Nepal’s youth lead change as India and China watch closely

Nepal is undergoing yet another political transition. While the decade-long Maoist civil war from 1996 to 2006 fought against the centuries-old monarchy and paved the way for democracy in 2008, today’s Gen Z protests are driven by frustrations with structural failures — and a recent social media ban appears to have sparked deeper grievances.

On 8 September, Gen Z youth took over the streets of the capital city, Kathmandu, protesting a blanket ban on social media platforms. This followed the KP Sharma Oli-led government’s directive giving major platforms — including Meta-owned Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, along with YouTube, Twitter, and others — a one-week deadline to register under Nepal’s local telecom laws.

When most platforms failed to comply, the government responded on 4 September by banning 26 applications outright. While Nepal, as a sovereign nation, has every right to enforce its laws, many have questioned the timing and the short notice given to these global companies to establish offices and register locally.

In August 2025, Gen Z youth came together on social media to call out the luxurious lifestyle sported by #NepoKids — sons and daughters of political leaders. While the country faces unemployment, forcing thousands of Nepalese to migrate to countries like the US, Australia, Malaysia and Qatar, politicians were reportedly seen accumulating wealth through unfair means. Therefore, the social media campaigns against #NepoKids were a reflection of youth angst in not finding greater opportunities in Nepal.

The youth targeted specific individuals, including the son of the foreign minister. Notably, Foreign Minister Arju Rana Deuba’s party, Nepali Congress, is headed by her husband, former Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba, who was part of the KP Oli-led coalition government. Targeting the Deuba family reportedly pressed the government to push for greater control and censorship of social media — something that could only be enforced once these platforms were registered under Nepalese law.

What seemed like an attempt by Prime Minister KP Oli to safeguard the coalition by protecting the Deuba and other political families from social media targeting eventually became a government order against free speech and freedom of social media and the internet.

Meanwhile, the story does not end with the social media ban, as it was just a trigger that escalated public anger over several underlying issues that have seemingly plagued Nepal for decades — such as political instability, corruption, unemployment, and failure of public institutions, including the judiciary and election commission. Unfortunately, this is a common phenomenon in the Indian subcontinent.

What was special about Nepal? It was the sheer dissatisfaction with every new system that the country adopted, including democracy in 2008. Those once seen as beacons of hope eventually came to mirror the very systems they were meant to replace.

To begin with, Nepal has undergone several political changes in the last seven decades of its modern political history. The Shah dynasty, founded by King Prithvi Narayan Shah — who unified the region into present-day Nepal in the early 18th century — ruled the country for nearly two centuries. In the mid-19th century, power briefly shifted to the Rana oligarchs, who took control of the executive and the military. This period ended in 1950 with the restoration of Shah rule.

However, the monarchy in Nepal was more than just a political institution. In a country where nearly 90% of the population is Hindu, the king was revered as a reincarnation of Lord Vishnu. As such, the monarchy held deep cultural and spiritual significance in the everyday lives of the people.

As the monarchy had suffered a coup by the Ranas, the new generation of monarchs began focusing on regime security, and the rest became secondary. For a period of three decades, from the 1960s to the 1990s, the monarchy banned political parties and directly ruled the country under a Panchayat System — a party-less council system.

However, in the 1990s, widespread protests by political parties across Nepal pressured the palace to reinstate political parties and allow political activism. Until then, political parties had been fragmented, but during this period, democrats and communists alike united in their demands. Though the monarchy bowed to this pressure and reopened the political space, it retained significant control by establishing a constitutional monarchy and appointing loyalists to key positions. As a result, genuine democracy was never fully realised.

Discontent with the constitutional monarchy persisted, as elected leaders remained subject to the king’s mercy. In 1996, the Maoist Centre Party launched a decade-long armed rebellion against the monarchy and state, resulting in around 17,000 deaths. By 2006, ordinary citizens had joined the movement, waging a people’s war that ultimately led to the monarchy’s abolition.

