On April 6, Nepal seemed as though the government desired conflict.

On March 28, when the monarchists declared a large-scale demonstration demanding the reinstatement of the Hindu Kingdom via a fresh political approach, the authorities prepared themselves for potential unrest. However, the situation escalated dramatically, resulting in violent confrontations including acts of arson and gunfire. Tragically, two individuals lost their lives, and over 53 others sustained injuries, with numerous casualties being unsuspecting passersby.

Early accounts pinned the blame on pro-monarchy advocates for initiating the unrest. Nonetheless, with video evidence and witness statements surfacing online, it became clear that both the administration and law enforcement might share responsibility and possibly even incited the turmoil.

The general sentiment started to change slowly over time. Initially, many believed that the pro-monarchy demonstrators were responsible for the chaos. However, with each passing day and the appearance of fresh details, popular anger redirected towards the government and law enforcement agencies.

The latest chain of occurrences has tarnished the reputation of the government, major political parties, law enforcement agencies, and the press. These institutions were already struggling with their standing, but they must now confront an even greater erosion of credibility and public confidence.

The Nepal Police has consistently been heavily influenced by politics; its leadership frequently faces pressure to remain loyal to the political figures who appointed them. In this instance, the police have displayed incompetence, malice, and a lack of restraint.

As an essential organization, the Nepal Police did not just falter in upholding law and order; they also neglected to safeguard civilians and engage with them throughout the emergency. This oversight contravened a key principle of crisis communication: always be honest.

The authorities failed to offer a coherent sequence of events and seemed intent on concealing what transpired. They also dodged questions about the rationale behind firing upon unarmed individuals. Their official account, which was presented publicly, contradicted eyewitness statements, video evidence, and even their internal documentation. This discrepancy highlights an attempt by the police to obscure both their conduct and their lack of proficiency.

Although the aggression displayed by the protesters must be denounced and penalized, it is crucial to pinpoint the genuine instigators and choices that set off these events. This will help guarantee that the government apparatus does not become an instrument for unscrupulous politicians to exploit as they see fit.

Nepalese media is presently grappling with a significant challenge. It frequently falls short in delivering unbiased and factual reports about current affairs. Take for instance during the demonstrations; on that particular day as well as the subsequent ones, they struggled to offer comprehensive coverage of the incidents. Individuals turned to platforms like video-sharing sites and social networking pages for insights into these occurrences. Ultimately, crucial details such as the origin of the unrest, casualty figures, and information regarding law enforcement actions remained unclear due to inadequate reporting from journalists.

A week passed before the media uncovered the number of individuals who were shot. Their bias toward the pro-monarchy factions was so pronounced that it impaired their capacity to accurately cover the occurrences.

When impartial reporting, which forms the essence of journalism, faltered, personal views and editorial articles became readily available. Many such commentaries focused primarily on upholding the republic and criticizing the monarchist faction. As though the press sensed an obligation to safeguard democracy and republican principles—certainly a commendable aim. However, this shift led to the demise of the media’s credibility. It neglected its primary role of presenting factual information and ensuring accountability among those in power. Ultimately, the media proved incapable of either delivering accurate reports or maintaining oversight over governmental authority.

Many elements contribute to the decline of the media in Nepal. However, this must begin with sincere self-reflection.

Certainly, the media sector in Nepal faces a severe crisis as the conventional business approach—relying on subscriptions, advertising revenue, and primary media-centric operations—is unsustainable within the country’s economic framework. Amidst this critical situation, the media outlets resort to dubious practices and frequently engage in extortion just to stay afloat. Consequently, these challenges lead to toxic relationships between the media industry and their supporters, be they dishonest politicians, biased corporate entities, or negligent government officials.

Furthermore, we must consider the subject of media culture and capability, which warrants additional attention and debate.

On the contrary, the government’s shortcomings stand out even more prominently. Former Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal highlighted this during a public gathering on March 28, accusing the present administration of being dominated by a clique of corrupt officials and business cronies. Recent media coverage over the last several weeks further suggests an incremental control of Nepal’s economic sphere, particularly the Nepal Rastra Bank, by intermediaries closely linked with Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli. Despite being included on the Financial Action Task Force’s grey list due to these issues, the government persists in endorsing dubious businessmen embroiled in fraudulent activities within the financial industry.

This is not a good sign for the nation.

Following the occurrences of March 28, the pro-monarchy faction might have experienced a slight setback; however, this movement seems far from concluding. Such political activism is intertwined with contemporary cultural conflicts, which are fundamentally tied to enduring issues of identity politics. Additionally, it reflects broad public dissatisfaction. The pro-monarchy campaign shares common ground with the revivalist trends within Hinduism as well as renewed expressions of Nepalese national pride, all stemming from popular frustration towards the current government leadership.

It should be highlighted that following the 2006 peace agreement, Nepal’s political landscape was largely shaped by the Maoist agenda. In the initial Constituent Assembly, the Maoists advocated for a federal system and structural reforms which demanded that established dominant identity groups relinquish their nationalist stance in favor of minority and marginalized ethnic communities. Consequently, this sparked considerable dissatisfaction and revitalized conventional Nepalese nationalism, leading to Prime Minister Oli’s rise to power. Today, however, this underlying sentiment has shifted direction and is currently fueling pro-monarchist factions.

In light of these circumstances, the governing authority’s approach to undermine the supporters of monarchy, brand them as aggressive extremists, and leverage governmental force against them is unlikely to succeed. Furthermore, the ruling body continues to persist in its misguided actions, disregarding societal demands for change, despite widespread recognition of their dishonesty, lack of accountability, and favoritism towards kin.