Ameer Ali Hashmi
The rule of law and democratic accountability are being examined due to the recent unrest in Nepal. What began as a social media blockade by the state quickly escalated into enormous protests. Nepalese youth in general were not attracted to injustice and indecency, and they did not desire corruption and oppression. These cases evoke fundamental questions about whether the law and the system of law in Nepal are at a stage to deal with abuse of authority, abuse of power, and violations of the rights of its populace.
The government acted against the move to block the popular social media platforms without being reasonable or transparent. The constitution guaranteed the freedom of expression and the right to peaceful assembly, but these were limited without any explanation as to why. The ulterior motive behind the closure remains in debate. Rather than suppressing dissent, the law made it even greater. The protesters interpreted the move as an infringement of core freedoms, and the outrage extended to bigger arguments about systemic injustices, malpractices, and governance.
The horrendous murder of an 11-year-old girl, Usha Magar Sunuwar, was a threshold in this unstable environment. She was seriously hurt when she was struck by a car carrying a provincial minister. Although the incident was caught on CCTV, the prime minister posted some ugly words about it, claiming that it was not a big problem. It exhibited an alarming lack of responsibility when he asserted that the situation was not planned but rather just an unfortunate coincidence. Ministers must follow the same traffic and criminal rules as all other citizens. In addition to undercutting the victim’s access to justice, trivializing the incident conveyed a message of impunity in public service.
The protests were met with strong responses from the state. Security troops deployed live ammunition, rubber bullets, and tear gas. There have been reports of dozens of deaths and numerous injuries. In reaction, the army was forced to march through the streets, which violates the constitution. Under democratic legislation, the military’s role is clearly limited. Until a legitimate state of emergency is declared, civilian policing must remain the norm. The constitutional balance between civilian and military authority, as well as human rights safeguards, may be jeopardized if the army is used against demonstrators.
The prime minister finally resigned after constant pressure. Resignation does not equate to accountability, even though it could seem like a win for people’s authority. The law mandates an investigation of the hit-and-run incident, the misuse of state force, and the deaths that occurred during the protests. Legal duty must never be replaced by political departure. The resignation is at best mere symbolism and at worst evasive unless there is legal follow-through. One aspect worth mentioning was the leadership that young Nepalis exercised during these protests. Their demands for change were founded on principles instead of anarchy. They insisted on the constitutional rights of all citizens, openness in government, and dignity. It is on this basis that civic engagement is likely to achieve transformative power, particularly when based on justice and legal rights.
In Nepal’s case, the legal institutions need to be strengthened so that the country can move forward. All these deaths, injuries, and the incident of the hit-and-run can and must be investigated individually. To ensure that the freedom of expression is not suppressible at will, digital freedom has to be strengthened through legislative means. The reduction of constitutional authority to use armed force and reforms of police law will be required to guarantee the prevention of abuse of power. Finally, institutional reforms should be broader in order to prevent the erosion of democratic ideals.
Nepal now has both a moral and a legal dilemma overriding a political one. Areas that the rule of law demands include accountability, transparency, and respect for human dignity. There is no person above the law, not even prime ministers or ministers. Awareness that Nepal can now make good on its commitments, combined with institutional improvements, can make this difficult spell a point of departure as Nepal builds a more robust democracy. Otherwise, the underlying fissures will only worsen. The audacity of the new young generations of Nepal cannot be doubted. They not only should be respected but should in fact be encouraged, along with a sound determination toward justice. The test is unambiguous: will the law accommodate them?
The writer can be reached at ameeralihashmi @outlook.com
