The recent Gen Z protests that rocked Nepal did more than just bring down a government. This protest exposed a deep hypocrisy and ill intention of country's long-standing so called intellectual class, systematically weaken and destroyed government agencies, and false narrative media had been setting for years.
For decades, a small, often left-leaning group of analysts—names like Krishna Khanal, Khagendra Sangraula, CK Lall, Kanak Mani Dikshit, Kishor Nepal and others—have completely dominated the public conversation. Media had been showing and airing their narratives as if these couple of dozens bunch of old Marxists represent the sole voice of Nepal's political wisdom.
But if you listen them today, particularly after the nationwide rage on 8th and 9th September, you realize that these old analyst are speaking a language that is utterly outdated, disconnected from the reality of the crisis, and suspiciously focused on hiding the ugly truths of Nepal's political tragedy. Their analysis is no longer analysis. It's an old, dusty political defense that does more harm than good to the society and country. But, still these media are prioritizing them while hiding the facts and reality.
The first, most glaring problem is that these so called veteran analysts see modern Nepali politics through the lens of the 1980s and 90s. Their framework for analysis is completely forged during the movement against the Panchayat system, and they refuse to update it.
The political landscape today is fundamentally different. People's mentality and aspiration are entirely different. In Nepal, the social, political, and economic landscape is entirely influenced by mass migration, hyper-connectivity, rampant institutional decay, and economic deterioration by the Marxism and socialism that have destroyed fundamental economic and political setting of the country. That has skyrocketed the frustration of the youth.
Each and every government institution has been affected and have become useless due to over politicization. Every government institutions have filled with party's cadres rather than people with any form of meritocracy. Yet, when you hear the commentary of these analyst, they recycle the same flat, tired narratives of three or four decades ago. They can't even capture the pace of modern geopolitics or the profound generational shift in thinking. Or at least they don't want to talk about it.
If these analysts found anyone challenging their analysis or questioning their thoughts or pointing out their weaknesses, they either simply blame them flat out as regressive forces or simply block them from such discussion. The irony: they are actually the regressive forces and have been capturing the political analysis sphere for decades with old ideology and language. They are trying to map a GPS-guided world with a paper map from a bygone era. But, the good thing is the public has now noticed who they are, what they work for, and what narrative they are trying to set up.
The Great Deception: Hiding Foreign Influence
The second, and more damaging, issue is their consistent refusal to acknowledge the role of foreign meddling in Nepal's biggest political earthquakes. They've spent decades constructing a false narrative of "purely internal" movements, and the media helps them maintain this shield.
1990 Movement: It is a historical fact that major political parties, particularly the Nepali Congress, were working in close coordination with India. Nepali Congress even invited an economic blockade of India. And they further invited Indian leaders like Chandra Shekhar to address and motivate protest rallies on Nepali soil in Kathamndu. Ganesh Man Singh, then Nepali Congress leader, was the major culprit or say an Indian agent of the time. VERY SIMPLE: if you invite a foreign leaders to involve in your internal affairs, you are the anti-national agent. This was, by any measure, an anti-national act Nepali Congress and Ganesh Man Singh did in 1990. You cannot image any political party inviting a foreign power to cripple its own country for political gain. Yet, these old analyst like Krishna Khanal guard defends this as simply India's "kindness," hiding the real, treacherous foreign influence.
The Maoist Insurgency (1996-2006): The Maoist Insurgency was a decade of terror that killed thousands and gutted the nation's social, historical, and cultural foundations. Yes, the combatants were Nepali, but the leadership was demonstrably sheltered, trained, and provided arms and communications from foreign soil, particularly in India.
Furthermore, evidence shows significant support from Western forces for Maoist, including Christian missionaries, who were allowed free rein to operate and convert in Maoist-held areas while Hindu temples were destroyed and Hindu priest were killed across the country. But the established intellectuals like Khagendra Sangraula or CK Lall or Krishna Khanal or any of such outdated minds whitewash this as a genuine, home-grown "movement for democracy". They completely obscure the foreign orchestration that ultimately dismantled the country's state system.
