The events of September 8 and 9, 2025, will be remembered as one of the most intense episodes of political unrest in Nepal’s recent history. In just two days, demonstrations led largely by Generation Z protesters brought down the elected government, claimed 76 lives, including three police personnel, and caused an estimated Rs 85 billion (about $600 million) in property damage.
Among the most striking symbols of the destruction was Singha Durbar, Nepal’s principal administrative complex for more than 120 years and a site of immense architectural and historical significance. Other heritage buildings, including Babar Mahal, the Ministry of Health building and Shital Niwas, the president’s office and official residence, were also set on fire.
The violence also threatened institutions responsible for preserving Nepal’s documentary heritage. The Department of Archaeology and the National Archives, located near the Supreme Court and Babar Mahal, faced an imminent risk of damage. However, local residents, young volunteers and staff members stepped forward to protect the National Archives. Rather than confronting protesters with force, they explained the historical and national importance of the archives and appealed for their preservation. Their efforts helped prevent irreparable damage to one of Nepal’s most valuable repositories of historical records.
The incident demonstrated a powerful lesson: informed and engaged communities can serve as the first line of defense in protecting cultural heritage during times of crisis. While security agencies are essential, community stewardship can be equally important when institutions face extraordinary threats.
This experience challenges the traditional view of communities as passive beneficiaries of cultural heritage. Instead, they should be recognized as active partners in safeguarding museums, archives, monuments and historic sites during emergencies. Civic awareness, local initiative and collective responsibility can become invaluable resources when formal protection systems are under pressure.
A Wake-Up Call
Although many museums escaped major physical damage during the unrest, several cultural institutions faced serious security risks.
Taragaon Next Museum, the Judiciary Museum within the Supreme Court complex and other institutions preserving Nepal’s cultural and institutional memory were affected in various ways. While the Judiciary Museum itself survived, several artifacts were stolen during the violence. Most of those artifacts were later recovered, according to museum chief Rajan Sapkota.
“The incident showed that stronger security arrangements are essential to safeguard museum collections during periods of mass mobilization,” Sapkota said.
Invaluable Licchavi-era statues and sculptures in Banepa, Kavre were damaged during the protest. According to local heritage activist Bhishan Madhikarmi, about 50 damaged artifacts were rescued and protected by community members. He believes other heritage objects may have been lost. However, there is no official record documenting these artifacts of the area.
Nepal has witnessed similar losses before. During the Maoist insurgency from 1996 to 2006, several historic buildings and heritage sites, such as Palpa Durbar, Mangalsen Durbar and Dullu Durbar, suffered extensive damage. While museums now operate in the reconstructed Palpa and Mangalsen palaces, Dullu Durbar remains in ruins.
These experiences demonstrate that political unrest inevitably places museums and heritage sites at heightened risk, even when they are not deliberately targeted. Their proximity to government buildings, large public gatherings, security operations and civil disturbances makes them particularly vulnerable.
Since preparedness is more effective than reaction, the government must strengthen its capacity to anticipate and manage these risks before future crises occur.
More Than a Building
Museums are far more than buildings that house historical objects. They preserve a nation’s collective memory and connect the past with the present and the future. Their collections, including sculptures, manuscripts, paintings, archaeological artifacts, historical documents and ethnographic materials, often possess cultural and historical value that cannot be measured in monetary terms.
When irreplaceable objects are lost to fire, vandalism, theft or conflict, the damage extends beyond the physical artifact. Society loses part of its identity, history and shared memory.
The September 2025 unrest underscored the need for museums to adopt comprehensive emergency preparedness plans that explicitly address the risks posed by political unrest, mass demonstrations and civil disorder. These plans should establish clear communication channels with law enforcement, local authorities and surrounding communities while defining procedures for protecting collections during emergencies.
Preparedness also requires maintaining up-to-date inventories, identifying priority objects for evacuation, strengthening building security and training staff to respond to threats such as forced entry, fire, theft, vandalism and crowd-related damage.
Museum security should therefore be viewed as an integrated institutional system rather than a collection of isolated measures. Effective security incorporates risk assessment, decision-making, communication, collection protection, evacuation planning, emergency response and post-crisis recovery.
Not all museums possess the same resources. Their capacity to prepare for emergencies varies according to ownership, governance, location, staffing, infrastructure and financial support. Some institutions have dedicated security personnel, surveillance systems, perimeter fencing, firefighting equipment and digital documentation of their collections. Many others operate with limited resources and lack even basic emergency plans.
More concerning is that many museums lack security policies specifically addressing political unrest. Few have comprehensive risk assessments covering scenarios such as riots, civil disorder, arson, theft, vandalism, or large-scale crowd movements. Without such planning, both collections and visitors remain vulnerable during periods of instability.
