Kathmandu, October 30, 2026 - Gen Z activist Raksha Bam has publicly accused the government led by the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) of governing in the style of Nepal's authoritarian Panchayat past, following an operation in which police entered media houses and arrested journalists. In comments posted on Facebook and addressed directly to RSP chair Rabi Lamichhane, Bam said the government "smells of the Panchayat era" and urged it to stop chanting the slogan of good governance. She also rejected the government's claim that it had no information about the arrests, asking whether leaders such as KP Sharma Oli or Ramesh Lekhak would have been left similarly unaware. Her remarks, reported from Kathmandu on Friday, were carried by Nepal Press, Khabarhub and Nagarik News.

"Your Government Smells of Panchayatism"

Bam's criticism came in direct response to the police action against media houses and the arrest of journalists, an episode she treated as evidence of a deeper political problem within the RSP-led government. Speaking through a series of Facebook comments, she told Lamichhane that the conduct of his party's government evokes the Panchayat period, one of the most pointed comparisons available in Nepali political discourse.

According to Nepal Press, her central message to the RSP chair was blunt: the government should stop raising the slogans of good governance that have defined the party's public messaging. In her telling, a government that oversees police raids on media houses and the detention of journalists forfeits the right to claim that mantle.

Her key points, as reported across the three outlets, can be summed up as follows:

  • The government led by Lamichhane's party "smells of the Panchayat era," and its conduct mirrors the repressive politics of that period.
  • The government should stop chanting the slogan of good governance, which she framed as incompatible with the police action against the press.
  • Its claim that it had no information about the arrests is not credible, and she invoked senior politicians KP Sharma Oli and Ramesh Lekhak to press that point.

Why the Panchayat Comparison Carries Weight

The reference to the Panchayat era is not a casual insult in Nepal's political vocabulary. The Panchayat system, which governed the country for three decades until 1990, was a partyless regime marked by censorship, the suppression of dissent and tight control over the press. Accusing a sitting government of Panchayat-style rule is therefore a charge that resonates far beyond ordinary partisan sparring, as Nagarik News noted in its report.

That the accusation has been directed at the RSP gives it an added edge. The party has built its political identity around the promise of good governance, and Bam's demand that it stop "chanting" that slogan strikes directly at the message on which the party has campaigned. In effect, she argued that the government's own actions have contradicted the very principle it invokes, and that continuing to repeat the slogan under these circumstances rings hollow.

Bam's profile also shapes the significance of her intervention. As a Gen Z activist, she represents a generation whose political engagement has been defined by demands for accountability and transparent governance rather than loyalty to established party hierarchies. Criticism of this kind coming from within that constituency, rather than from rival politicians, presents a distinct challenge for a government already under scrutiny for its handling of the media.

Questions Over the "No Information" Claim

The sharpest element of Bam's remarks concerned the government's response to the arrests. She questioned how the government could claim it had no information about an operation as visible and consequential as police entering media houses and detaining journalists, Khabarhub reported.

To underline her skepticism, Bam posed a rhetorical question invoking two of Nepal's most prominent political figures: KP Sharma Oli and Ramesh Lekhak. Would they, she asked, have been in the dark about such an action? The implication of the question was clear in her framing - a government cannot plausibly profess ignorance of police conduct of this scale, and the "no information" defence should not be accepted at face value.

Her remarks stop short of offering an alternative explanation for the arrests, and the reports do not indicate that she presented evidence about who ordered the operation. What they do record is a direct, public challenge to the government's account, delivered on a platform with wide reach and addressed personally to the party chair.

A Direct Challenge to the RSP's Core Message

Taken together, Bam's comments amount to a two-pronged attack: on the government's conduct, which she likened to Panchayat-era repression, and on its credibility, which she questioned over its professed ignorance of the arrests. Both prongs converge on the same target - the good governance agenda that the RSP has made its political calling card.

For the RSP government, the criticism underscores the political cost of the police action against media houses. An operation that draws comparisons with the Panchayat regime, and that a Gen Z activist links to the erosion of the party's own flagship slogan, places the government's press freedom record at the centre of public debate. As reported on October 30, Bam's demand remains unambiguous: the government should stop chanting the slogan of good governance if its actions tell a different story.