Most street demonstrations and protests in Nepal have turned violent. Deaths and injuries to police and protesters/movers, or vandalism, arson, or looting of public property have become commonplace. Despite the human toll in every demonstration/movement, the state does not seem to have improved its strategy.

Both the protest by the royalists on 15 Chaitra and the protest by Zen-G on 23 and 24 Bhadra resulted in human casualties. Many were injured. Public property was damaged. It cannot be claimed that similar damage will not occur if there is any other kind of protest/movement now.

With such a situation, the global style of democracy where individuals or groups put forward their demands on the streets is becoming unfavorable in Nepal. On the other hand, the situation has become more publicized by deaths, injuries, or damage to public property than by the demands of the protesters/movers. Therefore, it is necessary for the protesters/movers and the state to behave with restraint and responsibility to make the protest/movement peaceful and purposeful.

The situation was under control until the protest organized by Zen-G on 23 Bhadra reached New Baneshwor from Maitighar. But since the police mobilization was not effective, the protesters moved towards the Parliament building. The state used excessive force. The next day's protests were nationwide, with buildings of important state bodies, government offices, media houses, commercial and business buildings being set on fire, vandalized and looted.

The second day's violence also increased the human toll, and a total of 76 people were killed. Ironically, 39 people were killed by bullets during the Gen-G movement, and post-mortems have confirmed that all of them were hit in the waist. In the Kathmandu Valley alone, 35 people were shot, 19 in the chest, 10 in the head, 4 in the stomach and 2 in the neck, according to the report submitted to the government by the forensic department. One person appears to have been hit by three rubber bullets, while all the others were hit by metal bullets, according to the report of the forensic department of the Tribhuvan University Teaching Hospital, Maharajgunj.

The youth did not have to suffer so much damage in their protest against the corrupt character of the state. But it was not possible to communicate with the protesting parties, to concentrate them in a certain circle during the protest, to decentralize them as needed, and to control the situation by using non-lethal weapons.

Instead, there was a tendency to not prepare enough at the beginning and to open fire indiscriminately at the end. Although not at the level of 23 and 24 Bhadra, there has been an unnatural loss of life and property in previous small-scale protests. Even the royalist program on 15 Chait turned violent from the beginning. Two people, including a journalist, died that day.

The protesters damaged the party office, Sancho and other pharmaceutical manufacturers, media houses, Bhatbhateni supermarkets, and private vehicles. Even the program scheduled for the program and that was being organized was not seen under the control of the government. On 13 Poush 2080, two youths who took to the streets to protest over the issue of participation in the Korean language exam died. Loss of life and property has become an integral part of all public movements, from movements of various communities. Whereas, in many developed countries of the world, large-scale protests rarely result in loss of life or property. 

In our country, no skill is used to control the crowds that gather during demonstrations/movements. There are some reasons for that. First, the police lack training in modern methods of crowd management and the strategies adopted by developed countries. As a result, there is a tendency to open fire to control tense situations. Second, the police in our country lack resources. The availability of non-lethal weapons is low. The government is also not seen to have effective dialogue with the protesters.

Let us remember the Gen-G movement. While the discussion of the movement was going on, the government did not communicate at all about their demands and the method of the movement. Instead, the then Prime Minister made statements that incited the protesters. Even after the loss of the 23rd, the state was unable to communicate. Third, there is a lack of monitoring and accountability regarding the use of lethal weapons. The conditions to be followed for that are not clear. The unnecessary use of lethal weapons has not become a matter of action. If that were the case, the issue of being shot in the head and chest would have become a very big issue.

We also have less practice of creative/symbolic protests. Our culture has not developed to the point where we believe that individual or collective programs with our demands will be peaceful. During demonstrations/movements, people behave hostilely towards the police and public property. This plays a role in making the environment tense very quickly.

The state also has a tendency to take the initiative to address demands only after excessive damage has been caused. The practice of understanding demonstrations/movements as an attempt to individually or collectively convey one's concerns to the state and to pressure for immediate or long-term improvements has not yet been established.

The state should mainly exercise restraint to prevent loss of life and property in demonstrations/movements. Crowd management skills should be used. For that, the police should be provided with sufficient non-lethal weapons/equipment. They should be trained. They should be kept under surveillance and accountability. The state party should continue to communicate with the protesters/movers and try to find a way out through discussion. A system and culture should be developed for presenting demands and having them heard appropriately. Protesters/movers should also not lead themselves to violence. They should believe in symbolic, symbolic, and peaceful programs. If the state also adopts sensitivity to demands raised peacefully, a similar culture will continue to develop. Even if a system is developed to identify and take action against those involved in violent activities, individual involvement in such activities may decrease.