Nepal has been on the boil the past few days with the protesting youth showing signs of mobocracy, humiliating senior politicians with acts of violence, and torching government buildings. For Prime Minister K P Sharma Oli, who appeared invincible only a few days ago, there was little choice but to resign and be whisked away to a safe place by the armed forces.
The trigger for what has been termed the Gen Z protest was the Oli government banning 26 social media apps as they had failed to register themselves with the Nepali authorities. There were underlying critical issues simmering among the youth, including unemployment, the poor state of the economy, and the general unresponsiveness of politicians and the government.
Nepal today is a much-changed country because of its exposure to globalisation and Western ideas. Its large diaspora is in the Americas, Europe, South-East Asia, and Australia, apart from the Gulf and India. Their remittances have hugely benefited Nepal, making it one of the highest rankers in the remittances to GDP ratio (over 25 per cent). The raised aspirations, however, have become way beyond the capacity of the Nepali economy to deliver.
Moreover, the peace process that followed the end of the insurgency has resulted in a certain societal awareness and empowerment in Nepal at a level quite different from India, with Nepal teeming with Western NGOs and even Church organisations. In a sense, Nepal went woke, even though that culture is, perhaps, going out of fashion in its home turf.
People in Nepal use social media to vent their feelings, and many saw the banning of these portals as brazen authoritarianism. Their mobilisation possibly allowed miscreants and others with their own agenda to initiate violence against government property. Caught off guard, the administration overreacted. Its ham-handed handling resulted in nearly 20 young people killed by police bullets, and the visuals of youngsters, many in school uniforms, with bullet wounds in the head, inflamed people.
Why did the people have to come out on the street, and did the country’s parliament fail them? The answer would appear to be yes, given that the country’s leadership has been held by three persons, K P Sharma Oli (Communist Party), Sher Bahadur Deuba (Nepali Congress) and Prachanda (Maoists), for more than a decade. For people on the ground, no matter their different political parties, they are chips of the same block with all steeped in corruption. Moreover, a year back, the two largest political parties in Parliament, the Nepali Congress and the Communists, joined hands, controlling nearly two-thirds of the lower house and effectively stilling dissent in the house.
The last general elections in Nepal in 2022 threw up a hung parliament, but among those elected were a large number of MPs from a new party of young people, the Rashtriya Swatantra Party (20 seats in a house of 275). This clearly reflected the disenchantment of the youth with the established Nepali political leadership, a fact reinforced in the election of Balen Shah as Kathmandu Mayor later that year. Shah, who is of Madhesi origin but grew up in Kathmandu, is a civil engineer and rapper. He does not belong to any of the major parties but finds huge support from the people. The popularity of these young leaders has irked the political establishment. Indeed, they came together and jailed Rabi Lamichhane, the leader of the RSP (released by the protesters) and made every effort to make things difficult for Balen Shah.
What next? First, peace needs to be restored on the streets. Balen Shah and other young leaders have appealed for this, as did the Army Chief of Nepal, and the protesters seem to be paying heed, with some people even participating in street clean-ups. The Army has enforced a light curfew and brought major political leaders to the cantonment. It will surely play a critical role in the coming days — they have to restore law and order, but without heavy-handedness. They have started to play a key role in plugging the political vacuum — hopefully they will be an interlocutor, as in Sri Lanka, and not be overtly involved in government, like in Bangladesh, where the underlying factors for unrest were different.
A default position in Nepali politics is directing ire towards India. In the context of the protesters’ violence, suggestions are being made that the instigators were monarchists, and some have hinted at Indian involvement. New Delhi has rightly issued an appeal for peace in Nepal and underlined the importance of stability, peace, and prosperity in the country.
There are demands for the dissolution of Parliament. That may happen, but holding fresh elections, even if there is no impediment, will take time. There are also demands for constitutional changes. How events turn out is difficult to say, but recent Nepali history, including election results, has not shown that a return to the past is something that the vast majority in Nepal desires.
Nepal needs political leadership, and this must have representation from the youth. However, at this critical juncture, the country needs to be helmed by a respected person who is not tainted by the recent political culture. The name being mentioned is former Chief Justice Sushila Karki, who studied at Banaras Hindu University. The interim government could well be composed of bureaucrats, academics, and some politicians. Stability in the country should be of utmost importance to its people. That is also critical for India, given its historical ties with Nepal and its people.
The writer is former Indian ambassador to Nepal
