Submit your Article

Until the dawn of Sept 9, Nepal was set to graduate from Least Developed Country status on 24 Nov 2026, after meeting two of three UN criteria. By the dusk of the same day, the infrastructure and wealth of the nation had been brought to ashes by destructive riots, in the guise of GenZ demonstrations. Now is the time to focus on recovering from the damages, addressing challenges, building economic resilience and reforming policies to enable the country to move forward on its own feet, without relying on foreign aid.

For the time being, India and China seem to synchronize their tunings—we are happy. Chances are high for a ceasefire in the Russia-Ukraine war—we are happy. We are likely to see improved regional connectivity and cooperation across the Himalayas and around the Bay of Bengal—we are happy. Sure, these topics sound high. For Nepal, a country sandwiched between two giant neighbours, more important is whether these developments make our pie larger.

As recently as within a century, Nepal and her sons have tremendously supported both India and China. We participated in the Quit India Movement (QIM). Nepali-origin leaders like Dambar Singh Gurung, Bhim Bahadur Gurung and Dhanbir Singh Gurung supported India’s freedom struggles. Lakhan Thapa Magar inspired resistance. Thousands of Gorkhas joined Subhas Chandra Bose’s Indian National Army, contributing bravely to India’s fight against the British colonial rule. At least three major Nepali leaders—BP Koirala, Ganesh Man Singh and Manmohan Adhikari—actively participated in India’s independence movement during the 1940s. They joined protests, supported the QIM and faced arrests.

Nepal sided with the current Beijing-based Chinese government, at a time when the Taipei-based Kuomintang was representing China in the UN. We have unequivocally recognized Tibet and Taiwan as inalienable parts of China. We suppressed the Khampa rebels, who were trying to use Nepali land to stir Tibet. We have supported almost all non-strategic Chinese initiatives. We have asked nothing other than economic cooperation and technical collaboration, from India or China in return.

For almost a century, Nepal has also supported a US-dominated world order. We have actively participated in the UN, stood by resolutions of the UN Security Council and beginning from 1958 provided the largest number of peace-keeping forces, sacrificing 76 volunteers.

Our cooperations with all countries and regions are guided by peaceful and ecofriendly developmental goals. We cooperate with all, against poverty and natural disasters. Nepal is already burdened with natural calamities like earthquakes, floods, landslides, wildfires, vector-borne diseases and lightning. We don’t want to invent or invite man-made problems. We don’t want to produce enemies. We only seek friends. Our friendship with one is not targeted against another.

Our asymmetries in economic size, diversity and quality with both neighbors, inadequacy of trade complementarity and lack of meaningful comparative product or service advantage pose a big challenge to our international trade. We have yet to identify our trade strengths and need to develop technologies that make our resources more valuable. While political non-alignment is the bottomline for survival, the depth of our friendship is gauged by economic interests and technical cooperations.

We want to live in peace, we don’t want to become Kashmir, Gaza or Ukraine. We are a liberal country; domestically we respect the choice of our people. As to the internal issues of other countries, they are none of our business. When it comes to international relations, we only seek friendship and cooperation, and we don’t seek conflicts. We have never been offensive. We have only supplied peacekeeping forces under the UN banner.

The above description is not an exaggeration. We lived by principles. We supported our neighbors unconditionally, even when the then world powers were humiliating them. What comes, we will continue to stick to our policy of prioritizing neighbors. To safeguard our hard-earned sovereignty, we will stick to a non-alignment policy.

We have border issues with India, which has occupied Nepali territories including Kalapani, Lipulek and Limpiyadhura. We have repeatedly informed this to our northern neighbour and asked them not to deal with India on our occupied territory, especially following the 2015 India-China plan to promote their bilateral trade through Lipulek. The infringement on our sovereignty has ignited widespread patriotic sentiments and a renewed demand for diplomatic action and territorial integrity. The deal can become a turning point in our world view, awakening national consciousness and unity, discarding divisive foreign lenses. 

As a country, we are confined within current geographical borders. As a nation with a broader diaspora of 5-6m, Nepalis already have become a global society, and Nepal needs to look after the interests of all Nepalis one way or the other. The economy alone can no longer link them all. We need to link through subtler bonds: language, culture, arts, history, religion, genetic heredity, to name a few. Such bonds help strengthen nationality in the long run, as seen in the formation of Israel out of the Jews spread across the continents.

