Tag: Nepal

  • As Democracy Falters, a Nostalgic Call for Monarchy Rises in Nepal

    As Democracy Falters, a Nostalgic Call for Monarchy Rises in Nepal

    Nepal, one of the world’s youngest republics, abolished its centuries-old monarchy in 2008 with the promise of stability and renewal. Nearly two decades later, that promise has unraveled. Instead of progress, democracy has brought political paralysis, economic stagnation, and a deepening public disillusionment. The republic is in crisis, and many are beginning to question whether the revolution was a mistake.

    The call for the monarchy’s return is no longer a fringe sentiment. Protesters fill the streets—not out of nostalgia, but out of frustration with the leaders who replaced the king. The government, unnerved by the growing unrest, has responded with crackdowns—at times, with deadly force. The same streets where crowds once gathered to demand democracy are now filled with demonstrators calling for its reversal.

    Is Nepal on the verge of reversing its own revolution?

    Increasing Protests

    Thousands of protesters gathered in Nepal’s capital on Friday, demanding the restoration of the Hindu monarchy and the country’s return to a Hindu state. The demonstrations erupted into violent clashes with police, leaving two people dead and dozens injured. Chaos unfolded as protesters broke through barricades and hurled stones at officers. In response, police fired tear gas, rubber bullets, and live rounds into the air. The unrest quickly spread, with rioters vandalizing homes, shops, and political party offices, even setting fire to buildings, including the headquarters of a newspaper and a TV news channel.

    Police spokesperson Shekhar Khanal confirmed that 17 protesters had been arrested, explaining that security forces were left with no option but to intervene when demonstrators attempted to breach restricted areas. He stated that officers used tear gas to disperse the crowd after protesters tried to force their way through, but the situation escalated as they resorted to vandalism and arson. One protester was killed in the clashes, while a journalist lost his life when a building was set on fire. However, royalist protesters claim that the police were the first to resort to violence.

    Government Tightens Control

    The government recognizes the gravity of the escalating unrest and has decided to take stronger measures. Support for the pro-monarchy movement has surged amid Nepal’s deepening political and economic instability, fueling widespread dissatisfaction. However, the government’s primary concern remains suppressing the protests, fearing they could spiral into a crisis capable of toppling the administration—an outcome not uncommon in South Asia.

    In response, authorities have imposed a curfew in parts of the capital and deployed security forces to maintain control. Prime Minister KP Oli has convened an emergency cabinet meeting to assess the escalating security crisis.

    The protests, the largest since 2023, highlight the growing momentum behind the push for the monarchy’s restoration. Earlier this month, over 10,000 supporters gathered at Kathmandu airport to welcome former King Gyanendra, chanting calls for his reinstatement. Ahead of the demonstrations, the Committee for the Restoration of Monarchy clarified that their demand was for a constitutional monarchy—one that would coexist with a democratic government and serve as a stabilizing force above politics. However, the government remains staunchly opposed, and Gyanendra himself has a history that suggests a deep affinity for power.

    A monarch once much hated

    As royalist support gains momentum, apprehension over the monarchy’s return persists. While nostalgia for the past is growing, the monarchy was once widely despised—a sentiment that fueled Nepal’s deep political strife, akin to civil war, the rise of the Maoist insurgency, and prolonged instability. The country continues to grapple with the lasting effects of that turmoil.

    Gyanendra, the king championed by royalists, remains a polarizing figure. He ascended the throne in 2001 after a mass shooting at the royal palace claimed the lives of most of his family. Initially, he held only ceremonial authority, but in 2005, he seized absolute power, dissolving the government, imprisoning political leaders, declaring a state of emergency, and deploying the army to govern the country. Widespread protests ultimately forced him to cede control to a democratically elected government in 2006. Two years later, in 2008, parliament formally abolished the monarchy.

    A failed democracy

    People once fought fiercely for democracy, but many now question whether it was worth it. Since the republic’s establishment, Nepal has been mired in political instability, with fragile coalition governments collapsing within months and senior leaders entangled in corruption scandals. Public frustration has steadily grown, fueling the resurgence of the pro-monarchy movement. Many supporters do not believe the king will miraculously fix the country, but they see no alternative as corruption deepens and social decay forces their children to seek opportunities abroad. Their disillusionment has driven them back to the streets.

