Political turmoil has not been new to Nepal over the years, yet the scale of demonstrations in the country this week surprised even the most seasoned observers. The current death toll has climbed to 51, authorities said.
Social media blackout, which was instigated by the government as a precaution against the spread of “fake news”, only fueled the anger of a generation that regards the digital platforms as their lifeline and livelihood.
The streets of Kathmandu, Pokhara, and Biratnagar were crowded with thousands of young Nepali youths overnight, waving their smartphones to protest against what appeared to be an authoritarian yet out-of-touch government.
The rage was not only concerning Facebook and TikTok, but it was also a release of years of frustration over unemployment, scandals of corruption involving the highest officials, and a political establishment that was believed to be changing names without making any significant difference. The head of government had lost its legitimacy, which is what led to the resignation of Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli.
The Protest in Kathmandu
The PM in Nepal had long been walking a coalition that had been held together by expediency rather than vision. Nevertheless, the social media ban was the main cause that sparked the protest. The protest brought together different youth groups, players in the civil society, and even disillusioned elements of his own party.
The situation looked especially bad for an economy that depends on remittances and tourism. Closing digital connectivity sent the wrong message to both citizens and investors.
The resignation was seen as a cause for celebration and was called a “victory of the people.” However, it also showed the weak foundations of Nepal’s model of governance. Frequent leadership changes in twelve prime ministers in fifteen years have prevented consistent policies and exposed Nepal to corruption and foreign influence.
Sparks of Dhaka
Whenever political turmoil occurs in South Asia, talk of foreign involvement soon follows. Questions arise, such as whether the United States wants to weaken Chinese influence in the Himalayas by quietly fueling unrest, or if Beijing itself is acting to punish a government seen as too close to the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) compact of Washington. Neither theory can be dismissed.
Nepal is on the frontline in the great power game: China sees it as a Belt and Road partner and buffer against India, and the U.S. sees it as a foothold in the Indo-Pacific.
Eventually, when witnessing the protest of Kathmandu, it reminds and connects of the youth-led protests in Bangladesh. The same happened with Bangladesh, which resulted in disillusionment with the entrenched elites, growing inequality, and repression of digital freedoms, driving Gen-Z to the streets.
Therefore, it is now an open secret that these protests were not all organic. The US administration, which was impatient with the fact that Sheikh Hasina was increasingly leaning towards China and was unwilling to play ball with the diktats of Washington, was eager to witness ouster with a more pliant leadership.
What started as authentic youth resentment at corruption and authoritarian tendencies was magnified, maintained, and imbued with political purpose by outside support.
Trump’s Strategies with India and Other Countries
There is some talk of a still deeper subtext amongst Indian strategists. The second term of Donald Trump has already shaken India with tariffs and transactional gestures to Pakistan. An insecure trio of neighbors, namely Bangladesh, Nepal, and Pakistan, continues to confine India, distract it, and render it powerless to extend a presence outside itself. Meanwhile, a question sparks: Does Washington intentionally or not take pleasure in the instability spreading in India as a near-abroad?
American policy towards South Asia has in the past been mercantile, transactional, and frequently shortsighted about India’s vital security issues.
What it Means to South Asia and India
The crisis in Nepal is not a vacuum that burst out, but a side effect of an illness that is sweeping the South Asian region: the perspectives of youthful populations that are ready to question authority, the use of old recipes by political elites, and the fact that external powers are circling, ready to pounce. The consequences are disheartening. To begin with, Nepal’s instability would spill over to the border states of India, particularly Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, which have strong cultural and economic connections.
It makes the fine balancing act of India between China more complicated in the Himalayas; any lapse in Kathmandu is promptly used by Beijing. Also, it must highlight why India quickly needs to reconsider its approach to regional engagement.
New Delhi simply cannot afford to be a reactor, but it should invest in long-term relationships that extend beyond government-to-government relationships: funding youth entrepreneurship, educational relationships, digital infrastructure, and civil society networking. The biggest strength that India has is its capacity to relate with the young populations in South Asia as a role model of an imperfect yet lively democracy. What is meant by soft power must be cultivated.
The protests of Gen Z in Nepal are not only about TikTok, but also about trust, dignity, and the need of a generation to be heard. In the case of India, the message is simple: South Asian youth are the emerging political weather-makers. Unless they are meaningfully engaged by New Delhi, then they will be used by others, be it Beijing, Washington, or the local opportunistic elites.
