One month ago, a Kantipur op-ed article and its subsequent translation sparked a debate over whether the traditional intellectual community is perturbed by Prime Minister Balendra Shah’s unconventional leadership style, or whether a section of that community has shifted its allegiance toward the ruling faction. As of yet, several articles for and against this narrative have been published in Nepali print and online media. Since then, the so-called intellectual community seems to be divided on how to perceive the Gen Z movement and the government formed subsequently.

In the aforementioned article, the scribe recounts his experiences in Paris and Amsterdam, portraying a positive image of Nepal and the Nepali passport. However, the strength of Nepal’s passport is not measured in a random café in Paris but at international immigration. The Henley Passport Index shows that Nepal’s passport ranking has slightly improved in 2026 compared to 2025, but this cannot be exclusively attributed to the Gen Z movement or to the current government’s positive image. The slight improvement of passport ranking is consistent with the trend observed over recent years. Moreover, since January, the United States has included Nepal in the expanded Visa Bond Program, which some interpret as an indication of the declining strength of the Nepali passport.

The overwhelming electoral triumph of the Rastriya Swatantra Party is an outcome, to a certain extent, of the inefficiency of the old leaders and the bad governance of previous governments. In addition, a perception has been cultivated that the RSP is a beneficiary of the Gen Z movement. However, the well-documented moral and physical support of the leaders and cadres of the party during the uprising warrants serious investigation. PM Balendra Shah’s involvement, in his role as then Mayor of the Kathmandu Metropolitan City, was evident through his late mobilisation of water tankers to douse fires and his soft call on social media platforms inviting people to join the protest.

A section of the intellectual community seems to have shifted its loyalty towards the current government, ignoring the background on which it was formed. The KP Sharma Oli-led government is to be blamed for the casualty of September 8, but the stakeholders of the Gen Z movement also need to take responsibility, to a certain extent, for the casualty and devastation caused on September 9. This is supported by the recently published report of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) that categorically alleges several RSP leaders, including 17 parliamentarians, were directly involved in the violent activities on September 9. Ignoring this fact, a faction of the intellectual community that has shifted its loyalty is repeating the trend that was observed after the Maoist insurgents joined mainstream politics and subsequently formed the government in 2008. The violent activities committed during the Maoist insurgency were glorified by this intellectual faction, and the everyday actions of Maoist leaders Pushpa Kamal Dahal and Baburam Bhattarai were glorified as a discontinuation of traditional practices.

The recent activities of PM Shah, including disrespecting the sovereign Parliament, are being deceptively applauded as the discontinuation of conventional parliamentary proceedings by the pro-government intellectual community and the loyalists of RSP. Anyone familiar with global parliamentary proceedings should be aware that PM Shah’s disregard for Parliament is entirely unparliamentary conduct. The RSP and its lawmakers are treating these issues, ignoring the fact that parliament is not merely a gathering of political parties but a representation of the nation’s citizens. Hence, PM Shah’s impertinence towards the parliament is not just his ignorance towards the opposition parties but sheer contempt for the people’s verdict. Still, the so-called unconventional intellectual community seems to encourage the PM to continue his unparliamentary behaviour.

Global examples have shown that a section of the so-called intellectual community always aligns with the ruling faction irrespective of its merits and demerits. This shift among intellectuals—moving away from traditional principles to align with whoever holds power—has accompanied every change in Nepali politics, from the Rana rule to multiparty democracy, the Panchayat era, reinstated democracy, and ultimately, republicanism. This has destabilised the political landscape of Nepal, thereby triggering frequent government and/or regime changes.

Ideally, the intellectual community should act as a watchdog and deliver constructive criticism to the rulers. As governments are formed to perform, the intellectual community holds the government responsible by raising issues when the government is off track. In contrast, the aforementioned article sugarcoats the misdoings of the present government and PM Balendra Shah as a discontinuation of conventional practices. In addition, the scribe, in an interview, claims that he is responsible only for the narration he had conveyed. However, an op-ed article not only conveys the literal message that is written between the lines, but it also has a deep unwritten message beyond the lines. Hence, the article does not address and analyse the current government’s dubious actions, including the mishandling of informal settlers, the controversy surrounding the appointment of the Chief Justice, the appointment of an allegedly incompetent Attorney General, and the ongoing spree of unconventional practices.

If the intellectuals do not relay their intellectuality, their existence is considered vague. To draw an example from the Mahabharata, Emperor Dhritarashtra’s court was home to some of the greatest intellectuals and warriors of the era, including Bhishma, Dronacharya, Kripacharya, and Karna. Yet, their silence—or in some cases, direct support—for Duryodhana’s unjust actions ultimately contributed to the outbreak of the devastating Kurukshetra War, a conflict that claimed countless lives, including those of these very intellectuals themselves. If only one of these intellectuals had protested against Duryodhana’s actions, the war would have been averted.

The constructive criticism of the intellectual community is crucial in bringing the government on the right track. In contrast, the blanket support of the government’s every action, just or unjust, will motivate the government to follow authoritarianism. Hence, what we need today is a Bidur in Dhritarashtra’s court—not more Bhimas, Dronas, Kripas, or Karnas who remain silent in the face of injustice.