Transcript | The Violence in Nepal Was Very Well Planned and was by Forces Other Than Gen Z Protestors

This was not just a case of students and others from Gen Z coming out on the street but the sheer mayhem the agitators caused. Politicians being lynched, and many buildings including parliament and the residences of the prime minister and others were set on fire. Nothing like this has been seen in other countries such as Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, where too violence has been seen on the streets. Things are calm now after the army took control after two days. Meanwhile, analysts and policy makers are processing the implications of what has just happened and also of the future. My guest today is Mahendra Lama who is an expert on Indonepali relations and who happened to be in Kathmandu last week. Mahendra is a development economist and is currently the emeritus chief economics advisor to the government of Sikkim. He was till recently on the eminent persons group set up by prime ministers of India and Nepal. He has written several books in English and Nepali. As you can see, he is quite up to date on events in Nepal and he joins me today to discuss what this violence means and what is going to happen in the future. Mahendra Lama, welcome to The Wire Talks.

Mahendra Lama (ML): Thank you very much. Thank you, Sidharth.

SB: Mahendra, you were in the city. You happened to be in the city during those violent days. What did you personally see and experience?

ML: Well, when I reached Kathmandu, it had not started at all. But there was some kind of air blowing around particularly on issues of internet possibility of internet social media banning by the government of Nepal and after I stay for initial few days I suddenly realised that the social media was banned by the government and after that, I could see a kind of a range of upsurges because in Nepali they call it ‘hukka paani band’ that means you are actually attacking or banning their daily foods. This is what they said and I could see people talking about it and that’s how the entire deadly and very very you know violent movement is started. I could see three very distinct trains during that particular time- particular period of time. One, a total failure of state machineries. One. Secondly, I could see multiple forces of all varieties joining the Gen Z movement and to a large extent disorienting the basic reasons for which this Gen Z movement was launched just in the course of 2-3 days. And third, I could see a kind of a unprecedented violence with massive destructions of public and private properties which I could never imagine would happen in Nepal and the most critical issue was, there was none to really control the situation. None to really tell the people what was happening. And thirdly, it seemed at a particular point of time, all the institutions both public, private and of course the civil society also collapsed.

SB: Now when you said just now in those three distinct streams of multiple forces joining Gen Z – what does that suggest? I mean, what are you trying to tell us?

ML: It’s quite clear, you know. First of all, it was the Nepalese government led by Prime Minister Oli. I think they did a major, major blunder by not sensitising people as to why the social media had to be banned. The social media, as far as I know, had to be banned because none of these social media related institutions had registered in Nepal. And the government was given very clear instructions by the Supreme Court that all of them have to register and have to have an office located in Kathmandu. This was amazing for me personally because so far including what we chat to WhatsApp to anything, you say had not registered so and government was totally at loss as to what to do in case of some kind of emergencies and people were also at loss because they didn’t know where to go, what to do, so there was a huge communication gap between what the government wanted to do and what people – particularly Gen Z perceived. First of all, I was surprised to see that Gen Z, instead of just concentrating on social media bans added two other important and very, very critical elements in their entire movement. One was corruption and the second was the state of poor governance in Nepal. Now, if it was just social media ban- because the young boys and girls they would not really- you know, I have seen during the tough- during the heights of the Maoist movement also I have myself written that the young boys and girls were not concerned at all as to what was happening in Nepal during those times. So this time also, they were not really concerned about immediately about corruption and the governance part. They were primarily focusing on lifting the ban on social media because it had hit them very, very badly. Now I could see that they were in a very jolly mood. When they were going, I could meet some of them because some of them were known to me and so I asked them “Where are you going?”. They said, look, we are going to protest, because they have, some of them say, ‘hukka paani band kar diya, isliye hum log jaa rahe hai’. But later on, I realised that that the frontline leadership when it started attacking parliament was taken over by forces other than definitely other than the Gen Z participants, I could clearly see that. Because Gen Z would never resort to- I don’t even think that they had ever thought of resorting to going to parliament, destroying parliamentary premises, all kinds of things, you know, but I could see a very clear move on the part of frontline leadership which were definitely not Gen Z going over to parliament trying to destroy and I could see there was a huge commotion and I could also see that there was a huge communication gap between different organs of the law and order institutions in the government and that’s how it started. And the first day left almost 19+ people killed, so many. So next day, you’ll be surprised, was relatively peaceful. So, I went to the famous Pashupathi Mandir then I went to other two temples. They were all- because I was coming back which I generally do, right? And they were all fine. But suddenly when I reached the airport- then, when I was going to the airport, I saw so many protesters on the street. Lot of fires around. So I had to really walk to the airport with a friend of mine. And that started, then I realised that the destruction had started and it really is going to prolong.