A healthy and constant engagement with diaspora can be the safest and fastest way to acquire high-techs. Look, India’s nuclear program benefited from returnees like Homi Bhabha, who was trained at Cambridge and helped build India’s nuclear infrastructure with support from Indian scientists abroad. Pakistan’s program was significantly advanced by Abdul Qadeer Khan, a metallurgist working in the Netherlands, who transferred centrifuge designs and helped develop uranium enrichment facilities. Israel relied on support from the international Jewish diaspora, with scientists like Ernst Bergmann and political figures like Shimon Peres securing French cooperation to build the Dimona reactor. In China, US-trained scientists such as Qian Xuesen returned during the Cold War and played a central role in missile and nuclear weapons development. Nepal doesn’t lack highly skilled patriotic sons and daughters, now working in different world-class technology facilities.

Hitting the streets, shouting slogans and blaming each other or past leaders may bring self-indulgence, but such acts are unlikely to lead the nation to glory. Let us unite, develop Nepali perspectives and move forward. Once we stand on our feet, we are one step nearer to success.

Firstly, I extend my heartfelt congratulations to the newly appointed Prime Minister, Sushila Karki. Sushila Kari’s  appointment is not only historic but also deeply personal to me. Having worked alongside her in the legal fraternity, I have witnessed her journey up close—first as a lawyer, then as a judge, justice and eventually as the chief justice of Nepal. Our paths have often crossed in the Bar and Bench, where we shared the common pursuit of justice and fairness.

Beyond the professional sphere, there is also a sense of cultural and social affinity. Our birthplaces lie close to each other, and we were shaped by similar traditions and values. That shared background makes this moment even more meaningful to me. It gives me great satisfaction to see someone I once knew as a fellow lawyer, and later admired as the country’s first woman chief justice, now take on the mantle of interim prime minister.

However, with this happiness also comes responsibility. At this critical juncture, I feel it is important to share a few suggestions with her—drawn not only from my professional experience but also from my hopes for the nation.

Her appointment has come at a particularly critical moment in our national history. As someone who has spent her entire career interpreting, upholding, and shaping the law, Karki herself is the foremost authority on whether her elevation to the post of interim prime minister aligns with constitutional principles. She is not just a student of the law; she has been its interpreter, guardian, and defender. In that sense, there is little need for anyone else to lecture her on constitutional validity—she knows it better than most of us.

What is equally important is the response her appointment has received beyond our borders. Within hours of the announcement, messages of congratulations poured in from the United Nations, from our neighbor India—the world’s largest democracy—and from other nations. Such swift recognition is not just diplomatic formality; it is, in fact, an international endorsement of her leadership at a delicate time. This in itself is a powerful signal: the world is watching Nepal closely, and it stands ready to support her stewardship of the country in this transitional phase.

Yet, in my view, much of this international endorsement was less about constitutional propriety and more about symbolism. The world welcomed the fact that Nepal, for the first time in its history, has a woman prime minister. Beyond that symbolic achievement, however, the path to her appointment was far from the ideal parliamentary process. It was not the outcome of a broad democratic consensus but rather the product of pressure from a handful of immature and violent youths who, in the name of revolution, took to vandalizing public and private property, and even attacking politicians and their homes.

What disturbed me even more was the conspicuous silence of the security forces. The Nepal Police, Armed Police Force and even the Nepali Army—institutions entrusted with upholding law and order—stood by as these mobs unleashed violence. Their inaction gave the impression that even our security apparatuses had grown weary of the political class and, perhaps out of frustration, chose not to intervene much. This tacit disengagement raised troubling questions about the health of both our democracy and our institutions at a moment when the country desperately needed stability and restraint.

I may be wrong in my assessment, but those of us who understand the rule of law—the intellects, the thinkers and the practitioners—must not hesitate to speak the truth. Silence in the face of irregularities only allows society, leadership and government to stray from the right path.

With that in mind, my foremost suggestion to the interim prime minister is to actively engage in dialogue with the existing political parties, at least those represented in parliament. She must seek their acknowledgment of her leadership and, wherever possible, include members with clean reputations from these parties in her cabinet. Such inclusion is not a concession; it is a strategic necessity. Acceptance from these parties will be crucial for her governance, for building stability and for preparing the ground for upcoming parliamentary elections. Creating an environment of confidence among all stakeholders should be her priority, and the composition of her cabinet should reflect that goal—bringing in those who can genuinely facilitate dialogue, cooperation and a forward-looking political atmosphere.

It is equally important that the interim prime minister exercise discretion in selecting her ministers. She must avoid appointing populists or those who have become “heroes” overnight through social media. Expressing opinions online for popularity is one thing; offering sound advice and contributing to effective governance is quite another. For meaningful progress, the cabinet should consist of well-educated and experienced individuals capable of guiding the leadership with wisdom and foresight. By doing so, she can set a powerful precedent—stabilizing the country and restoring the standards of good governance.

