Submit your Article

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.

The recent GenZ protests in Nepal caused profound political changes in Nepal, including the resignation of Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, dissolution of Parliament, and appointment of former Chief Justice of Nepal Supreme Court, Sushila Karki, as interim Prime Minister. Nevertheless, the process is far from complete, as the President has announced 5 March 2026 to be the date of the next general elections. It will be interesting to note what kind of reform the interim Prime Minister will be taking, which may be added once the new parliament is constituted. It will also call for constitutional reforms in Nepal, which has been a foremost demand of GenZ protestors. In light of these changes, it is essential to stocktake the journey of constitutional reforms that Nepal has taken in the past seven to eight decades, and what the friction points were back then. 

Nepal’s constitutional journey since the 1940s reads less like a tidy sequence of institutional reforms and more like a long, uneven negotiations over where sovereignty should sit and what it should look like. King or people. Party or palace. Kathmandu or the Tarai. Hill heartland or the periphery. Each text, from the first experiments under the Ranas to the 2015 charter and beyond, is a record of bargains struck and bargains deferred. To understand why Nepal is once again on the verge of serious change after a youth-led uprising, we need to trace how these bargains have shifted, which problems were solved, and which were simply moved down the road.

The starting point is the late Rana rule. Under pressure at home and from winds blowing across the subcontinent, Prime Minister Padma Shumsher announced constitutional reforms in the late 1940s. The Government of Nepal Constitution Act of 1948 floated the idea of a bicameral legislature and ministerial responsibility. It was carefully drafted. Selection powers sat with the prime minister, and the edifice rested on executive discretion. Still, it broke a tradition by acknowledging that state power might be shared. That act was followed by the Interim Government of Nepal Act of 1951, issued as the Rana oligarchy fell and a broad coalition ushered in a constitutional monarchy and multiparty politics. The 1951 text listed civil liberties, set out a provisional institutional design, and promised a fuller democratic settlement to come. It also carried the first seed of a recurring problem: lofty rights were planted in thin soil. Institutions to protect them were weak, and the balance between palace and parties was unsettled.

The 1959 Constitution tried to make good on the promise. Nepal held its first general elections. BP Koirala became the first democratically elected prime minister. For a moment, parliamentary democracy had a constitutional home. Alas, it did not last. In December 1960, King Mahendra dismissed the government, jailed elected leaders, and moved the country into a partyless Panchayat system. The 1962 Constitution codified the Panchayat system, concentrating sovereignty in the crown and constructing a pyramidal set of assemblies that were consultative in form and royalist in effect. This was not an aberration but a full constitutional project. It sought to bring nationhood, religion, and monarchy into a single frame and to define politics as social harmony under royal guardianship. Its longevity came from that ideological glue; its undoing came from the same source when economic change, social mobility, and a rising political class found the frame too tight.

The popular movement of 1990 was the first decisive mass amendment to that project. The protest forced a bargain. The palace would remain, but power would flow through elected institutions. The 1990 Constitution restored multiparty democracy, expanded fundamental rights, and set up an independent judiciary. It looked European in design, and for a while, it delivered plural politics. Yet the monarchy still held reserve powers. Identity-based claims were largely absorbed into the language of national unity rather than represented as constitutional pluralism. Federalism was absent. These omissions did not cause the insurgency that began in 1996, but they certainly narrowed the channels through which socioeconomic grievances and peripheral voices could be routed into policy. The palace’s 2005 coup temporarily snapped even the 1990 compromise, convincing many that a constitutional monarchy could never be safely caged.

The 2006 people’s movement broke the last link. The 2007 Interim Constitution disempowered the king and reoriented the state toward an elected sovereign Constituent Assembly. When the monarchy was abolished in 2008, it was less a leap into republicanism than an acceptance that the 1990 dualism had failed. From that point forward, legitimacy would be negotiated not between palace and parties but within a widening circle of political and social actors: Maoists now in suits, Madhesi parties galvanized by long exclusion, indigenous nationalities, women’s movements, and a younger generation that had grown up inside conflict and transition. The first Constituent Assembly collapsed under the weight of that diversity. The second produced the 2015 Constitution, a republican, federal, secular settlement that promised inclusion, proportional representation, and a new map of provinces. It was a bold step, but once again, some bargains were patched rather than resolved.

