruitless.

Views are personal

The recent wave of youth-led activism in Nepal—the GenZ revolt—has rightly torn open the rotten underbelly of political corruption, nepotism and dynastic power. It has been a blistering attack on Singhadurbar, the symbolic heart of governmental misrule.

Yet, if this revolt stops at the political gates, it will fail to uproot the deeper, more insidious culture of unaccountability that suffocates this country. The next frontier lies not only beyond Parliament but across the entire landscape of privileged power—inside the polished offices of NGOs and INGOs, the judiciary, the armed forces, the bureaucracy, the corporations, and, most critically, the compromised media establishment. The revolution must now move from a critique of politicians to a critique of all elites.

A compromised watchdog

A free and independent press is often called the fourth pillar of democracy. But in Nepal, that pillar has been hollowed out—eaten away by political alignment, corporate control and donor dependency. When a watchdog becomes dependent on the hand that feeds it, it no longer barks; it guards the master’s house.

Many so-called “independent” outlets are owned by business families or political investors whose real interest lies not in journalism but in influence. Editorial lines are quietly auctioned off to whoever offers the most—in advertising, contracts or access. Government and corporate advertising now function as veiled bribes, buying silence or favorable coverage. Investigative journalism—the heartbeat of democratic accountability—has been replaced by a toxic blend of propaganda, sensationalism, and self-censorship.

The NGO elite

Corruption does not stop at Singhadurbar or in media newsrooms; it extends deep into the NGO and INGO world that claims to represent the “voice of civil society.” For far too long, the development sector has worn the halo of moral superiority while operating as a parallel elite structure—opaque, unaccountable and self-perpetuating.

Founders of major NGOs often treat their organizations as personal estates, remaining chairpersons or executive directors for decades, drawing high salaries, controlling grants and filling boards with loyalists who block reform. Just as politicians are not meant to rule for life, civil society and NGO leaders must also retire from their high-paid, benefit-laden positions after a few years. Activism is not a career ladder or a lifetime pension; it is a public service.

Nepal’s NGO ecosystem has become a closed circuit of privilege where the same names circulate across boards, consultancies and “capacity-building” projects. Development work is too often reduced to a marketplace of donor contracts, where accountability is measured by paperwork rather than people’s progress. Audit reports verify numbers, not ethics; receipts, not results. If audits were enough, there would be no corruption anywhere in the world.

Donors also bear responsibility. They must not fund the same NGOs and INGOs for decades, especially those whose operating costs and salaries absorb the bulk of development budgets. Instead, international and domestic funding should support smaller NGOs and local civil society groups, empowering genuine grassroots initiatives rather than perpetuating elite monopolies.

Radical transparency

The moral strength of the GenZ movement lies in its uncompromising demand for radical transparency. That demand must extend to every sphere of power—political, bureaucratic, corporate, media, and NGO. Every institution that receives public, corporate or donor funds must be open to citizen scrutiny.

NGOs and INGOs must publicly disclose their total donor funds, salary scales, consultant fees, and operational expenses. Media houses must declare their true ownership and major advertisers, especially those linked to political or corporate entities. Judges, generals, chief editors and NGO directors—anyone wielding public influence—must be required to disclose their assets. Transparency is not a political weapon; it is the foundation of public trust.

The solution: CWGG

To make accountability a living reality, Nepal needs a Citizen Watchdog and Good Governance (CWGG) body—an independent, non-political civic mechanism that bridges people and power. This body would enforce accountability by receiving and tracking complaints of corruption, mismanagement, and nepotism across all sectors. It would verify impact through youth-led, community-based monitoring before forwarding substantiated cases to the appropriate legal authorities. And it would empower citizens by serving as a civic advisory hub—providing reliable, unbiased information about essential public processes: how to seek justice in domestic violence cases, apply for a driving license, follow legal procedures for foreign employment, take loans from banks or cooperatives, file lawsuits, access free legal aid, register to vote, or start a small business, etc.

