By P.R. Pradhan
The communal violence that erupted last week in Dewangunj Rural Municipality of Sunsari and quickly spread to other districts is a matter of grave concern. Three young men lost their lives after being shot, while dozens of others sustained injuries in clashes that exposed the growing fragility of communal harmony in Nepal.
According to reports, the confrontation began when a group of Hindu devotees passed through a Muslim neighbourhood with loudspeakers playing Hindu bhajans (devotional songs). Members of the Muslim community objected, saying the procession disrupted their prayers. What could have been resolved through dialogue soon escalated into violent clashes, forcing the local administration to impose curfews for several days to restore order.
Unfortunately, such incidents have become increasingly frequent in recent years. Nepal, once known for its remarkable religious tolerance and peaceful coexistence among diverse communities, is witnessing an alarming rise in communal tension. During the Panchayat era, incidents of this nature were extremely rare.
Since the political changes of 2006, successive governments have increasingly pursued identity-based politics under the banner of inclusiveness. Critics argue that this approach has encouraged social divisions rather than national unity. They contend that, following the 12-point Delhi Agreement, Nepal was transformed into a secular federal republic despite the reservations of a large section of the population, thereby fundamentally altering the country’s traditional socio-political foundation.
Concerns have also been raised regarding amendments to the citizenship law and the management of Nepal’s open border with India. Critics claim that the liberal distribution of citizenship certificates, combined with inadequate border regulation, has facilitated illegal migration and created long-term demographic and security challenges. They further allege that individuals from neighbouring countries—including India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Myanmar’s Rohingya population—as well as Tibetan refugees have entered Nepal by taking advantage of the porous and open border, thereby placing additional pressure on the country’s social fabric.
President Ramchandra Paudel for authenticating the citizenship bill that had previously been withheld by then President Bidya Devi Bhandari on constitutional and legal grounds, is solely responsible for the present conflict. Furthermore, Pushpakamal Dahal “Prachanda”, Baburam Bhattarai, Upendra Yadav, CK Raut, all Tarai-centric leaders, among others, are solely responsible for such communal conflict.
The Maoist insurgency is a clear lesson. During that period, hundreds of armed groups operated in Nepal’s southern border districts, with many reportedly using safe havens across the open border while carrying out criminal activities inside Nepal. Security analysts have long argued that weak border management creates opportunities for organised crime, arms trafficking, and the infiltration of extremist elements. Some security sources further allege that international agencies, including the UNHCR and the International Organization for Migration (IOM), have indirectly contributed to demographic and migration-related challenges through their refugee management policies. Regardless of political interpretations, one fact is beyond dispute: communal violence poses a serious threat to Nepal’s national unity, social stability, and economic development. Religious processions and prayers must be conducted with mutual respect, while law enforcement agencies must act impartially and decisively against anyone who incites violence, regardless of religious or political affiliation. Political leaders should refrain from exploiting religious identity for electoral gains and instead promote dialogue, tolerance, and the rule of law.
Security experts have suggested several measures to prevent similar incidents. These include strengthening border management, maintaining comprehensive records of individuals entering Nepal through the open border, reviewing the process through which citizenship certificates have been issued since the restoration of multiparty democracy in 1990, and enhancing intelligence coordination to identify extremist networks before they exploit communal grievances. Some have also advocated the construction of physical barriers along sensitive sections of the Nepal-India border to improve monitoring and discourage illegal cross-border movement.
If Nepal’s political leadership continues to ignore the growing signs of communal polarization and fails to address legitimate security concerns through transparent and lawful means, the country risks deeper social fragmentation. The responsibility of preserving national harmony lies not only with security agencies but also with the political leadership, whose primary duty is to unite the nation rather than divide it along religious, ethnic, or ideological lines.
Login to add a comment