In a democracy, the state is based on the rule of law, not as a means of governing by using law as a weapon. This means that the powers of the state are limited and guided by legal principles, which prioritize the rights and welfare of the citizen. The main purpose of the state is not to control, but to protect.

In this context, the administration has to play an important role as a bridge between the state and the citizen, ensuring transparent, responsive and accountable dialogue – a dialogue based on trust. But when the state starts sending police and troops before dialogue, starts displacing before solutions and starts speaking the language of dozers and repression before policy preparation, then a serious question arises – are we slowly moving towards a police state?

It is not just the use of batons or bullets, but such presence and pressure are also forms of use of force, the result of which can be seen in the death of a child and an elderly person in the slum. Some recent events have indicated the same. In the process of evacuating the slums in Kathmandu, the Prime Minister and the Ministry of Home Affairs have instructed security agencies to vacate the slums on holidays (Saturdays and Sundays), issued notices often the day before holidays so that the opportunity for legal remedies is limited, used threatening language such as ‘if you don’t evacuate on time, the dozer will be used’ and ‘you have to take responsibility for your belongings yourself’, not given enough time for relocation, not making proper arrangements for transporting people and belongings, and terrorizing people by conducting police raids on the slums overnight – all these are not humane resettlement practices.

These are demonstrations of state power. Mobilizing thousands of police to evacuate a slum is in itself an use of psychological force. Not only using sticks or shooting, but also such presence and pressure are forms of force, the result of which can be seen in the death of a child and an elderly person from the slum. 

Although the government has said that it will ensure humanitarian assistance during the rescue and relocation, transport necessary supplies and make proper arrangements to safely transport vulnerable people, such as the disabled, the disabled, children, pregnant and postpartum women, the elderly and the chronically ill, to designated shelters or hospitals if necessary, giving special priority to them, these slum dwellers are currently being taken to various holding centers.

According to reports, pregnant and postpartum women and children are not even getting nutritious food there. The situation is such that even photographs of these holding centers are not allowed, children are not able to go to school, and when human rights activists go there to inquire about it, they are told to ‘bring a letter from above’. This forced removal of squatters and keeping them in contactless holding centers is reminiscent of the ‘concentration camps’ operated by Hitler in Germany.

Rather than managing the squatters, it seems like Balen is trying to implement a dream that he could not fulfill when he was the mayor of Kathmandu Metropolitan City. There is neither preparation, nor are there organized holding centers, there is no identification and verification, and there are no special arrangements for vulnerable people.

This same repressive trend is also seen in the decision to eliminate party student and employee organizations in relation to the university. The decision to eliminate party student organizations in itself may be a debatable issue. In this context, the Patan High Court had decided about 3 years ago not to demolish the structure without properly managing the squatters, not to remove the squatters, but the current government, headed by Balen, has again resorted to using force on the squatter settlements, to fulfill its unfulfilled dream. The question arises, if the government’s objective is really management, where is the classification? Where is the rehabilitation plan? Where is adequate alternative housing? Where is the assurance of land rights? Where is the provision of psychological counseling? The Prime Minister's 100-day action plan promised to collect and resolve the digital data of landless squatters, but isn't it a failure of the state to directly mobilize the police and evacuate the settlements without conducting a survey?

This same repressive trend is also seen in the decision to eliminate party student and employee organizations in relation to the university. The decision to eliminate party student organizations in itself may be a debatable issue. No one disagrees with the objective of making the university healthy, educational and independent, reform is necessary.

However, ignoring the right to form organizations guaranteed by the constitution, the directive to 'eliminate student organizations even by using the police' indicates an attempt to make the university more like a barracks than a center of knowledge, debate and thought. The question arises, is the police force the first solution to reform?

The objective of preventing student and employee organizations from becoming fronts for political parties can be considered reasonable to some extent, but removing the physical structure of an organization does not end ideological affiliation. How can the state prevent students who hold democratic views, hold leftist views or share any political viewpoint from uniting? Therefore, this step by the government is also understood to have been taken without prior preparation.

Ideas cannot be controlled by locking them up. In a situation where schools have been declared peace zones, the attempt to remove student organizations under the cover of police force seems more like an exercise in control than reform. Therefore, this step also seems like a decision taken without adequate dialogue, clear alternative structures and prior preparation.

We have also seen enough scenes in various videos of police snatching people's belongings, dragging people, and security personnel behaving indecently while searching their bags in the border area. Similarly, the case of tightening customs duties on goods worth more than Rs 100 at the border is another example of this mentality. The rule was old, but it was suddenly tightened without sufficient prior preparation, alternative market structures, and local sensitivity. As a result, the general public, housewives, daily wage earners, low-income individuals and communities in Madhesh, especially in the border areas, have been terrified. We have also seen enough scenes in various videos of police snatching people's belongings, dragging people, and security personnel behaving indecently while searching their bags in the border area.

In the border area, which has been tied to a breadwinner relationship for years, where daily life from salt to clothes is linked to the market across the border, imposing 'strictures' by the state without first making easy market arrangements is not sensitive governance, but a display of administrative arrogance.

There may be distortions in student organizations, encroachments by non-sukum residents in the name of squatters, and customs leakage at the border. But why is the police and army the first solution to every problem? Why does the state consider security mechanisms before policy, dialogue, structure, and social justice? The purpose of the state is to enforce the law, not to humiliate citizens. But looking at the current style, it seems that the state has started to view citizens as suspicious objects, not partners.

In the meantime, the role of the army has also been seen as suspicious. In the statement issued by the Nepali Army on Democracy Day, the language used is that the Nepali Army and related agencies are ‘regularly monitoring’ disorderly and anarchic activities, which sounds more like a warning in soft language than information. The question arises, since when did the army start ‘regularly monitoring’ the expressions, comments and criticisms of ordinary citizens on social media? In a democracy, the army is an institution of national security, not a police of citizen opinion. Calling criticism ‘anarchic activities’ and reminding people of the legal scope is a dangerous sign of creating psychological pressure on freedom of expression.

The use of police force is not only about using sticks or bullets, but also creating an atmosphere of fear to ensure one’s objectives. The presence of thousands of police officers also creates the impression of a police state. There is a government elected through a democratic system in the country, it has public support, and it has been entrusted with the responsibility of running the state with confidence for 5 years.

But when policies are implemented hastily without preparation, the main language of implementation becomes the security apparatus, when dissent is made a matter of control, when the right to live with dignity is violated and when administrative decisions are based on the use of force rather than human sensitivity, that is where the police state begins.