By Our Reporter
The BBC is not a random online channel. It is the British Broadcasting Corporation, funded by the UK public. When it broadcasts in both English and Nepali just before a national vote, people will question intent. Nepal’s Election Commission objected and asked the Press Council Nepal to remove the video. The request has not been acted upon. That adds to the sense that the release was meant to create maximum impact at a sensitive political moment.
The political context matters. The Gen Z protests erupted when traditional parties were in power. Public anger targeted corruption, elite privilege and restrictions on social media platforms. Newer political forces positioned themselves as alternatives. By framing the unrest largely as state repression, without equal weight to the violence that followed, the documentary indirectly strengthens anti-establishment narratives. Voters who feel betrayed by established parties may see the film as proof that the old guard cannot be trusted.
But the story of September 2025 was not simple. Protest organizers Miraj Dhungana and Purushottam Yadav had secured permission for a peaceful rally. They urged students to attend in college uniform. Later, they said the protest was hijacked. A biker group allegedly infiltrated the march. Protesters breached the Federal Parliament building, set fires in Singha Durbar and the Supreme Court, looted police weapons and attacked officers. Within 27 hours, core state institutions were in flames. The army had to deploy. Former Chief Justice Sushila Karki was later appointed to head an interim government.
The documentary does not fully address these developments. Nor does it explore the use of Discord and other digital tools to coordinate actions. A QR code shared online before the protest reportedly led to a server titled “Discord Server of Youth Against Corruption.” These details matter. They complicate the idea of a purely peaceful movement crushed by force.
Former IGP Chandrakuber Khapung has rejected the claim that a specific order to fire was issued after curfew. He says that once curfew is declared, officers act according to law and field conditions. He also questioned how sensitive police communication data appeared in the documentary. Police are now investigating possible leaks from within the system. If internal information was shared without authorization, that is a separate and serious issue.
Activist Tanuja Pandey has raised uncomfortable questions as well. Who ignored calls to disperse when infiltration warnings surfaced around 11 am? Who spread the belief that police would not act against those in school uniform? Who coordinated attacks on Singha Durbar and the arson at Bhatbhateni Supermarket, where seven people died? These are not minor details. They shape the moral and political meaning of the unrest.
Releasing a selective narrative days before voting can tilt the field. It can push undecided voters toward new parties that promise a clean break from the past. It can also weaken public trust in institutions that were already under strain. Media has every right to investigate and criticize. Yet timing and balance matter. When a powerful foreign broadcaster steps into a live electoral moment, it must expect questions about motive.
Nepal deserves a full accounting of what happened in September 2025. That requires waiting for the commission’s report, examining all sides, and resisting the urge to turn tragedy into campaign fuel. Elections should rest on facts, not fragments. Until the complete picture emerges, any attempt to fix blame in advance risks deepening division rather than strengthening democracy.
Login to add a comment