The month of September has heralded a popular uprising in the neighbouring country of Nepal that is landlocked on three sides by India. The uprising in Nepal widely dubbed by the mainstream media as ‘Gen-Z revolt’ has been one of the latest such movements rocking the smaller, dependent, south Asian countries. As a mass movement was gathering momentum in Indonesia, the Nepalese youth forced the existing parliament to be dissolved. While the interim government in Nepal gets formalised, the youth of Timor-Leste and the Philippines are pouring out on the streets protesting their corrupt governments. The ‘Gen-Z revolt’ is thus one in a chain of uprisings starting in Sri Lanka (2022) and Bangladesh (2024).
The mainstream portrayal of the revolt caused by a sudden ban on social media is a deliberate dilution of the truth. It erases the mounting discontent created by rising unemployment, no industrial growth, climate crisis, crumbling tourism, increased immigration, interference by imperialist institutions like International Monetary Fund and World Bank, and untamed corruption in the government. Social media platforms like Instagram, Tiktok, and Facebook are not just used for casual interactions, these are the only remaining spaces where the ‘Zoomers’ were able to vent out their frustrations and anger against the government. Through these platforms, the ugly wealth inequality paraded by the Nepalese elite and their ‘nepo-kids’ hobnobbing in foreign lands and premium hotels/spas/resorts also became public spectacles. The banning of social media handles acted like a spark on this accumulated anger.
Starting from the early 90’s, Nepal has been a beacon of hope in south Asia where the dream of a new democratic revolution was planted and nurtured by the Maoist party cadres. Their influence expanded to 68 districts (out of 75) with over 80% of the population, through the People’s Liberation Army and organs of people’s power. By 2006, People’s Liberation Army had more than 36,000 full-time members (Royal Nepal Army’s was 90,000). The people’s war moved to a strategic stalemate state challenging feudalism and imperialist influences to a very large extent.
Through almost a decade of ebbs and flows of the struggle, in 2005 a peace process was initiated between the Maoists and the Seven Party Alliance (SPA) comprising of Nepali Congress (NC), Communist Party of Nepal (United Marxist-Leninist), and some others, for a ceasefire and curbing of the power held by the monarchy. In November, 2006, the Maoists signed a Comprehensive Peace Agreement with the SPA government, joining the parliament in January, 2007. Under their pressure, the monarchy was formally abolished in 2007. However, the journey to a new democracy was halted as the Maoist party leadership reached a compromise with the reactionary local ruling classes. Consequently, they were not spared in the recent uprising for partaking in a corrupt system.
The Nepalese republic runs on unstable coalitions from the very start. In 2024, erstwhile Maoist leader Pushpa Kamal Dahal aka Prachanda had to step down from the PM’s position after a no-confidence vote against him. He was succeeded by CPN UML chairman Khadga Prasad Sharma Oli aka KP Oli with the NC in coalition. As of now it has been dissolved with KP Oli going into hiding. An interim government headed by Sushila Karki has been put in place by the Army, and the leaders of the Gen-Z movement. Under the constitutional framework, March 5, 2026 is set for elections. An apparent normalcy seems extant. Whether this new government will implement radical reforms to meet the demands of the youth, remains to be seen.
As for the causes leading to the outburst, some are giving primacy to external instigation over the internal issues discussed above. Many people have ascribed the uprising purely to machinations by the US as a counter to Nepal’s growing proximity to China. The holy cows on the three sides of Nepal have heartily welcomed this regime change longing for a return of the monarchy that can revert Nepal back to its ‘Hindu Rashtra’ status.
When compared with the protests that rocked Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, the underlying causes remain eerily similar. Once again the people showed they can force the state with all its might to bow down. Nonetheless an invaluable lesson awaits here.
In both places, a complete lack of revolutionary leadership was observed in the popular uprising. The objective conditions are ripening for a revolution but lack of conscious ideological forces is creating a vacuum to be filled with old wine in new and reactionary bottles. In both places the ruling classes remained the same, their representatives continued to maintain the status quo, broadly subject to pressure from the people’s movement. The case of Sri Lanka is even more pathetic, a revisionist party gained the majority putting in place a president with an anti-Tamil past. Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and Nepal have once again proved that an uprising unguided by the idea of seizure of power and creation of a people’s state, will ultimately be mired in the same contradictions it had set out to resolve.