SB: Are you suggesting therefore that these were extremists of some kind, not part of Gen Z. Mischief makers, perhaps who got into the entire thing. Is that your suggestion?

ML: You see, it was not an ordinary flock of what you call ‘mischief makers’. It was very well-planned. It looked it- it was very well planned. It was also very well planned to put Gen Z in the front line initially and it was also very well planned to, you know, mobilise Gen Z first and mislead them, it was-It looked everything so well planned. There is a pattern, Sidharth, there’s a pattern Because you see, I’m just I’m just trying to give you a sequence. Violence started happening. Jailbreak happened. Large number of prisoners went out, including political prisoners. Attacked political leaders who had put them behind the bars. Attacked Supreme Court. Destroyed all the evidences in Supreme Court. They destroyed the investigated agency’s office. They destroyed the newspapers which supported this kind of arrests. Political arrests. So there was a very- and they destroyed those businessmen who were considered to be close to some political parties who in turn had put this- some of these people behind the bars. So there was a very, very absolutely clear sequence, you may call it ‘nexus’ in the entire incidents. So you could- so someone like me would really understand A) what is happening, you can really make it out that this is what is happening. So, that means what that means it cannot happen in the course of 24 hours even if it is spontaneous, even if it is out of high emotional outpourings, even if it is a kind of an upsurge by the youth, I have never seen such kind of things.

SB: That would mean that this banning of- two things, first, this banning of social media gave them the perfect excuse, that is one. And the Gen Z protest. And two, there has to be a level of organisation, thinking, and leadership behind the scenes which has promoted this kind of pattern which you talk about. Because you know even leaderless crowds or undirected crowds, even if they come out of prison will not know – this comes first, this comes second, this is how we set it on fire, these are the newspapers. So, is that a correct kind of assumption?

ML: Yes, yes. You see, it was well planned. Well, that is up to the investigative agencies to say what really happened. But my own views about the entire incident is it’s a very well sequenced, you know, arson, looting, mayhem, killing – all kinds of- it’s a very well designed, one. Secondly, I was quite surprised that why army was not summoned on the very first day. When the situation went out of control, when so many people were killed which is quite unprecedented in a peaceful country like Nepal and I was also amazed to see that why political parties did not mobilise themselves to really act on these antinational activities. I was amazed. Everyone was a mute spectator. And suddenly you will see prime minister has resigned. The home minister has resigned. The president is not traceable. The police is- The entire law and order machineries have withdrawn. Army is nowhere to be seen.

You know there was a total collapse of institutions and total collapse of all the political forces, and civil societies would not react to such a situation. At a particular point of time, I thought that everybody, every institution that mattered or the individuals that mattered were totally demobilised. I could never imagine such kind of things, for example, at the airport. At the airport, you’ll be surprised, that some people will suddenly come to us and say that you leave the airport quickly, quickly because the protesters are going to put the entire airport on fire and I would see some people standing outside the airport, the airlines, guides are all standing there. The second group will say you go out, go out immediately because there is a firing going on around again. But nobody would announce- no senior officials will come, no police officials will come, no security forces will come, all these young boys of airlines and all kinds of- they would come. So ultimately when we came out of the airport at around 12:30 at night to go to a nearby hotel, I could see situation to be better but hardly any security forces around the airport. So, it gives me an impression that either the institutions that were responsible for maintaining law and order, they were totally demobilised. Or it could be the case that the institutions which were supposed to do law and order, they themselves withdrew because of fear of being tortured, fear of being killed, all kinds of things. So it was- it was a harrowing experience.

SB: I’m just wondering at the sheer level of organisation and thinking because somebody would have had to make sure that all these things happen and this can’t happen within, you know, 12 hours or 24 hours. It could have been planned much earlier shall we say but- I’m just conjecturing here, Mahendra. I have no evidence, nothing, but I’m going by what you say that this banning social media was an excuse. Therefore, it could have happened at any other time too. So did you sense that this may be the case that something else could have triggered it off too? I’m basically saying creating this level of mayhem would have taken a long time to put in place.