    Meanwhile, pro-government voices claim the movement is fueled by nostalgia, with protesters longing for an imagined era of stability—particularly the so-called “glorious days” of the 1980s, a period Nepal never truly experienced as other nations did. Some, especially the communist leaders now in power, accuse India of interference, arguing that New Delhi would prefer a monarchy over a pro-China republic in Nepal.

    Regardless of the competing narratives, one reality is clear: Nepal’s democracy has failed its people, and they are exhausted.

  • In Nepal, a Rare Political Consensus—But Against Social Media

    In Nepal, a Rare Political Consensus—But Against Social Media

    Nepal, once a bastion of political turmoil, has carved out a reputation as one of Asia’s freest nations—a distinction that rests firmly on the foundation of its 2015 constitution, which enshrined the right to free speech. In 2024, this hard-won freedom found a fresh affirmation when Nepal ranked 74th out of 180 on Reporters Without Borders’ World Press Freedom Index—an enviable position in a region where such liberties remain precarious. Yet, this hard-fought freedom is now under siege. A proposed bill to regulate social media has ignited fears that both Nepali citizens and foreign visitors might once again find their voices stifled, evoking the specter of past repressions under monarchic and communist rule. Critics have raised alarms, arguing that its broad, ambiguous language could be used to suppress political dissent and undermine the very rights the constitution was designed to protect. Even more alarming, Nepal’s political parties—long divided on nearly every issue—have found rare consensus on this bill, either remaining silent or, more troubling still, lending their endorsement. This unusual unity points to a disconcerting shift in the nation’s democratic trajectory, one that could redefine the landscape of free expression in the years to come.

    The new bill certainly has its merits, particularly in its focus on addressing online crimes—a concern that is echoed in similar measures around the world. There are legitimate reasons for regulating digital spaces, such as combating cyberbullying and misinformation, and few would argue against the importance of ensuring online safety. However, while the government frames the bill as a necessary step for digital regulation, several provisions seem to mirror the tactics of authoritarian regimes globally. The bill mandates social media account registration for businesses and grants authorities expansive powers to remove content deemed indecent or misleading. It would require all platforms operating in Nepal—including Facebook and X—to obtain government approval. Platforms that fail to comply could face bans, while individuals found guilty of spreading false information could face hefty fines and up to five years in prison. 

    Additionally, the bill criminalizes the use of anonymous or pseudonymous identities on social media, which raises serious concerns about privacy and freedom of expression. The legislation also imposes broad restrictions on digital expressions, prohibiting any online actions deemed harmful to national interests. Offenses such as hate speech, trolling, and the use of graphic images or videos to attack individuals would be punishable by law. While such restrictions are not uncommon in certain parts of Southeast Asia, the bill’s sweeping nature and vague language present a significant risk to free speech in Nepal—a country with a multiparty democracy that spans ideologies from communism to Hindu nationalism.

    The bill adopts a strict crime-and-punishment approach, criminalizing actions such as spreading rumors, using pseudonyms, or creating social media accounts without prior government approval. Critics argue that these provisions could encourage widespread self-censorship, particularly among intellectuals, and disproportionately affect those with limited digital literacy, who may unknowingly share misleading content. By penalizing anonymity through vague definitions and excessive state control, the legislation poses a significant threat to diverse voices and could severely curtail free expression in an increasingly digital world.

    It’s no surprise that many critics view the bill as an attempt to silence dissent and stifle public criticism, which has intensified due to the government’s underperformance despite its strong parliamentary majority. While social media influencers have rallied behind the hashtag #BolnaDeSarkar, meaning “Let us speak, government,” major political parties and mainstream media outlets have largely remained silent. Opposition parties, having supported similar measures when in power, have little incentive to oppose the bill. Meanwhile, mainstream media may see social media as a growing threat, with its erosion of both audience and revenue. In this context, social media has become a common target for many institutions.

    Under Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, the government remains resolute in advancing the bill. Nepal’s Information Minister, Prithvi Subba Gurung, has defended the proposal, arguing that it is essential to combat cyberbullying and other online offenses. Once the Rastriya Sabha approves the bill, lawmakers will have the opportunity to propose amendments. The bill will then move to the Pratinidhi Sabha for further deliberation before returning to the Rastriya Sabha for final review. Afterward, it will be sent to the president’s office for signing into law. With broad support from all political parties and mainstream media, the bill is expected to be enacted swiftly. This would place Nepal’s social media landscape under total government control, effectively silencing dissenting voices.

