You assumed responsibility for the country at a very difficult moment. How have these two months in office been for you?
Only in the last four or five days have things started to feel slightly lighter. During the first 10–15 nights, I could barely sleep. Almost immediately after I took office, I met the families of those killed during the Gen Z protests, followed by the injured. Their painful stories were difficult to hear. Even the question of performing the last rites remained unresolved in the beginning. The parents of the victims came to me. For a week and a half, I was extremely emotional.
It is natural for victims to come to Baluwatar—the Prime Minister’s official residence—to cry and to express their pain. And in that moment, who else could they turn to? The early days were full of crisis.
Has it become easier now?
After that, we focused entirely on addressing their concerns—providing compensation to the families of the deceased and arranging treatment for the injured. Initially, there were only four ministers, and all of us were fully engaged in this work. That seemed to be the most urgent issue. Only afterwards did we shift to administrative matters, governance, and internal functioning of the government.
Did you ever imagine you would have to carry the top responsibility of the office of Prime Minister?
Not at all. I had never imagined becoming Prime Minister in this way.
You became Prime Minister under extraordinary circumstances—and you yourself were not seeking the position.
Absolutely not. When I was first approached, I declined. The Gen Z youths came directly to my home and urged me to accept the role. Pressure came from many sides. Even the President urged me to take on the responsibility. It became impossible to refuse.
They told me, “Do you want to watch the nation collapse? If you accept, the country can stabilize and find a new path. Someone independent like you must take this responsibility.” How could I say no to that?
When you took office, how supportive was the state machinery?
It was extremely uncomfortable. For the first two or three days, I felt completely alone. When the families of those killed during the protests came crying at the gate, whom was I supposed to turn to? I was the Prime Minister, yet I didn’t know how to communicate with the agencies. I was alone within the existing state machinery. Still, I gathered my courage and started working—believing that I had to manage the situation.
When did you begin to feel that the state apparatus was supporting you? Civil society and many others appeared to be with you.
Rather than thinking about who would or wouldn’t help, I felt that everyone must help. The atmosphere felt like a post-war situation. Forty five youths had been declared martyrs. Seventy-six others had died. It felt as though the whole country was burning. I felt strongly that the situation needed to be stabilized. That conviction—born from the movement itself—kept us going.
This is a national government formed through a special mandate after a mass movement. Yet some ministers seem busy with ribbon-cutting as in previous governments. Don’t you instruct them?
I read newspapers every day and point out the weaknesses they highlight. I ask, “How did this happen?” In the Cabinet, some ministers are my age, some are like my sons, and some like my grandchildren. There are ten ministers, and I currently oversee six to eight ministries myself. When I need assistance, I call the concerned minister and tell them, “You also need to do this.” The government functions through collective leadership and shared decisions.
You mentioned the workload. Have you thought of inducting more ministers in your cabinet?
No. From the beginning, we decided not to exceed eleven ministers. There was an attempt to make it twelve—an error midway. There was also a suggestion to include representatives from the Gen Z side, but they are still very young, and I didn’t see how they could take full responsibility. So we kept the Cabinet small.
When decisions go wrong, you tend to correct them quickly. Is that accurate?
Yes. We correct our mistakes. We have no hesitation in fixing them. We cannot allow wrong decisions to stand.
OCE mulling SEE question banks after multiple errors in questio...
Some decisions have gone wrong at times, haven’t they?
Sometimes, yes. Not everyone is equally mature or knowledgeable. No one knows everything. And we are not career politicians. We also haven’t hired big advisors.
Governments often face domestic and international pressure. What kind of international response has your government received?
This country is ours. Every Nepali knows how it should be governed. Nepal is a landlocked country between two large nations. We must maintain balanced and harmonious relations with both. This has been our long-standing policy.
People claim foreigners interfere or run Nepal, but I haven’t seen it. I haven’t met any top foreign personality. It seems unlikely that I will in these six months. Ambassadors congratulated me during the oath-taking, and since then I’ve only met them in group settings. I haven’t met anyone privately. Whenever I meet them, Foreign Ministry officials are present.
I have not held a single meeting without officials. They guide me when needed—like when discussing passport printing with the German ambassador. I’ve met the Indian ambassador only three times: during the oath, when he came to congratulate me, and once at a Foreign Ministry event. I haven’t had any private conversations with him.
Why such rumors spread, I do not know. Even ministers haven’t met foreigners alone. I am guided by the people’s voice, Cabinet decisions, and the advice of officials at the PM’s Office and the Foreign Ministry.
Does your decision not to hold major bilateral meetings mean you will not travel abroad during this term?
We’ve received many invitations, but we’re not interested. I became Prime Minister on September 12. It hasn’t even been six months. Should I focus on work or foreign trips? The Finance Minister went to the U.S. only because attendance was unavoidable. For all other events, we’ve sent secretaries or joint secretaries. Our focus is the election.
You have avoided blaming the previous government, but many tasks remain incomplete—Melamchi, Bancharedanda, payments to athletes…
Yes, many tasks were left incomplete. If we focus on foreign trips, how do we complete them? I fear I might not even be able to leave Kathmandu. But we must travel within the country to show—and ensure—that elections will take place.
Nepal is between India and China. Has your government taken any special initiative to balance relations?
Our priority is peace and security at home. We will not take actions that harm either neighbor. Given recent global terrorist incidents, we must remain alert. A terrorist attack in China or India would affect us. Their recent troubles saddened me deeply. Such things could happen here too. We must continue our traditional diplomacy—maintaining good relations with both neighbors.
