The Nepal government's brutal crackdown on protestors, which left 19 dead and scores more injured on Monday, boiled over into a full blown political meltdown on Tuesday, climaxing with the resignation of Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli.
The driving force behind Nepal's protests is the youth, which has added a new dimension to the country's politics. Particularly, the active participation of Generation Z, or Gen Z, has taken the movement to an unexpected level.
Their main allegation is that the country's leadership is corrupt and that the same old leaders keep coming back to power, turning democracy into a syndicate. The youth raised awareness among the public by campaigning against the government on social media.
After Oli's resignation, although the protesters celebrated in triumph, political analysts warn that the country's political future remains uncertain.
In this context, Stream spoke with Nepal's renowned journalist Ramesh Bhushal to learn more about the situation. He stated that although the movement began as a protest against the ban on social media, its main driving forces were long-standing frustration, anger against corruption, and demands for a change in leadership.
Bhushal said this is not a movement born out of the failure of the anti-monarchy revolution nor is it a stand against democracy. Instead, they are protesting against those who are misusing democracy.
The excerpts of the interview are below.
Stream: Can you shed some light on the movement? How did it all start?
Ramesh Bhushal: To understand where this movement started and how it spread, one must first look at the context behind it. Basically, the young people, what they call Gen-Z, decided to take the roads in protest against the government for mostly one reason.
They said that the country had fallen into the hands of corrupt people. Politicians were not taking effective measures against corruption. This prolonged corruption and disorder led the youth to extreme frustration.
Adding to that, the Nepalese government recently decided to ban social media, citing that those companies had not officially registered in Nepal. This decision by the government added fuel to the fire of the youth's anger.
The ban of social media triggered this moment since they thought that the government was trying to control them.
That was a triggering factor, but this movement was not only against the social media ban.
The underlying cause was the frustration and the corruption that is rampant across the country.
Stream: Why did the government decide to ban all social media?
Ramesh Bhushal: Actually, Nepal's Supreme Court issued a verdict last year stating that social media companies must be officially registered in Nepal.
So, the government's decision to shut down social media wasn't an immediate or spontaneous one. The government used that verdict as the basis to claim that these companies are operating illegally in Nepal and must be registered.
After that, the government gave them only about a week's time. Once that deadline passed, the government shut down those social media platforms.
Stream: Is there any organised group leading this movement?
Ramesh Bhushal: There are no officially recognised leaders in this movement. However, it initially began through a social media group. But so far, no single unified group has emerged to lead the movement collectively.
Now the question arises: who is actually leading the movement? At this point, almost everyone is expressing their anger and frustration. As a result, the lack of clear leadership may gradually lead to chaos. Incidents of violence or vandalism could increase further.
The main problem is that the government is not responding appropriately to the movement. And the group that started the protest doesn't have any well-organised leaders or representatives with whom the government – or anyone else – can communicate.
At this moment, everyone is everywhere, and yet no one is anywhere. In other words, there is no central leadership. Everyone is protesting in their own way, from their own position.
Stream: Is there any similarity or influence between Nepal's protests and the July Uprising in Bangladesh last year? How do you see it?
Ramesh Bhushal: I think Nepal's situation is different from Bangladesh's, although there are certainly some similarities. In both cases, the movements were initiated by the youth, who were frustrated and angry.
But in Bangladesh, the political situation was much more rigid. There was a long-standing system of governance controlled by one individual and one party. The frustration and anger weren't limited to the general public – there was deep disillusionment even within the opposition parties.
Nepal's political reality is comparatively different. Here, the government was formed through democratically elected political parties. Yes, at times, there have been attempts at control from the government's side. But overall, Nepal has had a relatively liberal political environment.
The main point of frustration here is the failure of leaders who have been in power for decades, experienced but ineffective leaders, many of whom are now in their eighties.
They have repeatedly failed to meet the public's expectations, yet they refuse to step down. This is where the youth's frustration stems from. And it's not just the youth, people who are no longer young or those who aren't affiliated with any political party are also angry.
So, this can't be called a direct movement against any one party or one government. Rather, it is an outburst of public frustration that has built up over a long time due to systemic stagnation and failure.
In this context, we're also witnessing the rise of entirely new political forces. New, young leaders are emerging. Independent-minded individuals are entering politics. One example is the Rastriya Swatantra Party, formed in 2022. They performed well in the last election and now hold a strong position in parliament. On one hand, there's a faint call for the return of monarchy. On the other hand, the old parties are losing popularity.
Overall, the situation is complex. This movement is not just against a single ruler, as it was in Bangladesh. But yes, Nepal's protests too are rooted in a deep frustration among the youth. They want opportunities; they want change.
Stream: You're saying that Nepal has a relatively democratic and properly elected government. In that case, do you think there is any external influence, inspiration, or interference behind this ongoing crisis?