  • Why Is South Asia So Involved in the Israel-Palestine Conflict?

    Why Is South Asia So Involved in the Israel-Palestine Conflict?

    There are countless problems to be fixed in the poor South Asian countries, including India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Maldives, and Nepal. Even though they have different positions and perspectives, they all struggle with poor living conditions, lack of employment, corruption, political dynasties, and more. While these issues dominate the daily lives of their populations, they are increasingly focused on a different concern: the Israel-Palestine conflict, which they seem to adopt as their own. In India, society is divided between pro-Israel and pro-Palestine supporters, and it has become a heated topic in Pakistan, where pro-Israel sentiment is almost unthinkable, but people have taken to the streets in support of Palestine. On September 29, pro-Hezbollah protesters clashed with police in the streets of Karachi, Pakistan’s largest city, after demonstrators attempted to reach the U.S. Consulate. The police fired tear gas as protesters threw stones and attempted to breach barriers. A similar wave of unrest is also rising in Bangladesh. Why? Why are these countries so deeply involved in this conflict?

    The answer is clear and specific: religion. South Asia is deeply intertwined with religion. Both the population and administration are heavily influenced by religious beliefs. The region, which is the birthplace of prominent religions like Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism, is also home to around 600 million Muslims. Clashes between followers of Indian religions and Islam, as well as intra-Islamic conflicts, are common in these countries. Since Palestine is an emotional issue for Muslims globally, it has always featured prominently in South Asian society and politics. The Islamic countries in the region—Pakistan, Bangladesh, and the Maldives – harbor strong animosity toward Israel. Every incident in Gaza and the West Bank brings people to the streets, sparking anti-Israel protests. Calls for tougher actions by their governments against Israel, as well as protests against Western embassies and consulates, are common in these nations. Fundamentalist and terrorist groups unite in their anti-Israel stance, advocating for the boycott of Israeli products. Politicians in these countries are often reluctant to engage with Israeli officials because, regardless of their achievements, they risk being labeled as anti-religious or anti-national. The ongoing events in Gaza and Lebanon have further fueled hatred towards Israel among the population. Many Pakistanis believe that, as a nuclear power, Pakistan could do more to support groups fighting the holy war against Israel by supplying weapons, and they are willing to join the fight. A similar sentiment prevails in Bangladesh. Many believe that if the current conflict escalates into regional wars, people from Pakistan and Bangladesh, who are largely poor, unemployed, but deeply religious, could be recruited by these groups.

    In India, the situation is more complex. The socialist, communist, and Islamist parties, which rely on the votes of the more than 15 million-strong Muslim population, have consistently raised the Israel-Palestine issue in the public sphere. The Indian National Congress (INC), the grand old socialist party that led the government for most of independent India’s history, supported the two-state solution, recognizing both Israel and Palestine. However, the party and its government gave a clear preference to Palestine and its leaders, who were often celebrated as revolutionaries, with the Indian media also contributing to India’s pro-Palestine stance.

    However, when Narendra Modi and his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), a Hindu nationalist party, came to power in 2014, the situation changed dramatically. While the government did not abandon the two-state solution, it shifted away from its pro-Palestine stance and gave more support to Israel. Modi, who developed a personal friendship with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, strengthened the relationship on a national level as well. Consequently, the Indian government became more aggressive in countering pro-Palestine narratives, promoting India’s historical ties with Jews, and pushing a more pro-Israel perspective.

    Cities in India that once saw massive rallies in solidarity with Palestine now witness almost no demonstrations for the cause. As the public became more educated about the Israel-Palestine conflict from its roots, many began to see Palestine as primarily an Islamist issue. As a result, Islamist organizations in India no longer receive the widespread public support they once did, causing significant disappointment among the country’s Muslim population

    This evolving landscape of distrust and fundamentalism has become another major concern in the region. South Asia has no direct connection to the Israel-Palestine conflict beyond religious ties, but it is now causing further divisions within societies, most visibly in India. India’s shifting stance towards Israel has generated significant discontent among its Islamic neighbors, causing their hatred for Israel to also evolve into hostility towards India. This is clearly evident in social media spaces, where Indian groups and those from neighboring Islamic countries are often in conflict. As always, this deepens the divisions within societies that are already fractured by religious views. Therefore, we can say that, aside from Israel and its immediate neighbors, South Asia is also heating up under the mounting tensions between Israel and Hezbollah.

