In the wake of the unrest, Pushpa Kamal Dahal “Prachanda”, chairperson of the CPN (Maoist Centre), issued an open letter addressed to the Gen Z generation and the Nepali public. The message — circulated by his office and on his social accounts — expresses condolences, condemns repression, distances the youth-led movement from acts of arson and looting, and calls for constitutional, parliamentary remedies. Separately, Prachanda’s residence and party premises have been targeted during the unrest, underlining how volatile the situation is.
Copy-edited English translation — Prachanda’s open letter to GenZ
(Published by the CPN (Maoist Centre); English translation, copy-edited for clarity)
Young people of the Gen Z generation and the distinguished public,
I express my heartfelt condolences to all the youth who were martyred in the movement called by the Generation Z (GenZ)for good governance and the dream of a prosperous democracy. I extend my deepest sympathies to their families and wish a speedy recovery to all those who were injured.
The collapse of the unconstitutional and unnatural alliance formed by the Congress and the UML in the middle of the night 14 months ago — formed out of fear of good governance — has now been tragically exposed. The people’s anger has reached its peak because that coalition government became preoccupied with serving vested interests, alarmed by the steps my government took against corruption, and in favor of good governance, social justice, and prosperity. The movement initiated by the Gen Z generation against the social media ban and corruption was justified. However, the government responded with brutal repression and, on the first day, killings.
On the second day of protests, incidents of destruction, looting, and arson occurred. Dozens of public buildings, political party offices, private residences, hotels, banks, and commercial structures — including the Legislative Assembly building, the President’s residence, Singha Durbar, the Supreme Court, the CIAA, and offices of security agencies — were attacked. Political leaders were physically targeted.
We firmly believe that these violent acts were not committed by the Gen Z protesters; such actions do not align with their declared ideals. We deeply regret these unimaginable incidents and demand a high-level judicial investigation into the repression, killings, looting, and arson that took place during the protests.
When the Oli-led government came to power, I warned during the vote of confidence that such a crisis could arise. Even then, our party repeatedly urged the government — through harsh self-criticism in parliament and in public — to correct its course. We warned that continued misrule would break the people’s patience. Despite our calls, the government grew arrogant with a two-thirds majority and moved autocratically, including by banning social media and suppressing dissent. This created the conditions for public anger, especially among Gen Z, to explode. Instead of listening, the government’s repression caused tragic human loss.
We have long raised our voice against corruption. Even when we led the government, we took decisive steps for good governance. We argued that directly-elected executives and MPs should not simultaneously serve as ministers, and we called for a Commission with full authority to investigate assets of high-ranking officials and leaders. It is a matter of pride that the Gen Z generation is now raising the same demands. From the outset, when Gen Z announced the movement, we supported it and warned the government not to use force.
From the second day, however, unwanted elements infiltrated the protests, contrary to organizers’ calls. The looting and arson — including at Singha Durbar, Nepal’s historical complex — became among the darkest moments in our history. Even though Gen Z and we were raising similar issues, our party office, private residences, and public structures were set ablaze. Who carried out these acts, and why? We must think seriously about this. Such incidents contradict the ideals of Gen Z and are unimaginable.
At a time when the government did not listen, we once launched a People’s War — not out of desire, but out of resistance to extreme exploitation, oppression, and violence. That struggle enabled marginalized communities — Dalits, women, indigenous peoples, Tharu, Muslims, Madhesi, and residents of Karnali and Sudurpaschim — to have a voice. Thousands sacrificed their lives; many remain missing, maimed or disabled.
Believing in peace, good governance and prosperity, Girija Prasad Koirala and I signed the Comprehensive Peace Accord, which helped lead the country into the Constituent Assembly. From the People’s War and the people’s movement, Nepal succeeded in drafting a republican constitution that for the first time guaranteed rights to marginalized groups and brought state power closer to villages. This was no small achievement.
Yet we have not been serious enough in implementing the constitution; this has created doubts about the system itself. During the constitution’s drafting, we raised different opinions — for a directly elected executive, additional rights for marginalized groups, a strong asset-investigation commission, and limits on MPs serving as ministers. Those differences were recorded then and remain ours today. When the Congress and UML failed to rise above tradition during implementation, people’s anger grew. Today, Gen Z raises many of the same demands. We view that positively. The movement has opened a door to the nation moving forward, and Gen Z deserves thanks.