ML: Yeah, yeah. See, it is not an ordinary spontaneous, emotion-led violence. It is a well-planned, well-structured, well-supported, well-financed, well-organised plan. A well-organised incident. Because they were so clear about which hotel to be burnt, which particular departmental store has to be destroyed and they were so very- which newspaper agency has to be attacked, which political leader has to be tortured. Everything was well planned. And that even if it is well planned, it cannot happen in just 12 hours. It happened in 12 hours, not even 24 hours. The first day was all about firing and killing the young boys and girls, which was deeply, deeply condemnable. But next day it started happening, I would say- because I came back to my hotel at around 9 and it was all fine and I left for the airport at around 11. So, it all started happening between 10 and 12. By that time, I thought everybody would have been, you know- they declared of course, curfews but no one was willing to listen to curfew and or abide by the curfew rules and all. So, it was a well-designed-but you know- it raises, Sidharth, much larger questions, I would say. One larger question, of course, is why people are so upset with the government and with the constitution and with what has evolved in the last 10 years after the constitution was launched in 2015. You know, I could see in the last 10 years so much of emotional upsurge, so much of protests right like the sudden eruptions of the pro- monarchy forces. The entire country fought against the monarchy and uprooted the institution of monarchy and within 10 to 20 years- the pro-monarchy parties are so strong. I was also amazed to see that the constitution of Nepal did not move and did not do anything related to the issues of Madhesh, where you have large number of Hindi- speaking people also. They could not do anything as far as the critical issue of ethnic groups – the tribals, the Adivasis there. They did not- could not do anything related to Dalits, anything related to women. It was such a sad situation- 10 years, I thought political parties would be able to address these critical issues. The only silver lining in the last 10 years in the entire functioning of the constitution was federal system. Creation of federal units and little bit of decentralizations or devolutions, otherwise nothing happened. So this was bound to come. And I could see almost 14 governments, 14 prime ministers came in the last 10 years. Can you imagine after the new constitution and some of them would last for 3 months, 4 months, 5 months but the most unfortunate was in these 14 governments and in the 10 years of democratic practices the prime ministers, more or less, were the same four persons. Same four persons. One party will support another or the Congress will come, sometimes Maoists come, sometimes the United Marxist Leninist Communist Party will come and the prime minister will be the same. So today if political parties say that this was a movement done by this, my only question to all the political parties were, your political party was responsible for everything which is happening in Nepal today because there were very, very clear signals that this is going to happen because people were so frustrated in a village, in a town, in a city like Kathmandu, in institutions. And the third very critical issue I could see in the last 10 years was every institutions, every individuals, every organisations of social, cultural were deeply, deeply politicised and it was so deeply politicised that no one could control anyone right and that was the situation. I just wanted to say that, you know, the corruption part of it. We have been following what has happened in Nepal in the last almost 50-60 years since the first democratically elected government was done in 1959 which lasted for just 18 months, that was the prime minister BP Koirala, and after that how King Mahendra brought Panchayati Raj. And, since then till today billions and billions of dollars would have gone into Nepal in the name of foreign economic assistance. And look at the condition of Nepal today. It is so very clear that this foreign economic assistance of billions and billions of dollars would have created just one supra economy based primarily in Kathmandu. And monopolized by political leaders, bureaucrats, army, the people who were associated with monarchy and now are most of their children are studying abroad. Their children are very, very extraordinarily rich. So, naturally when you have a system on the one hand of that nature- a distinct supra economy enjoyed by some set of people. On the other hand, 30% of Nepal’s GDP would come from repatriated funds from abroad. Remittances. That means what? Each Nepali citizen national would pay lakhs and lakhs and rupees to go and work in a hotel in Israel. You have that situation. So they could see from Israel, from Japan, from China, from Malaysia, and Dubai, they could see why they had to come out of their country. One. Secondly, why there is a class which just enjoys does nothing for the country. No, they don’t have love and dedication for the building of Nepal. So it was very, very clear, I tell you. I was reading a statement by the foreign ministry -In 2023 alone, 16 lakh young Nepalis left Nepal for going abroad. And if you go to a country like Japan today which is so strict in bringing people from other countries, Japan has allowed almost 200,000 Nepalese to come and work there. So you can see a huge use for us.

SB: And from what one has been seeing on social media here is that the children of politicians etc. are not only enjoying life elsewhere. They are quite blatant in showing that they are enjoying life. And what better example of corruption can there be?

