By Our Reporter

A military band played music at Tundikhel. In many countries, this would pass without much notice. In Nepal, it quickly turned into a political issue, sparked online arguments, and revived old debates about sovereignty. What happened is clear. The real issue is why a routine event caused so much noise.

The immediate spark was the US Army band performing during the 263rd Nepal Army Day celebration. Within hours, CPN UML Chair KP Sharma Oli and Maoist leader Netra Bikram Chand, known as Biplav, questioned the move. They framed it as a matter linked to national sovereignty. Once senior politicians speak in that tone, public attention rises fast, and social media follows.

Why did the reaction grow this time?

One reason is timing. Nepal is moving toward an election season. During elections, political actors stay alert for any issue that can be framed around nationalism. Even symbolic matters can become political talking points. Questioning foreign military presence is an easy way to signal patriotism without entering complicated policy debates. That reality shaped much of the early reaction.

Another reason lies in public psychology. Nepal sits between major powers, and people remain sensitive about foreign military visibility. The United States, in particular, attracts strong opinions. When many citizens saw the US military band at a public venue, some viewed it through a strategic lens instead of a ceremonial one. That gap between intent and public perception helped fuel suspicion.

Communication also played a part. The Nepal Army treated the event as routine, but the public mood was not routine. Security analyst Indra Adhikari made a fair point when she said the Army could have informed the public more clearly in advance. When information comes late, doubts fill the space. In today’s climate, even normal military exchanges need better public explanation.

Social media then magnified everything. Once short video clips and sharp comments started circulating, the debate took on a life of its own. Online discussions rarely reward context or detail. Many users focused only on the American presence, while the participation of other countries faded into the background. In the digital age, a single image can outweigh the full story.

The backlash also reflects something deeper in Nepal’s political culture. Questions of sovereignty still carry strong emotional weight. Political leaders understand this well, and supporters respond quickly. The Tundikhel episode became a convenient outlet for those anxieties, even though the practice itself is not new.

In reality, Nepal regularly conducts joint activities with the United States, India, the United Kingdom, and China. These engagements support training, disaster response, and diplomatic ties. None of that changed during the Army Day event. What changed was the political temperature around it.

But the full picture is less dramatic. Bands from India and the United Kingdom also performed at the same program. The Nepal Army has invited friendly countries for such events for many years. It also sends its own teams abroad. This is part of normal military relations, not a sudden shift in policy. Even last year, when Oli himself was prime minister, the same countries joined the same ceremony.

The Tundikhel band did not create a new problem. It exposed an old sensitivity. Nepal continues to balance relations with multiple partners, and public trust in that balance shifts with the political mood. Until public communication improves and political actors show more restraint, even a simple military band performance may keep triggering outsized reactions.

The post Why did American Band stir controversy? appeared first on Peoples' Review.