Nepal is now in the grip of its fiercest turmoil in decades. K.P. Sharma Oli, forced by a youth-led uprising, resigned as prime minister of a coalition-led government after lifting the sweeping ban on social media. However, the violence has not subsided. Streets in Nepal continue to witness clashes, fires, and funerals, with nearly two dozen dead and hundreds injured. What began as anger at blocked platforms has grown into a generational revolt against corruption, impunity, and the empty promises of Nepal’s political elite. “Stop corruption, not social media” was the rallying cry, exposing the gulf between ordinary families sending their children to toil abroad and leaders whose children return flaunting luxury brands.
Nepal’s crisis does not stand alone. It is the latest episode in South Asia’s wave of youth-led upheavals. Sri Lanka’s Aragalaya in 2022 toppled a president. In 2024, Bangladesh’s young protesters forced the end of decades of authoritarian rule. Pakistan, meanwhile, lurches between mass protests and political breakdowns. Across the region, Gen Z has emerged as a force unwilling to accept politics as usual, rewriting the folios of democracy and dissent.
READ | Jan Dhan Yojana: Govt’s inclusion drive risks shallow impact
Structural Roots of the Crisis
Behind the immediate spark lies a deeper crisis of structure. Nepal’s economic model is precarious, built less on domestic production and more on exporting people. During 2024-25 alone, the Department of Foreign Employment issued 839,266 labour exit permits—a country of 26.6 million people. Remittances made up nearly 33% of GDP in 2024, among the highest in the world, but they reflect survival rather than transformation. Instead of building industries, Nepal relies on remittances to sustain consumption and imports.
The numbers tell the story of distress. Unemployment and underemployment among youth touched 20.82% in 2024, leaving graduates without stable jobs. Non-performing loans rose in banks, straining credit. Inflation, while officially easing, kept food prices high, with vegetables up nearly 27%. IMF-backed austerity measures—fuel price hikes, VAT enforcement, and new digital taxes—further squeezed households. Tourism, disrupted by floods and airport construction, added to the gloom.
In this delicate setting, the government’s decision to silence digital platforms felt like punishment for the very generation carrying the economy through migration and gig work. It revealed a state more interested in control than reform.
The crisis also exposed the emptiness of Nepal’s communist experiment. Since 2008, Nepal has been the only South Asian state to witness communist-led governments, first under the Maoists, later through the UML–Maoist alliance of 2018. However, their “communism” remained in name. They preserved private property, clung to aid and remittances, and failed to deliver land reform, industrial restructuring, or redistribution. Leaders promised radical change but settled for patronage politics.
K.P. Oli’s government embodied this contradiction. Instead of socialist transformation, it offered factionalism, corruption scandals, and digital bans. His fall after the bloody crackdown, symbolised not renewal but the exhaustion of Nepal’s left. The failure of the communists to carry forward their own ideals has left political space open for royalist and right-wing forces, which promise “order” without clear solutions.
In effect, Nepal’s state is in crisis. Once defined by monarchy, then by insurgency, and later by republican dreams, it now faces a legitimacy vacuum. The youth no longer trust either the leftist banners or the centrist bargains.
India’s Cautious Response
For India, Nepal’s turmoil is a delicate problem. Prime Minister Narendra Modi called the violence “heart-rending” and appealed for peace, stressing that “the stability, peace and prosperity of Nepal are of utmost importance to us” However, New Delhi’s response has been cautious. Travel advisories were issued, trade monitored, but public statements remained restrained.
India’s caution reflects both geopolitics and history. Nepal is a buffer between India and China, and instability there risks spilling across borders. Trade dependency is another factor. India exported goods worth $7.32 billion to Nepal in 2025, from petroleum to food, while imports from Nepal stood at $1.2 billion. Nearly all goods flow by road through crossings like Raxaul–Birgunj, which handle most fuel and vehicles. Any prolonged unrest, roadblocks, or strikes could choke supplies, hurting both sides.
Politically, New Delhi has long been wary of K.P. Oli. His tilt toward Beijing, his symbolic choice of China for his first foreign trip, and disputes like Lipulekh kept relations tense. His fall will not cause mourning in South Block. But India’s real concern is larger – that Nepal may slide into prolonged instability, opening space for China or for reactionary forces at home.
China, meanwhile, watches carefully. It has invested in infrastructure and cultivated ties with Nepali leaders. But Beijing, like India, prefers a stable neighbour. Neither wants a permanently chaotic Kathmandu, yet both may try to shape outcomes quietly.
For India, the crisis is also a reminder of Sri Lanka in 2022: a youth-led revolt born of corruption and economic mismanagement, with regional consequences. New Delhi must avoid being seen as backing any faction while keeping trade, security, and people-to-people ties intact.
Gen Z’s Digital Resistance
At the heart of Nepal’s uprising is its Gen Z. This is the largest demographic group, digitally fluent and globally connected. For them, politics as usual has no meaning. They used hashtags, memes, and encrypted chats to turn corruption into a generational betrayal. Their leaderless movement was deliberate, rejecting parties tainted by graft.
In this, they reflected Sri Lanka’s Aragalaya and Bangladesh’s student protests. They also drew inspiration from global movements like the Arab Spring and Hong Kong’s youth uprisings. Digital platforms became their battleground, blurring online and offline resistance.
Nevertheless, the limitations are visible. Leaderless movements risk fragmentation. Without structures, they can be hijacked by old elites or collapse under repression. The memory of Egypt’s 2011 youth protests, which gave way to military rule, is a grim reminder. Social media also spreads bias and misinformation, weakening coherence. And while Gen Z rejects old parties, it has not yet built durable alternatives.
Still, the message is unmistakable. Nepal’s young are no longer willing to wait. The youth protests have compelled the political system, leaders, and society at large to. face hard truths that can no longer be avoided. They have toppled a prime minister. They have revealed the hollowness of Nepal’s politics. What comes next depends on whether they can turn outrage into reform, or whether the state clings to bullets and bans.
Nepal’s current unrest is not just about a digital ban. It is about a greater collapse of trust in a political class that has failed to deliver dignity, jobs, or justice. The economy is unstable, the state is brittle, and the left has lost credibility. Gen Z has become the conscience of the nation, demanding accountability in ways the old guard cannot ignore.
For India and China, the stakes are high. Both want stability, but neither can dictate the terms of Nepal’s future. For South Asia as a whole, the lesson is clear. Youth-led revolts have come to stay and they are the new fulcrum of politics. Corruption, censorship, and economic stagnation are fault lines that can shake any government.
The state in Nepal faces two paths. It can continue repression, risking deeper rupture, or it can open dialogue and accept reform. For Gen Z, the challenge is to sustain mobilisation without losing direction. For the region, the crisis is a warning that an entire generation, connected by digital tools and united by anger, is knocking on the gates of power—and they will not leave without a result.
KM Seethi is Director, Inter University Centre for Social Science Research & Extension (IUCSSRE).