PM Karki: Deconstruct institutionalized impunity

Nepal’s history contains a graveyard of political upheavals—one revolution, two people’s movements, and one armed struggle—all of which promised profound changes. Yet, despite immense sacrifice, none succeeded in truly transforming the lives of the people, the condition of the nation and its economy; each ultimately headed to the graveyard due to compromise and impunity. The 104-year-long fraternal succession system of the Rana family, which was autocratic, came to an end as a result of the February 1951 revolution, restoring democracy. Likewise, the people’s movement of April 1990 dismantled the Panchayat system. A decade and a half later, another people’s movement culminated in the abolition of the monarchy in May 2008. However, these revolutions, movements, and conflicts—despite their scale and significance—failed to bring about the deep, structural transformation the nation desperately needed. They did not transform the lives of the people, the condition of the nation and its economy. It is in this context that Gen-Z launched a movement in September 2025, the outcome of which the entire country now awaits with bated breath. On the other hand, after the protests in Sri Lanka, President Rajapaksa and his family were expelled from the country in July 2022. Similarly, due to protests in Bangladesh, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina fled the country in August 2024 and was sentenced to death in November 2025. These countries show signs of significant transformation. There has been no change in the political system in neighboring India since independence in 1947, while in most prosperous countries, once the political system changes, it does not repeatedly change within a few decades as in Nepal. However, for ordinary Nepalis, political change every few decades has started to seem normal. But these political changes come and go without transforming the lives of the people, the condition of the nation and its economy. The following lines attempt to discern why all these revolutions, people’s movements, and armed conflicts failed to transform the lives of the people, the condition of the nation and its economy and assess the prospects of success for the Gen-Z movement from this perspective. 1950-51 Revolution The Nepali Congress and Praja Parishad launched a revolution against the autocratic Rana regime. The regime executed Shukra Raj Shastri, Dharma Bhakta Mathema, Dashrath Chand, and Ganga Lal Shrestha in January 1940 to suppress the revolution. (To commemorate their execution, Martyrs’ Day is celebrated every year in January.) In this backdrop, King Tribhuvan took refuge in the Indian Embassy in November 1950 and was subsequently taken to Delhi, where talks were held between Indian Prime Minister Nehru and representatives of the Rana regime. Finally, a proposal sent by the last Rana PM, Mohan SJB Rana, in January 1951 was approved by King Tribhuvan and Nehru. The Rana regime then issued a press release and began reforms by releasing all political prisoners. Eventually, King Tribhuvan returned to Kathmandu and announced the restoration of democracy on February 18, 1951. Strangely, the Nepali Congress and Praja Parishad, which had led the revolution, were excluded from the negotiations in Delhi, which were held solely between Nehru and representatives of the Rana regime. Astoundingly, in the cabinet formed after the restoration of democracy, Mohan SJB Rana was appointed Prime Minister, while Babar Shamsher, a son of former PM Chandra SJB Rana, was appointed Defense Minister. In essence, the 1951 Delhi Agreement was a compromise, and the Ranas—who had oppressed people for over a century and usurped all state revenue—were left scot-free and succeeded retained their immense wealth, accumulated illegitimately and passed on through generations starting from Jang Bahadur Rana (founder of Rana regime) and Dhir Shamsher Rana. Their ill-gotten wealth should have been confiscated, as none of the Rana rulers had legitimate sources of income beyond inheritance or exploitation of state resources. Jang Bahadur Kunwar (who later adopted the surname Rana) was indigent after the fall of PM Bhimsen Thapa in 1837, when his father’s property was confiscated. Similarly, Dhir Shamsher Rana was also poor, and his sons and grandsons while ruling Nepal bilked the country dry for their personal enrichment until 1951. Therefore, all their property should have been confiscated after the restoration of democracy. By failing to do so, the revolution ended in compromise and institutionalized impunity. The Ranas were neither made to flee, and today the descendants of those rulers are among the country’s wealthiest. It is worth recalling that during the declaration of the Republic, the properties of King Birendra, Queen Aishwarya, and their families were brought under the control of the Government of Nepal, and all property acquired by King Gyanendra in the capacity of king was also confiscated. Such measures were never taken during earlier political changes. Furthermore, the last Rana ruler had hastily signed the Peace and Friendship Treaty with India in July 1950 to secure India’s support. The treaty lacked a validity period and had no amendment or review provisions, effectively making Nepal an unofficial semi-colony of India. Despite this anti-national act, Mohan SJB Rana was appointed the first Prime Minister of democratic Nepal instead of being prosecuted for sedition/treason. Therefore, 1951 revolution failed to transform the lives of the people, the condition of the nation and its economy. There was one exception: the sovereign power and state authority that Jang Bahadur had usurped from King Surendra in June 1857—and passed down to successive Rana PMs—was returned to King Tribhuvan as a result of the 1951 revolution. True