'New Delhi should engage with Kathmandu, but respect Nepal's sovereignty'

The Federal spoke to senior journalist Yubaraj Ghimire on the turmoil in Nepal, where Gen Z-led protests against corruption spiraled into deadly violence. With the government accused of brutal crackdowns, political uncertainty deepens, raising questions about leadership, external influence, and even the possible return of monarchy.

Why did this situation arise in Nepal?

There was tremendous unhappiness and anger among the people about the prevailing level of corruption among rulers cutting across party lines. None of them agreed to order an investigation. People were frustrated but not organized.

Social media became the platform where people of all ages, including the younger generation, expressed anger, frustration, and criticism of the rulers. Instead of responding in an accountable manner, the government chose to ban social media, depriving people of a vital outlet. When that platform was taken away, they poured their anger onto the streets. That is how the protests began.

Was this an organic movement or something orchestrated?

It was organic, largely led by Gen Z. But they lacked political understanding and were naïve about the possible consequences of a bigger movement. At the same time, there was infiltration by vested interest groups—criminal elements, political party affiliates, and others who saw an opportunity to exploit the protests for their own agendas.

The government’s response was inhuman. Security forces opened fire on students as young as 12 and up to 32. Thirty people fell to government bullets in just two hours. Nepal has seen violent protests before, but this level of state atrocity was unprecedented.

Did the old political class fail to see this coming?

Yes, it was both zero understanding and complacency. They assumed they could crush this protest as they had done in the past. What they failed to realize was that today’s leadership in Nepal—mostly in their 60s, 70s, or even 80s—could not anticipate the fury of a younger generation when pushed to the edge.

I am not suggesting that Gen Z indulged in violence or plunder. There was infiltration, but the government’s excessive force provoked the escalation.

So both naivety and infiltration were factors?

Yes, both are true. On September 8, when the protest against corruption was planned, it was intended as a symbolic show of dissent. But state brutality provoked the anger, and infiltration by vested groups magnified the violence.

There’s a theory that international interference played a role, particularly countries unhappy with Nepal’s growing ties with China. Do you believe that?

Any power—be it the US, neighboring countries, or distant ones—will naturally have an interest in Nepal’s affairs. They will look to exploit situations to their advantage. But on that specific day, I don’t think international forces were directly involved. They are, however, certainly watching closely and could interfere now.

This is why protest organizers must be cautious and transparent.

What is the situation in Nepal right now?

The army has largely taken control, curfews are being relaxed, and normalcy is returning. But fear remains. The government shows little concern for people’s rights, dignity, or safety.

Who will lead this movement going forward?

That is unclear. Gen Z is divided into different groups with varying political viewpoints. Initially, they only wanted corruption exposed, hoping the government would act. Instead, (then) Prime Minister (KP Sharma Oli, who commanded almost two-thirds of parliament, was forced to resign.

Now the crisis has taken a political turn. NGOs, embassy staff, students, and activists were part of this movement. If it becomes political, they must commit full-time to steering it. But Nepal’s history of instability suggests that uncertainty will continue.

Will the political class manage to hold on to power?

The president has said the solution must be found within the constitution, which means parliament will decide whether Sher Bahadur Deuba, KP Sharma Oli, or Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’ emerges as prime minister.

But what does the constitution or parliament mean if they cannot protect the lives, dignity, or rights of the youth? For the first time, young Nepalese were demanding a future in their own country, instead of migrating abroad. The government failed to support them, undermining faith in democratic institutions.

Could Gen Z leaders be co-opted into the political establishment?

That is possible. But before anything else, there must be an investigation to identify the culprits responsible for the killings. Without accountability, trust in the system will not be rebuilt.

What role should India play in this crisis?

India must tread carefully. Its over-engagement in 2005–06, including pushing certain agendas without letting Nepal’s parliament debate, backfired. When Nepal became a secular republic, it was not allowed to be a matter of public debate. Similarly, the monarchy and traditional forces—one side of the conflict—were excluded from peace negotiations. That exclusion has kept Nepal’s peace process incomplete even after 19 years.

India should avoid repeating past mistakes. Any unrest in Nepal will impact India, but engagement must respect Nepal’s sovereignty.

There was a large pro-monarchy rally in Kathmandu recently. Could the monarchy return?

The monarchy has always played a crucial role in Nepal’s formation and independence. In 2006, the demand was only for the king to hand power back to political parties and remain a constitutional monarch. External interference led to its abolition.

Even after being dethroned, King Gyanendra showed dignity, vacating the palace voluntarily and accepting life as a citizen. People remember that. Political parties, by contrast, have clung to power without responsibility.

Whether monarchy returns or not should be for the people of Nepal to decide, free from external interference. At the very least, political parties must review the consequences of abolishing it. The monarchy could re-enter politics in some form if the nation decides.

Do you believe there has been a complete breakdown of trust in Nepal’s democracy?

Yes, totally. Declaring parliament democratic means nothing if the state can carry out mass killings of its own citizens. Before any solution, trust must be rebuilt, and faith in institutions restored. Only then can Nepal move forward.

The content above has been transcribed from video using a fine-tuned AI model. To ensure accuracy, quality, and editorial integrity, we employ a Human-In-The-Loop (HITL) process. While AI assists in creating the initial draft, our experienced editorial team carefully reviews, edits, and refines the content before publication. At The Federal, we combine the efficiency of AI with the expertise of human editors to deliver reliable and insightful journalism.