2006 Uprising: Again, the foundation of the movement was the 12-Point Agreement that was drafted and signed by the political parties in New Delhi. The leaders who involved in the agreement later said that the draft of the agreement was prepared by Indian agencies and Nepal's political leaders' role was just sign it. The entire direction of the protest came from a foreign capital. Once again, our intellectuals hid this critical fact, allowing the narrative of a purely internal democratic awakening to stand unchallenged.
These intellectuals, many of whom are deeply leftist or Marxist in their ideology, have worked tirelessly to set a media narrative that ignores the foreign hand in our biggest national crises. By doing so, they have protected the political actors who consistently compromise national sovereignty for power and money.
The Cowardice in the Crisis: Ignoring the President's Role
The same analysts who have been capturing the political analysis sphere of Nepal have come forward actively after the September crisis. CPN UML and Nepali Congress joint communist government killed at least 19 school students protesting against corruption in Kathmandu. The subsequent nationwide rage destroyed hundreds of private homes of the leaders of political parties, and government infrastructure including Singh Durbar, Supreme Court, and Office of the President. The world saw the burning of historic buildings like Singha Durbar and the Supreme Court and it was the moment of total state collapse. Leaders hid in army barracks, police surrendered their weapons, and a power vacuum engulfed the country. Even the PM resigned and fled to an army barrack in an unknown location.
After the state collapse, there was the president, only elected authority and state head remained at the moment. Yes, the President, Ram Chandra Poudel, was the last, highest elected authority remaining.
Here is the question our intellectuals refuse to ask: What did the President do at the time of crisis?
President was rescued from his burning office and hid in an army barrack tunnel. When the Prime Minister resigned, the country was left lawless.
But at this crisis, did the president appoint another person, or even the resigned PM, as acting Prime Minister? NO.
Did the President discuss with the Army how to control the situation? NO.
Did the President make any decision to mobilize the Army? NO.
Did the President order the Army to take control of the situation? NO.
What did he do then? Nothing.
President was under a tunnel in an army barrack, discussing with his party's leaders and his political and legal advisors while the country was already burning and everything was turning into ashes.
He did nothing to act as the head of state and guardian of the people. In contrary, he acted like a fearful party cadre, discussing matters with his political advisors and party leaders.
Now, the very same intellectuals and the funded media they occupy are busy criticizing the Nepal Army for failing to protect these buildings. This is a deliberate deflection.
Why is no one asking the simple, logical question: Did President Ram Chandra Poudel, the only authority who could order the Army, give the order to protect the state's most iconic institutions?
What was his role? Why was he there? Is he there to spend people tax on his personal health issues and foreign trips?
The silence from the veteran analysts on the President's failure is deafening. It proves their intellectual output is not about truthful analysis; it is about protecting the establishment figures of their political camp and deflecting blame onto others.
Conclusion: Time for the Old Guard to Step Aside
The "intellectuals" who have occupied Nepal's media space like a monopolistic cabal for decades are not just outdated; they are part of the problem. They first act as an independent intellectuals while they are already a cadre of a political party. Then they carry an obsolete political framework, consistently whitewash foreign-guided treachery, and actively hide the failures of the ruling political elite they support.
It is time for this old, biased, and frankly useless generation of analysts—the Krishna Khanals, Khagendra Sangraulas, CK Lal, Kanak Mani Dikshit, Ameet Dhakal, and others—to shut down their narrative factory. There are enough analysts who know the reality much better than these outdated souls. There are more than enough analysts who are honest, fearless, and truly nationalistic, capable of capturing the current political pace without the baggage of four decades of hidden agendas.
Nepali people should boycott these old and failed analysts who not only failed themselves, but they were a part of the system that supported and promoted the current political system that failed the country. Therefore, these old analysts are also responsible for the failed Nepal.