Why is Nepal’s political change being compared with Bangladesh

Nepal lies at the foothills of the Himalayas. Its size is similar to Bangladesh, with a population of just over 30 million. Though often referred to as a small country, in reality it cannot be called small. Yet the term is used due to the size of its economy. It is an economy mainly dependent on agriculture, remittances and tourism. However, Nepal’s geopolitical position is both significant and highly sensitive. On its two sides are China and India, the world’s most populous and major military powers. Nepal’s relationship with India has always been bittersweet. With each change of power in Nepal, its ties with India have also shifted. Relations with China, too, have fluctuated.

Politically, Nepal has long been in a volatile state. Since the abolition of the monarchy in 2008, there have been 13 changes of government. Yet the sudden eruption of terrible violence, arson, destruction, and the eventual fall of the government with the Prime Minister fleeing, led by Generation Z on the 8th–9th of this month, was still unexpected even a week earlier.

Much about this unexpected event does not add up, and many political analysts are unable to reconcile it. Only 10 days earlier, Nepal’s Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli had attended the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit in China. There he held private talks separately with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping. For many, it seemed unusual that in a gathering of so many leaders, the Presidents of two superpowers would give such importance to the Prime Minister of Nepal. Did they give KP Sharma some message which he failed to anticipate? Before he could act upon it, did everything slip out of his control? For now, it is difficult to say.

At home and abroad, even in the international media, comparisons are being made with Bangladesh’s student-led Generation Z movement and the fall of Sheikh Hasina’s government. Bangladesh’s name is repeatedly coming up, with attempts to trace similarities.

Indeed, there are many similarities between the two movements and the falls of government. Both were short-lived movements led by the younger generation. In Bangladesh, the movement began with protests against the quota system. At first, the demonstrators did not even remotely consider or demand the resignation of the government. But shootings, deaths, and the government’s hardline stance turned their movement into a one-point demand, and Sheikh Hasina fled to India.

In Nepal too, students and young people rose up, though for an even shorter period, initially protesting against the shutdown of social media. Soon the issue of corruption was added to their demands. The movement escalated into attacks on the Prime Minister’s residence, vandalism of parliament and more. Notably, Nepal had shut down Facebook and a few other platforms not to suppress political opinion but because these sites were not paying taxes. Other apps, including TikTok, remained open and still are. But the protesters did not want to hear or accept that explanation.

Just as the army and police in Bangladesh stood aside in the final days, the same happened in Nepal. The police and army refrained from being harsh against the protesters. One point is worth noting. At first, Nepal’s law enforcement used tear gas and rubber bullets against protesters, but no lethal weapons. Yet how 19 Nepalis died in that time remains shrouded in mystery.

Other questions about Nepal remain unresolved. Where did K. P. Sharma flee? At first there were reports he was going to Dubai. But he would have had to catch a flight, and none was seen. Another possibility mentioned is that he is hiding under army protection. That too is unclear. However, his more likely destinations would have been India or China. But it is reported that he did not seek political asylum in India. More may become clear in the coming days.

Some quarters are pointing to the “deep state” regarding Nepal’s political change. Several Indian media outlets, including responsible ones, are saying that anti-India forces are being fuelled around India’s periphery to weaken it. On tariff disputes and India’s purchase of cheap fuel from Russia, its ties with the United States and Europe have cooled. India finds itself in a dilemma over the paths of QUAD and BRICS. Could this be part of a strategy by external powers to put pressure on India? These are the questions Indians are asking.

The recently ousted Prime Minister K. P. Sharma was Chairman of the Communist Party of Nepal. To the West, Communist parties are synonymous with enemy, on which they never compromise. So if the Western deep state took advantage of the movement, it would not be surprising. As a result of this change of power, Nepal’s future has entered uncertainty. That is, who will rule Nepal and what system of government it will have in the near future is now uncertain—just as uncertainty continues in Bangladesh.

Mohsin Habib: Journalist, analyst of international affairs