In short, the CWGG would replace confusion and exploitation with clarity and empowerment—helping ordinary people make informed decisions and reclaim agency over their lives. Nepal’s fight against corruption is no longer a two-front war between the people and politicians. It is a multi-front moral revolution. The same scrutiny that brought Singhadurbar to its knees must now reach the air-conditioned boardrooms of NGOs, the glass offices of corporate media and the donor-funded corridors of “development.”

Universal ethics

GenZ is the only generation bold enough to confront all these elites and rebuild Nepal on the foundation of radical honesty and collective accountability. The revolution has only begun. The next 'obstacle to democracy' is not just inside Singhadurbar—it is also sitting comfortably in the name of “development,” “governance,” and even “press freedom.”

The repeated promulgation of constitutions shows that Nepal has been a constitutional laboratory for experimenting with various democratic models. From the Rana oligarchy to absolute kingship, the partyless Hindu monarchy, multiparty democracy and now a federal republican system, the country has transitioned through diverse political frameworks. After decades under the unitary system, Nepal has embraced federalism since 2015. 

These transitions reveal that Nepal has adopted a new constitution almost every decade in a span of 75 years. Recently, some groups have started advocating for a directly-elected executive form of government—the only model yet untested. The recurring failure of political leadership is often mistaken as the failure of constitutions, prompting public frustration and calls for change. However, no constitutional reform can succeed without honest, visionary and committed leadership. 

In the 1940s, public outrage ended the Rana regime. During the 1950s, King Tribhuvan restored monarchical authority, and later King Mahendra imposed a partyless system that faced strong public resistance. In response, King Birendra promulgated the 1990 constitution, recognizing multiparty democracy. Yet, it was later replaced by the interim constitution of 2007, which in turn gave way to the 2015 constitution—the first drafted by people's elected representatives as mandated by the 2006 Comprehensive Peace Accord that formally ended the decade long (1996-2006) Maoist insurgency.

Chronicles of change  

Of Nepal’s seven Constitutions, the Government of Nepal Act, 1948 was the first constitutional document. However, it did not vest sovereignty in the people of Nepal. 

Professor Laxmi Prasad Kharel, in Comparative Law and Nepalese Legal System, observed that the 1948 Act was “doomed to die from its inception”—the Ranas opposed sharing power, and the people rejected it for failing to meet their expectations. 

During the Rana era (1846–1951), state power was monopolized by the Rana family. Jung Bahadur (1817–77) seized power in 1846 and made himself permanent prime minister.

In 1951, an Interim Constitution was introduced but King Tribhuvan failed to fulfil his promise of establishing a constituent assembly. The King retained the power to appoint and dismiss the Prime Minister and Ministers and the cabinet functioned at his pleasure. The interim constitution lasted eight years, during which King Mahendra ascended the throne and imposed a direct rule on 1 Feb 1958, governing nearly two years without any constitution. 

In 1959, King Mahendra promulgated a new constitution where the Cabinet was accountable not only to the parliament but also to the King. He retained sweeping powers, including the power to dissolve the government and lower house and declare emergency under Article 55—making him politically supreme. In 1962, he replaced it with another constitution establishing the party-less Panchayat system, combining monarchical and parliamentary features. It banned political parties and imposed discriminatory citizenship provisions requiring knowledge of Nepali language. 

The 1962 constitution was replaced by the 1990 constitution, adopted after the people’s movement. The 1990 constitution introduced a multi-party democracy system and an independent judiciary. 

Federal dreams  

The 1990 constitution also failed to survive for long. The Interim Constitution of Nepal, 2007 was crafted through a political understanding following the abolition of the constitutional monarchy. It served as a transitional framework until a new constitution could be promulgated through the Constituent Assembly. 

The interim constitution, 2007 was the first Constitution to be written by Members of Parliament. It mandated the Constituent Assembly to enact a formal Constitution institutionalizing republicanism, federalism and secularism. 

During the period of 2007 to 2015, “The first priority today has to be the creation of a truly federal, democratic, republican political system and to ensure its development rising above the party-political lines and transient priorities. This task cannot be accomplished by limiting oneself to a certain political ism or anti-ism,” observes political scientist and professor Krishna Khanal in his book Federalism in Nepal: Management and Implementation.