  • Is Nepal Finally Delivering Justice for Civil War Crimes?

    Is Nepal Finally Delivering Justice for Civil War Crimes?

    Nepal, a country cradled in the Himalayas, holds strategic importance due to its geographical location between India and China. This positioning has made Nepal an arena of power politics between the two nations. The ousted Hindu monarchy and several Hindu organizations were aligned with India, while the communist parties opposed this alignment and sought closer ties with China, leading to a decade-long civil war that culminated in the assassination of the royal family and the rise of the Maoist government. However, thousands of people in Nepal are still waiting for justice 20 years after tens of thousands were tortured, raped, killed, and forcibly disappeared during the conflict between the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) and government forces. The country now functions as a federal democratic republic with a multi-party system, including the Communist Party of Nepal, and is marked by instability, with frequent and rapid changes of government that have delayed justice for the civil war’s victims. Recent developments, however, offer a glimmer of hope: long-overdue amendments to the legislation are poised to address these historical injustices and finally deliver justice for the atrocities committed during the 1996-2006 civil war.

    The brutal Maoist insurgency, led by the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) to overthrow the monarchy, ended in 2006, leaving over 13,000 people dead and around 1,300 missing. Many still do not know the fate of those who disappeared and continue to seek answers to perform death rituals. Justice for those who suffered, went missing, or were killed has been delayed by political and legal complications. On November 21, 2006, almost 17 years ago, the government of Nepal and the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) signed the Comprehensive Peace Accord (CPA). This agreement established two transitional justice mechanisms: the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and the Commission of Investigation on Enforced Disappeared Persons (CIEDP). These bodies were intended to address human rights violations and crimes against humanity from the conflict. However, they have encountered legal challenges. In 2015, Nepal’s Supreme Court struck down parts of the legislation that created the TRC and CIEDP, particularly because these bodies were empowered to grant amnesty to perpetrators of serious international crimes.

    The weakness of the law made it difficult for victims, human rights activists, and civil society to effectively collaborate with the commissions. The government further delayed the appointment of commission members, risking the destruction of crucial criminal evidence. Lawmakers, including former government officials and Maoists, blocked international intervention to ensure impunity for actions taken during the conflict. This led to widespread discontent among victims, who accused political parties of betraying the people through political deals with one another. Calls for revisions came from all sides, and even Supreme Court instructed the government to revise specific sections of the act. Finally, after significant public outcry, the three major parties – the Nepali Congress, the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist), and the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre) – formed a mechanism in July to find common ground on the disputed provisions in the bill. They reached a written agreement earlier this month, and on August 14, Nepal’s lower house of parliament approved the long-delayed amendments to the transitional justice act.

    There’s no doubt that this is a significant step for Nepal’s democracy. A joint statement from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the International Commission of Jurists pointed out that, while the law includes several positive provisions, it also contains elements that could undermine its effectiveness. They emphasized that transitional justice should not become merely an exercise where victims are encouraged to accept compensation without receiving truth and justice. The decision to bring together various political parties to address the issue is part of an effort to build Nepali politics beyond the influence of India and China. This comes at a time when public sentiment is drifting away from both democracy and communism, with pro-monarchy protests calling for the return of the monarchy gaining momentum. Thus, it is also seen as an attempt to safeguard democracy in the face of these challenges.

  • What Caused So Much Anti-India Sentiment in the Indian Subcontinent?

    What Caused So Much Anti-India Sentiment in the Indian Subcontinent?

    Bollywood and Indian policymakers dominated the Indian subcontinent until the last decade. The Indian subcontinent, including Islamic countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan, maintained a good relationship with India. Countries like the Maldives, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal, and Bhutan acted more like India’s satellites. They developed and evolved using India as a model, and India was generous to its neighbors, offering assistance in areas from education, health, to the satellite services. This collaboration led to the formation of SAARC, which was one of the most effective regional bodies.