In 2008, Nepal held its first democratic elections. The Maoists, now part of mainstream politics, won the largest mandate in Nepal’s 17 years of democracy. However, due to inexperience in administration and difficulties engaging with democratic institutions, the first Maoist prime minister, Pushpa Kamal Dahal (Prachanda), was forced to resign. Now, 17 years later, Nepal has seen 14 prime ministers, none completing a full five-year term, fuelling ongoing political instability.

Coalition politics kept three key parties — Nepali Congress, Communist Party of Nepal (CPN-UML) and Maoist Centre — in power, who took turns leading the government. For an emerging and evolving democracy, the lack of political stability resulted in poor public welfare, acute financial divide, poor policy planning, and corruption and governance failure. It even impacted Nepal’s foreign relations with its two neighbours, India and China.

As a landlocked country, Nepal heavily depends on its two neighbours, especially India. Yet no consistent policy has been developed towards either India or China, with political parties often showing clear preferences. For example, the Nepali Congress, a liberal centre-right party, generally favours closer ties with India, while the Left parties prioritise their ideological bond with China above all else.

Similarly, widespread corruption in setting up businesses discouraged emerging entrepreneurs. Those seeking to follow the common trend of leaving the country for better opportunities also faced hurdles, having to pay bribes just to obtain government approvals. Even obtaining a passport came at a cost.

Therefore, disenchantment with political instability factored heavily in brewing discontent among Gen Z youth, who protested on social media. 

What began as a peaceful protest by the Gen Z youth reportedly met with state suppression, leaving more than 70 dead, mainly the youth, and left thousands injured. Finally, amid pressure, Prime Minister KP Oli resigned on 9 September, the second day of the protest. The president has now formed an interim government headed by the former chief justice of Nepal, Sushila Karki, along with three cabinet members leading the portfolios in areas such as home, urban development and finance.

The parliament elected in 2022 has been dissolved, and the interim prime minister faces three key mandates: holding fresh elections by March 2026 (within six months); investigating violence, arson, and killings during the protests and bringing the perpetrators to justice; and tackling widespread corruption. The six-month timeline to hold fresh elections is ambitious, as reforming public institutions and the judiciary, along with establishing effective law and order, will likely require more time.  

The Nepal Army has been praised for playing a constructive role in guiding the country toward peace. It quickly took control of law and order, restoring stability. While the army helped facilitate the formation of a new government, Gen Z representatives also took an active part in selecting leaders.

Notably, many of the appointed leaders — including Prime Minister Karki — had faced setbacks under previous governments. For example, in 2017, the then Maoist Centre-led government under Prachanda had introduced an impeachment motion against Karki, accusing her of interfering with the executive functions of the government.

However, Sushila Karki is the first woman prime minister of Nepal and was the first woman to become the chief justice. With many firsts, she has an uphill task ahead in transforming the country. Meanwhile, there has been a global acknowledgement of her role, with major countries wishing her the best and extending support, including India and China. 

It will be interesting to see if the traditional political parties are ready to reform and bring in new leadership with young faces in the administration. If the old bastions continue to lurk around the power — as often seen with communist regimes — chances of further political instability loom large before the Himalayan nation.

Secondly, many ministers appointed to the interim government were part of the previous administration, raising concerns about horse trading and undue influence. Additionally, the country faces a constitutional dilemma: the 2015 constitution requires the interim prime minister to be an elected member of the lower house of parliament. With the parliament dissolved and Prime Minister Karki not being an elected representative, questions arise about the constitutional legitimacy of the interim government.

These are some of the crucial questions demanding answers. But if the spirit of the constitution is taken into consideration and Gen Z youth are able to protect the movement against any political hijacking, the country would enter a new phase of democracy, which could be seen as a progression towards democracy. 

Nepal’s geography, economy, and people have mainly determined its foreign policy. As a landlocked country between India and China, Nepal has to rely on its neighbours for its third-country trade, security and development. Because it shares a close sociocultural, political, people-to-people and economic bond with India, engaging with New Delhi becomes a crucial step for the new government. At the same time, how Gen Z youth will approach India would equally matter, not just to Nepal but to India as well. 

