When Nepal’s Generation Z–led protests erupted, few anticipated their scale and intensity. What began as scattered demonstrations quickly transformed into the largest nationwide uprising since 1846, spreading across all 77 districts, with Kathmandu as its epicenter. The protests were largely peaceful, but their breadth and determination exposed the fragility of Nepal’s political order.
Political parties were losing legitimacy, law enforcement agencies were overwhelmed and discredited by public anger, and state institutions seemed paralyzed. This left a dangerous vacuum.
In that vacuum, only one institution retained public confidence and organizational discipline—the Nepali Army.
The Army Chief’s Immediate Challenges
From the first day of the protests, Army Chief General Ashok Raj Sigdel faced three defining challenges. First, he had to maintain stability within the strict boundaries of law and constitutional authority.
Second, he was tasked with assisting President Ram Chandra Paudel in opening channels of negotiation with the agitating groups, steering the crisis toward dialogue rather than confrontation.
Third, and most critically, he was responsible for safeguarding the constitution at a moment when institutions were visibly under strain.
These responsibilities were not only operational but symbolic. By maintaining composure and restraint, General Sigdel provided reassurance that the state would not collapse under political paralysis. His presence and messaging signaled both to citizens and the international community that the military remained committed to constitutionalism.
Why the Army’s Role Was Indispensable
The Army’s unique position during the crisis stemmed from its reputation as the most trusted national institution. According to the Asia Foundation’s 2022 survey, 91 percent of Nepalis expressed confidence in the Army—a remarkable contrast to the declining credibility of political parties and law enforcement.
At this critical juncture, intervention by the Army was indispensable. Its role was twofold:
As peacekeeper, preventing the protests from spiraling into violent anarchy.
As constitutional guardian, ensuring that a dangerous power vacuum did not engulf the state.
The Army’s deployment reassured citizens that the rule of law had not broken down completely. At the same time, it gave political leaders the breathing space to explore dialogue instead of escalation.
Beyond Nepal’s borders, the Army’s measured presence projected stability to the international community, signaling that the state was under strain but not collapsing.
Walking the Line: Preserving, Not Seizing Power
The Army’s intervention was never about usurping civilian authority. Rather, it was about preserving the constitutional framework until elected leadership could reassert control. By holding the line, the military prevented the Generation Z uprising—already spread across every district and straining the capacity of the state—from tipping into a full-scale constitutional crisis.
This distinction matters. In other historical moments, militaries in fragile democracies have stepped into politics directly, often permanently. Nepal’s Army, by contrast, emphasized its role as a stabilizer rather than a substitute. The challenge going forward will be to maintain that delicate balance.
The Two-Day Delay and Its Consequences
One of the most controversial aspects of the crisis was the Army’s delayed deployment. For two days, the military held back, and during this period, agitators managed to breach vital state properties, including the offices of the President and the Prime Minister. This raised pressing questions: Why did the Army wait? Could earlier intervention have prevented the breaches?
The answer lies in legality. Under Nepal’s constitutional framework, the Army cannot mobilize unilaterally. Deployment requires the endorsement of the President, acting on the recommendation of the National Security Council, chaired by the Prime Minister.
Designed to ensure democratic oversight of the military, this process slowed decision-making at a moment when speed was critical.
The hesitation was therefore less about capability than about legality. Political indecision compounded the delay, leaving the Army caught between two imperatives: respecting constitutional procedure on the one hand, and acting decisively to protect national security on the other.
This episode highlights the risks of political paralysis during moments of upheaval, where procedural safeguards can also become obstacles to timely response.
Symbolism and the Portrait Debate
The Army Chief’s televised address introduced another layer of debate, this time about symbolism. Behind General Sigdel hung the portrait of King Prithivi Narayan Shah, the founder of the Nepali Army. Commentators quickly speculated about monarchist undertones, interpreting it as a subtle political message at a moment of national crisis.
In reality, the portrait is a standard fixture in Army offices and headquarters. Its presence reflected institutional tradition, not political intent. The debates that followed were fueled more by conspiracy theories and political anxieties than by military signaling.
The Army’s position remains rooted in constitutionalism, not in resurrecting the monarchy. The symbolism, if anything, reflected continuity of history and heritage rather than any call for political change.
The Road Ahead: A Stabilizer in an Unstable Landscape
Looking forward, the Nepali Army’s responsibilities will only deepen. The likelihood of future uprisings cannot be dismissed, particularly given the scale and energy of the Generation Z movement. The Army must therefore remain prepared for unforeseen crises that could escalate into national emergencies.
Its central role will remain threefold:
Safeguard the constitution, ensuring the continuity of Nepal’s democratic framework.
Preserve national unity, holding the state together when politics fractures.
Act as a stabilizing force, stepping in when political mechanisms falter or risk collapse.
Yet the Army must tread carefully. It is not meant to play an overtly political role. Its credibility rests on its image as a disciplined, apolitical institution.
Overreach could compromise that trust, while too much restraint risks leaving the state exposed during crises. The challenge is to balance preparedness with constitutional boundaries.
Conclusion: Between Order and Anarchy
The Generation Z protests have revealed both the fragility of Nepal’s political institutions and the indispensable role of the Army as a stabilizer. General Sigdel’s leadership demonstrated the Army’s capacity to act firmly within constitutional limits, preventing escalation while buying time for politics to catch up.
But reliance on the Army as the ultimate backstop also underscores a deeper problem: the chronic weakness of Nepal’s civilian institutions. Unless political actors restore legitimacy and responsiveness, the military will remain the de facto guarantor of order—a role it accepts reluctantly, but one that risks blurring the constitutional boundaries it seeks to defend.
In today’s Nepal, the Army is both the guardian of the constitution and the thin line between order and anarchy. The future will depend not only on how politicians reform and regain trust, but also on how the Army continues to navigate its difficult role—standing apart from politics while ensuring that the state itself does not collapse.
(Basnyat, a Major General (Retd) of the Nepali Army, is a strategic analyst and is associated with Rangsit University, Thailand.)
Comment