Her focus must extend beyond political symbolism. She should prioritize solutions that strengthen peace and security, promote transparent and effective governance, combat corruption, and ensure free, fair and timely elections. These steps are essential not only for preserving the constitution but also for safeguarding the democratic framework and the future of our nation.

The author is a member of the Supreme Court Bar and has been practicing corporate law for around three decades

Ever since I started using Facebook in 2015, I’ve realized how deeply social media shapes our narratives and reflects society, often more than we notice. Recently, the government called for a social media ban, requiring platforms to register under the Directive on Regulating the Use of Social Media, 2080, issued by the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology (MoCIT). The directive was heavily criticized for its perceived risk of censorship. With 16.5m Facebook users in Nepal as of Aug 2024 (51.6 percent of the population), questions arise about what exactly we are consuming.

The concept of GenZ has often been misunderstood in Nepal, as seen this past week. GenZ refers to those born between 1997 and 2012. What began as a peaceful movement demanding the restoration of social media and accountability for corruption quickly escalated into unprecedented violence. Government buildings, including Singha Durbar, the Supreme Court, the Federal Parliament, provincial and local offices, along with the homes of politicians and commercial properties, were vandalized and set ablaze. The protests were not limited to GenZ; older generations linked to political parties also joined in.

Tensions intensified after KP Sharma Oli, then Prime Minister, issued a press release, and large sums of Nepali and foreign currency were discovered in the home of Sher Bahadur Deuba, Chairperson of the Nepali Congress, and his wife, Arzu Rana Deuba, then serving as Foreign Minister.

The aftermath left Nepalis grappling with both shock and guilt, sparking intense debate across the country. Young people from diverse backgrounds discussed legal, economic, and political issues, prompting me to reflect on Nepal’s education system. Ironically, many who were previously disengaged from politics now gave passionate lectures. The GenZ movement soon shifted focus toward leadership. Sudan Gurung, head of the NGO Hami Nepal, led negotiations with the Nepali Army and the President, representing GenZ’s call for former Chief Justice Sushila Karki to lead the interim government, along with the dissolution of parliament. However, the NGO’s links with controversial partners and possible political affiliations raised questions about the movement’s legitimacy and long-term sustainability. Though partially successful, the government has been slow to act against corrupt politicians or restore damaged public property, including police stations.

Social media content fueled much of last week’s discussions. Civil society and media figures largely blamed GenZ without offering constructive guidance. Observing these intergenerational exchanges made me reflect on how different age groups consume content. Where older generations once relied on television and radio, today nearly everyone with a smartphone receives content from across the globe.

Contents consumed by the GenZ and younger generations 

GenZ and younger groups spend more time on Instagram, TikTok, and other social apps than older generations. Having grown up with Google and social media, they differ significantly in how they learn and interact. Urban youth engage with reels, influencer content, gaming, and sports, alongside a growing wave of cultural revival. Rural youth follow viral local trends on TikTok, Instagram, and Facebook. Businesses and social organizations actively target them with content for outreach and sales, explaining why marketing investment has shifted online. Social media is also a tool for job hunting, especially in IT, marketing, business, and the social sector, through platforms like LinkedIn, Instagram, and Facebook.

Young Nepalis abroad, many of them GenZ, also shape the flow of ideas, political debates, and transnational activism. Some creators from legal, political, and business backgrounds produce educational content, though much of it is based on assumptions or incomplete analysis. Political discourse often takes the form of short videos, memes, or sensational claims, which spread rapidly and challenge traditional norms. Platforms like Reddit provide space for anonymous debates. As digital natives, young people absorb and share ideas quickly, though not always with careful fact-checking.

Contents consumed by Millennials and Gen Y

Millennials and GenY share some overlap with GenZ but generally gravitate toward different content. Their feeds are filled with news, interviews, political analysis, celebrity gossip, clickbait, and shopping-related posts. Professionally, they track sector-specific updates. Many engage with TikTok trends, actively express opinions, and play significant roles in government, civil society, and mid-sized businesses.

This generation is also strongly represented among Nepalis abroad, many of whom participate in policy debates, election campaigns, and social issues online. On Twitter, they openly discuss politics and governance.

Millennials are often seen as both cautious and naive online. They balance traditional and digital media, approach content critically, and are influenced by news, articles, peers, and the broader political context. Depending on their needs, they consume both national and international news.

Contents consumed by older generations

Older generations, generally less tech-savvy, rely mostly on YouTube, Messenger, and Facebook. They prefer content in local languages, particularly religious programs, bhajans, folk songs, and television-style reality shows. However, they are more vulnerable to clickbait and misinformation, as fact-checking is difficult on local YouTube channels.

