In the wake of the tumultuous Gen Z protests that shook Nepal in early September 2025, the country’s political and security institutions are grappling with both accountability and interpretation of the events. As the official probe commission pushes forward with its investigation, the ruling party itself is locked in a heated debate over how to characterize the uprising, revealing deep rifts at the highest levels of leadership.
On December 15, 2025, the commission tasked with investigating the September 8–9 Gen Z protests recorded the statements of Nepali Army Chief Ashok Raj Sigdel and four other senior army officials. This step, as reported by The Kathmandu Post, marks a significant moment in the inquiry, which aims to uncover the causes and consequences of the two-day unrest that resulted in deaths and widespread property damage. The commission, led by former judge Gauri Bahadur Karki, was formed by the government on September 21, 2025, and given a three-month mandate to deliver its findings.
Commission spokesperson Bigyan Raj Sharma confirmed that the panel questioned Sigdel and his colleagues about the incidents during the protests, as well as about related security lapses that may have occurred. "All five officials who appeared before the commission have completed their statements," Sharma said, underlining the breadth of the investigation, which has also included interviews with police officers and various individuals connected to the events. The commission’s charge is not only to establish what happened but to identify any failures in the state’s response.
The Gen Z protests, which erupted with little warning, quickly escalated into a national crisis. The government’s response has come under intense scrutiny, and the commission’s work is viewed as a crucial step toward accountability. However, as the investigation unfolds, Nepal’s largest communist party is experiencing its own internal reckoning over the meaning and implications of the protests.
During the closed-door session of the CPN-UML’s 11th General Convention, also held on December 15 at Bhrikutimandap, sharp differences emerged over how to interpret the Gen Z movement. According to Republica, party Chair KP Sharma Oli described the Gen Z revolt as a "foreign conspiracy," seeking to frame the unrest as the work of external actors intent on destabilizing Nepal’s constitution and democracy. “The Gen-Z movement had been hijacked midway and democracy had been endangered through a foreign conspiracy,” Oli asserted, claiming that foreign powers had unleashed destruction and undermined the nation’s core institutions.
Oli’s remarks, made in a session where journalists were briefly allowed, were both defensive and combative. He lamented the relentless attacks he faced, not just from political opponents but from within his own ranks. “At a time when opponents are attacking me relentlessly—when KP Oli as an individual is being abused and cursed—shouldn’t my close comrades show more affection? Can they simply say they will throw me out like a load in a basket?” Oli said, his frustration palpable. He also offered a rare apology, stating, “If there have been any mistakes on my part, I say sorry.”
But the party’s Senior Vice-Chair, Ishwar Pokhrel, was not convinced by Oli’s narrative. Presenting a separate concept paper, Pokhrel openly criticized the party chair’s approach and questioned the wisdom of blaming external forces for what he viewed as internal failures. “If we blame everything on an external conspiracy, does that mean our responsibility ends there?” Pokhrel asked, challenging the leadership to accept accountability for the government’s shortcomings during the protests.
Pokhrel’s intervention was pointed and direct. He reminded delegates that the party had previously failed to conduct serious introspection after major events, referencing the lack of self-review following the 10th General Convention. He argued that the party’s problem was not with its policy or system, but with its practice, and that meaningful change in leadership was needed. “We controlled the state machinery, yet if we failed, the shortcomings were also ours and must be seriously addressed,” Pokhrel said, urging the party to resist the temptation to deflect blame onto foreign actors.
The debate between Oli and Pokhrel went beyond the Gen Z protests, touching on broader issues of party unity, leadership, and the importance of dissent. Pokhrel recalled the Fifth General Convention, noting that the proposal for People’s Multiparty Democracy (Janatako Bahudaliya Janabad) had included guarantees to protect differing views. He warned against arbitrary practices and called on Oli to act as a responsible guardian of the party, not just a defender of his own position.
Oli, for his part, attempted to rally support by proposing that the party leadership be selected unanimously under his stewardship, but Pokhrel rejected the proposal, insisting on the need for consensus and genuine unity. “The 11th General Convention should send a strong message of unity,” Pokhrel insisted, emphasizing that the party’s credibility depended on honest self-assessment rather than scapegoating.
As the commission’s investigation continues, the political debate within the CPN-UML reflects the broader challenge facing Nepal: how to move forward after a period of unrest that exposed both vulnerabilities in the country’s security apparatus and deep divisions in its political leadership. The commission, for its part, is pressing ahead with its mandate, collecting testimony from all sectors and aiming to deliver a comprehensive report within the allotted three months.
The stakes are high. The findings of the commission could have significant consequences for individuals and institutions alike, potentially reshaping public trust in the military, police, and government. Meanwhile, the outcome of the CPN-UML’s internal debate will likely influence the party’s direction—and perhaps the broader political landscape—for years to come.
For many in Nepal, the Gen Z protests remain a raw and unresolved chapter. The hope, expressed by some party leaders and echoed in the broader public discourse, is that the country can learn from this crisis rather than simply assign blame. As the commission’s deadline approaches and the party’s convention continues, all eyes are on whether Nepal’s leaders will choose healing and introspection over division and denial.