    The people of these countries shared a strong cultural bond, enjoying the same movies, music, and cricket and admiring stars from each other’s nations. Despite nationalism, there was a sense of fondness and unity. However, in 2024, the scenario has changed dramatically. The union and sentiments that once bound them together are no longer present. Politicians, people, and even artists are expressing hostility toward each other, with social media filled with hate comments. Anti-India factions are ruling in Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Maldives, and have gained strength in Sri Lanka and Nepal. Recently, a violent riot in Bangladesh toppled an India-supported government, revealing a clear rise in anti-India sentiment. Now, it seems only Bhutan remains allied with India in the subcontinent. What caused such a split between these countries that once seemed as close as in a Bollywood drama?

    India, as the largest secular democratic republic, was a role model for its fellow South Asian states. Even when they had disputes with India, they admired it. While some Islamist countries and the United States, which was opposed to Russia, propagated against India, people in these countries were fond of India, its secularism, and its culture. Indian Bollywood movies facilitated this cultural exchange significantly. Bollywood films, with their family values and cultural closeness, attracted large audiences in these countries, creating hardcore fans who cherished Bombay dreams. Bollywood produced content that appealed to these audiences and included more artists from Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and other countries, resulting in significant box office collections for Bollywood movies in these regions. At one point, despite border tensions, Pakistan was one of the largest contributors to Bollywood’s box office revenue.

    Cricket was also a unifying factor, as India provided facilities to promote the sport in these countries. Indian cricket and hockey stars were admired across the region. A similar cultural exchange occurred in reverse, with Pakistani musicians and Sri Lankan cricketers becoming big stars in India. Together, they formed a friendly alliance. The wars at the borders and foreign interests did not disturb this friendly environment.

    But things began to change over the last decade, specifically after Narendra Modi and his Hindu nationalist party, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), came to power in 2014. The rise of the Hindu nationalist party caused widespread concern in Islamic countries, leading them to question India’s secular image among their own people. Comments from BJP leaders were widely circulated, giving more spotlight to Islamic factions in countries like Pakistan, the Maldives, and Bangladesh. The public in these countries slowly began to fall out of love with India. Economic downturns in these countries were also redirected into India-hatred by local politicians, who blamed India for various problems. Jealousy played a role as well; in the past, everyone seemed to grow together, but now only India was progressing, leading to the perception that India didn’t care about them and was taking away their opportunities and overshadowing them on the global stage.

    The decline of Bollywood also contributed to this cultural divide. As Bollywood started producing more propaganda-based movies instead of the traditional romantic dramas, the films lost their connection with markets in Pakistan and other regions. Meanwhile, the youth, especially Gen Z, began exploring Hollywood and Korean movies instead of Indian content, further weakening cultural ties.

    But political analysts point to another important factor: the influence of social media on a predominantly young population. As social media spaces are heavily utilized by propagandists, minor incidents in distant places, which mainstream media usually neglect, have started to be highlighted and shape the national mood. This has further strained the already deteriorating connections between people and policymakers. Additionally, outsiders with vested interests have begun to exploit the situation. The United States and the United Kingdom have been culturally disseminating anti-India narratives in the surrounding countries, while Saudi Arabia and Qatar are advancing Islamic interests. Meanwhile, China has heavily invested in the region through infrastructure projects that small-income countries cannot afford to repay, pulling them out of India’s sphere of influence. Anti-Indian groups in these nations are taking advantage of this situation by fostering a new and distinct identity that previously did not exist.

    As a result, India is becoming increasingly isolated in the region, posing significant economic and military risks. With satellite countries bound by Chinese debts, they cannot refuse the influx of Chinese products, causing substantial losses for Indian businesses. Furthermore, infrastructure projects in strategic locations around India provide a military advantage for China. It appears that China is now the dominant player in the region with its partners, putting India in a difficult position.

  • How Does India-China Tension Benefit Nepal?

    How Does India-China Tension Benefit Nepal?

