The government has decided to remove party-affiliated student organizations from the university within 60 days and establish new structures like ‘Student Council/Voice of Students’ within 90 days . It has also decided to remove flags, banners, murals and offices from the campus . The argument of the vice-chancellor of the university is that the work could not be done due to the student organizations . Some professors argue that universities are centers of knowledge production and research, where political activities are affecting the quality of education .

The main concept put forward by the government is to make education free from politics, although it sounds attractive, it is complicated in practice . This decision is an attempt to make society thoughtless . Education itself is intertwined with the social and political context . Curriculum, research, university administration, budget, etc. are all the results of political decisions . In such a situation, the attempt to make the university completely ‘free from politics’ seems wrong in principle .

In reality, the important point in the debate on improving the educational quality of universities should be the basic policy and structure of the university, but the entire blame for the deterioration of the educational quality has been given to student organizations. The government does not seem to be moving towards solving the real problem by blaming student organizations for all the problems.

Article 17 (d) of the Constitution of Nepal has ensured the freedom of every citizen to form an organization. This gives constitutional protection to organizational freedom in accordance with the basic values ​​of democracy. In such a situation, the decision to eliminate student organizations within the university is not only an administrative reform but also an interference with fundamental rights. It is a matter of serious concern that intellectuals are passive witnesses to the government's attempt to undermine its democratic rights.

Student organizations are the basic structures of democratic practice. Through them, students get the opportunity to develop leadership, raise issues of their rights and interests, and actively participate in state and social affairs. This is also visible if we look at the past days. Universities are public spaces, and debate and dialogue of ideas strengthen democracy. If such a space is controlled in the name of making it ‘politics-free’, it is a limitation of democratic practice.

The student councils that are currently in the news are often found to operate under the influence of the administration of educational institutions. They are elected with limited participation. It does not pay attention to the students’ ability to organize freely, openly debate their ideas, and raise their voices for their rights and interests. Since the emphasis is only on academic matters, there is a possibility that the need to raise their voices on political, social, national, and livelihood issues is missed.

The government has put forward the ‘student council’ as an alternative structure. But questions have been raised about its effectiveness and credibility: Is the student council truly independent? How democratic is its selection process? Can it represent the diverse voices of students?

In reality, the important point in the debate on improving the educational quality of the university should be the basic policy and structural level of the university, but the entire blame for the deterioration of the educational quality has been given to student organizations. The government does not seem to be moving towards solving the real problem by blaming the student organizations for all the problems. Student Council is a structure controlled by the administration and cannot truly represent the students. Therefore, the changes made in the name of reform are only general structural reforms, not real ones.

Alternative path to reform
The contribution of student organizations cannot be underestimated. The role of student movements in establishing and strengthening democracy in Nepal is very important. If the government's objective is truly educational reform, then there should be regulation, not ban on student organizations. Structural reforms of universities are necessary for educational reform. Independent student unions and student organizations should be able to act as a warning, and they should be allowed to do so.

Student organizations are the opposition parties in the university, which raise their voices strongly against educational malpractices. Therefore, it is necessary to ensure their transparency and accountability, not their abolition. Strict rules should be implemented against violent activities in the campus/university, arrangements should be made for expulsion of both students and teachers involved in violent activities, student organizations should be oriented towards educational and creative activities, and structures like SWA should be improved. Which will help improve the educational environment while maintaining democratic practices.

Conclusion
If the government is committed to improving the quality of education, it cannot run away from the path of permanent structural reform by blaming all the blame on student organizations. The attempt to eliminate student organizations will cost this government dearly. It stifles students' political participation, freedom of expression, and the right to organize. That gives rise to anger and explosions against oppression.

It is true that in the past, the opportunistic tendency of the parent party to become the ruling party when it came to power and to become the street bandits when it was on the streets has weakened the student movement today. But the history of student politics should not be forgotten and banned. To strengthen democracy, it is necessary to maintain universities as centers of open, inclusive and critical debate. Student politics can neither be completely eliminated, nor can its current distorted form be accepted. Therefore, the solution is not elimination, but transformation. Student organizations should be responsible, transparent and based on democratic values.

The kind of disillusionment that is being created among ordinary students in the country today is not a good sign for the country. In fact, looking at the activities, character, and behavior of the political parties active in the country today, disillusionment with politics is not new. Not only in our country, but also in other countries, there are histories of such situations being created. But the truth is that it is not possible to solve the problem by hating politics and cursing or abusing only the leaders of political parties. Without understanding the character of the country's system, it is not possible to seek the comforts and facilities of highly developed countries. The idea that students studying in schools and universities should not do politics has taken root among them. Our way of thinking has worked behind that.

On the other hand, even if you do politics, you can do it when you grow up, you can do it later, you should not do politics while studying in school, you should only study the content of the curriculum, and there is no need for other literature and social studies. But all these are misconceptions. No matter what field you work in, if a person does not have leadership skills, there is no doubt that he will fall behind. Leadership development and skills are not something that mysteriously happens at a time when they are needed. It is a matter of learning and understanding from a young age. Therefore, in order to develop mature leadership in the future, one should join the student organization from a young age. Only by joining and being active in the student organization can one understand the character of society, human life, and the state. Therefore, one should connect with political movements and politics while studying in school and university. Because student politics is the place of learning central politics.