Prof Bipin Adhikari in his book, Salient Features of the Constitution of Nepal, 2015, observes that inclusivity and diversity are the core focus of the 2015 constitution. However, Nepal’s journey toward inclusion depends, to a great extent, on the quality of democracy and constitutionalism it will achieve on the foundation of its constitution, argues Prof Adhikari in another book, From Exclusion to Inclusion: Crafting a New Legal Regime in Nepal. 

So, how can one discredit the progressive features of the current constitution? We can find hope in every political movement, but in Nepal’s case, the political transformations have, often, failed to deliver. Frequent repeal or enactment of constitutions cannot be considered a yardstick of a healthy democracy. Rather, the actual implementation of the constitution should serve as the foundation for good governance and a truly healthy democracy.   

Let’s build, not blame 

The problems in politics should not be mistaken for problems in the constitution. Merely testing different constitutional models cannot provide a lasting solution. The enactment of a constitution is not a magic stick to transform the state. What Nepal needs now is collective commitment to effectively implement the constitution. 

Conflicting provisions, if any, can always be amended through due process. Actual transformation can be achieved through constitutional stability, not through frequent changes of constitutions.  Weak governance, a politically influenced administration and public dissatisfaction with political leadership are to blame for the current mess, not the constitution.

On Sept 8, most GenZ youths probably woke up earlier than usual, driven by hope and a mission to protest against the rampant corruption plaguing Nepal at the Maitighar Mandala. They never expected that they would find state-sanctioned bullets to their heads. This article seeks to look at what lapses led to a meltdown of security mechanisms, specifically on the Sept 8 protests. This is because I align with the views of many experts, including Dr Balram Timalsina, who believe that the two days should be viewed in a completely different way and there should be two separate commissions to investigate them. Sept 8 was a protest driven by ‘frustration’ against the deep-rooted corruption in the country. Sept 9 was a protest driven by ‘anger’ against the state-sanctioned violence.

The beginning

Unlike traditional protests, most preparations for this one took place on social media. Individuals like Raksha Bam and Purushottam Yadav personally visited the Kathmandu district administration office to obtain permission for a peaceful protest between Maitighar and Everest Hotel, Baneshwor. The authorities granted the permission, but appeared unaware, or perhaps even indifferent, to how many people would turn up in support.

As a leaderless protest, different groups called people to gather at Maitighar at various times, but it began shortly before 9 am. Initially, there were just a handful of people, but looking at the rate of people coming in, everybody (except the authorities)  knew that this protest was going to make its mark in history. In hindsight, the atmosphere around 9 am was lively, with GenZ showcasing its creativity through paintings and printed memes held high above their heads.

The crowd’s behavior clearly showed it was a headless movement. Many were small groups of friends and classmates, seemingly attending their first protest. However, a particular group stood out. Anyone familiar with Kathmandu’s protests would easily recognize these faces and allegiances. Not everyone was there independently; some had vested interests. The protest had been infiltrated, though this was not entirely unexpected given the crowd of over 12,000 people. Yet, the state still seemed unprepared for such a contingency.

Intel and security failures

The intelligence agencies failed to analyze and predict the gravity of the situation, leaving authorities completely off guard. The National Investigation Department (NID), under the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) at the time, should have been properly mobilized to monitor developments. The blanket ban on 26 social media platforms had already created public hostility toward the government. The Nepo-Baby trending on TikTok gained more traction after this ban, as people, especially GenZ, shifted to TikTok, increasing the trend’s reach and influence on the protest.

The NID and other security intelligence units failed to monitor social media activity, relying instead on outdated methods of intelligence gathering and analysis. In recent years, the NID has come under scrutiny, with growing questions about whether it should remain under the PMO. Experts have long criticized it for being used by leaders to surveil political rivals. Had the NID been more proactive, other security agencies and possibly even the Prime Minister would have been aware of how the situation was unfolding on the ground.

