Spread the love

By P.R. Pradhan

Since the political transition of 1990, Nepal has been steadily deteriorating across nearly all sectors of national organs. The incident of September 8 and 9 exposed the fragility of the state’s security apparatus, particularly the Nepal Police and the Armed Police Force, which failed to maintain their duty during a critical moment. The collapse of the K.P. Sharma Oli–led government following the Gen-Z movement added further constitutional chaos. Yet on September 10, President Ramchandra Paudel claimed he had faced a major challenge in protecting the constitution. His statement contrasts with unfolding developments. The Supreme Court is now reviewing matters related to a constitutional breakdown, especially after Sushila Karki was appointed prime minister in a manner widely viewed as violating constitutional provisions. As a result, the constitution appears to exist more in theory than in practice. Its structural weaknesses, combined with the irresponsible conduct of senior leaders of major parties, have contributed significantly to Nepal’s downward trajectory. Today, the nation stands at a critical juncture where institutional collapse feels increasingly plausible.

The political turbulence in Madhesh Province clearly reflects the failures of federalism. Provincial structures—envisioned as mechanisms to bring governance closer to the people—have instead become platforms for political leaders to secure positions without producing tangible results. More concerning is the way these structures have fostered sentiments that encourage fragmentation. In the aftermath of the recent unrest in the Madhesh Province, C.K. Raut, chair of the Janamat Party, argued that the moment was appropriate to declare Madhesh an autonomous and self-reliant nation, a move many interpret as an early attempt to divide the country. Saroj Yadav, the newly appointed chief minister of Madhesh Province, further alleged that diplomats from the office of the Consulate General on India, in Birgunj were urging local political leaders to push for autonomy of the Madhesh Province. These developments underscore growing vulnerabilities in Nepal’s internal cohesion.

A stable nation relies on several essential pillars. First is a strong, self-reliant, and dynamic economy capable of supporting national development. Second is a robust security system that can safeguard sovereignty and protect citizens. Third is an effective intelligence and counter-intelligence apparatus that can anticipate and neutralize threats. Finally, political leadership must be visionary, disciplined, and genuinely committed to national service. Unfortunately, these pillars have been systematically weakened over the past decades. The decline began after 1990 and accelerated markedly after 2006, with political instability, factionalism, and external interference steadily eroding state institutions.

Today, Nepal has effectively become a playground for foreign interests. The September 8 Gen-Z movement—initially a youth-driven uprising—was reportedly hijacked by foreign-funded organizations, particularly American NGOs linked to the Open Society network. The memorandum submitted on November 14 by the Gen-Z Movement Alliance and the Council of Gen-Z to Prime Minister Sushila Karki contains demands closely aligned with American/European agendas. Although several Gen-Z groups, including “Gen-Z for Monarchy,” participated in the movement, they have been sidelined now. The human cost was severe: 76 Nepali citizens, nearly half of them Gen-Z demonstrators, were shot dead by state security forces, and thousands were injured. The youth rose in hopes of transformative change, yet the outcome was merely a change of leadership—Oli replaced by Karki—without addressing deeper structural issues. Such superficial responses only weaken national institutions further.

Continuing under a constitution that has repeatedly failed to provide stability will not move the nation forward. The document should be reconsidered—or even scrapped—without further delay. Fresh elections, as announced by the government, are not an appropriate remedy for the current political chaos. Nepal urgently needs honest and patriotic leadership rather than politicians who act as instruments of foreign influence. With genuine leadership, the present crisis could be resolved quickly; without it, the turmoil will only intensify.

Given Nepal’s vulnerable geopolitical position, the relevance of King Birendra’s Zone of Peace proposal—endorsed by 116 nations—has grown significantly. In light of today’s existential challenges, revisiting this proposal is essential. For similar reasons, many continue to advocate for restoring the more stable 1990 constitution as a practical path toward national recovery. Nepal now has limited time to decide whether it will remain a sovereign, independent nation or risk losing its identity as a proud and unified Nepali state.