The Gen Z youth does not carry the burden of history but lives with the memories of the alleged border blockade on the India-Nepal border in 2015. Nepal accused India of imposing a blockade, alleging that New Delhi was interfering in Nepal’s internal affairs during the promulgation of its constitution. Similarly, Nepal continues to accuse India of territorial encroachment in the Kalapani region. In 2020, Nepal amended its constitution to include the disputed areas in its official map, prompting India to object to what it viewed as a unilateral expansion of territory.

On both occasions, Gen Z youth quickly rallied a social media campaign against India with hashtags like #BackOffIndia, #GoBackIndia, and #IndiaOut. With Gen Z youth leading in charting the country’s future roadmap, India has a challenging time ahead. This is particularly significant given Delhi’s longstanding ties with traditional parties like the Nepali Congress, while often overlooking the political importance of engaging with Nepal’s younger generation.

For a fact, Gen Z is a faceless entity, and engaging with it would require a delicate navigation of existing irritants in India-Nepal relations. However, India has responded quickly to the current crisis in Nepal. From offering condolences for lives lost during the protests to congratulating the newly appointed interim prime minister, India appears to have hit the reset button.

India’s proactiveness towards the changes in Nepal was also reflected in Prime Minister Modi’s address at a political rally in the Indian state of Manipur on 13 September. In his speech, Prime Minister Modi referred to Nepal’s developments and acknowledged the Nepalese youth’s role in nation-building. While congratulating the newly appointed Prime Minister Karki, he said that the youth’s role in Nepal clearly indicates a “renaissance in Nepal”.

A country that typically favours “quiet diplomacy” on such matters, India’s unusually public foreign policy stance signals a strategic effort to engage Nepal’s youth and protect its interests. This could be seen as India hitting the reset button on its Nepal policy.

On the other hand, China has also been keenly observing Nepal’s developments. Tibet’s long border with Nepal has been a key consideration in China’s political and security relations with Nepal. The Tibetan refugees are seen with suspicion for their alleged anti-Chinese activities. While communist forces in Nepal have been reliable partners for China in managing their influence, Beijing faces the important task of reminding Nepal of its treaty obligations — particularly adherence to the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence — which require Nepal not to allow its soil to be used for activities hostile to China.

While China may have an advantage over India in some ways, as Beijing has been engaging with the Nepalese youth by offering cultural exchanges and educational opportunities at Chinese universities, along with scholarships, but in case the Nepalese youth sides with the Tibetan cause and the “Free Tibet” movement begins to resurface, it will be a significant security challenge. 

Very interestingly, the 14^th Dalai Lama, who has been living in exile in India, was also quick to congratulate the newly appointed interim prime minister of Nepal. Never in the past has the Buddhist spiritual guru made such a statement, but this may well be a strategic step to appeal to the Nepalese youth for the Tibetan cause.

In his message to Prime Minister Karki, the spiritual leader wrote, “As you know, the Nepalese and Tibetan peoples have historically enjoyed a close relationship” and “I am very grateful to the government and the people of Nepal for providing facilities for the rehabilitation of Tibetan refugees following their forced escape from Tibet after 1959. Indeed, although the Tibetan community is relatively small, I believe it has been making a notable contribution towards Nepal’s economic growth.”

While Prime Minister Karki is unlikely to respond to the Dalai Lama’s message, it certainly puts Nepal into a diplomatic dilemma. However, Nepal will likely follow its traditional approach towards China, which is guided by the Five Principles. 

As Nepal enters the third phase of its democratic evolution — the first being the 1990s movement to reinstate political parties, the second the abolition of the monarchy in 2006 and establishment of democracy in 2008, and now Gen Z leading the third phase—the country has certainly come a long way in its search for democratic values and principles that best fit Nepalese society. However, further reforms, greater institutional transparency, stable leadership and creating new opportunities at home remain essential. While foreign policy may not be an immediate priority for the government, giving it direction would still be an important task for the Prime Minister Karki-led government.

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author alone and do not reflect the views of the author’s current or past affiliations in any form.

Related: The Dalai Lama’s succession and the geopolitics of faith | Nepal’s struggle for autonomy in the shadow of giants