The biggest achievement of the Gen-Z movement in Nepal is the resignation of Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli. Now, efforts are underway to form an interim government. Currently, the army holds the country's reins. However, the youth demand a citizen-military government be established soon, with elections within a year to form a new government. The Nepalese army has focused on maintaining peace and participating in the interim government without making any coup attempts.
Focus on Peace Establishment
Former PM Oli sought help from General Ashok Raj Sigdel amidst the crisis, who advised Oli to resign, indicating the army stands with the public interest. Unlike nearby nations like Pakistan, Myanmar, and Bangladesh with coup histories, Nepal's army has concentrated on pacifying protestors. The army retains security over Parliament, the presidential residence, and major government buildings, with key leaders under its protection.
Read more: Nepal's Gen-Z group in turmoil... Kulman Ghising nominated as interim PM
Historically, Nepal's army has distanced itself from coups due to the country's socio-political structure and the constitutional army position. Despite political instability, no military coup has occurred. The army has abstained from governmental interference as per the constitution that places it under civilian government control. Article 267 states the army's supreme commander is the president, a constitutional role. The army is confined to developmental work, disaster management, and national security.
Contribution to International Missions
The Nepalese army, formerly known as the Royal Nepal Army and Gurkhanis, showcased loyalty to the monarchy or government. Since the monarchy ended in 2008, the army has operated under a new democratic framework while maintaining constitutional commitment. Celebrated for bravery and discipline, the Gurkha soldiers have built a professional and neutral organization image.
The army’s active role in United Nations peacekeeping missions since 1958 has strengthened its international credibility. Deploying thousands of soldiers globally reflects its professional image and helps distance itself from political intrusion, avoiding damage to global reputation.
Challenging Public Support for a Coup
Diverse ethnic groups, regional differences, and political parties make it hard for a military coup to gain social support. The army fears interference might cause more instability or civil war. Nepal's army shares a strong military relationship with India, acting as a bridge through the Gurkha regiment. India historically supports democratic processes in Nepal, compelling the army to remain neutral. The U.S. and other Western nations provide training and support, ensuring democratic accountability.
Source: aajtak
India backs Nepal’s democratic processes, pressuring its army to remain neutral. Military exercises and officer training are dependent on India, with the U.S. and other Western nations offering further support, promoting accountability to democratic values.
Loyalty to Monarchy in the Past
Nepal has a history of instability, witnessing severe political unrest, but the army focused on control rather than coups. In 1990, under King Birendra's absolute rule, public protests for democracy escalated amidst growing dissatisfaction with corruption, unemployment, and the monarchy. The army stayed loyal to the king initially, using force against protestors. However, as protests grew and a referendum was declared, the army refrained from interference. Eventually, King Birendra accepted a constitutional monarchy, and the army operated under the new democratic order.
In 1996, Maoists initiated an armed rebellion against the monarchy and the government, lasting a decade and resulting in over 16,000 deaths. The Royal Nepal Army conducted operations against Maoists under royal and government directives. After the 2001 royal massacre and King Birendra's family’s death, the army didn’t seize power. A 2006 peace agreement between Maoists and the government saw the army back the democratic process again.
Accountability to the Government
In 2005, King Gyanendra dissolved Parliament to consolidate power, sparking a 2006 people's movement demanding the end of the monarchy. Throughout, the army supported the king, following his directives. When monarchy ended in 2008, and Nepal was declared a Federal Democratic Republic, the army accepted the new order and retained a neutral stance. Renamed from the Royal Nepal Army to Nepal Army, it continued its duties under the democratic setting.
During the current Gen-Z movement, Nepalese army imposed curfews in Kathmandu and other affected areas, securing key government buildings. Army Chief General Ashok Raj Sigdel urged dialogue over violence, but refrained from a power grab. The army serves as a bridge between youths and the president. The Gen-Z faction advocates forming a civilian-military interim government, yet leadership consensus remains elusive.
Economic Dependence and Limited Resources
Nepal's economy heavily relies on foreign aid and remittances from migrant workers. The army, smaller in number and in a less affluent nation, has neither an extensive force nor economic base to sustain a coup. International aid could cease following a coup, risking national and any ruling power’s stability. Despite instability, Nepalese public support for democracy remains strong. The army fears military intervention could spark public outrage, beyond controllable force capacity.
Source: aajtak
Pressure from Neighbors like India and China
Geographically situated between India and China, Nepal acts as a buffer state, with its politics and army under the influence of both. India consistently supports democratic processes in Nepal, pressuring the army to avoid coups as India could use its might to control chaos. Prioritizing military relations, Nepal's army has strengthened ties with India.
Read more: A whim caused 9 deaths... Amidst tensions, Nepal’s royal massacre resurfaces
Nepal's population stands at three million with about 125,000 soldiers. Lacking advanced fighter jets or tanks, Nepal hasn't fought direct wars, lessening the need for heavy armaments. Though domestic security needs are met with some U.S. weapons, maintaining military control with a small force and limited resources is challenging.
