'Stench Of Regime Change': Why Nepal Could See A Pro-US Leader Take Charge

Jaideep Mazumdar has been observing and writing on Nepal and its politics for many years. The former Swarajya Contributing Editor spoke with Diksha Yadav to explain the events of the last three days in Nepal and also shared his insights on probable outcomes for the country here onwards.

The transcript has been edited for readability and brevity. (You can listen to the podcast here.)

Swarajya: What exactly is happening in Nepal? What led to the events of Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday? The visuals are horrifying. There is violence and vandalism. What all led to this?

Jaideep Mazumdar: Anger has been brewing for a long time against the lack of political morality in Nepal. We have seen 14 prime ministers over the last 17 years. All parties across the board are power hungry. In popular perception, they are extremely power hungry, corrupt, and nepotism is at its peak in Nepal.

An average of eight lakh youngsters leave Nepal every year in search of blue collar jobs, not even highly paid jobs or middle-level jobs. There is huge unemployment and poverty is rife.

This has bred a lot of discontent. The ban on social media by the Oli government, a year after the Supreme Court of Nepal passed an order to that effect, was seen by the youngsters, by Gen Z, as something aimed against them. That came as the last straw that broke the camel's back.

Swarajya: But was the government wrong in banning social media? Were the foreign social media companies not asked to comply with Nepal's laws and they refused to do so?

Jaideep Mazumdar: In Nepal, like in all other countries, the youth rely a lot on social media to connect with others, for their entertainment, for communication, et cetera. Oli is seen as a highly authoritarian figure in the country. This particular step by him, to make social media fall in line with a lot of very stringent provisions that he brought about, was seen as an anti-democratic step by Gen Z.

Swarajya: Any specific reason that the protests are being called the Gen Z protests and not student protests or something similar?

Jaideep Mazumdar: This has the clear imprint of a regime change operation orchestrated by maybe even the US deep state, and I am not saying this offhandedly. These sorts of protests, in order to be organised, need a huge sum of money, huge funds, and huge organisation. How did this happen all of a sudden?

We have seen the same thing in Bangladesh. Protests against quotas quickly spiralled out of control and became anti-Sheikh Hasina protests, a regime change protest. Here also, a protest against the ban on social media quickly turned into protests against corruption and other issues.

What the protesters are now saying exactly mirrors what they were saying in Bangladesh: that they want electoral reforms, reforms in the constitution, and an interim government to come to power now and conduct free and fair elections later.

There is a stench of a regime change operation here. I must mention to you, Diksha, that there are three names which are coming up, who are being projected as perhaps heading the interim government now.

One is Rabi Lamichhane. It is very interesting that this person, who was Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister for a short period between December 2022 and January 2023, was imprisoned on corruption charges. The mobs yesterday broke into the Nakhu prison in Lalitpur district, adjoining Kathmandu or part of Greater Kathmandu. Among 1,500 prisoners who were released was this Deputy Prime Minister Rabi Lamichhane, who is seen to be a US stooge.

The second name is Mayor of Kathmandu Balendra Shah, again seen to be strongly anti-India. He has a map of Akhand Nepal, which includes large areas of Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand, in his office.

The third person is Harka Sampang, who is mayor of Dharan.

All these three are seen to be US stooges, whereas Oli seemed to be a stooge of China.

Another factor I must mention is that the US has been playing a huge role in Nepal ever since the earthquake in 2015. A huge number of Christian missionary organisations have infiltrated into the country and have carried out conversions without any checks. A large segment of the population is now Christian and highly evangelical. They are under the control of the American Baptists or the American Evangelicals.

Then there are NGOs. Nepal has a huge number of NGOs which are funded mostly by the US. There are social media influencers who play an outsized role in influencing public opinion, again with close links to the US. So I see this as a regime change operation.

Swarajya: The protests and violence were not just aimed at Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli but opposition leaders have also been attacked. So who will be responsible for taking charge of things in Nepal now?

Jaideep Mazumdar: As I said, there are these three names which are coming up. I think Rabi Lamichhane, who was released illegally from prison after the mobs broke in, even though there are very grave corruption charges and other charges of misdemeanour against him, is being projected as someone who could head the interim government.

The second person is Balendra Shah, the Mayor of Kathmandu. The third person is Harka Sampang, the Mayor of Dharan.

These three names are coming up. The last two, Balendra Shah and Harka Sampang, are independent politicians. They do not belong to any party. Rabi Lamichhane is the president of the new party called the Rastriya Swatantra Party, which won a few seats in parliament in the last elections.

Swarajya: Given that the houses of Oli, Prachanda, and other Communist leaders have been attacked, has the Nepali Communist movement been definitively weakened in the last 48 hours?

What is very interesting is that some of them, and this could only have happened if they were Maoists, tried to break into the Pashupatinath temple with the intention of desecrating it.