transformation, however, would have required changes in leadership, policies, tendencies, and intentions, which this revolution failed to achieve. Advent of Panchayat System King Mahendra dismissed the democratically elected government of BP Koirala, dissolved parliament, and banned political parties in December 1960. Many have interpreted this incident differently. In reality, however, it may have been triggered by a deeper concern: The 1959 constitution was based on the Westminster model, and Nepali Congress had secured more than two-thirds of the seats in the first general election. As a result, PM BP Koirala began to behave like a Rana-era prime minister vested with sovereign power and executive authority, which likely made King Mahendra apprehensive of a déjà vu scenario, wherein monarchs would again be stripped of sovereign authority. In December 1962, a new constitution was promulgated, establishing the party-less Panchayat system under absolute monarchy. However, King Mahendra failed to prosecute state administrators from 1951 to 1960 for unlawful actions. Nor was the wealth they had illegally acquired confiscated. From the water resources perspective, premier MP Koirala signed the anti-national Koshi Agreement in April 1954, while premier BP Koirala signed the even more detrimental Gandak Agreement in December 1959. Neither was prosecuted for these anti-national acts. Thus, although the party system was abolished and a new political system was introduced, this change too failed to transform the lives of the people, the condition of the nation and its economy. Ironically, MP Koirala was rewarded by being appointed Nepal’s ambassador to the United States in July 1961. As long as leadership, policies, tendencies, and intentions remain unchanged, no transformation is possible. 1990/91 People’s Movement After the 50-day People’s Movement in 1990/91, the party-less Panchayat system was abolished and replaced with a multi-party democracy under constitutional monarchy. However, despite another major change in the political system, there was still no substantial transformation. Leadership, policies, tendencies, and intentions remained unchanged, and consequently, this change too failed to transform the lives of the people, the condition of the nation and its economy. The culprit was the institutionalized impunity. Although the Mallik Commission was constituted to investigate the abuse of state authority, repression, excesses, murder, and human rights violations committed during the Panchayat era, its report was never implemented. As a result, leaders who had held positions such as Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, or Minister during the Panchayat period assumed the same positions repeatedly under the multi-party system. Maoist Armed Struggle Babu Ram Bhattarai, on behalf of the United People’s Front, Nepal (later transformed into the Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist), submitted a 40-point demand to the Sher Bahadur Deuba government in early February 1996. Eight days later, an armed struggle was launched, citing the government’s failure to meet the demands. The armed struggle ended in November 2006 after a 12-point agreement was reached in Delhi between seven political parties and the Maoists. More than 18,000 Nepalis were killed, nearly 2,000 went missing, and about 17,000 were injured. Additionally, many women were raped. Both Maoists and the state were responsible for these atrocities. Banks and private property were looted, and weapons of security personnel were seized. To address transitional justice, legislation was enacted and amended several times, and commissions were repeatedly formed and dissolved. However, even two decades later, transitional justice remains unimplemented, failing to dismantle institutionalized impunity. Ironically, Maoist leaders Pushpa Kamal Dahal became Prime Minister three times, and Babu Ram Bhattarai became Prime Minister once, yet they did not implement even a single point from their own 40-point demands. Hence, there was no change in leadership, policies, tendencies, or intentions. Consequently, this change too failed to transform the lives of the people, the condition of the nation and its economy. Abolition of Monarchy Nepal became a republic in May 2008, changing the political system once again. The Rayamajhi Commission was formed to investigate the deaths of 26 people and injuries to more than 4,000 during the 2006 people’s movement. The commission found 31 people—including the then King Gyanendra, vice-chairmen of the Council of Ministers, assistant ministers, etc.—guilty of abuse of power, excesses, human rights violations, and misuse of the national treasury, and recommended legal action. But no action was taken, allowing institutionalized impunity to persist. Those who had been Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, or Ministers during earlier regimes continued to occupy the same positions under the republic. The system changed, but leadership, policy, attitude, and intention remained unchanged. As a result, even after becoming a republic, this change too failed to transform the lives of the people, the condition of the nation and its economy and Nepal’s condition worsened rather than improved. Gen-Z Movement Institutionalized impunity, rampant corruption, and an epidemic of nepotism and favoritism compelled Gen-Z to revolt on September 8, forcing the Oli government not only to resign but also to flee with the help of the Nepal Army (though unlike in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, they were not exiled). Because the Oli government underestimated the movement, 76 innocent people were killed within 36 hours (more than two deaths per hour), and 2,300 were injured—a record in terms of the speediest massacres in Nepal’s history. Incidentally, King Birendra had agreed to