Biratnagar, Nepal: Nepali Congress President Gagan Thapa’s recent demand for a high-level judicial commission to investigate the Bhadra 24 (September 9) violence has thrust a critical question back into Nepal's political spotlight: Is the government genuinely pursuing accountability, or is it selectively engineering justice to protect state apparatuses? Speaking from the politically historic Koirala Residence in Biratnagar, Thapa took a sharp, uncompromising stance against what he described as the state's deliberate attempt to "cover up" the severe institutional failures and state-sponsored violence that marked the climax of the youth-led 'Gen Z Movement'. While Thapa’s demands reflect growing public frustration, they also highlight a deeper systemic failure in Nepal's law enforcement, intelligence gathering, and political crisis management.
The backbone of Thapa’s critique rests on the findings of the high-level probe committee led by former judge Gauri Bahadur Karki. The document highlights a critical lack of operational coordination between the Ministry of Home Affairs, local administration, and active security units on the ground. This institutional blindness was further compounded by an intelligence bankruptcy, as authorities completely failed to gauge the scale and digital-first mobilization strategies of the Gen Z protesters, leading to panic-driven responses. Consequently, field commanders resorted to lethal and disproportionate force in areas where crowds could have been managed through standard, de-escalatory policing techniques.
Despite these exhaustive findings, the government's subsequent actions have been lopsided, focusing almost entirely on the initial clashes of Bhadra 23. This selective focus effectively shields high-ranking bureaucratic and security officials from accountability regarding the catastrophic escalation on Bhadra 24. While Thapa clarified that the Nepali Congress fully supports the ongoing investigations and legal proceedings regarding the first day of unrest, he labeled the official silence on the subsequent destruction as deeply mysterious. On Bhadra 24, the violence breached traditional protest boundaries, expanding into a national security crisis that spanned from the Koirala Residence in Biratnagar to Chaksibari in Kathmandu, and dangerously close to the corridors of absolute power—Singha Durbar and the President's Office. By focusing only on Day 1, the state treats the subsequent loss of civilian and police lives as mere collateral damage rather than the direct result of faulty tactical decisions and excessive state retaliation.
Thapa’s warning against turning this tragedy into a "tool for political bargaining" is a crucial acknowledgment of how past probe commissions in Nepal have been used—not to uncover truth, but to buy time and pacify public anger until the news cycle moves on. To ensure this inquiry serves the public interest rather than partisan politics, a constructive approach must be adopted. This includes establishing an independent judicial commission led by a sitting or retired Supreme Court Justice with full subpoena powers, completely insulated from the Ministry of Home Affairs. Furthermore, the state must phase out antiquated, militarized crowd-control methods in favor of modern, non-lethal, globally accepted riot-management protocols to minimize casualties and prevent the further radicalization of the youth demographic.
Ultimately, the Gen Z movement is not an isolated event; it is a symptom of a larger, systemic malaise. It represents a generation grappling with high unemployment, systemic corruption, and a profound alienation from the traditional political class. If the state continues to view youth dissatisfaction purely as a law-and-order problem to be crushed by force, it will only succeed in driving the frustration deeper underground, setting the stage for even more volatile disruptions in the future. Establishing a transparent judicial commission for Bhadra 24 is no longer just a political demand by an opposition figure; it is a necessary litmus test for whether Nepal’s democracy can hold its own institutions accountable to its future generation.