Although the recent social media ban mainly targeted younger generations, it inevitably affected all age groups. People increasingly depend on these platforms not just for information, but also for business promotion and communication with family abroad. Many older users, not fully comfortable with technology, are especially vulnerable to misinformation.

These dynamics have deepened polarization across age, region, ideology, and education. Generational divides even appear within households, as narratives shaped by different online spaces clash. In one tragic case, a young boy livestreamed his suicide on Facebook after being harassed as a “GenZ” by political party affiliates.

While social media has amplified activism around the environment, mental health, and women’s rights, it has also fueled political tensions and misunderstandings.

Nepal’s reported average IQ score of 42.99, the lowest globally, has sparked debate and skepticism. While such figures may not accurately capture intellectual capacity, they underscore the urgent need for accessible, fact-checked, and unbiased content across platforms.

Beyond regulation, civic education and digital literacy are essential. Social media can be a space for informed discussion, but it also risks becoming a source of division. Promoting critical thinking, responsible sharing, and awareness of credible sources can help Nepalis of all generations navigate the complex digital landscape more responsibly.

Perhaps it was not just outrage against corruption and nepotism but something that goes much deeper to the unequal structure of the system that led to the recent spate of destruction and violence in Nepal. Now youths will have a unique window to shape the future of politics of the country. Will they remain united? Will they be able to offer pragmatic proposals to change the ways politics work?

In trying to make sense of what unfolded in the past few days, I cannot help but think if corruption, nepotism and the greed driving them are the only factors to take into account in order to understand the rage that unfolded in the streets. Certainly, violence that can never be condoned nor justified was driven by a sense of revenge toward all those youths who were murdered on the streets.

While the trigger of the destruction is clear, is it worthy to reflect on the deeper causes that might have unleashed the fury and outrage we witness. Here I am not specifically focusing on the manifest acts of vandalism and looting from which the vast majority of the so-called Generation Z (Gen Z) have correctly dissociated themselves from.

I am rather focusing on the hatred toward politicians that was so intentionally violent and aggressive. It would not be incorrect to define these feelings as hatred. Yet it is one thing to profoundly despise corrupted politicians and their family members but it is a different thing altogether to use violence against them.

This is unacceptable no matter the levels of disgust felt against them. That’s why it is important to reflect if corruption and nepotism are the only elements to take into consideration while trying to comprehend the factors that led to such brutal violence. Is it perhaps that the dirtiness of politics is just the tip of the iceberg rather than the foundational elements that can explain what happened?

By watching online videos and pictures of the incidents that occurred, I feel that many young people involved in them were feeling, for the first time ever, a sense of empowerment. Perennially alienated by an elitarian political system, with their voice suppressed and without any channel through which they could express their grievances and frustrations, youths of this nation felt powerless.

Perhaps a vast majority of them also felt disrespected and completely ignored and systematically discriminated against. The youths of this nation who belong to historically marginalized groups have been shrugging off their frustrations, unable to fully speak up also because their problems and issues were never truly embraced by some of their peers.

Could also a lack of recognition together with a want of more equity and fairness have led to the outrage that suddenly materialized itself through brutal violence? Could it be that the time of reckoning for truly helping build an inclusive and equitable nation has arrived? The country has a unique window of opportunity to really press for change through unity and inclusiveness.

It is a rare occasion to try to build a new country where all the youths, including those from marginalized and historically discriminated communities, have a voice. In order to do so, unity is a must but it is also equally important to harness people’s listening skills. It is almost ironic that in an era of massive use of social media, whose defense was what brought thousands of members of Gen Z to the streets on Sept 8, people stop attempting to understand each other.

And listening carefully is a paramount skill that must be strengthened because while there are many good things in having platforms where everyone can talk and express their opinion, there is also a need to slow down, listen, analyze and reason. But what will happen onward? 

Will the youths of this nation resist the comeback attempts from the political elites? We know that it is impossible to completely sideline the traditional parties, something that would be probably unwise because it is hard to conceive a completely “tabula rasa” from which rebuilding the country, brick by brick, would be possible. But the young generations have at least the power of bargaining with the entrenched political interests and they have a considerable amount of assertive authority at the moment and this for the first time ever in their lives.

Whatever propositions they express, they will count and be taken into consideration. But will they be able to come up with a coherent plan and ideas? This is an incredible opportunity to re-write the playbook of politics, making the whole system more inclusive and just.

Let’s not forget that the violence that we saw in the streets is a symptom of a wider and much more complex condition afflicting the nation. The greed that has turbocharged the corrupted political system that, apparently, has fallen, must be contextualized and understood from the perspective of the oppressed. Only engagement, participation and unity among youths transcending their different backgrounds will offer the most effective tools for real empowerment.

Their political emancipation and freedoms will arise from there.