Sharp Discontent Over Army’s ‘Surveillance’ Warning: Accusations of Intimidating Citizens, Barbs from Ex-Soldiers to Journalists
Kathmandu — After the Nepal Army issued a press note on Saturday appealing against the dissemination of misleading information about the army and its leadership, sharp discontent has been expressed on social media over the statement. The press release issued by the Directorate of Public Relations and Information at the Army Headquarters stated that “the Nepal Army and related agencies are regularly monitoring such unruly and anarchic activities” and reminded that individuals engaged in such acts would remain within the ambit of prevailing law.
The army’s remarks have drawn sharp reactions ranging from journalists to former soldiers. Senior journalist Kanakmani Dixit, terming the army’s statement an “unnecessary levity,” wrote, “The issuing of a threatening statement by the proud army of a sovereign nation stating that it is ‘regularly monitoring the unruly and anarchic activities of citizens’ reveals an inclination toward a surveillance state among some in the leadership.” He has suggested that introspection on this matter be held within the army itself.
Meanwhile, First Party Nepal Coordinator Govinda Bohora Brahmand, mocking the army’s warning, wrote, “This is merely the wailing of the artificial flood-hit sons.” Pointing out that the President is the Supreme Commander of the Army and that the army cannot be mobilized without orders, he also labeled the critics as “thugs.”
Daman Neupane has questioned the historical role of the army. He wrote, “In Nepal’s political history, the role of the Nepal Army has always appeared ambivalent and suspicious. From the Royal Palace massacre to the Gen-Z movement, the army played a suspicious role.” He expressed hope that henceforth the army would no longer remain under a cloud of suspicion.
A user named Development Nepal has claimed that the root cause of the army’s defamation is retired high-ranking military officers. He wrote, “Whether it is the books of Rukmangad Katuwal or Bibek Shah — did the army grant them permission? Former soldiers who speak recklessly, like Prem Singh Basnet, have tarnished the institutional image. First, get your own army under control.”
On the other hand, former soldier Nabin Kumar Mahat welcomed the army’s move and, arguing that it is former officers who have sullied the army’s image, demanded that they be brought under the purview of action.
Sujan Amagai has raised legal questions stating that the army’s statement lacks an official signature, while Raja Narsingh has alleged that the statement was issued with the intent of exerting psychological pressure on the public. NB Singh has demanded that the Private Soldiers’ Welfare Fund be brought under government ownership. Hundreds of people expressed negative reactions on the statement. The support for the Nepal Army appears to be in a minority.
In its statement, however, the army maintained that such materials create confusion among the general public and urged people to contact the army’s press releases, social media, and website for official information.