    Geopolitical tensions between superpowers always cause damage to their smaller neighbors. In the world wars and during the cold war era, the small neighbors of superpowers suffered greatly; often, they were dragged in without any direct interest in the conflicts. The domestic politics of these countries are always influenced by their neighbors. Any attempt to change puppet governments often leads to severe punishments for the people. While there are many adverse effects of this power struggle, there are also some benefits to consider. We can see this in the flow of funds from super powers to strategically located poor countries. For example, the Maldives is receiving a large sum of money from China, Taiwan is receiving considerable aid from the United States, and some countries are benefiting from both sides due to their strategic location. Nepal, the landlocked Himalayan country sandwiched between the heavyweights of India and China, is one such country. The country, home to Mount Everest, is dragged into India-China tensions, and these countries are investing in infrastructure projects, politicians, and even cultural organizations.

    Nepal has seen a significant influx of foreign investment in recent years. Most recently, during a two-day investment summit in Kathmandu, which concluded on Monday, representatives from India and China actively announced investments seeking to forge closer ties with Nepal and enhance their countries’ economic presence in South Asia. At the summit, potential investors pledged to inject up to US$68.3 million into the country. It is huge for a politically unstable country. Nepal is currently undergoing a transition from a centralized monarchy to a federal democratic republic under its 2015’s Constitution. Additionally, it aims to shift from reliance on international aid towards becoming a hub for global investments. Nepal Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal emphasizes that liberal economic policies lay the foundation for a vibrant and investor-friendly business environment. Although India’s and China’s interests were evident in the resulting deals announced.

    Delegates from India and China constituted the largest contingent among the 2,400 representatives from various countries attending the summit. While India dispatched around 150 participants, China’s delegation was twice as large. During the summit’s opening on Sunday, Beijing announced the exemption of visa fees for Nepali travelers starting May 1. This initiative coincides with the commencement of commercial flights from two international airports in Nepali cities Pokhara and Lumbini. Previously, the Himalayan route to China was inaccessible to Nepalis due to the government’s support for Tibetans, and the open border between India and Nepal caused concerns for China. However, recent developments suggest cooperation between Nepal and China to establish more routes through these challenging terrains. Progress is evident in air and road links, as well as border checkpoints. Feasibility studies for cross-border railways and transmission lines are also advancing.

    The airports, funded by China in the hundreds of millions of dollars, have been completed. In contrast, India has been cautious about opening air routes to Nepal, partly due to concerns over these airports’ connection to Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative. While additional projects are planned, there are concerns that they may further facilitate China’s access not only to Nepal but also directly to India’s northern regions. Despite Nepal’s naturally open border with India, infrastructure development appears to be more pronounced and effective on the Chinese side. Additionally, China’s funding of hydropower projects raises concerns for India. If India-China tensions escalate, the rivers originating in Nepal could become contentious, as they supply water to populous and fertile plains in India. Recognizing the importance of the situation, India is now actively addressing these issues. Piyush Goyal, India’s Federal Minister for Commerce and Industry, emphasized in a speech at the event via video call: “We will continue to expand our trading and business relationship. I urge Indian investors worldwide to invest in Nepal, seize the opportunity, and contribute to Nepal’s emerging development”.

    The impoverished South Asian country, boasting some of the world’s largest mountain peaks, holds potential across various sectors but has unfortunately been overlooked by investors. However, the current India-China tensions are instilling hope. The country’s hydro power generation sector, already one of its biggest exports and poised for further expansion, is expected to benefit from these investments. Presently, Nepal generates 3,200MW of hydropower, with numerous large-scale projects totaling 5,568MW in the pipeline. While India heavily invests in Nepal’s hydropower initiatives, China aims to establish a foothold in the sector. Infrastructure development from both ends will also improve the tourism sector. Hindu and Buddhist pilgrimages to Nepal already promise significant economic benefits for the tourism industry. As railroads are completed, Nepal expects an influx of Chinese tourists too. Hence, the India-China tensions offer hope for Nepal, recognizing that its transition from a low-income to a middle-income nation hinges on support from India and China.

  • Nepal Citizens Recruitment to Wagner Army: How is it Happening?

    Nepal Citizens Recruitment to Wagner Army: How is it Happening?

    In a prevalent trend, individuals from South Asian nations, grappling with overpopulation and high unemployment, often find themselves opting for high-risk employment opportunities. From Saudi Arabia to the UK, there is a noticeable presence of South Asian workers undertaking perilous jobs, driven by the need to support their big families despite the associated dangers. Notably, certain individuals in Nepal are particularly sought after for roles in security services, exemplified by the renowned Gurkhas, considered the elite members of security forces. These warriors, once serving in the armed forces of the British, German, and Soviet nations, are now being recruited into the Wagner Army, actively involved in the conflict on behalf of Russia against Ukraine.

