In the wake of violent protests organized by pro-monarchy forces in Kathmandu on March 28, politicians and security experts have raised serious concerns over the government’s handling of the demonstrations. Critical lapses in intelligence and security preparedness allowed chaos to spiral out of control.
Security officials revealed that agencies failed to detect or act on the plans of Durga Prasai, the protest’s designated leader. Prasai reportedly used incendiary language, framing the event as a “people’s revolt” rather than a peaceful rally. Experts argue that his rhetoric was deliberately provocative, even suggesting the Nepal Army might intervene—a claim that heightened tensions ahead of the protest.
Lawmaker Raj Kishor Yadav, chair of Parliament’s International Relations and Tourism Committee, criticized the glaring lack of preparations. “Despite knowing about the protests days in advance, key installations in the Tinkune area—including airports, petrol pumps, and media houses—were left unsecured,” Yadav noted.
The administration’s decision to permit two large-scale protests on the same day further strained security forces. Authorities were reportedly preoccupied with preventing potential clashes between republican and pro-monarchy supporters, diverting attention from preventing vandalism and property damage. Yadav argued that a single protest might have led to a less severe outcome.
Another point of contention was the police’s inaction when Prasai was seen recklessly driving from Tinkune to Baneshwor. Security experts criticized the decision not to immobilize his vehicle—such as by deflating its tires—instead of resorting to a risky attempt to snatch the keys from a moving car. Many believe this hesitation endangered both law enforcement and the public.
Former Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal, chairman of CPN (Unified Socialist), questioned whether police ignored directives after protesters vandalized the party office in Aalok Nagar. “Did police disobey your instructions?” he pressed Home Minister Ramesh Lekhak, highlighting concerns over accountability. Party leaders claim they had warned police of a potential attack on their party office that morning—yet no preventive measures were taken. Further scrutiny arose over Prasai’s delayed arrest. Despite remaining in the Kathmandu Valley late into the night, he was not apprehended, with police now claiming ignorance of his whereabouts.
Behind these operational failures lies a long-standing issue of resource shortages. Both Nepal Police and the Armed Police Force have repeatedly cited inadequate funding and outdated equipment. For over a decade, requests for modern weapons, vehicles, and logistical support have gone unaddressed by the Home Ministry, severely hampering their ability to manage large-scale unrest.
Last year, Nepal Police explicitly warned the Home Ministry of their inability to control riots due to logistical deficiencies. Home Minister Lekhak too was informed but took no action. “The failure to procure weapons for over a decade has crippled our operations,” a senior officer stated. As the country reflects on the events of March 28, urgent questions remain about security agencies’ decision-making and the systemic failures that enabled the chaos. A thorough review of security protocols, resource allocation, and inter-agency coordination is now imperative to prevent future breakdowns.