Two pressures immediately exposed those seams. The first was identity and representation. Many Madhesi and Tharu groups protested that the federal boundaries and electoral formulae diluted their political weight. Protests in the plains and a crippling impediment to cross-border trade followed. The new constitution’s legitimacy arrived with a caveat attached. Kathmandu amended the text on proportional inclusion and constituency delineation, but the deeper question, whether federal design tracks social geography closely enough to make people feel represented, was left for politics to answer. It still has not. The second pressure was state capacity under stress. The 2015 earthquake devastated infrastructure and livelihoods. A new federal republic with developing democratic institutions was suddenly tasked to deliver large-scale reconstruction, manage competing party interests across new provincial layers, and keep the economy afloat. The constitution’s promise of devolution and local empowerment was good, but the administrative reforms could not pick up the pace. This gap between constitutional aspiration and everyday governance seeded the frustration that now fuels youth anger: a sense that no matter which coalition takes Singha Durbar, services remain patchy, jobs scarce, and integrity negotiable.

Since 2015, constitutional politics has not rested. A 2022–23 set of amendments eased pathways for citizenship by descent for children of those who held citizenship by birth, and opened a narrow door for non-resident citizenship without political rights. Each change eased one pressure while stirring another. That pattern, addressing the immediate grievance and postponing the structural fix, has been the through-line of the last decade.

With this grand rupture, what can be expected from the constitutional positioning of new political actors is a timely question that needs to be asked. How federal should the state be? What mix of electoral system and party democracy can ensure accountability? How can conflicts of interest be managed in a political sphere where networks are tight and incentives distorted? These are some essential questions that the new democratic political elite of Nepal will be dealing with for quite some time. Nevertheless, in the opinion of this author, the 2015 constitution provides a good roadmap with some recalibrations to work upon, more importantly, in the areas of safeguarding human and digital rights. Along with this, a serious approach needs to be taken to tackle corruption by developing more constitutional checks and balances. Nevertheless, it also needs to be kept in mind that constitutional and legal reforms need to be done in parallel with overhauling already existing institutions as well as serious bureaucratic and institutional reforms; only then can long-term stability be achieved. 

In Nepal, there is a general tendency to blame the constitution for every political failure. Many voices hold it responsible for rising corruption and political instability. However, no matter how perfect a constitution may be, it becomes nothing more than a piece of paper unless it is implemented in both letter and spirit.

The constitution of Nepal, which came into effect on September 20, 2015, marked the country's transition from a long-stayed unitary system to a federal structure. Federalism was introduced as an alternative to the long-standing constitutional monarchy, which had failed to deliver. Today, however, some youths blame the federal constitution, arguing that provincial governments are an expensive burden for a country with limited resources. Yet, the constitution--with its strong provisions for inclusivity, republicanism, devolution of powers, progressive fundamental rights and federalism—cannot itself be held responsible for the failures of nation's political course.

Need for Moral and Civic Education 

If we revisit the unfortunate incidents witnessed during the Gen-Z protest, the burning of government documents and assets,along with vandalism and looting of both private and publicproperty, conveys the message that a section of society lacks civic sense and is ready to loot at any given opportunity. 

This reflects that the concepts of morality and civic responsibility are yet to be deeply rooted among a section of Nepalis. If our democracy produces youths who can burn government assets and documents, or vandalize private business and property, we can conclude that civic values have been seriously compromised. 

The viral videos reveal the unfortunate reality of some youthswho, while protesting against the incumbent government, also aligned themselves with those looting government offices and private enterprises such as Bhatbhateni Mall. 

This exposes our unchecked greed for money and material possessions. Its high time for the state to introduce subjects, like that of Moral and Civic Studies as mandatory courses at every level of education.  

Blame the politics

In Nepal, none of the governments formed after 1990 have completed a full five-year term. The state has witnessed the greedy dance of political parties in their pursuit of power and positions. We saw communist parties forging alliances with the democratic forces, and even conflicts breaking out within communist alliance governments. These incidents prove that our political parties neither stood firmly with their ideology, nor practiced politics in line with constitutional mandates. 

Perhaps we are the only democracy in world where leaders resort to forgery in Bills passed by the House. We saw that in case of Federal Civil Service Bill this year. 

We might also be the only country where top leaders publicly hurl thorny comments against the opposition. A former education Minister once remarked that KP Oli is like the "Pele of Football" who cannot be defeated or overthrown by any earthly power. KP Oli himself has an inherent habit of passing sharp comments and making fun of others. 

The governments formed after the promulgation of the current constitution have failed to deliver. This is a well-known fact. The state has witnessed massive corruption, limited initiatives for employment creation, and an almost negligible role of the government in ensuring good governance. 

