A judicial investigation into the violent activities that took place during the demonstration organized by royalists in Tinkune, Kathmandu last Friday has become necessary. As more truths, facts, misinformation, disinformation and incomplete pictures of that incident come to light, they have increasingly underscored the need for a judicial inquiry.
Almost seven days have passed since the violent incident occurred during the royalists’ demonstration, and we have arrived at the conclusion that a judicial investigation is essential for four main reasons.
The first reason is that allegations, counter-allegations, and blame games continue regarding what exactly happened during the violent incidents at this demonstration. Various video footage captured by journalists and ordinary people, along with differing and at times contradictory statements and ‘bytes’ from eyewitnesses, have added more confusion than clarity to understanding the incident. On top of that, claims of edited and even deepfake videos being used have made the real picture of the event even more elusive.
We are currently in an era—not just in Nepal but worldwide—where people label videos, photos, or other content published even by responsible media as ‘true’ or ‘fake’ based on their own preferences and interpretations. Therefore, we need a universally accepted method or process to establish the facts of what happened during the violent clash in Tinkune.
That method would be formation of an investigation commission led by a former judge with a clean and impartial reputation. If this is not done, everyone will continue to push their own narrative about the Tinkune incident. Already, a race is underway on the social media to dismiss others’ claims as false and assert one’s own as true. Ordinary people will never know why the incident happened, what factors contributed to the escalation of violence, whether it was planned or spontaneous, who the key players were, who played a role in inciting the violence, whether the police exercised necessary restraint or used excessive force to fuel the violence. If the full truth of this incident is not established, it will keep Nepali society in the dark for a long time. This confusion will be exploited to further polarize and divide the society.
The second reason is role of the police. As days pass, more questions are being raised about the police’s role in Tinkune last Friday. Six days after the incident, the police finally stated that 21 people had been shot including the one who was declared dead that day itself. People are criticizing why the media didn’t know or report this number for so many days, and that criticism is not unjustified. In such violent incidents, it is the police who immediately provide information about where and how many people were shot or killed. In authoritarian regimes, the police hide facts to serve the interests of those in power. That’s why journalists take extra care to independently verify the number of injured or dead from hospitals.
In a democratic system, it is expected that the police will not hide critical information—such as how many people were shot or killed—and will be transparent about everything. By not providing this information promptly or by concealing it, the Nepal Police has broken our trust and failed to fulfill its responsibility properly. Whenever someone injured by gunfire reaches a hospital, the police are the first to be informed. Hospitals don’t even start treatment without notifying the police. Thus, the Nepal Police knew the exact number of demonstrators shot as early as Friday night. So why didn’t they disclose it for so many days?
Setopati has repeatedly asked the police how many people were injured and how many were shot. Initially, they said only four people (including the dead) were shot. On Tuesday, they said five. By Wednesday, they revealed that 21 people had been shot. In a public gathering of just 4,000 people, as claimed by the state, firing multiple rounds of bullets for crowd control and injuring 21 persons with gunfire is unusual. Did the police really shoot only where necessary? Or did they also shoot unnecessarily, resulting in 21 people being shot, one of whom died?
Some videos appear to show people walking, and far from the police being suddenly shot from behind.
Setopati has asked the police about these incidents as well. While the police claim they did not shoot any civilians from behind, they have not been able to explain why they fired at unarmed protesters walking away. The police say they are investigating, but they have not provided answers so far, nor have we heard of anyone being held accountable for mistakes. We had already demanded an investigation into this incident through an editorial.
Videos show Rebika Khatri, a third-year bachelor’s student at Koteshwore Multiple Campus who was not part of the protest, and her elder cousin Dinesh Khatri being shot while walking in a lane in Koteshwore. The police have not clearly explained why it was necessary to fire bullets in that lane. They say an investigation is ongoing regarding this too.
If the police used excessive force or fired at unarmed citizens—whether they were part of the protest or not—it would amount to police brutality and a violation of human rights. An investigation is necessary to determine whether the police acted with restraint that day, whether some officers used unnecessary force, or deliberately shot at unarmed citizens, and to ensure accountability if needed.
There are also allegations that the police fired tear gas from atop citizens’ homes. If true, this would be a serious mistake, indicating that the police put the lives and property of independent citizens at risk for their own interests. This is another reason we see the need for a judicial investigation.
The third reason is the need for a judicial determination of the role played by the protesters, especially those leading the demonstration. An independent investigation is necessary to examine whether individuals like Durga Prasai, currently on the run, and leaders of the Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP) such as Rabindra Mishra and Dhawal Shumsher Rana played any role in turning the demonstration violent.
Did the police, as they claim, fire tear gas at leaders on the stage while the national anthem was playing and they were conducting a peaceful gathering? The police have called videos circulating on social media showing so ‘deepfakes.’ Or did the police use tear gas for the first time only after protesters repeatedly broke through barriers and tried to march toward Baneshwore?
It’s not difficult to determine how much restraint the police exercised or when they began using large-scale force. Many media outlets recorded live videos from start to near-end that day. A detailed analysis of those videos could reveal who was at fault and to what extent.
In those videos, Durga Prasai is seen trying to run through the police cordon with a vehicle, while Rabindra Mishra and Dhawal Shumsher Rana are clearly inciting the crowd to break through police lines and head toward Baneshwore. How much did the actions of Prasai, Rana, and Mishra contribute to inciting the crowd that day? How much force had the police used before their action, and how much force was used afterward to disperse the crowd? The investigation commission would thoroughly review this as well.
The fourth reason is former king Gyanendra Shah’s role in the Tinkune incident. Seventeen years after the people removed him from the throne, this incident would not have happened if Shah had not been possessed by the desire to become king again. Two Nepalis would not have lost their lives. Thus, there is no doubt that he is the root cause of this chaos.
Gyanendra Shah, however, is trying to completely distance himself from this incident. It is necessary to ascertain whether he played a role in starting this chaos on the streets to reclaim the throne, or whether it was orchestrated at his behest and with his funding. There are ample indications that Gyanendra himself coordinated all of this. On February 19, he signaled his intent to move forward and explicitly asked for the people’s support. In a statement that day, he said, “…the time has come. If we are to save the nation, maintain national unity, and ensure the country’s prosperity and progress, I call on all citizens to stand with us.”
After that, he appointed former Panchayat-era figure Nava Raj Subedi to lead the movement to restore monarchy. When Subedi proved ineffective, Gyanendra summoned both Durga Prasai and Subedi to Nirmal Niwas a day before Friday’s demonstration, took the movement’s command from Subedi, and handed it to Prasai.
A judicial commission could take Gyanendra’s statement and determine his political and financial involvement in this chaos, establishing his accountability.
Once the judicial commission submits its report, it will not only establish the facts for all of us but also provide a strong basis to bring those responsible for this to book as per the law. It will also create grounds for those who are not at fault to be exonerated.
We hope the government will form a judicial investigation commission to properly resolve this incident.
