Submit your Article

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has released the much awaited report on the incidents of human rights violations during the GenZ movement of 8-9 Sept 2025. The commission has demanded widespread legal accountability, recommending formal action or investigation against nearly every major stakeholder involved in the unrest, including top political leaders, high-ranking security officials, and influential celebrities.  Central to the report’s findings is the identification of then-Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, then-Home Minister Ramesh Lekhak, and then-Communications Minister Prithvi Subba Gurung as human rights violators, with the commission urging the government to enact new laws to prosecute them for their roles in the suppression of the movement. The demand for accountability extends deep into the security apparatus and the political opposition, as the NHRC has recommended departmental action against current Nepal Police IGP Dan Bahadur Karki and Armed Police Force (APF) IGP Narayan Prasad Poudel, while then chiefs Chandra Kuber Khapung and Raju Aryal are to be barred from any future government service. The report calls for ‘micro-investigations’ and legal action against field commanders and personnel who used live ammunition and lethal force during the protests. Furthermore, the report has branded the unauthorized exit of Rabi Lamichhane, chairperson of Rastriya Swatantra Party, from Nakkhu Jail as a ‘criminal offence’, recommending a full criminal investigation into Lamichhane, jail administrator Satya Raj Joshi, and MPs Manish Jha and Hari Dhakal who escorted Lamichhane out.  Even the public sphere has not been spared, with over four dozen public figures, including film maker Nischal Basnet, vlogger Sisan Baniya, former Home Minister Sudan Gurung and former Prime Minister Sushila Karki, recommended for ‘micro-investigation’ to determine if their social media expressions incited the subsequent violence and destruction. The commission’s report dives deep into the specific triggers of the violence on 8 Sept 2025, pinpointing the moment a crowd of 20,000 to 25,000 gathered in front of the Everest Hotel. According to the investigation, the situation escalated into a full-scale riot shortly after Gurung, founder of the ‘Hami Nepal’ organization, took leadership of the crowd around midday.  While Gurung and other organizers, including Ankit Malla and Khemraj Saud, had initially assured the Chief District Officer that the protest would remain peaceful, the NHRC found that after Gurung took charge, the crowd became aggressive, breached security barricades, and entered prohibited zones, forcing security personnel to deploy tear gas and water cannons. Internal friction was also noted, as other activist groups led by Raksha Bam reportedly clashed with Gurung, even asking him to leave the site. However, the NHRC’s report has drawn significant scrutiny for what appears to be a starkly different standard of accountability applied to the Nepali Army. Despite identifying ‘clear weaknesses’ in the Army’s role, specifically their failure to protect vital national assets like Singha Durbar, the Supreme Court, and the President’s Office (Shital Niwas), the commission conspicuously avoids recommending ‘action’ or ‘investigation’ for the military leadership. Instead, the report merely directs the Chief of Army Staff (CoAS) to be ‘mindful of his responsibilities’ regarding the protection of national property and human rights in the future. This mild directive stands in sharp contrast to the Army’s behavior during the crisis. The report notes that while the Army claimed they remained in their barracks due to a lack of government orders, they were actually deployed at 10 pm on 9 Sept 2025 without any formal decision, revealing a lack of consistency in their official statements. The commission’s findings further highlight that if the Army had merely stepped outside their gates, the massive arson and vandalism that devastated the country’s administrative heart could have been significantly mitigated. Instead, they remained ‘mute spectators’ while national heritage and property were destroyed. Despite this grave failure, the NHRC only recommended that the government ‘alert’ the specific unit commanders who were stationed at Singha Durbar and Shital Niwas at the time. This discrepancy in language, demanding criminal prosecution and departmental firing for police and politicians while only offering ‘guidance’ to the military, has become one of the most debated aspects of the report’s recommendations. In reviewing the broader scope of the report, several critical elements missing from the general public discourse include the specific role of the ‘TOB’ biker group, which the NHRC identified as a primary catalyst that hijacked the GenZ movement and used protesters as ‘human shields’ to attack security forces.  Additionally, the report offers a nuanced defense of the police, noting that the state failed to provide field personnel with adequate human-rights-friendly crowd control equipment, such as body cameras and water cannons, which forced them into lethal confrontations. Finally, the commission’s extensive recommendations for victim compensation are essential; it has mandated not just financial relief, but free lifelong medical care for the injured and guaranteed employment or self-employment for at least one family member of each of the 76 individuals killed during the unrest to ensure their right to live with dignity.