In informal discussions, even in Jaleshwar, the first question asked is about the stability of the ‘discarded’ government, which has no constitutional, political, social or cultural legitimacy and was formed solely at the initiative of the Nepali Army. The questioner knows that the government, which was formed in the middle of the night in an unexpected, unpredictable and unbelievable way, can also be dissolved at any time in the same way.

For the sake of ethics, it is not unusual to start a political conversation with an implicit question. The term of the unconstitutional cabinet that you have chosen for yourself is only about 6 months. After that, an elected government should be formed. It is not difficult to detect that there is suspicion in the supplementary questions of the curious.

Is it possible to hold a free, fear-free and fair election on the specified date? Such questions can be easily answered by posing an explanatory counter-question - even though the responsibility of conducting the election lies with the Election Commission, is the unconstitutional and apolitical government committed to making such a constitutional process successful? Do the political parties that are the carriers of 'loot tantra' still have the morale to appeal to voters? The most difficult question to find an answer to is related to the so-called 'Gen-G' group.

Who are they? How did a group of unorganized, undisciplined and uncontrolled youths succeed in overthrowing the government of Nepal within 36 hours? Seeing that a logical explanation is not possible, the confused mind starts creating conspiracy theories. Given the nature of Nepali politics, which rarely sees a change of government without deception and trickery, even the curious in the mofussils are sometimes eager to find confirmation by spreading their own conspiracy theories in front of visitors from the capital.

The most frequently raised questions are about the possible American role. Given the rapidly developing strategic competition between the Sino-Russian alliance and the United States and the intensity of the Second Cold War, such accusations do not seem unnatural. In the 1960s, King Mahendra, at the instigation of the Americans, provided Nepalese land to the Khampa warriors who were fighting for Tibetan independence.

Any government that remains supported by the US could adopt such a geopolitically reckless strategy again in the future, despite all the risks. It also seems plausible that the Indians may have used Goti to oust the ‘three tyrants’ politicians who have almost transformed Nepal into a dependent state of the Chinese from mainstream politics.

Regardless of who the prime minister is, Sher Bahadur Deuba and Pushpa Kamal Dahal have been competing with each other to make Khadga Prasad Sharma Oli the ruler of power, at least since 2015. Deuba and Dahal are as responsible as Sharma Oli for the ‘tvam sharanam’ diplomacy in front of China. Since Nepal accepted the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) grant, the ‘Indo-American conspiracy’ has become a rallying cry for nationalists from the right to the left.

Even sensible Nepalis are unaware that nationalism is generally considered to be against the national interest due to the incessant propaganda of the Shah and Rana rulers who link Gathgadi with national identity. Nationalism evokes a sense of emotional, cultural and impulsive devotion to a ‘single identity’.

The idea of ​​national interest, on the other hand, accepts the understanding, cooperation and self-criticism necessary to enhance pragmatism, security, economic progress, social stability and international respect as acceptable compromises. Due to his extremely short-sighted and emotional centralism, Sharma Oli has added fuel to the fire of anti-India sentiment in Nepal for short-term political gains, causing unimaginable harm to the country’s long-term interests.

Perhaps that is why the ‘Gittha-Bhyakur nationalists’ of the Mandalay-Male-Masale (Mamam) brand promoted by Sharma Oli jump up and down and see New Delhi’s hand behind all Nepal’s problems. The group of ‘Mamam’ nationalists seeking to reaffirm their prejudices is growing day by day even among the Madhesis who have never tasted Gittha-Bhyakur in their lives. Rather than getting caught up in political chatter with them, it would be more appropriate to turn the discussion to China's miraculous economic and scientific progress.

After all, New Delhi seems to be a dwarf compared to Beijing's strategic power and diplomatic stature. Even if we are to believe that the green-yellow uprising of urban youth was the product of a foreign conspiracy like some 'color revolutions' elsewhere, there is no doubt that the 'two-day explosion' was successful due to the incompetence of the arrogant Sharma Oli government.

Not only is the state failing to protect the identity, freedom, property and honor of the common people, Sharma Oli's name is sure to go down in history as the head of the government who failed to protect even his own existence. The then Prime Minister Sharma Oli, who was tainted by the arrogance of the parliamentary majority and institutional corruption, had already lost faith in the governing mechanisms of his own government.

The explanation that the widespread looting, arson, and violence of September 9, 2025, was a response to the brutal repression of protesters who had gone to occupy the Parliament Building on September 8, 2025, has actually preserved the dignity of the state power. Such a large-scale nationwide destruction would not have been possible without months of preparation.

The psychological motivators (psyop motivators) who encouraged the suicide bombers who went to occupy the Parliament Building on September 8 to be aggressive together, incited them to sabotage, and assured them of safety were probably Nepalese. Even if (un)social media is blamed for the convenience, ordinary people cannot be discouraged from dying or being killed without personal contact and physical preparation.