There is also propaganda that this government was formed through foreign influence. What do you say?
Such claims must be proven. I always ask for evidence. Saying things without proof means nothing. One must say: “Here is solid evidence, here is the document.” Without that, baseless allegations hold no weight.
A court in Bangladesh has sentenced former PM Sheikh Hasina to death. In Nepal too, people were killed during protests. Is there pressure on your government to prosecute those responsible?
Of course there is pressure—especially from the Gen Z side. Forty-five people have been declared martyrs. The stories of the families are heartbreaking. Parents come to us repeatedly. The injured want justice. The government must act, but we must also consider the overall situation.
We have formed a strong commission. It will submit its report soon. My belief is simple: the guilty must be punished—even if the guilty is in my own family. After investigation, whoever is found guilty must face action. People were killed—by people. It was murder, and murder is murder. Leaving it unpunished would be impunity, and impunity cannot be tolerated.
Probe commissions were formed after the 1990 and 2006 movements too. This time, will recommendations actually be implemented?
This is a six-month government. As long as we are here, once the commission submits its findings, there is no reason not to act. The law is the law. A commission’s report is a commission’s report. Failing to act in the past was a mistake. Had justice been delivered earlier, today’s situation might not have arisen. As Prime Minister, I believe that once guilt is established, punishment must follow.
How confident are you that elections will be held on March 5?
Right after my appointment, I was overwhelmed. I didn’t know where to begin. We started with just four ministers, later expanding to ten experienced leaders. We consulted political parties and the Election Commission. Then the work progressed.
Now, after two months, with about three months and nineteen days remaining, it seems possible. The Election Commission is prepared. Infrastructure is ready. India has promised support—around 700 vehicles and other materials. We have arranged necessary equipment for the police. Funds are in place. International partners are assisting.
We will also mobilize the army, like in the Khil Raj Regmi-led government. Police morale is improving. Burned police buildings have been repaired. The IGP has assured us the task can be completed. Voters have increased by over half a million. There is no question—elections will take place.
Parties have raised concerns. Nepali Congress is ready, while the UML seems inclined toward restoring Parliament. If Parliament isn’t restored, will UML join the elections?
The public mood is clearly for elections. When people move in one direction, parties cannot refuse. Elections are the natural course of politics. I believe UML will join.
But UML has declared it does not recognize the Prime Minister or the government.
That is their choice. I have no complaints about their position.
There were reports that you said you “don’t look at the faces of top leaders.” Did you actually say that?
I never said that. Some media exaggerate statements. Who could look at anyone’s face between mid-September and mid-November? People were being dragged on the streets. Meeting certain leaders was dangerous. What I said was simply that it might be difficult to meet certain top leaders immediately. That was twisted into “I won’t even look at their faces.” Why would I be hostile? Even if I didn’t look at them, they appear on TV—I’d still see them.
What about enabling Nepali migrants abroad to vote?
There is pressure, but the possibility is very low. It costs around six dollars per vote. Some countries don’t have voting provisions. If we allow voting in some places and not others, it may raise questions about legitimacy. Parties may say they couldn’t campaign abroad. We are unsure. This time, we may set the groundwork; next time, it could become certain. The Supreme Court has issued a decision, but implementation hasn’t progressed.
The Election Commission itself is not fully staffed. How will you address this?
We are discussing it. The current commissioner is working efficiently. We are considering full appointments, but even with the current team, elections can be conducted. Judges and staff conduct elections on the ground.
Good governance is a key mandate. Gen Z demanded an end to corruption. What steps has the government taken?
I am a lawyer and former judge. First, complaints go to the police, CIAA, or CIB; investigations happen; documents are prepared; statements are recorded; and charges filed. This takes time. Hundreds of cases are under investigation.
We have been here only two months. But we call the CIAA daily and ask: “How many cases progressed today?” Statements are being recorded. Files are being checked. Transfers of officials are ongoing. Good governance is a continuous process. Ending corruption nationwide will take at least a year. Some issues require international investigation.
We face pressure from all sides. One side says, “Your only job is elections.” Another says, “Focus on governance and fight corruption—Gen Z demanded it.” Everything—from Melamchi to Bancharedanda—has awakened at once.
This is not a powerful government with a strong electoral mandate. The President asked us to conduct elections and handle daily affairs. Those who benefited under the previous government are upset and spread chaos because their privileges ended.
But we are here for the public. We serve the people. We are not angry at critics. Who else would people hold accountable, if not us? We do what we can. We are working for Gen Z too—categorizing the injured, making arrangements. Criticism doesn’t anger me; it helps us understand. All ten of us bow before the people.
After spending this time as Prime Minister, how do you assess the state of corruption in Nepal?
It is widespread—present at every step. The country has been ruined by corruption, not by foreign powers. I won’t name individuals—that is for the CIAA and CIB to prove with evidence.
We never established proper systems. In other countries, corruption sparks outrage; here, half the people are happy when it happens. People think corruption by one’s own group is acceptable, but when others do it, it’s wrong. When people get an opportunity, they feel compelled to take something. Tomorrow, when I leave, even some in my own family might feel the same. It has become part of our culture.
Stopping corruption is also the people’s responsibility. If agencies are staffed with compromised individuals, what results can we expect?
Some officials hesitate to start new work—they fear the CIAA too much. Those who deserve punishment are not punished; those who don’t deserve it are terrified. Even property inquiries reflect this—those with massive wealth face no scrutiny; those with minor mistakes are penalized. Changing this will take time.
