Nepal’s reckoning: Another Gen Z warning to governments

Last year, it was Bangladesh. Today, it is Nepal. 

The common denominator is the Gen Z, which is forcing political elites to confront a reality they have long ignored: old methods of control no longer work on a generation that has redefined both dissent and democracy. 

Across Asia, Gen Z is no longer whispering its discontent online—it is marching, chanting and bleeding in the streets, demanding to be heard. 

The protests, though sparked by different issues, are showing that the common demands are meritocracy, accountability and access to opportunities. Governments that continue to rely on coercion and outdated narratives risk deepening the generational divide and inviting instability. And, often, it results in the regime backing down, sometimes toppling—like in Bangladesh. 

The immediate spark for the Nepal protest was the government's decision to impose restrictions on social media platforms. While framed as a regulatory necessity, young people understood it as a direct attack on their rights and a barrier to the communication networks that shape their daily lives. 

For a generation that relies on digital platforms not only for social interaction but also for political organisation and expression, this move represented more than censorship—it was a refusal by the state to recognise their political agency. The resulting protests left at least 19 people dead (as of writing this piece), pushed various ministers to resign, until the final nail struck the political elite's coffin—the resignation of Prime Minister Oli. 

Just a year ago, Bangladeshi Gen-Z ignited the very same flame of revolution in our country. The fall of Sheikh Hasina's autocratic regime is a prime example of how ignoring youth discontent can escalate into regime-shaking upheavals. 

In July 2024, the reintroduction of a controversial job quota policy was the immediate cause of mass student demonstrations. For the younger generation, however, the quota symbolised much more: entrenched favouritism, systemic corruption and the denial of opportunities to those without political connections. 

Their frustrations were compounded by years of manipulated elections, campus repression by ruling-party student organisation, Bangladesh Chhatra League, repression, curtailing of freedom of expression, and limited employment prospects. 

When Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina dismissed their concerns with a remark that stigmatised them as "Razakars' grandchildren", the insult galvanised a movement that evolved into a full-fledged revolution. Within weeks, Hasina, after 15 years in power, was forced to step down. 

The parallels between Bangladesh and Nepal are illuminating. In both countries, young people interpreted government actions as evidence of leaders' unwillingness to accept accountability. In Bangladesh, the issue was fairness in public recruitment; in Nepal, the right to digital freedom. 

And in both cases, the protests escalated not simply because of the policies themselves, but because governments responded with force rather than dialogue. Bangladesh's July Uprising claimed over 1,500 lives, while Nepal's protests have left 19 dead. 

These numbers reflect not only the cost of state repression but also the determination of a generation unwilling to be silenced.

Indonesia provides another point of comparison. 

Student protests there in recent weeks have centred on corruption and economic inequality. The protests erupted over a proposed 50 million Rupiah ($3,057) monthly housing allowance for parliament members, 10 times Jakarta's minimum wage—one of the highest in Indonesia. 

Much like their counterparts in South Asia, Indonesian youth framed their demands around fairness, transparency, and accountability. Their government's instinct, however, was to resort to police crackdowns and restrictions, reinforcing the sense that political leaders prefer suppression over engagement. 

The consistency of this pattern—whether in Dhaka, Kathmandu or Jakarta—underscores a common gap between governments and their youngest citizens. They follow the pattern shown by the precedence shown by the 2022 Sri Lankan protest, which led to the resignation of President Gotabaya Rajapaksa and key officials from the Rajapaksa family. 

Youth played a central role in it, creating a unified, grassroots movement called "Gota Go Gama". Their frustration with economic hardship and governmental mismanagement fueled the protests. leading to the president's resignation and transforming political discourse by challenging established power structures and uniting people across ethnic and religious divides.

Like in Bangladesh, when the people changed their Facebook profile pictures to red to denounce the farcical mourning shown by the then government, Nepal's protest also gained steam from the social media users trending the word "Nepo Kid" to target the families of former prime ministers, ministers, lawmakers, leaders, and other influential personalities and show their deep dissatisfaction about the ongoing corruption and inequality. 