The Nepal Police and the Armed Police Force (APF) are responsible for crowd management. They looked severely undermanned and did not take enough precautions to prevent a scenario where things would go out of control. Despite the fact that it was planned as a peaceful protest, it was the duty of the state and the security forces to prepare for any sort of contingency that may arise as the situation developed.

The escalation

People in the protest have said that initially they planned to march up to the Everest Hotel and return to Maitighar. When they reached the Bijuli-bazaar bridge, the only obstacle they faced there was a rope. As they marched on and reached in front of the Everest Hotel, they were stopped by a proper barricade set up by the Nepal Police, who clearly looked undermanned to deal with such a massive crowd. Behind them was a layer of APF and one water cannon. Behind this layer, leading up to the Parliament building, there was no police presence at all. 

As soon as protesters reached the barricade, some began pushing to break through, even forcing others toward it. Peaceful protesters struggled to move back as they were crushed by the crowd behind them. Meanwhile, another group arrived from Tinkune, positioning themselves behind the police line. The police suddenly found themselves nearly encircled, but tried to hold their ground until the group approaching from behind advanced and tore down the barricade. Water cannons were fired, but they failed to stop the massive crowd. The police, including the APF, retreated toward the parliament building. Facing ‘zero-resistance’, protesters reached the parliament’s southern (main) gate. Some moved toward the western gate, attempting to surround the building. Until then, there had been no baton charge, but as protesters gathered at the southern gate, police struck with batons once and began firing teargas to disperse the crowd.

Situation awareness and brutality

While this was happening, the Home Minister was attending a parliamentary committee meeting to discuss a bill. They were promptly extracted, exposing once again the weakness of our intelligence system. After their extraction, curfew was imposed around the Parliament, and police began shooting at protesters trying to storm the building. With mobile network signals nearly shut down due to the massive crowd, people had no way of knowing about the curfew or what was happening ahead.

The area around the Parliament remained tense throughout the day as hospitals filled with the injured. Instead of easing the situation, police brutality escalated. By evening, videos surfaced showing police storming Civil Hospital, located in front of the Parliament, and firing teargas shells inside. In Bir Hospital, where ad hoc blood donation camps had been set up, police again used force, injuring people who had gathered to donate blood for victims in critical condition.

Police started search operations, storming private residences and hostels looking for protesters, storming shops and beating shopkeepers. They were charging innocent travelers with batons. On Sept 8, the principle of use of force was totally disregarded. Police brutality was at its height, which acted as fuel for the rage for the fires that would ensue the next day.

Conspiracy 

There are a lot of speculations and conspiracy theories going around regarding the use of snipers to shoot students and instigate violence from external forces. A video showing a student in the middle of the crowd getting shot is circulating, reinforcing these speculations. Questions are being raised as to how a person in the middle of the crowd could get shot and not the person standing in front of him.

According to security analyst Chiran Jung Thapa, conspiracies cannot be ruled out; however, the use of snipers can only be proven after a thorough investigation. As per his observations, 2,200 shots were fired by the Nepal Police as a whole, but most of them were fired into the air. When a bullet is shot into the air, it does not simply disappear, it has to come down. When coming down, the bullet will follow the trajectory in which it was fired. This might be the reason why a student in the middle of the crowd got shot.

Conclusion

It is not that the security forces of Nepal are incapable of handling protests of such a scale. Their capacity was seen in March when Durga Prasai drove his vehicle through the barricade of Tinkune all the way to the Parliament building, instigating the protestors to join him. Back then, the security forces were well-prepared with adequate layers of barricades, personnel and equipment, enabling them to stop the protesters from moving toward the Parliament building.

It is because of a lack of preparedness or intention of the concerned authorities, heavy politicization of intelligence and security agencies, lack of professionalism among the security personnel on the ground, and rulers tripping on power with inflated ego that the tragic incidents of Sept 8 unfolded and paved the way for the destruction of Sept 9.

The author is program coordinator & research associate at the Nepal Institute for International Cooperation and Engagement (NIICE)