The act of giving the disgruntled youth the ‘Gen-G’ brand ‘name’, the strategy of covering the national flag as a protective shield, the coordinated and effective use of (a)social media, especially small audiovisual media like TikTok, Reels and Shorts, and the mobilization of famous and influential personalities (celebrities and influencers) point to the possibility that the two-day explosion was conducted as a coup d’état campaign. Nationalist Nepalis must have been given a nationalist slogan to join such a campaign. The leadership must also have been from nationalist Nepalis. Only then could a situation have been created where nationalism could be against the national interest.

Combined Impulse

Independent India's first Field Marshal Shyam Manekshaw has an oft-quoted but unproven saying – ‘If someone says I am not afraid of death, then either that person is lying or that person is a Gurkha.’ On the surface, it seems like a praise of Gurkha courage, but there is also a touch of irony in that expression – the courage to not fear death can also be called the ‘wisdom of the wise’ ∕ After all, the suicidal heroism that goes to fight for others is often born of the flow of impulse and the excess of conscience.

Bhupi Sherchan expresses the same sentiment in a poem titled ‘We’ without any hesitation – ‘We are brave/ But we are stupid/ We are stupid/ And we are brave/ We could never be brave without being stupid/’ If September 8-9, 2025 was really a coup d’état, then who would have led such a demonstration of ‘smart bravery’? Was the sacrifice of the young men killed by the police, agents provocateurs within the security forces, or outsiders protecting the Parliament building on the afternoon of September 8, allowed to prepare the ground for the destruction that would take place on the evening of September 9?

There is no need to argue that the responsible ministers, secretaries, and civil and police officers of the then government should be brought to justice. Why did such a situation arise? That question is equally important for the investigation. It is certainly not to practice shooting arrows that trained police officers fired on the protesters. The courage to question God for the purity of faith, the guru for the clarity of knowledge, the scriptures for the awakening of conscience, and the self for self-realization has been called the quadrilateral of philosophy.

More important than all such questions is the inherent right of dutiful citizens to question the ruler or the state system, because in an organized society without a responsible ruler, philosophy has no meaning. Now the operation of the state system is in the hands of opponents of the displaced government. If they cannot fulfill the responsibility of finding answers, they too must be considered a party to a staged conspiracy.

Leading a seemingly spontaneous rebellion is perhaps the most difficult task because it does not have a long history. Since maturity, experience, and practical knowledge were almost inseparable in primitive hunter-gatherer societies, the eldest ‘knowing, listening, and wise old man’ would naturally be established as the head of the tribe.

As patriarchy becomes institutionalized, a power-centered and victory-oriented leadership style develops that values ​​cunning and courage over knowledge and courage. The expansionist ‘Bir Bhogya Basundhara’ policy of King Prithvi Narayan Shah of Gorkha can also be considered as the primary stage of state building. Kazi Jung Bahadur Kunwar, who held the helm of the Gorkha military policy, where state power cannot be destroyed without deceit rather than courage, bravery and strength, became the chief minister overnight after the Kotparva with the claim ‘whose sword, his court’.

But if the saying ‘whose sword, his court’ only applied, Khadgashamsher, who is believed to have shot Ranoddeep Singh Kunwar, would not have had to be exiled, and Chandrashamsher, who is notorious for his crookedness, would not have been able to become the longest-ruling prime minister in Nepal’s history.

Along with political legitimacy through victory, King Mahendra brought the Rana-Shah diplomacy of exercising internal sovereignty within the umbrella of a powerful empire, based on control and exploitation of resources and consumption rather than production and cooperation, a culture of obedience that operated according to hierarchy and subordination, and the Rana-Shah diplomacy of exercising internal sovereignty within the umbrella of a powerful empire, to almost authoritarian perfection.

The idea that leadership in a modern state is not just the exercise of power but also a positive and balanced combination of elements such as thought, emotion, organization, and symbolism had begun to be debated in Nepal since 1951. BP Koirala, who believed that successful leadership should not be limited to law, order, and administration but should also be able to fulfill the responsibility of giving direction to society, inspiring the people, and building solidarity for a common goal, could not last more than two years in power as Home Minister and Prime Minister.

Regardless of the dominant ideology, liberalism, capitalism, socialism or communism, political leadership in post-colonial regimes is analyzed based on at least eight types of roles – thinker, motivator, thinker, organizer, propagandist, manager, provocateur and charismatic. All the types of roles are related to each other, but each one highlights a specific dimension of leadership. Among politicians after 1950, BP Koirala appears as an excellent thinker, an effective motivator, an average thinker, a weak organizer, a reluctant propagandist, an ineffective manager and a skeptical provocateur, but his charismatic personality covers all the other strengths and weaknesses.

