14 Student Organizations Issue Joint Statement: Student Movement Not a Product of Anyone’s Favor

March 31, Kathmandu – Fourteen student organizations have united to raise their voices regarding the government’s proposal to abolish student organizations as part of the 100-point agenda on administrative reforms. In a joint statement released on Wednesday, these groups made it clear that Nepal’s student movement has never been the result of anyone’s mercy, favor, or benevolence. The first cabinet meeting under the leadership of Prime Minister Balendra Shah had approved the 100-point agenda on administrative reform, and item number 86 of that agenda drew particular attention from the student organizations.

“Nepal’s student movement has evolved on a foundation of sacrificial struggle, continuously remaining active in support of the nation, nationalism, democracy, social justice, educational reform, and the rights and interests of students,” the statement said. It further highlighted that from the Rana regime to the democratic movements, student organizations have courageously contributed a heroic history.

“Ignoring the historic background of the student movement, the government’s decision to restrict and ban student organizations under the pretext of resolving complex issues in the education sector will not yield positive long-term results,” the joint statement asserted. While acknowledging many problems in the university system, the student organizations called upon the state to conduct comprehensive studies and craft policies and programs based on genuine analysis and solutions.

The statement also criticized the government’s immature and superficial approach of attributing all educational sector problems solely to student organizations. It recalled that the student movement has itself been engaged in timely discussions on its restructuring, and claimed that the results of these efforts are beginning to show. “The right to associate based on ideology is a fundamental right guaranteed by Nepal’s constitution. Imposing restrictions on anyone’s thoughts can contradict democratic values and norms and may violate international human rights standards,” it emphasized.