The constitution does not allow for the corrupt practices. However, the document itself, like a ghost, cannot punish the abusers. It’s the government and constitutional mechanisms that must demonstrate a strong commitment to upholding the rule of law. 

We have seen appointments to the constitutional posts made for individuals with clear political affiliations. At times, their power-hungry nature has challenged the principle of separation of powers. A person of high moral stature would ordinarily refrain from accepting positions they believe compromise this principle. Yet, in Nepal, such individuals are rarely found. Should constitution be blamed for this?   We reiterate that moral education and civic sense must be imparted not only to our youths but also to our professionals. 

Way forward

As a matter of fact, no constitutional or legal document is so perfect that it can provide a solution to every given problem of every generation. That’s why, laws and constitutions are regarded as living documents, capable of being amended to ensuring broader ownership and necessary reforms. 

In India, the 1949 Constitution has been amended 106 times so far, and the US constitution has witnessed 27 amendments. In the similar vein, we can introduce amendments in our constitution to make it more progressive. We are already operating our democracy under our seventh constitution. Frequent changes to it every decade would create wrong impression in world and could invite political instability. 

The failure of our leaders cannot be seen as the failure of the constitution. If those at the helm take pledge to practice genuine politics—free from corruption and unlawful elements-- then our democracy would possess everything required for a sustainable future. Our constitution envisions for a welfare state grounded in the firm foundations of the rule of law and good governance. Its high time we translate the mandates of the constitution into reality for advancing the cause of rule of law and a vibrant democracy. 

Nepal has recently witnessed a wave of violent protests, initially triggered by the government’s controversial decision to ban social media platforms. While these demonstrations reflect domestic frustrations ranging from nepotism and corruption to high unemployment, they have simultaneously become fertile ground for disinformation campaigns. 

A closer examination reveals that Pakistan-based social media accounts have actively sought to hijack the narrative, shifting blame toward India and framing it as the primary destabilizing force in South Asia.

This phenomenon demonstrates how modern digital propaganda transcends national borders, turning real grievances into geopolitical instruments. By analyzing the patterns, players, and methods involved, we can better understand how this campaign was designed, why Nepal was chosen as the latest battleground, and what its broader implications are for regional politics.

The first wave of misleading posts emerged not from Nepal but from Pakistani social media circles. Accounts began alleging that India was operating fake Nepali bot accounts to engineer unrest, punishing Nepal for engaging diplomatically with China’s President Xi Jinping. They claimed India had adopted a systematic strategy to destabilize its neighbors, citing Sri Lanka, Maldives, and Bangladesh as “previous victims.”

Crucially, these narratives were not spontaneous. They followed a tested playbook:

Initial trigger posts: The first notable push came from Ahmad Hassan Al-Arbi, a self-styled “defense analyst.” He had previously accused India of staging false flag operations, including the Pahalgam terror attack. His thread blaming India for Nepal’s protests became the seed for a larger campaign.

Amplification: What began as scattered posts by cyborg like accounts quickly gained traction through amplifiers larger accounts with audiences between 3,000 and 300,000 followers. Their role was to provide visibility and legitimacy to otherwise fringe claims.

Media recycling: Outlets like the Kashmir Media Service picked up these threads and published them as news, quoting the same Pakistani social media users as “commentators.” These circular references created an illusion of expert validation.

Repetition by repeat offenders: Prominent disinformation spreaders on X such as @iMustansarPK and @Fizz_Urooj, previously involved in pushing fabricated stories like “Kashmir shutdown” or “Operation Sindoor,” reappeared to recycle and reinforce the new claims.

Hashtag narratives: Phrases like “India = Net Destabilizer” gained traction between Sept 4–9. X posts in English targeted global audiences, while Urdu language posts catered to regional and domestic Pakistani users.

The players behind the campaign

Several recurring actors surfaced in this disinformation drive:

Cyborg accounts: Semi-automated accounts that rapidly produced and retweeted content to create artificial trends.
Amplifiers: Medium-to-large accounts like @IntelPk and @faizannriaz, which carried the narrative to wider audiences.

Legacy disinformation accounts: Profiles such as @HelloPKofficial and @mohsin_o2, known for praising Pakistan’s “cyber warriors” during past Indo-Pak tensions, returned to recycle the “India destabilizer” trope.

Thematic hashtags and frames: By positioning India as a “net destabilizer” instead of a “net security provider,” these accounts sought to undercut India’s diplomatic positioning in South Asia. The interplay of these actors ensured that what started as isolated claims rapidly evolved into a widely circulated narrative. Within just eight days, a freshly minted storyline had been established and accepted by segments of online discourse.

