By Rabi Raj Thapa
Since the promulgation of the federal constitution, Nepal has envisaged a three-tier internal security arrangement, with metropolitan police forces operating at the local level.
When 25-year-old Ganesh Pariyar, who worked hard to support his family, allegedly felt intolerably harassed by the Kathmandu Metropolitan Police Force, he took petrol from his locked motorcycle and set himself on fire in front of the same police personnel and members of the public. The incident raises a fundamental question: What kind of police agencies do we have, and what are they actually there for?
Today, Nepal has six metropolitan cities, which represent the highest level of urban local government. Just imagine megacities such as New York, New Delhi, Beijing, and London, where metropolitan police, state or provincial police, federal police, and numerous specialized law enforcement agencies work within clearly defined jurisdictions to maintain internal security.
In countries such as the United States, the Department of Justice oversees effective policing and crime prevention through community-oriented policing programs. The recent incident in Kathmandu should serve as a wake-up call to reassess the rationale behind aggressively collecting fines from motorcycle riders and students who are already struggling to earn a living and pursue their education.
A major challenge of urban policing is the duplication of responsibilities and the overcrowding of personnel from multiple agencies with overlapping mandates, leaving the public confused about who is responsible for what.
Recently, an anonymous opinion posted on X (formerly Twitter) stated: “The City of London Police should be abolished and merged into the Metropolitan Police. It makes no sense to have two police forces for the same city, particularly given the financial cost” (July 11, 2026). This reflects a broader public concern that taxpayers are burdened with funding police forces that often appear more focused on harassment than on providing public service.
Today, ordinary citizens mostly encounter metropolitan personnel either at tax collection counters or on the streets, where police are often seen issuing fines rather than providing assistance or ensuring public safety.
However, when it is time to hold a metropolitan office accountable, an overzealous federal minister often intervenes, loudly defending the institution in Parliament instead of allowing the local government to answer for its actions.
In reality, the federal government should focus on policy formulation and oversight while allowing local governments to implement those policies and remain accountable for their performance.
Regarding the late Ganesh Pariyar’s self-immolation, it should have been the Acting Mayor of Kathmandu who came forward to address the issue, rather than the Home Minister, whose primary responsibility is to guide and supervise the relevant stakeholders within the broader framework of internal security. Instead, his emotional outbursts in the federal Parliament have undermined the spirit of the three-tier system of government envisaged by the constitution.
It is also questionable that the Karki Commission devoted so little attention to the role of the metropolitan police during the violent incidents of March 25 and September 8–9 in Kathmandu, during which the mayor and the metropolitan security apparatus should also have been held accountable.
Today, the Kathmandu Valley Police—formerly known as the Valley Metropolitan Police—consists of three ranges, eighteen circles, sixty sectors, three Area Police Offices, and twenty-three Police Posts. At the same time, Kathmandu has the heavily publicized metropolitan police introduced under Mayor Balen Shah, while Lalitpur has its own metropolitan police force. Similar uniformed metropolitan police units have also been established in other cities across the country.
The question, therefore, is why the people of the Kathmandu Valley need so many security personnel belonging to different agencies, yet still feel unsafe and insecure. The problem appears to lie not only in numbers but also in institutional attitudes, overlapping mandates, and poor coordination.
The time has come for the government to seriously review the current state of policing and law enforcement from the local to the federal level.
The late Ganesh Pariyar’s self-immolation tragically illustrates the shortcomings of an ad hoc policing system that extends from local authorities to the federal administration.
Home Minister Sudan Gurung should explore ways to replace the current ad hoc approach to police administration with a more professional and accountable system. Greater emphasis should be placed on training local police personnel to prevent abuse, eliminate duplication of operations, ensure the appropriate use of police authority, and strengthen public trust.
Likewise, if mayors genuinely wish to improve the management of their metropolitan police forces, they must familiarize themselves with the principles of effective policing and crime prevention and ensure that these principles are reflected in the training and conduct of their personnel. There are countless opportunities to learn, improve, and become effective leaders. Good leadership—not excessive enforcement—is what ultimately defines a successful mayor.
The writer is a former AIG of the Armed Police Force who previously served as a senior officer in the Nepal Police.
Login to add a comment