ML: So far, it remained a kind of suppressed trend. But as social media came into being, everyone started getting exposed, particularly the political leadership. But, Sidharth, what I am very concerned about is the violence part of it. Nepal is essentially a society, a country, a community which is peace-loving. I’ve seen ups and downs in Nepal in the last 40-45 years. The entire monarchy was uprooted, Maoist movement took place. The Maoist leaders, when they started mobilising anti-monarchy forces, they mobilised mostly the Dalits, the people from Madhesh, the ethnic groups like Rai, Limbu, Gurung, Tamang, Buddhias, Sarpas, Thami. And the Maoists led by, I would not hesitate to say, led by Prachanda brought absolutely a new culture in Nepal that with violence and with mayhem, you can do whatever you want. But that kind of political culture was consciously developed, consciously promoted by a leader like Prachanda. And he could do nothing to really improve the social, economic and cultural positions of any of these groups. But he enjoyed, what brought him as a kind of political dividends. He did that. And this is the cost of introducing, promoting, and consolidating violence in a country like Nepal. So I would definitely say these people who brought so much of violence in the countries, they should be held responsible for an act like this because Nepalese are not destructive by nature. They are, of course, warriors. They go to the warfront, famous for beheading their enemies with their cookeries. Large number of them got Param Vir Chakras, Victoria Crosses. And they are famous for that battlefield. But they are never famous for destroying even the next door household. But here is an instance that that they could destroy the most famous institutions. Singha Dadva, Prime minister’s residence, supreme courts, police related institutions, private properties of top businessmen, but I could never think that the Nepalese communities would resort to such kind of means and such kind of destructions.

SB: I’m just distilling some things a few things that you said. Is there nostalgia for the monarchy or is that still not there?

ML: It is not nostalgia for monarchy, Sidharth, because people were really, really upset with what monarchy has done in in Nepal. Yes, there was a monarchy headed by King Mahendra. He did so much for Nepal but he did so little for again, women, ethnic groups, Dalits, the people at Madhesh. So, the present inclination or talk of monarchy is not because people love monarchy or they want monarchy to come back, it is because of they don’t have any alternatives. All the political parties of different ideologies, of different huge colours, they came out of the same box and went back to the same box. So people wanted an alternative and now when the Gen Z happened, now as a consequence of Gen Z, if election happens then you will know where pro monarchy stands, where the old the so-called political parties who have been doing this and that would stand, and where a new set of individuals, political parties and organisations would stand. It’s going to be absolutely clear if election happens in the course of next one year or so. It’s going to be absolutely clear. Then only you can say that how many people are in favour of monarchy, how many people are in favour of political parties like Maoist or Nepali Congress or even CPI and UML, and how many people are interested in absolutely a new set of institutions, new set of thinking, and new set of organisation. It’s going to be absolutely clear.

SB: Is there a danger, Mahendra, that there could be someone who, like the army, gets into the act?

ML: Well, in Nepal unlike in Bangladesh, unlike in Pakistan, army has never been in the forefront. Army was once totally controlled by the monarchy. Even then, it remained confined to barracks. Only if they were needed to be outside they came. During the Maoist movement also, army was very much in the forefront to deal with the Maoist violence but as soon as situation improves, they withdrew back to barracks. So, I don’t think army would be interested in capturing political institutions and power because they are not trained, they are not oriented, and they are not sensitised to do such kind of activities. They are not nurtured at all as an institution. So I see a very, very less possibility of army doing something which is extra constitutional and all but I tell you- yes?

SB: That’s really good to know but now that the violence has happened now that the army’s place, it’s become quieter etc., so that that catharsis, so to speak, has happened. What is the mood among ordinary Nepalis about their country?

ML: I spoke to quite a few Nepalis who have been in the governance system, who have been in the forefront of civil society movements and as of today all most of the people would desire for two things in Nepal come what has happened. They want a deep politicised interim government. Led by multi-ethnic organisations or leaders. Led by multi-professional, multifunctional leaders. So they would like to form a government which is far, far away from, totally detached or distant from the present set of political parties, the Congress, the UML, the Maoists. They want that. But they also want that this interim council set up by the present dispensation, particularly against the backdrop of the Gen Z should do only two things. One, look into the law and order situations with the help of police and army and secondly, conduct the elections as early as possible. I think people are keenly looking forward to this. They don’t want this interim council to talk about constitutions, federalism, the power of the military, the power of this and that. They just want them to maintain law and order and go for the elections. And in elections, whoever comes, it’s fine, they will do whatever is needed to be done and this is a desperate situation that requires a desperate solution. So, I see the president raising issues about constitution. I see political parties raising issues about political systems, political ethos, political institutions. I would say the president could call a meeting of all the political parties, of all the political representatives, do a meeting and dissolve the parliament. Dissolve the parliament and go for a fresh election. I think that would do. The only condition, the only condition, in the entire exercise should be when they constitute this interim council, interim government, whatever they say, it should have adequate representations of ethnic communities, Dalits, people from Madhesh, and women and, of course, some professional organisations. But if it again brings a kind of deeply politicised individuals, if it also brings deeply casteist political parties, it would bring further disorientations and contestations of violent nature.

