This is a good blog, Emma – and it’s rare to get such an account from an eyewitness to history! We look forward to seeing some photos. HOWEVER – I want to take issue with two statements in your blog. A) First, you suggest that the causes of the recent riots were similar to the root causes of the Maoist rebellion that broke out in 1996. I don’t see this at all. The Maoist rebellion was an organized armed rebellion that began in the Tharu districts and was a product of years of structural social injustice and marginalization far from Kathmandu. What I read about the recent protests suggests that they were caused by a) widespread anger at corruption and nepotism among elites b) police overreaction and use of deadly force during the protests c) and PM Olli’s stupidity in banning social media. In addition, these new protests were led by young, educated urban dwellers, were they not? There’s another reason NOT to compare the Maoist rebellion of 1996 with this new crisis. Nepal has made huge strides since the end of the war in 2006 in every direction except for transitional justice – and to imply that nothing has changed since 2006 is to ignore this amazing achievement. If this is right, you have to look for the root causes in the years since 2006 – following the peace agreement. B) Second, you write that “The current outrage and violence is a product of the fact that (the demands of survivors) have gone unheeded.” I’m sure you don’t mean that. From what I read, the Gen Z rioters are angry about political cronyism, corruption and the income gap between right and poor. Conflict survivors are angry about the refusal by political parties to work with them as partners in implementing the 2024 law on transitional justice. These seem very different. I am wondering, however, if Ram and other survivors see any similarities between the campaign by survivors and this new protest movement, beyond a contempt for cynical politics. It would be good to know what you’re all thinking! Perhaps a follow-up blog???

You’re right, Iain: the causes of the Maoist rebellion and current unrest differ and it’s important to make this distinction, and necessary to acknowledge the changes that have been made since the CPA. While I agree that developments in the last 20 years are more relevant in explaining current discontent, I do still think that there are connections to the issues that preceded the People’s Revolution.
As you said, the Maoist rebellion started outside of Kathmandu. People were frustrated with the monarchy, elite-politics centered in Kathmandu with little connection to remote regions, widespread poverty in rural areas, the kamaiya system (bonded labor), social inequality and marginalization based on caste. They were demanding, above all else, true social transformation. And, as you point out, some transformation did occur — Nepal became a federal democratic republic and the kamaiya system was abolished (the establishment of local governments has had a particularly positive impact and allowed the carrying out of certain transitional justice efforts at the local level). But other issues persisted — many families sank deeper into poverty, worsened by the loss of breadwinners during the conflict, elite-driven politics centered in Kathmandu remain elusive and inaccessible for many communities, economic and social inequality persist, discrimination based on caste, while lessened in some ways, continues. Many of the people I’ve interviewed emphasize that they see the fight for social transformation as far from over.
When I say “The current outrage and violence is a product of the fact that (the demands of survivors) have gone unheeded,” I mean that if the government had listened to the demands for transformation and equality, and at least attempted to pursue deeper change, then maybe some of the issues upsetting protesters wouldn’t exist to the same extent. (The fact that some of the same leaders who were responsible for heinous human rights abuses during the conflict were still sitting in office just a week ago suggests they did not.)
As you point out, an important distinction is that the current protests were led by students in Kathmandu, not families from the remote regions of Nepal who are more familiar with the impacts and causes of the revolution. This might be less of a distinction than you think — many of the students protesting were from remote villages outside of Kathmandu and, even though the People’s War did not come from Kathmandu, there has been Kathmandu and student engagement in the historical struggle for democracy (including the 1951 opposition to Rana rule, 1990 political protests that brought down the panchayat system (jana andolan), and 2006 democracy movement). That being said, I agree with you that students protesting likely did not see their discontent as tied to the issues preceding the armed conflict, but rather a product of more recent developments. They are frustrated by corruption, political censorship, ill-governance, impunity, and the economic inequality that manifests most clearly in their lives in the form of unemployment. These are issues that have primarily developed in recent years, but not out of nowhere. We can only understand why the leaders responsible held power and why the governance system looked the way it did by considering the negotiated transition that followed the armed conflict; the longer history of elite politics and opaque political maneuvering sheds light on the current predicament; inequality today is not unconnected from previous inequality.
Moreover, you say “Conflict survivors are angry about the refusal by political parties to work with them as partners in implementing the 2024 law on transitional justice.” I don’t think this is entirely true. Yes, victims and survivors want the TRC Act to be implemented, but this is only one of their demands. They are angry primarily about political leaders that do not listen to them, that pay lip service to the idea of victim-centered TJ, but behind the scenes elect unqualified officials with ties to perpetrators to the commissions, that carried out reparations haphazardly, that are not interested in trauma-informed or gender-sensitive mechanisms, and that continue to undermine the transitional justice process because they want, at the end of the day, to shove all of this under the rug in order to maintain power and the status quo. These are the same leaders accused of corruption, who have done little to ease inequality, and continue to play musical chairs with the Prime Minister position because their priority is to protect their own interests rather than those of the general public. It does not seem unconnected to me.
So to revise my original point, current discontent does not stem directly from the same issues that spurred the People’s War, but should still be understood within the much longer historical struggle for democracy and equality in Nepal. Many positive changes were made post-conflict including the establishment of a federal democratic republic while other issues have arisen and evolved. This period (the last two decades) is certainly the most relevant in understanding current unrest. At the same time, a deeper understanding of some of the current issues can come from a consideration of the historical demand for social transformation. The current struggle is not an isolated one.

Thanks for the long reply, Emma!
I think you’re right to move away from a direct comparison between the causes of the 1996 uprising and these recent protests. You now seem to be suggesting that social transformation and change is a constant process that everyone should all aim for, whether they be Maoists in 1996 or Gen Z protesters today. I completely agree with that. Anyone who believes in social justice is ALWAYS seeking social change and in this day and age there is a lot to worry about, in Nepal and elsewhere. The inequalities are glaring.
Looking ahead, I’m now wondering how the survivor movement will respond to this new surge of protest and frustration. I imagine many survivors of the conflict will sympathize with the Gen Z protesters, who suffered grievous violence at the hands of the police last week.
On the other hand, Ram’s success, as I see it, has been to weld the survivors into a coherent movement with a distinct identity and a clear set of demands. Those demands start with being accepted as a partner by the government in developing a transitional justice system that reflects the needs and rights of survivors and victims. From what I read, the Gen Z agenda seems much broader and calls for an end to corruption and inequality.
I can see other reasons for the survivors to keep their distance from the Gen Z movement, Destroying the homes of politicians just because they were politicians (which has happened outside Kathmandu as well) seems like random violence. Conflict survivors have never, to my knowledge, used violent tactics.
I’m sure I’m not the only one asking such questions. Indeed, it might be a good idea to restate the survivors’ goals and strategy, in the light of these recent developments. Luckily, you have the perfect vehicle for doing this in the form of the new newsletter!
Keep up the good work – and good analysis!!