With the March 5 election just around the corner, the latest reports from Gaur tell a deeply troubling story. Tensions between Hindu and Muslim communities have spilled into open violence despite extended curfew orders. Homes are tense, and the streets of this town remain uneasy, compelling former prime minister Madhav Kumar Nepal to call on residents to maintain restraint, warning that no family's safety should be put at risk and that dialogue remains the only workable path. Later, in an attempt to stop violence and tension from escalating, all political parties called for unity and harmony among all communities. Yet the clashes have persisted. Injuries have been reported, vehicles vandalised, and fires set even after security forces were deployed. This is not an isolated incident. In Sunsari, a confrontation between cadres of the Nepali Congress and the Rastriya Swatantra Party forced police to use batons. In Dang, RSP cadres burnt the UML's flag, angering supporters. The speed with which political rivalry turned physical should concern anyone who cares about the credibility of the coming polls. These incidents raise a serious question: Is the country prepared to guarantee a peaceful and credible election environment?
Canadian citizen arrested for troubling businesspersons
Election periods should strengthen security, which is vital for boosting voters' confidence. However, such a period has exposed how fragile our security becomes when tensions rise, as was evident during September 8 and 9, 2025, when Gen Z protests crippled our entire security apparatus. The communal friction in Gaur and the partisan clash in Sunsari point to weaknesses in early warning, local mediation, and crowd management. Authorities do respond, but too often the response comes after tempers have already crossed the line. The damage this time goes far beyond torched motorcycles and minor injuries. Violence during election periods sends fear among ordinary voters, who may hesitate to visit polling stations. Some question whether going to the polling station is worth the risk. Communities that have lived side by side for decades start to view each other with suspicion. In sensitive areas, even a small spark can escalate quickly. There is also the institutional strain that deserves closer attention. Security forces on election duty must handle the situation carefully and engage in protection, crowd control, and rapid response at the same time. When unrest surfaces across multiple districts, the pressure mounts quickly. No country can claim a free and fair poll if voters feel intimidated or candidates' campaigns come under threat.
Political parties carry a large share of responsibility. Too often, leaders speak of peace from public platforms while their ground-level cadres engage in verbal and physical attacks. This sends a dangerous signal because it shows that force, not restraint and discipline, still has a place in electoral politics. If parties are serious about democratic credibility, they must rein in their supporters clearly and publicly. As election day approaches and violence begins to surface, the government and security agencies must tighten coordination. Preventive intelligence at the local level needs to move faster. Community leaders should be engaged early, before tensions boil over to an extreme level. A visible but measured security presence can calm nerves. However, such security presence must be paired with dialogue and trust. An electoral period demands caution and maturity because voters must be encouraged to go to polling booths. Election-time violence is regarded as an unhealthy pattern in the exercise of citizens' democratic rights, and if such violence and tension are ignored, they can become a norm. Our country has the capacity to address poll-related violence. However, what the common people, parties, candidates, and their supporters need is restraint, responsibility, and the simple wisdom that ballots work best when they are not cast in fear.