But Bangladesh's July Uprising may not be entirely similar to that of Nepal. 

Humayun Kabir, former Bangladeshi ambassador to the US, said, "In Nepal, unlike in our country, I do not think the events are entirely comparable. This is because a democratic system is in place, and since 2008, political parties have changed governments many times through democratic processes.  

"What is happening now is that two key issues are angering the youth in particular. One is that, alongside the democratic process, economic mismanagement—corruption, to put it plainly—has spread, which has greatly agitated the young generation. The general public is frustrated, but especially the youth," he added. 

Between 1996 and 2006, a Maoist insurgency took place, which resulted in 13,000 deaths in Nepal and brought about profound political change. Most significantly, the monarchy—232 years of kingship—was abolished. 

Humayun Kabir said, "With that, people had expectations of democratic accountability and a culture of responsibility. But because this has not been fully realised, there has been disillusionment and despair."

One of the key features of Gen Z is their digital connectivity. Unlike previous generations, their politics are shaped not by local narratives alone but by transnational flows of information. When Bangladeshi students toppled Hasina's government, their actions were closely followed by peers in neighbouring countries. In Nepal, youth leaders explicitly drew inspiration from Bangladesh, framing their protests as part of a broader regional demand for accountability.

Humayun Kabir further said, "Young people feel deprived of justice and rights, and they consider freedom of social media and the internet part of those rights. In my view, Bangladesh's recent events have also inspired them." 

He added, "Another issue is that shutting down social media is seen by students as a major barrier to freedom of expression. The government, they argue, is trying to silence the anti-corruption voices raised by the youth online. That is why they have taken to the streets, clashing with police. Where might this conflict lead? Since a democratic process exists, parliament provides a space for accountability.  

"Social media accelerates this process: slogans, strategies, and even artwork spread across borders in real time. Governments that once relied on controlling national narratives now face a generation capable of bypassing official channels and building cross-border solidarities," Humayun Kabir explained. 

Attempts to control or curtail this digital environment often backfire. Internet shutdowns, social media bans, and restrictions are designed to weaken mobilisation. But in practice, they deepen mistrust and push youth towards alternative modes of communication. In Bangladesh, students turned to Bluetooth networks and offline messaging apps when Facebook and WhatsApp were blocked. 

In Nepal, the very act of banning platforms persuaded young people that the state was incapable of embracing transparency. Such measures not only fail to contain dissent but also confirm the perception that leaders are disconnected from the realities of modern political life.

Another striking aspect is the symbolic weight of grievances. The job quota in Bangladesh was ostensibly a matter of public sector recruitment, but for the youth, it represented a larger system of privilege and exclusion. In Nepal, social media restrictions were officially about regulatory compliance, but students saw them as an existential threat to freedom of expression. 

In Indonesia, corruption scandals are not abstract issues but immediate obstacles to education and employment opportunities. These protests suggest that Gen Z interprets specific policies through the lens of dignity and fairness, linking individual grievances to systemic shortcomings.

Governments often argue that youth unrest reflects impatience or lack of perspective. Yet events in Bangladesh contradict that view. The July Uprising was not a momentary outburst but a sustained campaign that overcame police violence, mass arrests, and internet blackouts. In Nepal, despite fatalities, protests continued to spread. 

In Indonesia, students have maintained their mobilisation in the face of tear gas and batons. Rather than demonstrating impatience, these movements highlight persistence, adaptability, and the ability to get organised. 

When youth are denied meaningful participation in policymaking, they are pushed into the streets as their only viable political space. The result is cycles of confrontation that are costlier and more destabilising than engagement would have been. Bangladesh's July Uprising, Indonesia's unrest and Nepal's protests are part of a wider trend in which the refusal to accommodate Gen Z's demands accelerates rather than prevents political upheaval.