abolish the Panchayat system in April 1990 to prevent further loss of life. Similarly, he refrained from deploying the then Royal Nepal Army against the Maoists for about five years, deploying them only after the insurgents attacked army posts in November 2001. Likewise, King Gyanendra reinstated parliament in April 2006 rather than risk further deaths. The outcome of the Gen-Z movement is still uncertain, and the entire country awaits the results with bated breath. The Sushila Karki government, formed in the wake of the Gen-Z revolt, has a golden opportunity to transform the lives of the people, the condition of the nation and its economy. Only time will tell whether the Karki government will utilize this opportunity or continue the status quo. However, the early signs are not encouraging. The government displayed a lack of seriousness by forming an Inquiry Commission under the existing Inquiry Commission Act, which only requires submission of a report and without power to prosecute. The fate of this commission’s report will likely mirror that of the Mallik and Rayamajhi commissions. The government should have promulgated an Ordinance establishing an all-powerful commission with authority to prosecute those responsible for the September killings. Both the then premier Oli and Home Minister Lekhak have defended themselves by claiming they did not order security forces to kill. However, they are responsible because they failed to order the security forces not to open fire. Of the two core demands of Gen-Z, the outgoing government fulfilled the one related to social media. It is now incumbent upon the Karki government to fulfill the second—curbing corruption and ensuring good governance. Unfortunately, the government has so far failed even to ensure basic good governance. Until a few years ago, it was standard practice for the Prime Minister and Ministers to make their property details public, which this government has not done. To strengthen good governance, this government should have demonstrated the courage to publish both property details and their sources. Nepal remains on the FATF grey list due to previous governments’ failure to address deficiencies in combating money laundering, terrorist financing, and enforcing relevant laws. The Karki government should have taken the initiative to meet FATF requirements by promulgating ordinances, which would not only curb corruption and improve governance but also remove Nepal from the grey list. The government has less than three months to seize this opportunity. It is nearly certain that the next government will not take these steps, and consequently, Nepal may be blacklisted by early 2027—an outcome disastrous for the nation, people, and economy. Instead of addressing such critical issues, the government has focused on mundane tasks—recalling ambassadors (who cannot be replaced due to lack of parliamentary hearings), firing staff, and canceling construction contracts—leaving a huge governance vacuum. Pointless Mid-Term Election Gen-Z did not demand a mid-term election. It became necessary only due to Sushila Karki’s error in unnecessarily dissolving the House of Representatives (HoR). Now, several demands require constitutional amendments, which are impossible without the HoR. It would have been wiser to follow the precedent set on January 15, 2007, when representatives of the Maoists were inducted into the reinstated parliament and it was renamed the Interim Legislature-Parliament. Instead of dissolving the HoR, she should have inducted representatives of Gen-Z (including herself, enabling her to become an MP—since she is not one now, the constitutionality of her government is being questioned). Since this government has failed to take concrete steps to curb corruption, holding elections now would bring back the same corrupt and incompetent leaders. For example, the Deuba couple were vilified and even physically assaulted, yet Arzoo has already been nominated as a candidate and if her husband too is to contests from Dadeldhura, both are likely to elected due to sympathy votes. The same applies to leaders like Oli, Prachanda, etc. Essentially, without prosecuting corrupt politicians by promulgating necessary ordinances, this government risks “cleansing” them and enabling their return to power. The test by fire for this government is whether it can deconstruct institutionalized impunity. Failing this, the lives of the people, the condition of the nation and its economy, will not improve and may instead descend further into crisis as no changes will come in leadership, policies, tendencies, and intention. Conclusion Until Nepal creates an electoral environment where candidates can compete without burning hundreds of millions of rupees, corruption will remain the country’s default operating system. Nothing will change: not the leadership, not the policies, not the stale habits that have kept the nation’s ambitions in chains. This government, too, risks becoming another chapter in the long anthology of unfulfilled promises, leaving the people, the state and the economy stuck in the same holding pattern. If this structural rot is not confronted head-on, Prime Minister Sushila Karki’s tenure will carry an undeserved stain. Worse, the next generation will inherit a political arena so warped that Gen-Alpha may eventually feel pushed toward its own rupture, a future uprising laced with the tragic possibility of more injuries and more coffins. Ratna Sansar Shrestha Published in People's Review of December 12, 2025. https://mypeoplesreview.com/2025/12/12/pm-karki-deconstruct-institutionalized-impunity/?fbclid=IwY2xjawOpmhNleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBicmlkETFCUTlsdVdweWF2N0Y1MnIzc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHgiOtQ-O28CEWsp_l564_8g-C9o1S4IeHjWpe0j_DrY29eBJK73GEGUE_ajM_aem_k_cTjquzO5gaT1Xra_3TnQ