Why Nepal?

The choice of Nepal as the newest stage for this campaign is not coincidental. Several factors make it an attractive target for disinformation:

Strategic geography: Sandwiched between India and China, Nepal is particularly vulnerable to narratives that highlight “great power meddling.”

Historical sensitivities: Anti India sentiment has historically flared in Nepal, particularly around border disputes and trade dependencies. Propagandists exploit these pre-existing tensions to lend credibility to fabricated stories.

Domestic instability: With Nepal’s youth disillusioned by unemployment and corruption, foreign narratives blaming external interference resonate more easily.

Regional projection: By portraying India as interfering in Nepal, attempts to universalize its anti-India messaging across South Asia, tying together disparate events in Sri Lanka, Maldives, and Bangladesh, under one conspiratorial frame.

Implications for South Asia

This disinformation drive is not merely about Nepal—it reflects a broader contest over narrative dominance in South Asia. By projecting India as the destabilizer, Pakistan aims to achieve several goals:

Diplomatic isolation: Undermine India’s image as a regional stabilizer and counterweight to China.

Information warfare: Distract from Pakistan’s own domestic crises by shifting attention to Indian actions.

Psychological impact: Erode trust between India and its neighbors by sowing doubt and suspicion.

For Nepal, however, this campaign is doubly harmful. It distorts legitimate grievances, weakening the credibility of protesters’ demands, and risks polarizing society along manufactured foreign-policy lines.

Nepal’s protests are a reflection of frustration with governance failures, not the product of Indian interference. Yet Pakistan’s disinformation machinery has opportunistically hijacked the narrative, reframing a domestic movement as a geopolitical conspiracy. This campaign, spearheaded by a familiar ecosystem of Pakistani accounts and digital outlets, once again illustrates how online propaganda can reshape perceptions of unfolding events in real time.

The challenge for policymakers, media platforms, and civil society lies in exposing and countering these narratives before they calcify into “common knowledge.” For Nepal, the greater danger is that its citizens’ real grievances risk being overshadowed by a synthetic blame game manufactured far beyond its borders. And for South Asia, the episode underscores the urgent need for a collective response to the rising weaponization of information in the digital age.

The author is the National Chairperson of Muslim Students Organisation of India MSO, he writes on a wide range of issues, including, Sufism, Public Policy, Geopolitics and Information Warfare

The events of the eighth and ninth September of this year (2025) were nightmares to Nepal. The first day showed the tyranny of our rulers who did not hesitate using excessive force on unarmed young demonstrators, just because they challenged government restrictions. The second day demonstrated how criminal minds could misuse popular demonstrations as camouflages, and carry out terrorist attacks on civilians, security forces, national institutions, public and private properties, destroy national archives, and loot.

The events, known as the GenZ movement, have taken at least 72 lives, and left over two thousand injured. Some are missing. Many families have lost their lifelines. Some have become homeless. Over ten thousand people have lost their jobs. Estimates are that the country has suffered an economic loss of Rs 3trn, 50 per cent more than the national budget of the current fiscal year. The mental trauma is beyond scale.

Illusion, disillusion, and illusion

Good governance, economic development, inclusive empowerment, and growth opportunity have remained core issues, at least since the 1951 Delhi Accord that ended the Rana dynasty’s direct rule. Dissatisfaction followed that and each of future settlements, ultimately leading to a cascade of political unrests or revolutions, at an approximate interval of one or two decades. Each time a new Constitution was promulgated, the proponents declared it as the “ultimate truth”.

To be brief, the 1951 Revolution pulled down the Rana family rule but consolidated the Shah dynasty while embracing plurality. While the multiparty system was taking root, the monarch scrapped the 1959 Constitution of the multiparty system, and introduced the 1962 Constitution institutionalizing Panchayati system—all in the name of the nation and good governance!

In due course, the multiparty system was reinstated through people’s movements and ultimate promulgation of the 1990 constitution. The disgruntled CPN (Maoist) waged a “People’s War” (1996–2006) against the system. The war and movements led by a seven-party alliance ultimately abolished the monarchy in 2008. After much debates, meddling from INGOs and foreign powers, formation of different caucuses of the Constitution Assembly (CA) members such as women, indigenous groups, and their training in foreign lands, failure of first elected CA, second CA election, collections of people’s suggestions and so on, Nepal was officially declared a federal republic through the 2015 Constitution. 

Article 4 of Part 1 of the Constitution clearly maintains that Nepal is socialism-oriented.

