Opinion | Nepal’s Upside-down Moments

Last Updated:September 13, 2025, 14:28 IST

The Constitutions of 1990 and 2015 have failed to keep the democratic promises in the Himalayan nation

There was a clear sense of restlessness, dissatisfaction and uncertainty in the air in Nepal because of the overall political and economic environment. While the transition to a full-fledged democracy (from a constitutional monarchy) underpinned by credible political institutions seemed to be an unending one, there was also confusion about the direction in which it was headed. Nepal’s fragile democracy has been rejected by the people and now a new beginning is expected with not just the generational shift but with new experiments in a bid to reclaim Nepal’s cultural-historical identity, besides a responsible democratic setup meant to serve the country.

The latest political developments in Nepal started with authoritarian push by the KP Sharma Oli government (a coalition of UML-Nepal and Nepali Congress) in selectively banning social media apps—and killing 19 young Gen-Z activists (leaving over 500 badly injured) demonstrating peacefully against the rampant corruption and the government’s high-handedness in curbing the freedom of expression with purposefully banning social media apps.

In the history of Nepal, 8-9 September 2025 will be remembered as the darkest days. Nepal as a democracy lost the way it found through the long struggle of the first generation of political leaders, and the Constitutions of 1990 and 2015 seem to have failed to keep the democratic promises, leading to mass disenchantment against self-serving political players (sans a few).

Last time, Nepal grieved similarly when a royal massacre occurred on 1 June 2001 at the Narayanhiti Palace, the then-residence of the Nepali monarchy. Nine members of the royal family, including King Birendra and Queen Aishwarya, were killed in a mass shooting during a gathering of the royal family at the palace. This time around, collectively, Nepalese and the entire humanity grieved when young precious lives lost, the power centres responded with indifference and arrogance and otherwise a peaceful Gen-Z protest turned into a complete revolt against the system.

The Gen-Z protest, not a structured one, appeared to be misused by the anti-stability elements outside the protesting group. The large-scale vandalism including the burning of a significant portion of Singha Durbar, Parliament Building, President’s Office, and media and commercial buildings are testaments of the same. The damage of politicians’ properties en masse and overt use of violence too should be seen more than the manifestation of mass anger. The visuals showing the former Prime Ministers’ being attacked (including Sher Bahadur Deuba, Jhalanath Khanal and Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’) and serving ministers (including Foreign Affairs Minister Arzu Rana Deuba and Finance Minister Bishnu Prasad Poudel) being openly beaten on the streets and at home were not something on expected line. However, Oli and a few ministers close to him managed to flee.

In bringing Nepal at a crossroad from where the usual turn will never be possible for an erstwhile system and its oligarchs, Nepal’s former Prime Minister Oli proved to be the central figure. The mortal remains of young protestors (Gen-Z), hundred others battling for life and ashes from the crumbling edifices including Singha Durbar are reminders of the folly the Oli government committed. Oli, never considered a statesman material, has demonstrated repeatedly his shrewdness and tactical recklessness in clinging to power through any means. Evidence of massive corruption and overt nepotism, apparently involving most political leaders and senior bureaucrats, made people (especially youngsters) disenchanted from their wealth-flaunting mission.

Nepal’s chronic political instability—14 governments in the past 17 years—combined with rampant corruption is already a serious disincentive for investment, both foreign and domestic, at a time when the ailing economy needs it most. But there are other complicating factors, too, adding to India’s worries.

An intense China factor influenced Oli and likeminded people in reshaping Nepal’s orientation in the world. Chinese intentions are clear: to expand its influence in Nepal at the cost of India. Interestingly, the revival of the far-Left is accompanied by an increasingly strong clamour from forces on the Right, including calls for restoration of the institution of monarchy and Nepal’s Hindu identity. Both sets of forces have the reputation of being ultra-nationalistic, pro-China and anti-India. Even otherwise, continuing political instability and serious mal-governance could invite a proliferation of anti-India mischief from Nepal by third countries and their non-official partners—the ‘nexus’ of smuggling and terrorism in Pakistan that has been identified as an ‘industry’.

During the last phase of the King Birendra years, political instability, accompanied by frequent changes of government based on pure political opportunism, created conditions for the spread of a Maoist insurgency within Nepal (which later established its headquarters in a secret jungle hideout in India) as well as large-scale smuggling of drugs and arms and serious terrorist-related cross-border activities against India from Nepalese soil masterminded from Pakistan. The latter culminated in the hijacking of IC814. Eventually, the situation developed quickly into a multi-faceted crisis which caused major upheavals and transformations in Nepal and new questions for the future quality of its bilateral ties with India.

As the Great Game 2.0 begins in a shaky Nepal, India has to reorient its Nepal policy with keeping in view the new challenges at strategic and economic fronts. India has been playing its cards reasonably well, keeping a low profile and has been successful so far in staying out of controversy in Nepal’s internal affairs. The pressure from some Nepali quarters to give ‘advice’, or temptation in some Indian quarters to give it, even if unsolicited, in at least two important matters can however be anticipated: should Nepal revert to its old identity as a Hindu nation? And, should the calls for restoration of monarchy be encouraged, given the rising frustration with a democracy without strong institutional underpinnings?

Indians, whether at the central government or state or civil society level, will have to give careful answers, opinions are often over-interpreted and confusion is easily created in Nepal as ‘mixed signals’ from India. It is for the Nepalese to decide on such issues. India could consider offering a new holistic development roadmap which would excite public imagination and also attract cross-party political consensus, for example, a transformative, sustainable development agenda aimed at improving the quality of life of its people.

Meanwhile, the blueprint for a ‘New Nepal’ is being made by Gen-Z but it surely can’t overlook the due procedures and restraint to reclaim the normalcy and aspiring for a better tomorrow. An interim arrangement for bringing back Nepal even in its basic normal shape has to be an inclusive exercise and in sync with the mass aspirations. Nepal’s real potential should be explored with progressive vision, reforms besides reclaiming its cultural identity and economic sovereignty. Gen-Z and others should work together for a better tomorrow.

Atul K Thakur is a policy professional, columnist and writer. His latest book (co-authored), ‘Kathmandu Chronicle: Reclaiming India-Nepal Relations’, published by Penguin Random House India, offers unique insights on Nepal and India-Nepal relations. The views expressed are personal.

Read More