    Over the past year, there have been reports of Nepalese individuals actively engaging in the conflict in Ukraine. The gravity of the situation became apparent on December 4 when it was revealed that six Nepali citizens had lost their lives while participating in Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Subsequently, Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal disclosed that over 200 Nepali citizens had enlisted in the Russian military since the full-scale invasion commenced in February 2022. PM Dahal also highlighted the presence of Nepalis in the Ukrainian army. And these figures are official counts, and the actual numbers may be higher.

    Responding to the unfolding scenario, Dipendra Bahadur Singh, an official at the National Human Rights Commission Nepal, stressed the importance of diplomatic dialogues between Nepal and both Russia and Ukraine. He underscored the illegality and associated risks of Nepali citizens joining foreign armies without the explicit consent of the state.

    Prime Minister Dahal acknowledged that while Nepal voted in favor of a UN resolution condemning Russia’s attempted annexation of four Ukrainian territories, some Nepalis fighting for Russia have been captured by the Ukrainian army. Furthermore, there is credible information about Nepali nationals serving in the Ukrainian army, adding complexity to the situation.

    Nepal’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement cautioning citizens against joining foreign armies in conflict-ridden nations. The emphasis was placed on the fact that Nepali citizens are enlisted only in the national armies of friendly countries under established traditional agreements. And Russia is not in the list.

    As apprehensions escalated, the ministry urged Moscow to bring back Nepali citizens from the conflict zone and to refrain from involving them in the ongoing conflict. Presently, the government is engaged in diplomatic efforts to rescue citizens captured in the war, and local authorities are actively investigating how Nepalis are navigating their way into the Russian army.

    Nepal has implemented a decisive measure by prohibiting its citizens from seeking employment in Russia or Ukraine. This decision aligns with a recent directive from Russian President Vladimir Putin, streamlining the naturalization process for foreigners who choose to join the Russian army. This directive extends the same privilege to immediate family members, creating an added incentive for recruitment.

    Human traffickers operating in Nepal and India have played a central role in orchestrating the transportation of young Nepali men into the conflict in Ukraine. These traffickers exploit the vulnerabilities of individuals by presenting alluring prospects, such as fast-tracked citizenship or significantly higher salaries than what is available in their home countries. A notable crackdown in Nepal resulted in the arrest of twelve individuals in December, charged with trafficking approximately 150-200 men to Russia. These traffickers demanded substantial sums, around $9,000, masquerading as fees for tourist visas to Russia, only to later coerce the victims into joining the Russian military.

    In grappling with the complexity of the situation, the Nepali government had previously appealed to Russia to repatriate the bodies of soldiers who lost their lives in the war against Ukraine, coupled with a demand for just compensation for the grieving families. Moreover, there are reports indicating that additional Nepali soldiers have been taken captive by Ukraine.

    Outside of Nepal, other South Asian nations find themselves entangled in a comparable quandary. Frequently, males embark on illicit migration, often under the guise of tourist visas, taking advantage of countries with lenient visa programs. Those lacking proficiency in the Russian language come under scrutiny, finding themselves ensnared in military engagements, sometimes affiliating with groups like the Wagner military. The predicament extends to India, where reports unveil that certain individuals, under deceptive pretexts, have been dispatched to partake in the conflict in Ukraine. Families of these individuals are now urging the government for aid in repatriation.

    Furthermore, apprehensions persist about potential recruits from Pakistan and Bangladesh. However, acquiring precise figures remains a formidable task due to the absence of robust citizen tracking systems and limited information flow from these countries.

    Similar instances have surfaced involving individuals from diverse nations, including Cuba, Serbia, and several African countries, enlisting in the Russian military. Occasionally, agencies deceive individuals seeking employment in Russia and neighboring countries, redirecting them towards military service without proper informed consent.

    People who are in need of food, those who are jobless and have nowhere else to turn, and even in the event of a conflict, these people will join. It follows that human migration to the conflict zone makes sense. However, it shows how the country has fallen short of ensuring job opportunities and population control. The situation is comparable to that of medieval Europe, when individuals served in other countries’ armies only in order to benefit financially. Sometimes people would sooner die than go hungry.