State Restraint Before Gunfire: Nepal Needs a New National Standard for Crowd Control

The communal tension that began in Sunsari and spread to other parts of the Tarai resulted in the loss of lives, injuries to dozens of people and the imposition of curfews in several areas. The incidents have raised serious concerns not only about social harmony but also about the state’s preparedness, the professional capacity of security agencies and the procedures governing the use of force.

In a state governed by law, the presence of security personnel should reassure citizens rather than frighten them. The use of force may sometimes become unavoidable in controlling a violent crowd, but its purpose must never be punishment, retaliation or the suppression of public anger. Its sole objective must be to contain an immediate threat while protecting life, property and public order.

Nepal’s existing legal framework recognises the principle that only the minimum necessary force should be used and that firearms should be employed only after other measures have failed and adequate warnings have been issued. The central weakness lies not in the absence of principles but in their inconsistent and ineffective implementation.

The state must no longer consider its responsibility fulfilled by forming an investigation committee or transferring a few officials after every deadly incident. Nepal needs a clear and binding nationwide crowd-control protocol. The sequence of dialogue, local mediation, the creation of safe distance, the use of batons, water cannons, tear gas and other less-lethal means must be explicitly defined. Lethal force must not be used unless there is a direct and imminent threat to life.

Responsibility must be established in advance at every level, from the officials issuing orders to the units deployed on the ground. Every incident involving force should require a formal record explaining who authorised it, what conditions existed, which alternative measures were attempted and how the conclusion was reached that gunfire was necessary.

Audio-visual documentation, operational logs and independent technical reviews would help establish the facts, prevent unlawful orders and strengthen accountability. Such mechanisms would also protect security personnel who act lawfully under difficult circumstances.

Training must be assessed not by the number of programmes conducted but by the restraint, judgement and professionalism demonstrated during real operations. Deploying security personnel into highly sensitive situations without sufficient less-lethal equipment is itself a serious failure of state management.

Communal tension is more dangerous than an ordinary protest. Rumours, provocation and distrust can push a situation beyond control within minutes. Local administrations must therefore maintain permanent coordination mechanisms involving community leaders, elected representatives, religious institutions, civil society and security agencies.

Dialogue should not begin only after violence has erupted. Effective early-warning systems, local intelligence, continuous communication and prior identification of social risks are essential to preventing escalation.

The lives of citizens in the Tarai are not worth less than those of citizens in any other part of the country. Different security responses based on geography, community or social identity are unacceptable. Equal protection and equal application of the law are fundamental to national unity and public confidence in the state.

Nepal now requires institutional reform rather than temporary damage control. An impartial investigation, accountability throughout the chain of command, justice for victims, adequate equipment, regular professional training and a binding national standard for the gradual use of force must be established.

The strength of the state is not demonstrated by the sound of gunfire. It is demonstrated by the judgement, restraint and justice it upholds during moments of crisis.