Geopolitically, Nepal is a sensitive region. China on one side, the United States on the other, and India as the regional giant, each trying to expand its influence. Nepal’s rulers have long balanced between these forces, gaining protection by leaning one way or the other.
Published Sep 14, 2025 | 6:25 PM ⚊ Updated Sep 14, 2025 | 6:25 PM
Gen Z Protest in Nepal.
Synopsis: The uprising in Nepal, which unseated its political administration, turned the world’s gaze toward the Himalayan nation. In just ten years, Nepal has seen nine prime ministers. Analysts point to this instability as a root cause of its crisis.
The upheaval in Nepal that has unseated its political administration has triggered countless interpretations and analyses. It is an event that turned the world’s gaze toward the Himalayan nation.
In India as well, questions resounded: Why has something like this not happened here? Would it be good if it did? Would it lead to total chaos? However, alongside anxious speculation, there was a shade of wishful thinking.
Some who bear grudges against India’s estranged neighbours took quiet satisfaction, saying, “Those who opposed us, who leaned toward our enemies, have been punished.” Others took pride in arguing, “Look! Modi’s diplomatic strategy has triumphed — today, Nepali protestors say they want a leader like him. This is India’s power!”
There were still others who found symbolism in how teenagers and young Nepalis, including even royalists, joined hands to bring down the Communist-Congress coalition. Some suspect invisible conspiracies behind the mass uprising, widening the debate.
Geopolitically, Nepal is a sensitive region. China on one side, the United States on the other, and India as the regional giant, each trying to expand its influence. Nepal’s rulers have long balanced between these forces, gaining protection by leaning one way or the other.
In this sense, Nepal benefits from multi-sided pressures, much like what India calls “strategic autonomy”; Nepali leaders describe theirs as “strategic independence”.
Landlocked and dependent on India for 80 percent of its imports, including petroleum products, Nepal has always viewed India with suspicion for its subtle arrogance. Even the widely respected King Birendra, despite his moderation, often pushed back against India’s dominance.
The Nepali Congress, too, despite its pro-India leanings, once had to assert “national interests first”. Later, Nepal moved closer to China, which alarmed both India and the US. Against this backdrop, foreign influence is naturally suspected in Nepal’s turmoil.
Comparisons are also being drawn with recent regime changes in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, suggesting a recurring pattern. The fact that some Gen-Z Nepalis openly said they wanted “a leader like Narendra Modi,” that newly appointed caretaker Prime Minister Sushila Karki saluted India’s prime minister, or that portraits of kings reappeared during the army chief’s speeches, all hint at multiple readings.
Yet it is equally true that most protest leaders are secularists and democrats, not monarchists.
Observers caution that not every uprising against corruption and misrule is sacrosanct. India saw this in the anti-corruption movement led by Anna Hazare and Arvind Kejriwal during UPA-2. That agitation indirectly paved the way for the BJP’s rise.
Yogendra Yadav, one of its leaders, later expressed regret. However, the Congress-led UPA must also bear blame for creating space for such anger with its corruption, policy paralysis, and irresponsibility. When people lack real alternatives, can we fault them for choosing whatever is available?
Those who poured into the streets are not veterans of the anti-monarchy struggle, nor participants in the Maoist armed movement. They were children when the monarchy fell and the new system was still taking shape. Unlike Indian society, which has endured long struggles and setbacks for change, Nepal lacks such a historical background. So when this new generation shouted, the system collapsed.
Why did this situation arise? After the monarchy’s fall, Nepal’s new leadership failed to show sincerity in rebuilding. They neither solved immediate problems nor charted a long-term course of inclusive development. Instead, they handed privileges to families, cronies, and loyalists, while allowing some elites to live in luxury.
These visible symptoms of decay trampled the anti-feudal spirit that had inspired earlier movements. Maoists and Communists who once fought as revolutionaries have also become complicit in this degeneration.
Nepal’s Constitution is only a decade old, deeply influenced by India’s and enriched by global democratic values. It has introduced mechanisms for broader representation: Direct and proportional elections, two Houses of Parliament, the National Assembly and House of Representatives, modelled on India’s Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, respectively.
For the House of Representatives, there are two types of elections: elections of candidates and parties. As many as 165 seats are meant to be filled by those who are elected, and 110 for the parties whose representation depends on the proportion of votes they had polled.
There are also reservations for the seats to which the parties make nominations. One-third of seats are reserved for women; other reservations exist for marginalised communities. This is a strong foundation for democracy.
Yet, since Nepal’s democracy is still young, such reforms as proportionate representation have led to fragmented mandates and coalition governments. In just ten years, Nepal has seen nine prime ministers. Analysts point to this instability as a root cause of its crisis.
Still, that does not make Nepal’s Constitution weak. Recently, Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, while citing Nepal, observed that a strong constitutional framework is what keeps India safe. His remarks were also a warning to India’s rulers not to weaken democratic institutions.
Ultimately, the crisis is not about constitutional design but about governance. Leaders in both India and Nepal have failed to translate democratic promises into lived realities. Without improved social indicators and reduced inequality, disillusionment breeds rebellion.
As Dr BR Ambedkar once warned, “The problem lies not in the Constitution but in those who implement it.” Nepal’s crisis illustrates this truth. Institutions exist, democratic values are enshrined, but ordinary people do not feel them in their lives. Instead of better living standards, they face growing economic and social inequality.
In Nepal, the current Gen-Z revolt may force some adjustments — perhaps a few welfare measures or governance reforms. But with its limited agenda, it cannot ensure lasting progress. These youth protestors question inequality, but lack a coherent ideological programme to counter it.
The uprising revealed multiple faces of Nepal’s society. Youth once thought lost in consumerism and media addiction showed an angry, militant side. The world saw violent protests and destruction of state symbols.
These images may have shaken rulers in Nepal — and beyond — if only briefly, while offering helpless citizens fleeting political fantasies.
(Views are personal. Edited by Muhammed Fazil.)
