By Rabi Raj Thapa
Formation of an investigation commission on any incident has always been treated like a fashion where multiple government and non-government entities compete to show their authority rather than to redress the problems and grievances of common Nepali citizens.
Since the political change of 1990, Nepal has seen and gone through many commissions like the Mullik Commission (1990) and Raimajhi Commission (2006) that ultimately ended in futility and redundancy except for the Nepal Police. For example, the first commission report called “The Mullik Commission Report” got no hearing. On 23 April, a mob in Kalimati, Kathmandu, attacked and lynched six policemen, with more than 30 police personnel severely beaten and hospitalized on April 23, 1990. There was no investigation or probe of any kind. Then Prime Minister Krishna Prasad Bhattarai and Home Minister Yog Prasad Upadhaya just ignored the incident. When Justice Mullik submitted his report on December 31, it ended up locked in the Prime Minister’s locker. No recommendations were heeded.
Then another similar investigation called the “Raimajhi Commission” was formed to investigate the excessive use of power by all police agencies in 2006 by Prime Minister G. P. Koirala, initiated by Pushpakamal Dahal Prachanda and Home Minister Krishna Sitaula. Then the government first suspended the chiefs and second-in-command of Nepal Police, Armed Police Force, and National Investigation Department (Nepal’s only dedicated intelligence agency). Encouraged by the events, the succeeding Prime Minister, Comrade Pushpa Kamal Dahal, also tried to sack the Commander-in-Chief but lost his own premiership instead.
Hence, the hounding of security personnel in Nepal has never ceased to date.
Once again, a violent incident unfolded in Tinkune, Kathmandu, on March 28, 2025, that tragically echoed a similar painful continuity. That day also, police used excessive force that became the cause of mayhem that killed two people, and countless individuals suffered injuries from tear gas and the excessive use of police force. When many Nepali citizens and social activists approached and pleaded with both the National Human Rights Commission and the government, they completely turned a deaf ear and began a manhunt alleging involvement in organized crime instead.
Thereafter, the same Oli and Ramesh Lekhak government used brutal force to suppress the Gen-Z peaceful protest, applying the same tools and tactics that killed 76 young demonstrators and injured thousands. In this regard, thanks to the government led by Sushila Karki, which formed the Justice Gauri Bahadur Karki Commission on the 16th day of the incident. Then the Commission submitted its report to the Prime Minister on March 8, and it was made public through an informal channel on March 25, 2026. Now the Council of Ministers has formed a committee with Justice Prem Raj Karki as coordinator, which is going to investigate the security agencies, their operations, and fault lines soon.
Now the synopsis of Nepal’s Human Rights Commission (NHRC) on the Gen-Z protest has come like a bolt from the blue. As it claims to be more than 1,000 pages, it would be too early to get excited and replace or overrule all government investigations and findings.
It is a well-known fact that no commission report can be one hundred percent perfect. But it would be unfortunate for the NHRC to challenge and contradict the truth and facts, without fully acknowledging the recommendations of the two commissions formed by the government.
The first question is when people will have access to the detailed NHRC investigation report before concluding its credence and credibility.
The intention, purpose, and contents of NHRC commissioner Lily Thapa’s report look good, but still there are many questions that need to be well responded to.
First of all, all three commissions should complement rather than contradict one another so that the purpose and intentions of the reports do not get compromised and hence diluted. Therefore, the NHRC report that has come after Justice Gauri Bahadur Karki’s report would have been better if it had come as a supplementary and corrective guideline to support and fill in the gaps as an addendum.
The report should not sound like the theorization of another conspiracy theory. Assertions and assumptions like “elements aimed to hijack the movement from the Gen-Z!” (Article 3 of the NHRC Report) only added confusion and euphemism; a fake Facebook account of Nepal Police (Article 4) is a serious allegation against the credibility of Nepal Police. A lot of unspecified diversion on TOB, TATOO, and Bike Groups (Article 8 of the NHRC Report), and the use of students as shields by other unspecified elements, need more explanation and clarification.
To label a Nepali police personnel member powerless (Nistej), ineffective (Prabhav-hin), inactive (Niskriya), and a dumb witness (Muk-Darshak) is prejudiced, insulting, and derogatory (Article 24 of the NHRC Report). Retrospective recommendations like 10-year sentences to the security chiefs and two years’ salary as a fine are flimsy and impractical (Article 25).
Investigation reports do not use political jargons like “the political goal of a state should be to consolidate a federal democratic federalism,” which does not suit any investigative report.
Therefore, whoever is in power and position needs to learn to respect and give proper regard to the government findings, government agencies, and their assigned personalities as well.
Why are successive governments of Nepal infatuated with the cat-and-mouse game in all matters related to public order and internal security?
Login to add a comment