By Our Reporter
The growing presence of retired Nepali Army officials in key government positions is raising an uncomfortable question for the Balendra Shah government: is a civilian administration becoming too reliant on people with military backgrounds?
The question carries extra weight because of how this government came to power. Since the Gen Z movement last September, opposition parties have repeatedly questioned whether the Nepali Army had any role in the political transition that followed. Those claims require evidence and should not be treated as established fact. But the government’s growing reliance on former military officers for important appointments is creating a perception problem that it cannot simply brush aside.
The latest appointment is retired Brigadier General Dharmendra Kumar Jha as expert secretary at the Ministry of Infrastructure Development. Minister Sunil Lamsal appointed Jha to a position with the status of a government secretary. Under existing rules, ministers can appoint up to five experts at an equivalent level.
Former Colonel Dr Anand Singh Bhat has been appointed executive chairperson of the High Powered Committee for Integrated Development of the Bagmati Civilization. Former Brigadier General Dr Devendra Khatri is now vice chairman of the Medical Education Commission. Retired Major General Dr Deepak Prasad Bastola was appointed to the board of Nepal Airlines Corporation, although the Supreme Court later overturned the appointment following a legal challenge.
None of these appointments, taken individually, proves that the government is coordinating with the Army. Retired military personnel remain citizens with the same right to serve the state as anyone else. Some may also bring valuable technical or administrative experience.
When several retired military officers begin appearing in important positions across different sectors, the government has to expect questions about why. Those questions become sharper when the government itself emerged from an extraordinary political transition that remains the subject of intense debate.
Bhat’s appointment, in particular, is likely to attract attention because he was ranked second on the ministry’s published shortlist. Dr Bikash Devkota was ranked first, followed by Bhat and Sangita Yadav. If the government chooses someone who did not top the shortlist, it should explain the decision clearly. That becomes even more important when the selected candidate comes from the military establishment. The government has been moving quickly to fill vacancies following the Ordinance on Special Provisions Relating to the Removal of Public Officials, 2083, issued on May 2. The ordinance amended 110 laws and removed 1,534 officials from public institutions, leaving a large number of positions vacant. The government says more than half have now been filled.
That makes the quality and transparency of these appointments particularly important. A sweeping reshuffle can strengthen public institutions, but it can just as easily replace one network of patronage with another.
The Shah government came to power promising to do politics differently. That promise puts it under greater scrutiny, not less. If a retired military officer is appointed because he or she is the best candidate, the government should have no difficulty showing why. It should publish selection criteria, explain the process and make qualifications clear.
What it must avoid is creating the impression that connections, institutional networks or political loyalty matter more than merit. This matters because the Nepal Army occupies a special position in Nepal’s political system. It is a national institution, not a political faction. A civilian government can and should draw expertise from former soldiers when they are qualified. But it must be careful not to become dependent on military networks to run civilian institutions.
That distinction is important. A retired general working as a technical expert does not, by itself, amount to militarisation of the state. A former colonel heading a development body does not automatically mean the Army is influencing government policy. But if former military officers begin receiving a disproportionately large share of influential appointments across unrelated sectors, the government must explain the pattern before suspicion takes over.
The opposition will inevitably use these appointments to revive its claim that the Army played a role in the formation of the post Gen Z government. That claim should not be accepted without evidence. At the same time, the government should not dismiss every question as political propaganda.
Publish selection criteria explain departures from rankings or recommendations. Make qualifications and possible conflicts of interest public. Follow competitive procedures. Above all, maintain a clear boundary between the civilian government and the military establishment.
The Supreme Court’s intervention in Bastola’s appointment also shows why process matters as much as the person appointed. Public appointments must comply with the law, whether the candidate is a retired soldier, civil servant, academic or political figure.
The real issue, then, is not whether former Army officials should be allowed to serve in government. They should, if they are qualified. The question is whether the Shah government is building a professional civil administration or gradually creating a system in which former military officials occupy an unusually large share of influential posts.
For a government born from a political upheaval already surrounded by questions about the Army’s role, perception matters. Every appointment that lacks a convincing explanation gives its opponents another opening. A democratic civilian government does not need to fear former soldiers. But neither should it appear dependent on them. That is a line the Shah government needs to protect carefully.
Login to add a comment