By Rabi Raj Thapa

Nepal Police celebrated its 70th anniversary this year. Over the past seven decades, the organization has experienced numerous ups and downs in its service to the nation under the motto “Truth–Service–Security.”

Now, why are there so many raised eyebrows concerning the morale and motivation of the Nepal Police after seventy years of its existence? Is the Gen-Z movement solely responsible for the decline and deterioration of internal security agencies like Nepal Police, or are there deeper, inherent factors that have gradually eroded the credibility of this once-respected institution?

What could explain the drastic shift between the showering of bullets on September 8 and the total surrender the very next day—when police personnel allowed themselves to be lynched, beaten, their barracks ransacked, and thousands of semi-automatic rifles and over one hundred thousand live bullets looted?

Similar incidents occurred in Kalimati, Kathmandu, where six police personnel were beaten to death and several others injured shortly after the first Jana Andolan in 1990. That violence reportedly reflected public anger over police actions during the pro-democracy movement. Later, in Tikapur in western Nepal, six police personnel, including a Senior Superintendent of Police, were brutally lynched and many others injured. More recently, violence against police was again witnessed during the September 2025 Gen-Z protests.

Such repeated lynching of police personnel remain a riddle for Nepal Police, as well as for security and political analysts—issues that have never been taken seriously by police organizations, their oversight bodies (such as the Home Ministry), or particularly the home ministers and prime ministers themselves. In almost all such incidents, blame has either fallen on the lowest ranks or on the topmost commanders.

The root of the problem lies in the cause-and-effect cycle of declining morale within the police organization. Once morale is lost, officers become confused about what to do and whom to obey.

There is a saying: “Morale and motivation are like an eggshell—it is very easy to break but almost impossible to make.” The Gen-Z protests, their suppression, and the ensuing public retaliation have once again shattered police morale within just 36 hours of upheaval.

Recent attacks on police personnel and stations have raised serious questions about the trust and credibility of police–public relations. These incidents show that the mutual trust and confidence between police and the public have become precarious, fragile, and politicized—making them very difficult to mend quickly or effectively.

Today, it is not only the morale of police personnel that has hit rock bottom, but that of the entire nation. When people feel insecure, they naturally look to their government, national stakeholders, and leaders for protection. But when those very leaders start hiding and running helter-skelter to save their own lives, the public inevitably begins seeking better options and credible alternatives.

At present, the morale of the people—who desire stability and a better system—is more crucial than that of the security forces. Past experiences show that security institutions like the police can recover faster than the general public, who are often demoralized by the very leaders and stakeholders controlling those forces. Time and again, Nepal’s security forces have demonstrated remarkable resilience and recovery—whether during the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, or even throughout the decade-long armed conflict from 1996 to 2006.

However, it is unfortunate that even government oversight bodies appear indifferent to institutional grievances, injustices, and discriminations faced by police personnel—primarily at the hands of political leaders.

There seems to be no end to arbitrary orders and political monopolization over uniformed personnel. This will inevitably lead to further incidents where police officers become the government’s sacrificial lambs time and again.

A recent example is the denial by ousted Prime Minister K. P. Oli, who claimed he had not given any order to shoot at demonstrators—an assertion both preposterous and outrageous. Equally shameful is Home Minister Ramesh Lekhak’s attempt to save his own skin by evading responsibility, claiming he did not order the use of force. Such statements blatantly shift blame and burden onto the lowest-ranking, law-abiding police personnel—those who risk their lives and careers by sincerely obeying the government’s directives.