No Room for Another ‘Army’ Within the State

Protecting the environment does not require an army. Planting trees does not require “cadets.” Disaster response does not require the language of “missions,” “marshals,” “headquarters” and military command. That is why the name “Green Army” cannot be dismissed as harmless branding for an environmental volunteer group. This is not merely a question of terminology. It concerns the constitutional order, the state’s security structure and public legitimacy.

Nepal’s Constitution clearly defines the country’s security architecture. The Nepal Army is the constitutional institution entrusted with safeguarding national independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and national unity. Nepal Police, the Armed Police Force and national intelligence structures are also established by the Constitution and law. Within such a system, a private organisation, non-governmental group or social campaign adopting the title “Army,” military-style ranks, uniforms or chains of command cannot be treated as an ordinary matter.

An organisation may be legally registered. A government office may even have authorised the use of a particular uniform. But no administrative letter can create legitimacy above the Constitution. The word “Army” is not an ordinary brand. It carries the meaning of military organisation, command, discipline, mobilisation and the lawful coercive authority of the state. The government therefore has a duty to explain why a private organisation needs to adopt such symbols, language and structure.

Environmental protection can be carried out through green volunteers. Disaster response can be organised through civilian rescue volunteers. Tree planting, sanitation, biodiversity conservation and emergency assistance can all be conducted through clearly civilian institutions. None of these activities requires the title “Army.” If the objective is genuinely civilian public service, there is no convincing justification for insisting on a military identity.

Nepal is a country with a highly sensitive geopolitical environment. Normalising military symbols and structures outside the state can therefore create a dangerous precedent. If an “Army” is accepted today in the name of the environment, on what principle will the state prevent another “Army” tomorrow in the name of religion, ethnicity, ideology, a political movement or an individual leader? One exception creates the argument for another, gradually weakening the constitutional authority of the state.

The problem of a parallel military identity does not begin only with weapons. It begins with names. It begins with uniforms. It begins with ranks, command structures and military terminology. Once the public finds it difficult to distinguish between an official security institution and a private organisation, the constitutional boundary has already begun to blur. A democratic state cannot treat such ambiguity as harmless.

The government must therefore disclose the complete legal status of Green Army. Its registration, constitution, objectives, rank structure, uniform approval, training, sources of funding, relationship with state institutions and basis for deployment in disaster-affected areas should all be made public. The government must also answer a basic question: who authorised the use of the name “Army,” under which law and for what reason?

If any government body granted such approval, its constitutional and legal basis must be reviewed. If no clear basis exists, the use of the name “Army,” military ranks and any appearance that may create confusion with official security institutions should be discontinued. This is not an argument against environmental protection or volunteerism. It is an argument for protecting legitimate civic service from an unnecessary military image.

A genuine environmental movement does not need a military title. A genuine volunteer does not need a uniform that may be confused with that of a security institution. Genuine public service does not require the appearance of a parallel power structure. If Green Army is truly a civilian volunteer organisation, it should have no difficulty adopting a clearly civilian name, structure and identity.

The Nepal Army is not a commercial brand. Its identity is tied to Nepal’s statehood, history, Constitution and sovereign authority. The state cannot remain vague about whether private organisations may imitate military symbols and institutional forms. Political influence, popularity, social work or an old administrative permission cannot override this principle.

The government should immediately make Green Army’s legal and administrative foundations public. It should also establish a clear national standard governing whether private organisations may use the word “Army,” military-style ranks or uniforms that could be confused with those of state security agencies. If the current structure creates the appearance of a parallel military identity, it should be converted into an unmistakably civilian volunteer organisation without delay.

The Constitution is not defended only at the border. It is defended in the capital as well. It is not defended only during war. It is also defended by protecting the boundary between the authority of the state and private organisations. If one “Green Army” is accepted today as merely a name, the state may find its moral and legal ground weakened when another colour, another ideology or another interest seeks to create its own “Army” tomorrow.

Nepal does not need multiple “armies.” It needs a strong Constitution, a clear state structure and responsible civilian volunteerism. Nepal already has the Nepal Army as its national military institution.

There is no room for another “Army” within the state.