The fact that no one, from monarchists to anarchists, has been able to move forward without ignoring BP Koirala, simultaneously highlights his personal greatness and the political smallness of society as a whole. As politics becomes self-centered, reactionary, vindictive, opportunistic, and focused on personal gain rather than the long-term interests of the nation or people, the common people will be forced to look to the pages of history for ideals.

Customized leadership

As in the hard-right ideologies, in the extreme left too, the role of the organizer, propagandist, manager, and agitator is more important than the thinker, motivator, or thinker. The reason for this is that all the work related to thinking, motivation, and thought has been done by the ‘seven sages of socialism’ Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Che Guevara, and Ho Chi Minh. If the communists do not accept to put ideological innovators like Rosa Luxemburg and Antonio Gramsci on an equal footing, what about the nationalist communists of South Asia?

त्यति भन्दाभन्दै के मान्नुपर्छ भने पुष्पलाल प्रभावशाली उत्प्रेरक र मदन भण्डारी अब्बल प्रचारक थिए । पुष्पकमल दाहाल ज्वलन्त उत्तेजक रहेको पनि स्वीकार गरिनुपर्छ । तर नेपाली समाजले खोज्ने चर्को आरोप–प्रत्यारोप, आक्रोश, नृजातीय राष्ट्रवाद र धार्मिक वा मिथकीय भाष्यमा आधारित जनोत्तेजक प्रियतावादलाई साम्यवादको आवरण प्रदान गर्न सहज थिएन ।

मार्क्सवाद, लेनिनवाद, माओ विचार, देंग शियाओपिङ प्रस्तावना र तीन प्रतिनिधि सिद्धान्तको उत्तराधिकारी सोचका रूपमा प्रवर्तित चिनियाँ कम्युनिस्ट पार्टीको आधिकारिक मार्गदर्शक नीति ‘सी चिनफिङ विचार’ लाई नेपालको हावापानी र माटो सुहाउँदो सर्वसत्तावादी प्रारूप बनाउने श्रेय शर्मा ओलीलाई दिइनुपर्छ ।

समस्या के भइदियो भने बीपीको प्रजातान्त्रिक समाजवाददेखि शर्मा ओलीको ‘सी चिनफिङ पथ’ सम्मका सबै विचारहरू आजभोलि उद्यमशीलताको राजनीतिक बजारमा (मार्किट्प्लेस अफ इन्ट्रप्रेन्युरियल पोलिटिक्स) बिक्न छाडेको छ । बजारले जे खोजिरहेको छ, त्यो भावना बेचेर राजनीति गर्ने खेलका पोख्त खेलाडीका रूपमा रवि लामिछाने उदाएका थिए– ‘बुद्ध वाज बर्न इन नेपाल’ ∕ दनादन राजनीतिक गोल हान्ने क्रममा उनले के बिर्सिदिए भने कहिलेकाहीँ नेपालका राजनीतिक खेलहरूमा रेफ्री र लाइन्सम्यान पनि आ–आफ्नो पक्ष रोजेर सोझै मैदानमा उत्रिने गर्छन् ।

जनपरिचालन र उत्तेजक प्रदर्शनमा (अ)सामाजिक सञ्जालको उल्लेख्य प्रभावले गर्दा एक दशक जति यता वितरित नेतृत्व (डिफ्युज्ड लिडरसिप) अवधारणा व्यापक हुँदै गएको छ । हरितपीत विद्रोहको सबभन्दा ठूलो समस्या नै के भइदियो भने ८ सेप्टेम्बरको हिंस्रक दमनका लागि जिम्मेवार अधिकारीहरूको खोजी गर्नेहरूमध्ये ९ सेप्टेम्बरको त्यसभन्दा बढी हिंस्रक र विध्वंसक अराजकताको जिम्मेवारी लिने हिम्मत कसैले पनि जुटाउन सकेका छैनन् ।

विद्रोह नेतृत्वविहीन (लिडरलेस) नभएर नेतृत्वपूर्ण (लिडरफुल) रहेकाले जिम्मेवार व्यक्ति खुट्याउन कठिन भएको हो । सन् २००३ तिर प्राध्यापक जोसेफ रायलिनले प्रस्तुत गरेका नेतृत्वपूर्ण (लिडरफुल) अवधारणाअनुसार नेतृत्वलाई एक जना करिश्माई व्यक्ति वा ‘नायक’ मा केन्द्रित गर्नुको सट्टा धेरै व्यक्तिमा समान रूपमा बाँडियो भने आघात सहने, परिवर्तित परिस्थितिमा आफूलाई अनुकूलन गर्ने र दबाबका अवस्थामा पनि निरन्तर कार्य सञ्चालन गर्न सक्ने संस्थाको क्षमता सुदृढ हुन्छ ।