Now, Pashupatinath Mandir or Pashupatinath is the presiding deity of Nepal. Nepalese people are deeply religious. They would not think of going anywhere near Pashupatinath temple while protesting against corruption in the country. It could only be Maoist cadres, disgruntled Maoist cadres, who could do that. That attempt was foiled by the security forces. But the very fact that this was attempted shows that Maoist cadres and others were involved.

Swarajya: Did the pro-monarchy groups also have a role to play in the protests? Where does all of this leave the pro-monarchy movement in Nepal?

Jaideep Mazumdar: The pro-monarchy movement is still very strong. This movement came up a few months ago when there were protests in Kathmandu, but it was subdued with a firm hand. Very interestingly, many pro-monarchists have sided with this movement.

There is certainly a strong section of people in Nepal who feel that they could have a constitutional monarchy with the king as the head and an elected government under him, functioning much like in the UK or some other countries across the world. So the monarchy movement is very much alive.

There are also reports that King Gyanendra may have encouraged the protesters, though there are no confirmed reports about that. These are all rumours, but some are quite credible.

One thing which should be kept in mind is who could be the beneficiaries of this. Apart from the US, certainly Gyanendra is another person who could benefit.

Swarajya: Like you mentioned, we have been seeing incumbents being thrown out in Bangladesh, Myanmar, and Sri Lanka. The neighbourhood of India is quite unstable right now. Should we be expecting refugees coming into India from Nepal, especially in pockets where Nepalese live, like in Bihar or Sikkim?

Jaideep Mazumdar: There is always a free movement regime that we have with Nepal. People come in, they go back. Indians are also free to go and set up businesses there and live in Nepal unrestricted. There will be to-and-fro movement.

I do not think there will be a huge influx of refugees from Nepal into India. Maybe some from the political class will seek refuge in India, but not the common people.

However, what India should be very wary about is that we have in Bangladesh a regime that is extremely hostile to India. And in Nepal also, if a hostile regime comes to power, as I said, Balendra Shah is extremely anti-Indian, Rabi Lamichhane has also been anti-Indian, then what happens is we have a thin slice of territory, only 23 kilometres wide, sandwiched between two very hostile anti-Indian countries. That poses a security threat.

Swarajya: What role can India play in Nepal to bring stability, or what should India do right now?

Jaideep Mazumdar: According to me, nothing. India should adopt a very hands-off attitude because any overt role that India plays will definitely boomerang. There is a latent anti-India feeling, not because of what India has done, but because India is generally seen in the neighbourhood, in the entire subcontinent, as a big brother. And no one really likes, as in a family of many siblings, the big brother.

Similarly, Nepal also, though India has been a big benefactor, has latent anti-India sentiments. If India tries anything overtly or even covertly and it comes out, it will give rise to anti-Indian sentiments.

As it is, many people have started blaming India, saying that India engineered the protests. One section of the protesters is saying that the protest went out of control because India financed part of it. That is absolutely untrue. India knows that Oli is unfriendly, but I am pretty sure that India had absolutely no role to play in the protests. So it should be a hands-off approach towards Nepal right now.

Swarajya: One would think that even China and the US would try to peddle the anti-India sentiment in Nepal or any neighbouring country like Bangladesh or Myanmar.

Jaideep Mazumdar: I do not think that will be more problematic because, as I said, we are geographically so close to Nepal and we have a lot of organic ties with Nepal, ties of culture, religion, and ethnicity. However, we have always been seen as a big brother. Sometimes, because of our own mistakes in the past, like the 2015 unofficial blockade of Nepal, and even before that, another blockade, India is not seen as a friendly country.

There are latent anti-Indian sentiments. In fact, no politician in Nepal can afford to be seen as very friendly towards India. However, a person can be seen as very friendly towards China. China is too big to be considered an adversary. The US is very far away. But if India does anything now, interferes or tries to get somebody pro-India installed, that will boomerang. It will only inflame anti-India sentiments in Nepal.

Swarajya: Any concluding comments?

Jaideep Mazumdar: It is actually a very interesting time in the neighbourhood, interesting and also something India has to watch out for, with all the regime changes happening around us.

It is not that similar things have not been tried in India as well. The farmers' protests, for instance, were also attempts at regime change. India has to be very wary of all that is happening in the neighbourhood and also its repercussions within the country. That is very important.

I will just point out one small thing: how social media can influence protests, inflame public opinion, and drive sentiments.

In Nepal, for instance, social media AI algorithms in Facebook and Instagram were used to incite resentment against the government and politicians. It was not completely baseless, as they were definitely corrupt. Their children were seen as NEPO kids, N-E-P-O kids. They would post their rich, lavish lifestyles abroad. That also fuels sentiment.

I have instances of how some very little-known influencers with maybe a thousand followers had their posts go viral with over one million likes and shares. That can only happen when social media companies deliberately push it through algorithms. That is why I am saying it is a classic instance of a regime change operation.