UNESCO’s 2015 Recommendation Concerning the Protection and Promotion of Museums and Collections emphasizes the importance of risk assessment, emergency preparedness, security planning and disaster response. Likewise, the International Council of Museums’ Code of Ethics recognizes museums’ professional responsibility to safeguard their collections, while ICCROM’s First Aid to Cultural Heritage in Times of Crisis offers practical guidance for coordinated action among museums, emergency responders and local communities.
These frameworks reinforce a simple but essential principle: effective security cannot begin once a crisis is underway. It must be established long before emergencies arise through careful planning, staff training, regular risk assessments and strong coordination among museums, government agencies and local communities.
Three Layers of Museum Security
Nepal’s experience, particularly during the September 202 unrest, demonstrates that no single institution, security agency or physical protection system can guarantee the safety of museums and heritage sites during political crises.
Protecting cultural heritage requires a multilayered strategy built on institutional preparedness, political responsibility and community leadership.
Institutional Preparedness: Every museum should develop and regularly update comprehensive security and emergency response plans. These should include collection management policies, staff training, simulation exercises, crisis communication protocols and post-disaster recovery strategies.
Security planning should also safeguard employees, visitors, institutional operations, public confidence and the museum’s long-term reputation.
Recovery should not end once the immediate crisis has passed. Museums should conduct post-incident reviews, strengthen staff training and engage the public through exhibitions, educational programs and community outreach to rebuild trust and restore visitor confidence.
Political Responsibility: Peaceful protest is a fundamental democratic right. At the same time, museums, archives, archaeological sites and historic monuments are shared national assets that should remain protected regardless of political circumstances.
Political parties and protest organizers should adopt a Heritage Protection Code of Conduct similar to the protections afforded to hospitals, ambulances and journalists during conflicts. Such commitments should be clearly communicated to party members, protest marshals and supporters before demonstrations begin.
Regular dialogue among political leaders, museum professionals, government agencies and security authorities can further strengthen coordination and reduce the risk of damage to cultural institutions during periods of unrest.
Community Leadership: The events surrounding the protection of the National Archives demonstrated the critical role that communities can play in safeguarding cultural heritage.
Local residents can provide early warning, help protect vulnerable sites and support emergency response efforts. Building public awareness of the importance of museums and heritage sites encourages responsible reporting of threats and strengthens community ownership of shared cultural resources.
The successful protection of the National Archives serves as a powerful reminder that community engagement is not simply a complement to institutional security — it is one of its strongest foundations.
To strengthen these three pillars, the government should establish a museum security and emergency preparedness standard. Such a framework should define minimum requirements for risk assessment, collection security, staff safety, evacuation procedures, crisis communication, interagency coordination, recovery planning and continuous learning.
The federal government should lead this effort in partnership with provincial and local governments, museums, heritage institutions, security agencies and emergency services. Integrating museums into national disaster risk reduction strategies would strengthen both legal protections and operational preparedness while ensuring that police, firefighters and emergency responders understand the unique vulnerabilities of cultural institutions before future crises occur.
Steps Toward Resilience
The time has come for Nepal to move beyond the traditional concept of museum security and adopt a broader museum resilience framework. Rather than focusing solely on preventing theft or vandalism, such a framework should strengthen museums’ ability to anticipate, withstand and recover from crises.
This approach should rest on five interconnected stages: protection, preparedness, response, recovery and learning. Together, these elements can reduce vulnerability, strengthen institutional capacity, improve emergency response and accelerate recovery after a crisis. Just as importantly, they can help museums restore public confidence, protect staff and ensure the continuity of their educational and cultural missions.
These five stages should be supported by three overarching pillars: institutional preparedness, political responsibility and community leadership. A museum’s resilience depends not only on its own planning and resources but also on political commitment to safeguard cultural heritage and willingness to protect shared national assets.
No single institution can achieve this alone. Building resilience requires coordinated action by the federal, provincial and local governments, museums, heritage organizations, security agencies, emergency responders, political parties, the media and local communities. Each has a role to play in reducing risk, improving preparedness and strengthening recovery when crises occur.
Museum collections, whether manuscripts, sculptures, paintings, archaeological artifacts or historical documents, are irreplaceable. Once destroyed or stolen, they cannot be recreated. Their loss represents not only the disappearance of physical objects but also the erosion of a nation’s memory, identity and cultural heritage.
Protecting museums is not simply about preserving buildings or collections. It is about safeguarding the history, knowledge and identity that define the nation.
The government should therefore establish a comprehensive museum security and safeguarding framework that builds on local strengths while addressing local vulnerabilities. The framework should shift the focus from reactive response to proactive preparedness, replace isolated ‘islands of protection’ with coordinated resilience and elevate museum security from an institutional responsibility to a shared national, multi-institutional priority.
(Ghimire is the Secretary of the International Council of Museums Nepal (ICOM Nepal). He can be reached for comments at [email protected])
