When the Balendra Shah government announced in late March its plan to dissolve party-affiliated student organisations from schools, colleges and universities, Nepalis received it with both praise and criticism. Many welcomed it as a long-due, necessary action to free educational institutions from political control, while others viewed it as an infringement of constitutional rights and silencing of political voices on campuses. Although a necessary step, the process used to implement it was legally and procedurally flawed. As a result, the Supreme Court subsequently halted the implementation through an interim order. 

Political interference in education has been a persistent challenge in Nepal for decades. Universities struggle to provide a conducive learning environment when student unions that claim to represent students function as extensions of political parties, exert influence over campus activities and disrupt academic life of students. One potential solution would be to replace the party-affiliated student organisations in educational institutions with a student government association, a nonpartisan elected body representing all students, which would eliminate political parties’ control of educational institutions while protecting students’ rights to organise, advocate and engage in political expression.

I argue in favour of this proposal based on my personal experience as a former student at Tribhuvan University in Nepal, as well as my roles as a student leader and a faculty advisor to student organisations in the United States. As a master’s student at Tribhuvan University in Kirtipur, I witnessed firsthand how party-affiliated student unions disrupted students’ academic lives. I witnessed them often calling for strikes and campus closures. One day, one party-affiliated student wing would shut down the campus—the next day, another. It often seemed that these organisations were serving the interests of their parent parties rather than addressing students’ needs and concerns.

Like many students, I had come to Kathmandu to pursue my higher education. In an effort to secure affordable housing, I first sought a room in the university hostel but was unsuccessful. I was then advised by my seniors to approach leaders of party-affiliated student organisations because a significant number of rooms were allocated to them through their party’s quotas. 

However, it was not a viable option for me as I did not meet the principal eligibility criterion—I had never become a member of a political party. Eventually I ended up finding an off-campus housing on my own. But what came next was even more frustrating. Party-affiliated organisations constantly organised rallies and called for strikes and campus closures in the name of party politics. They would treat the university as leverage, making students hostage and shattering their dreams, for their own political party’s demands. Although some of these strikes, such as the 2002 December educational strike called by the Maoist-affiliated student wing appear to be related to educational reform, at their heart they carried their parent parties’ political agendas. 

Student movements have played important roles in advancing democracy, equality and social justice around the world, and their contribution to Nepal’s history should not be overlooked. Students played an instrumental role in the movement against the Panchayat System, as well as in the 2006 People’s Movement, which ultimately led to the abolition of the monarchy in 2008. However, these historical contributions do not give political parties a license to control universities, student offices or student representative bodies. 

The issue here, then, is not whether students should be politically engaged. Of course, they should, as colleges and universities are intellectual spaces where students learn to deliberate, organise, dissent, speak to power and hold authority accountable. But a more pressing question is whether parties should continue to control the very institutions intended to represent students. Students’ political participation of students and political parties’ control of educational institutions are fundamentally different matters and should not be conflated as one. 

My exposure to the different student organisation systems in the US universities helped me see how important and impactful these organisations could be in enhancing student experience. While completing my doctorate at the University of Utah, I served as the president of the Nepali Student Association and the English Graduate Student Council. The association promoted Nepali culture and intercultural exchanges, while addressing the needs and concerns of the Nepali students. The council organised works-in-progress workshops, helped secure funding for graduate conference travel, brought speakers to campus and represented graduate student concerns within the department and college. These student organisations addressed student needs and community engagement without their attachment to Republican or Democratic parties.

Like many public universities in the US, the Associated Students of the University of Utah (ASUU) is the official student government, which serves as the representative body of all students. The student-elected representatives serve in executive, legislative and judicial branches. Other student organisations are registered through the university's Student Leadership and Involvement Office, and they may apply for ASUU funding once they have demonstrated their good standing. I have also observed the separation of student organisations from political parties through my work as a faculty advisor at the University of Maryland, first with the South Asian American Student Association and now with the Nepali Student Association. 

Members of these organisations bring their own political views and commitments to campus, and these organisations themselves engage not only in the cultural events and debates but also in broader public issues, ranging from human rights to climate change. What distinguishes these organisations from the student union structure in Nepal, however, is their independence from political parties. Their activities are driven primarily by the needs and interests of students and the communities they serve, rather than by the agenda of a political party.

I discuss these examples to show why Nepal needs legal reform rather than an administrative ban and to offer an alternative model for student representation. The Supreme Court’s May 11 interim order halted implementation of the government decision, but it did not resolve the case on its merits. The government and Parliament should therefore establish a legal framework that removes party-affiliated student wings from educational institutions while protecting students’ freedom of expression and right to organise. Such reforms should create independently elected student councils at public universities, require regular elections, restrict campus closures and padlocking of university offices, and prevent party-affiliated student wings from treating university offices, hostels and representative bodies as extensions of their parent political parties. 

Nepal does not need depoliticised campuses. Colleges and universities must remain places of intellectual inquiry, dissent, debate and collective action for larger causes, all of which are fundamental to a democratic society. Students should be free to organise, argue, protest and lead without becoming puppets of political parties. Dismantling party-affiliated student organisations and replacing them with a nonpartisan system of student governance, alongside a diverse range of academic, cultural and advocacy groups, would be a necessary step toward that goal. Such reform should be pursued through legislation that respects constitutional rights and university autonomy.