The Gen Z agenda demands an advanced democracy, not the status quo. Reactionary elements have tried to infiltrate the movement and reverse the gains won through sacrifice, using sabotage, arson and destruction. We are clear: the alternative to democracy is a stronger democracy; the alternative to the republic is a stronger republic. The demands of Gen Z can be met within the constitution and parliamentary process.
Despite its many weaknesses, the current constitution remains comparatively strong on social justice and inclusion. The transitional situation must be resolved constitutionally; political solutions outside constitutional and legislative processes will invite regression. We can build a developed democracy if we amend the constitution — for example, to consider a direct executive political system — while protecting inclusivity.
The CPN (Maoist Centre) has long fought for social transformation, equality, and independence. Saying all parties are the same is wrong. A party that risked everything for the republic cannot be equated with one that suppresses people’s movements. We will ruthlessly review our shortcomings and move forward. We will support movements that promote progressive change, empower Nepalis, and establish good governance and social justice.
I appeal to all forces supporting peace, the constitution and the republic to unite and remain vigilant against regressive elements fishing in troubled waters. I direct the party to stand with the people, be ready to respond to problems, and guard against vandalism, looting and arson against lives, public structures and private property.
Finally, I appreciate initiatives to address Gen Z’s demands through constitutional means, and I recognise the role of security agencies in facilitating the process. I urge everyone to be optimistic, to defend the constitution and democracy, and to pursue restraint, understanding, dialogue and peaceful solutions.
Thank you,
Prachanda (Pushpa Kamal Dahal)
Chairperson, CPN (Maoist Centre)
Analysis — what Prachanda is trying to say (key takeaways)
1) Tone: sympathetic, legitimising, distancing
Prachanda combines sympathy for Gen Z (condolences, praise for raising anti-corruption demands) with distance from violence (saying arson/looting were not Gen Z actions). That dual tone seeks to keep his party aligned with youth grievances while protecting the movement’s moral standing.
2) Political positioning and critique of rivals
He blames the Congress–UML coalition for misrule and repression and frames his party as a consistent opponent of corruption. This is a clear political move to reclaim opposition legitimacy and present the Maoist Centre as the constructive partner for reform.
3) Revival of longer-standing agendas
Prachanda reintroduces familiar Maoist policy points — direct executive, strong asset probe and restrictions on MPs becoming ministers. By linking Gen Z’s demands to these issues, he attempts to make the youth agenda compatible with the Maoist Centre’s platform and reassert his party’s relevance.
4) Constitutional path, not extra-constitutional change
While criticising the present system, his insistence that demands be met “within the constitution and parliamentary process” is an attempt to reassure domestic and international audiences that he favours constitutional reform rather than a breakdown of democratic processes.
5) Warning about infiltration and reactionary actors
Prachanda claims “unwanted elements” infiltrated protests and carried out sabotage. This narrative serves two purposes: (a) preserves the moral high ground of the youth movement, and (b) justifies the call for a high-level judicial probe and vigilance against exploitation of chaos.
6) Outreach to international and domestic audiences
The letter’s measured language — calling for restraint, dialogue and constitutional remedies — also reads as a message to international observers worried about instability and (possibly) foreign interference. The focus on process and institutions is meant to calm markets, partners and diplomats.
Implications — what to watch next
- Investigation outcomes. Prachanda’s demand for a high-level inquiry will raise pressure on the government and judiciary to act transparently. Watch who is appointed, the mandate, and timelines.
- Gen Z response. Will youth leaders accept Prachanda’s outreach as genuine or see it as political manoeuvring? Their reaction will shape whether protests re-mobilize or shift to negotiation.
- Opposition coordination. The Maoist Centre has called joint opposition meetings — this could lead to a unified bargaining position in parliament or further polarisation.
- Security and stability. Attacks on party offices and residences (including Prachanda’s) make reconciliation harder and risk further escalation if not promptly and transparently addressed.
Also read: Former PM KP Sharma Oli Pens Open Letter After Resignation, Appeals to Gen Z