Ramesh Bhushal: Such a possibility certainly exists because Nepal is located in a very geopolitically sensitive region. Various global powers are present here, and they may have played a role behind the scenes in some way or another. We cannot say for certain right now to what extent they have influenced, or are still influencing, the situation.
However, it is true that the demands raised by the people, including good governance and a corruption-free administration, are deeply emotional and significant to the public, and certain external forces may have tried to capitalise on that sentiment. Or at least attempted to exploit it.
We can't say anything with certainty because, so far, no direct corporate or state involvement has been clearly identified. But it's also true that, being situated between India and China, Nepal has always been a ground for geopolitical competition. Moreover, various international groups also have interests and an active presence here. So, it's entirely possible that some of them helped create, or are trying to create, this situation.
The way the security forces used excessive force is not at all normal. Nepal has experienced many democratic movements in the past. But there is no precedent for this kind of "targeted killing" within a few hours.
We don't know exactly what happened behind the scenes. But it's clear that this is not a normal event. Perhaps a violent situation was intentionally manufactured to escalate the movement to its peak. What the government or the security forces did cannot be considered acceptable in any democratic framework. Such indiscriminate use of force, killing of citizens; this is barbaric. A government cannot behave this way toward its own people, especially when they are protesting peacefully.
None of this was necessary. The situation could have been resolved very easily. But the government chose not to. Instead, it responded with even more violence. According to BBC reports, at least 22 people have died. The question is: why? Why did this have to happen?
I believe Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli behaved with extreme arrogance. He failed to understand reality. He couldn't grasp what the younger generation wants or thinks. He is both incompetent and highly egotistical. He failed to deliver on the promises he made. This crisis is of his own making.
A way out of this may have been possible had he been humble and listened to the people early on. But he did none of that. He had long been trying to control social media. He brought the situation to a point where he had to face this crisis.
The government must understand that people no longer have faith in them. At the same time, the general public must also understand that violence will not solve problems. If we truly want a developed, prosperous, and stable country, we must express our views peacefully but firmly. That is probably the only way forward for the future.
Stream: What are the main demands of the protesters? What exactly do they want?
Ramesh Bhushal: The protesters' most direct and prominent demand was the immediate resignation of the Prime Minister. They believe this government no longer deserves the people's trust. But their demands don't stop there. They're not just asking for the removal of a single prime minister, they want the country to break free from the cycle of "old, aged, and failed leadership".
The protesters say that for years, just three leaders – primarily Oli of the Communist Party of Nepal, Pushpa Kamal Dahal Prachanda, and another senior leader – have repeatedly rotated in and out of the prime minister's office.
All of them have served multiple terms. They've effectively created a kind of "democratic syndicate." Under such circumstances, meaningful public participation or the rise of new leadership has become nearly impossible.
This "syndication of democracy" or the vicious cycle of party-dominated governance is one of the core concerns and points of protest. The protesters are saying that the change they want isn't just a change in government, it must reflect the rise of a new and young leadership; a leadership capable of delivering real reforms.
They are hopeful that new leaders, young, courageous, and visionary, will emerge. Their demand is for a government that will take effective action against corruption, ensure people's empowerment, and actually listen to the voices of the younger generation and take them seriously.
Their message is clear. Nothing new is possible with the same old people. Change in leadership must go beyond faces, it must bring a shift in mentality and generational perspective. They are hoping for a truly transformative and optimistic change. And we too are hopeful that this movement could be the beginning of a positive transformation for the country.
Stream: In this mass movement, what is the stance of the opposition political parties? Are they supporting the protesters? Do their demands align?
Ramesh Bhushal: Yes, the opposition parties have also demanded the resignation of the Prime Minister. Their argument is that this government has lost the trust of the people, and should therefore step down immediately.
However, the opposition is in a relatively weak position. That's because the current ruling coalition was formed by two major political parties. Although they were previously in opposition to one another, they eventually came together to form the government. As a result, the opposition has become significantly weakened.
What will happen next, how a new government will be formed, there is still no clear plan or consensus on that.
Simply put, the demands of the protesters and the opposition parties matched in the first phase — the government must go first. However, there is still some uncertainty among them regarding future strategies or outlines.
Stream: Is this movement the result of a failure of Nepal's existing political structure? Or has resentment arisen anew because the old anti-monarchy revolution failed? What do you think? Has Nepal's political system underestimated the power of the youth?
Ramesh Bhushal: I firmly believe that the political leadership has not given enough importance to the power of the youth. Rather, it has completely underestimated it. It is clear that a faction is trying to restore the monarchy in Nepal. They may have played some role behind this movement.
But in my view, this movement is not directly for restoring the monarchy, nor is it in any way against the democratic system. The movement is rather against those who have misused democracy to consolidate power, who have abused democracy.
The main message of this protest is against those who distort democracy. This realisation has deeply taken root among the people, especially the youth.
I believe most people in Nepal are not in favor of restoring the monarchy and they do not want to lose their democratic rights.
Comments