Historical interpretation of current events has become the most touted subject in recent times. There is a contradiction here. Some time separates us from the events of history. But there is no point in time when a particular event or set of events is relegated to history. This problem arises in a society where events occur frequently. In common parlance, people say we are living in the most so-and-so moments of history. I have heard some people call yesterday’s event history. There is no denying that presentism is the creator of history. Everything starts from the present. But there are certain metaphors in Nepali history that recur more often than any others in discussions and interpretations. This is the subject of another essay. Here, I would like to begin with our practice of defining history in terms of the dominant characters of the events.

Nepal is unique in matters of recording events—some small and others quite big—in terms of their effect. If we take some time to browse through our history, we can see that events have occurred in Nepali society at a fast pace. Each event has ushered in changes. The major events of the 104-year autocratic rule of the Rana oligarchy were homogeneous in character. They were events of the autocracy that involved succession and the seizing of opportunities to hold power, but after its downfall in 1951, or after the establishment of democracy in Nepal, a different kind of power struggle and succession order became the norm, shaping the changes.

It would be tautological to repeat the order of events in modern history. We are all familiar with the major historical events of the modern era, such as the fall of the Rana regime; the coalition government of the Rana and Nepali Congress; the panchayat rule, a dictatorial order established by the Shah king Mahendra in 1960; the Maoist war of 1996-2006; the end of monarchy in 2008, making Nepal a federal democratic republic; elections and the formation of party governments; and the big Gen Z-led demonstrations that pushed the established party government out of power, bringing former Chief Justice Sushila Karki into office as Nepal’s first female prime minister, who conducted the March election that brought today’s parliament and the government of the Rastriya Swatantra Party. How each change introduces norms of action is a subject of interest and concern.

We have accepted that our actions are governed by the norms of democratic change. They should be so if we want to consolidate the democratic system. Certain ethics and philosophies should guide our actions. We are talking about the important moments of change. Talking about the norm and spirit of liberal democracy, Fareed Zakaria, writer, says in Age of Revolutions, “We uphold freedom of speech, rather than favouring specific speech. We want elections to be free and fair, rather than favouring one candidate. We make law by consensus and compromise, not by degree. But increasingly there are those—frustrated by the process, sure of their virtue, loathing the other side—who want to ban what they regard as ‘bad’ speech, make policy by fiat, or even manipulate the democratic process.”

If we are nurturing such norms, we should abandon them. I want to link this statement to the cursory view of Nepali history that I just presented. The ethic is that the individual speaks for the voice of the times. For example, individual acts of courage can spark revolutions. The Associated Press, in an obituary on 17 December 2011, wrote: The self-immolation of a vegetable-seller in Tunis named Mohamed Bouazizi triggered a revolution. That sparked a wave of rebellions across the Arab world in 2011. But I am not trying to draw an analogy between this story and that of Ganesh Nepali here.

Some commotion occurs when a young person decides to end their life in a public place in broad daylight. That creates sensation and triggers discussion among people about the method chosen to end their lives. This could be a woman or a man, young or old. Here, we are talking about a 25-year-old ride-sharing driver named Ganesh Nepali, who poured petrol and set himself on fire. He died later in the hospital. The motorcycle he had bought on a huge loan was his minuscule universe, embodying his presentism and futurity. But the process involved in its purchase and the modality of its use very clearly made it a symbol and metaphor of the political and economic system of Nepal.

The debate triggered after his death, both in the legislature and in the media across different orders, foregrounded the political, economic, administrative and moral issues of current Nepali society. The public and parliament have been debating this topic with great rigour. A report says an agreement has been reached between Nepali’s family and the government. This incident has slowly gone down in history as a narrative of temporal significance. I appreciate the government’s prompt response in this matter. What follows the incident should be viewed from a realistic perspective.

But Ganesh Nepali’s self-immolation has highlighted important moments in the current mood and mode of Nepali society. The Nepali history we alluded to at the opening of this essay saw many moments when the youth felt they should sacrifice their lives. Many have already done so. History speaks. But what should alarm us at this stage of Nepali history is a sense of frustration among Nepali youth and adults that could propel them to take such actions. There are many people, experts and scholars who can analyse the state of mind of youth and the nature of their frustration. Though it may be an arduous task to trace every form of youth frustration, it would be important to identify its sources. Sociologists, writers, politicians, psychologists and spiritual gurus may have their own ways of addressing these issues.

But at the end of the day, those who rule the country should use their energy, judgement and policies to address the root causes of the frustration and ennui gripping the public’s mind. It is realistic to expect a particular government to solve the problems, but those in opposition parties, the media and the intelligentsia also have responsibilities in such matters. I watched the parliamentary debate the other day and felt encouraged by the free opinions expressed by both the ruling party and the opposition. That is the right step towards history-making.