SB: But how can we avoid, because the elections are the elections. If they get elected, what do you do?

ML: If the next election brings back the same people I think it would be acceptable to Gen Z also. But I would never think that same set of people, same set of political parties, same set of political ideologies would come back to power again in Nepal because Gen Z is all about throwing these redundant forces from the political systems in the country. So this would give absolutely a brilliant opportunities for the people of Nepal to do something solid, something substantive, and something meaningful as far as political institutions and representations are concerned. I’m sure it is going to happen but the bringing the political parties into parliament, political representatives into parliament should not take long. It should happen as quickly as possible. And that’s quite possible because Election Commission in Nepal is pretty fine. They have been doing this. So, I think election commission would do a great job in doing this. But it has to be done in the course of just 6 to 12 months, nothing more than that. Nothing beyond that.

SB: At the moment there is no interim council. Are you saying that if disappointment comes in again at some stage in the next 6 to 12 months or later, there could be trouble again?

ML: Oh, yes, yes. I’m telling you, if the setting up of interim council is not handled meaningfully, effectively, and far-sightedly with representations from critical constituents of Nepal, the council will fail from the very first day. Failing council would mean that this is a resort Gen Z has resorted to. Failing Gen Z’s own initiative would bring nothing but violence, more frustrations, more instability in a country like this. At this moment, political parties should keep quiet and they should prepare for the elections if they would like to contest. At this moment, let country have a semblance of stability, law and order and let country go for a fresh elections. Whoever participates and whoever wins, whoever forms the government, I think that would be acceptable to Gen Z. This is what they are expecting and they are expecting that the older varieties of political parties and the political leaders would not be able to mobilise people to form a government and they are very clear about it. Because this agitation, this Gen Z movement is not related to Kathmandu. The political parties of these all three varieties in the past give an impression that Kathmandu is Nepal and Nepal is Kathmandu. Whereas Gen Z movement very clearly showed that Kathmandu is not Nepal and Nepal is not Kathmandu. There are people in seven federal units. There are people in 75 districts spread over the highest point and the lowest point. So, I think this is going to be a real challenge and this will bring forth a kind of a major, major transformation in the Nepalese political economy.

SB: Because you are a person who knows this subject the best, how is India perceiving this situation? It’s happening in its neighbourhood, in a country that is critical for India. How is India perceiving this?

ML: See, India is a major factor in Nepal historically, politically, culturally, economically. So India has to, of course, do what national interest demands but also has to do something that would bring stability in Nepal. A kind of a durable stability, durable peace, durable development in Nepal. And in that context I would only like to say that India, in the last 10 years did not do anything that would make Nepal institutionally strong. I have been saying that we have a federal system where you have the worst also, you have the best also. So Nepal take the best part of our federal systems. Please help Nepal in building institutions at in different federal units – the judiciary, the executive, the schools, universities, so that it becomes a strong federal country but India really did not work on these lines. It did some work on connectivity issues. So, India also has to now change its total orientations towards handling Nepal. The way situations happened in Bangladesh, in Sri Lanka, in Maldives should have given us adequate lessons that you cannot be a particular political party and individual and regime centric. You have to work for the entire country. And by now, I think we have realized India has to change its entire strategy and approaches in dealing with a very, very sensitive country with an open border with India in future.

SB: Well, I must say that you’ve given dimensions that I have not particularly read in other places and you just happen to be there and saw it and that has really added much to this discussion that I’ve had with you, Mahendra. So thank you so much for taking part in this. That was Mahendra Lama, eminent academic and very, very keen observer in Nepal. As he said, he’s been observing Nepal for several decades and who just happened to be there when this mayhem and violence happened in the country for 2 days and he provided us not just the wider perspective but also the ground level reporting, so to speak, which has helped us understand the every dimension of this terrible situation. So thank you once again and we’ll be back once again with another guest soon. Till then, from me Sidharth Bhatia, and the rest of The Wire team, goodbye.