The term history has lured me in recent times. I seek the reasons why this subject has come up in my studies, and I am thinking more deeply than ever before. This becomes especially meaningful now, as we have become more enthusiastic about changes in political patterns and the organisation of social activities. The Nepali approach to history is unique, and our way of creating and dismantling the imageries of the ‘heroes and builders of Nepal’, to use the title of historian Rishikesh Shah’s book, is unique too.

I was a little struck when some Nepali politicians, social management and the citizenry were so stingy about speaking a few decent words of farewell to Prime Minister Sushila Karki, who conducted a historic snap election with great success. The reasons are obvious. First, she is a woman; second, she does not fit into any pattern of partisan culture, which is her strength, not her weakness. But most importantly, we have not quite clearly responded to the way history took a turn here.

We are poised to enter a phase of history that has introduced new modes of challenge. I want to recall the words of a Western philosopher, Martin Heidegger, whom I like to recall frequently. He says of such a challenge of history, “When one’s existence is inauthentically historical, it is loaded down with the legacy of a ‘past’ which has become unrecognisable.” To use the common parlance, we can say that some important modes and moments of history have become unrecognisable in Nepal. That is evident in our methods of interpreting events and planning actions.

The current debate about the joint responsibilities of political parties and youth for social change has taken interesting turns. An eloquent example is in order. A social media status by Gen Z leader Rakshya Bam, posted a few days ago, struck me. Interestingly, Bam, a well-known leader of the movement bringing a government to lead the country to light, appears dismayed by a few events. Her sense of politics and a vision of democratic rule in the country manifest in this context. Bam has interestingly cautioned Gagan Thapa of the Nepali Congress about the opposition’s role and responsibilities in today’s Nepal. Bam describes various ‘events that have made us serious’. Some of these events, she says, are not acceptable. She cites examples of the suffering endured by citizens, which include children and women. She alludes to the events of insecurity that people experience. Writing this clearly, she says, the opposition group should make the government hear the voice of the people. Additionally, as people have given votes to create history, it is the responsibility of all to do so by addressing, not by shunning, the problems. I was very happy to see the colossal rise of Rakshya Bam as a leader of the Gen Z movement. I knew her as a dynamic manager of youth events at the Tikapur Literary Festival from March 8-10 last year.

Blinkered ideology and short-sighted approaches develop when we fail to see events in historical perspective. Pervasive corruption, misuse of power and engagements in undemocratic practices were the causes of the fall of the erstwhile regime and the serious challenges that the political parties had to face. Generation Z’s most important challenge is two-fold. Establish a serious and sincere system of democratic government and put an end to the historically incongruent practices.

I want to take up the theme of youths and the various phases and modes in history that saw their use and misuse in Nepal. This topic is a subject of long academic research, and some notable works have been produced in this area. I only want to touch on a few modes of the system. The youth-led movements have significantly challenged the system, but the ‘contrived corridors of history’, in the words of the English poet TS Eliot, continue to affect what we do today and how we handle the events that create history.

Today, the problems of Nepal’s youth are viewed from political perspectives. The autocratic Rana rule always had the youths in its sights, whenever they made plans and took up the cudgels to introduce some modern changes in Nepal that they thought were for the youths. They did not want to see politically enlightened youths in the country. But the Rana rulers knew that the youths were a force to be reckoned with. They made tacit agreements with the youths and people who were in favour of freedom. The powerful Prime Minister Chandra Shumsher Rana reluctantly laid the foundation stone of Tri-Chandra College in 1918 and reportedly told his bhai bardars, or family and associated elites, that he had laid the foundation stone of the Rana rule’s grave.

A similar incident, though of a different order, occurred in 1934 when another Rana ruler, Juddha Shumsher, allowed some youths to publish a literary magazine named Sharada. Professor Yadunath Khanal called such events tacit agreements between autocratic rulers and the people.

Things changed after the political transformation of 1950, the year the Rana rule ended in Nepal. Political parties, most prominently the Nepali Congress and the Communist Party of Nepal, had great appeal among Nepali youth. The youths, mostly students, were the right agencies to establish such relations with the political parties. They gave continuity to such a covenant. The parties found such a relationship with the youths organised under various banners very useful.

The student youths were divided. Those close to political parties functioned as rival political groups. Parties with weak organisation that operated from India found the most necessary organisational accoutrements in the student organisations. Students had banners, slogans, crowds, names and, importantly, determination and courage to occasionally take out opposition rallies—big or small—with overtly political slogans. Parties found these organisations to be minuscule party units.

Parties after the country’s democratic restorations overused student organisations. They used them as party units. They assigned party leaders to settle disputes among student organisations. In one article published in this paper, I put such views: “Stop misusing academic programmes for the advantage of political parties and their cadres. Let competent people work freely. Make your activities transparent and be fair to the academics who are competent and dedicated.” It was just after the Supreme Court order to restore the parliament. But the government should approach student political affiliations through consensus and not by force.