National Human Rights Commission Questions Nepali Army's Role in Gen Z Protests

Kathmandu. The National Human Rights Commission has raised serious questions about the role of the Nepali Army in failing to prevent widespread damage during the Gen Z protests.

In its investigation report released on Wednesday, the commission has depicted the vandalism and arson that occurred even in the country's most sensitive areas like Singhdarbar, the Supreme Court, and the President's residence (Sheetal Niwas) as a lack of sensitivity and security lapse on the part of the Nepali Army.

In point 32 of the report, the commission concluded that there was a lack of uniformity in the army's role and its statements regarding the matter. Analyzing the sequence of events, the commission mentioned that although the Chief District Officer of Kathmandu sought the army's assistance when the protests became violent and went out of control on the 23rd, it was not implemented in practice.

Security Mechanism Remained a Spectator

According to the commission's report, security agencies remained 'spectators' even as protesters vandalized and set fire to government offices including the Parliament building, Singhdarbar, the President's residence, and the Supreme Court, as well as private property on the 24th. The report states, 'If the Nepali Army had only moved out of the barracks, such extensive vandalism and arson would not have occurred, causing so much damage to the nation.'

The commission had sought clarification from the Chief of Army Staff and other high-ranking officials. According to the report submitted by the commission's investigation committee, the army initially did not cooperate and later submitted a written statement through 'closed questions'.

In its statement, the army presented the argument that it 'could not be mobilized as there was no order from the government'. However, since the army was mobilized at 10 PM on the 24th without any formal government decision, the Human Rights Commission pointed out the lack of uniformity in the army's statement.

Furthermore, the commission expressed dissatisfaction, stating that the army, which was already deployed for the security of Singhdarbar and the President's residence, did not even make a minimal effort to protect those buildings.

The commission has determined that the state or government's lack of presence, despite the loss of 76 lives and the destruction of key state structures, is a serious security failure.