By Our Reporter
Leadership reveals itself not during ordinary times but during moments of national crisis. Nepal’s recent communal violence in Sunsari and the unrest that spread across the Madhesh tested not only the country’s security apparatus but also its political leadership. At nearly the same time, nationwide protests by doctors following an assault on a physician at Narayani Hospital exposed another crisis of public trust. Though the two incidents were unrelated, they laid bare the same weakness: Nepal’s institutions continue to react after situations spiral out of control rather than preventing them through timely leadership and accountability.
The contrast between Prime Minister Balen Shah and Rastriya Swatantra Party chairman Rabi Lamichhane became impossible to ignore.
As violence spread across the Madhesh, Lamichhane moved swiftly. He appealed for communal harmony, called an all-party meeting, consulted the home minister, briefed President Ramchandra Paudel, instructed party lawmakers to return to their constituencies, and reached out to Madhesh based political leaders. Whether one agrees with his politics or not, the initiative projected one message: someone was trying to hold the country together through dialogue.
The government, however, appeared hesitant. Prime Minister Balen Shah initially confined his response to a social media statement while tension continued to escalate. Only after criticism mounted did he begin consultations with the president, vice president, Madhesh leaders, and members of his own party. The National Security Council eventually met, but many believed these steps should have come much earlier. The delay created the impression that the government was following events rather than leading them.
A prime minister occupies a fundamentally different position from an opposition leader. Lamichhane had the freedom to initiate dialogue because he leads a political party. Balen Shah leads the state. Citizens expect the head of government to be the first person they hear from during a national emergency. They expect reassurance, coordination, and decisive leadership. When that voice arrives late, uncertainty quickly fills the vacuum.
In times of communal tension, silence carries consequences. Rumors spread faster than facts. Fear overtakes reason. Communities begin looking for alternative sources of authority. Every hour without visible leadership weakens public confidence. The prime minister’s presence during such moments is not symbolic. It is a critical tool for calming tensions before they deepen.
The same leadership deficit surfaced in another crisis. After a doctor at Narayani Hospital was assaulted following a patient’s death, doctors across Nepal launched protests demanding security. Violence against healthcare workers deserves unequivocal condemnation. No grievance justifies attacking those providing medical care.
Yet the public anger did not emerge from nowhere. Many patients and their families believe complaints of medical negligence rarely lead to meaningful investigations or accountability. The Nepal Medical Council receives complaints every year, but disciplinary action remains uncommon. Weak communication between hospitals and patients has only widened mistrust. As faith in legal mechanisms declines, some individuals resort to violence, an unacceptable but telling reflection of institutional failure.
Doctors, too, faced criticism. While emergency services continued, outpatient departments remained closed, disrupting treatment for thousands of patients. Cancer therapies were postponed. People with chronic illnesses missed consultations. Patients who had traveled long distances returned home untreated. The protests highlighted another difficult truth: demanding justice should not come at the cost of denying healthcare to those who bear no responsibility for the violence.
Both episodes point toward the same conclusion. Nepal’s institutions excel at crisis management but struggle with crisis prevention. Governments deploy security forces after riots begin. Hospitals demand protection after doctors are assaulted. Committees are formed after lives have already been lost. Statements are issued after public outrage has peaked.
This is where Prime Minister Shah has an opportunity to redefine his leadership. Balen came to power promising a new political culture built on efficiency, accountability, and decisive action. Those promises cannot be measured only by infrastructure projects or administrative reforms. They are tested most severely when society itself comes under strain.
A national crisis demands more than official meetings behind closed doors. It requires visible leadership. It requires convening all political parties regardless of ideology, reaching out to community leaders before divisions deepen, speaking directly to citizens through regular briefings, and demonstrating that the government is fully in command of events. The prime minister should never allow others to occupy that leadership space by default.
Equally important, the government must shift its focus from reacting to preventing. Communal flashpoints require stronger local dialogue mechanisms, early intelligence gathering, and rapid political engagement. The health sector needs faster and more transparent investigations into allegations of negligence while ensuring strict punishment for anyone who attacks healthcare workers. Public trust grows when institutions resolve grievances fairly before frustration turns into violence.
Leadership is ultimately about timing. History rarely remembers leaders for the statements they issue after order has been restored. It remembers whether they stood at the front when uncertainty was greatest.
The recent crises offered two different models of political response. Ravi Lamichhane demonstrated the value of quick political outreach. Prime Minister Balen Shah eventually took important steps, but they came after public confidence had already begun to erode.
The lesson is straightforward. In every future national emergency, Nepal does not merely need a government that responds. It needs a prime minister who leads from the very first hour. Only then will citizens develop the confidence that their government is not chasing events but staying ahead of them.
Login to add a comment