The Constitution is full of promises. It grants 31 fundamental rights to all citizens, including rights to equality, privacy, employment, health, education, food, housing, information and social security. Also included are many freedoms and rights of special groups. Then, why are people unhappy? Because people know that these promises are hollow. The Constitution promises mandatory free elementary education; the public discover the performance of most of the community schools very poor, and the haves are sending their kids to costly private schools. The book promises rights to health; the government sells poorly delivered health insurance to the ordinary, and pays for healthcare of the leaders in foreign hospitals. 

Leaders of parties who present themselves as “vanguards of democracy” issue dictating whips to their members in parliament to vote this or that way on national issues. Leaders, who brand themselves as communists, fail to show a role model, sometimes falling far below one practiced by an ordinary citizen.

Leaders show no shame. A leader tries to get an entry to the House through proportional pathway or direct nomination, after losing the first-past-the-post election. A leader tries to bring his wife, daughter or other relatives in the House, misusing the seats reserved for women. As in Bangladesh, resentments over these issues have built up in Nepali youths, which may foment further unrest in the coming days.

Profiteering has sucked. Schools do not pay the teachers even two-thirds of the fee students pay. Corporates and big houses do not pay their lowest paid worker even one-tenth of what the CEO receives. A doctor educated under government scholarship charges the patients the maximum possible in the market. 

Cartels are commonplace, from politics to business. In politics, the big parties have made provisions that only those receiving at least three percent of the valid votes are eligible to claim proportional seats. Denying healthy competitions based on quality parameters, MOE, MEC, and universities restrict or facilitate colleges, suiting their tastes. 

Policy corruption is rife at all levels: from land ownerships and use to tariffs to revenues to tax exemptions to biddings to clemencies.

Now to the most painful part. Look what happened on Sept 9. Some of those who hit the streets against corruption and for good governance were seen breaking and looting the private homes and markets. Chances are high that such hypocrisy is not limited to one age group.

Wake up, unite

It is time for introspection. People need to wake up, and so do the leaders. You put your voice; others, theirs. To count, let there be free, fair and secret voting. Let’s effectively ban vote-buying. Do not try to obstruct election campaigns of opponents.

Dear parties and leaders, refrain from selling populist slogans. If you mention, I mean it. You are free to propose any political system you like. If your votes allow, you can change the Constitution and laws. Deposit your election manifesto with the Election Commission, and make it public. Do not deviate from it. Do not make extra claims, do not entice the voters, explicitly or implicitly. Let the voters decide. Once the votes are counted, respect the verdict. If you are in a hung parliament, work as a team member, and support the majority. Obey the decisions, even when they are your antithesis. Unite within your party, or leave it. Unite within the parliament, not for the government but for national cause, or leave it. Do not seek external support against your fellow members in your party or parliament.

We need to move forward. We have destroyed our property, damaged infrastructure, caused human fatalities, and injured thousands. Let’s heal the wounds on our own. Let’s not seek external aid and donation. After destroying the economy equivalent to one and a half years’ national budget in just 10 hours, we should feel ashamed to beg and refrain from accepting external aid. Let’s all stakeholders, including different level governments, political parties, businessmen and workers, discuss together and frame a long-term, stable economic policy, encouraging domestic capital, brain and workforce to play their roles in the national reconstruction. Do not forget to include Nepali diaspora in the process. By virtue of their connections and exposure, they may offer far more to national pride than we can imagine.

Neighbouring country India has welcomed the formation of the new interim government in Nepal. 

Issuing a statement, Indian Ministry of External Affairs welcomed the development immediately after former Chief Justice Sushila Karki took charge as the Interim Prime Minister. 

“We welcome the formation of the new interim government under the leadership of Sushila Karki. We hope this would help in fostering peace and stability in Nepal”, the statement read. 

As a close neighbour, a fellow democracy and a long-term development partner, India will continue to work together with Nepal for the welfare and prosperity of both the nations and the people, it has been stated.

Three days after violent protests shook the nation, Nepal is gradually returning to normalcy with heavy security deployment and cautious optimism among the populace. However, the process of government formation remains the key focus, as citizens look to political stability for lasting peace.

The recent unrest in Nepal, largely driven by the youth-led “Gen Z" movement, erupted over demands for political reform and accountability. Protesters accused political leaders of inaction, corruption, and a disconnect from the people’s concerns. The protests quickly escalated, turning violent, leading to mass prison breakouts, damage to public and private property, and a paralysis of normal life in many parts of the country. To restore order, the government deployed the Nepal Army, Nepal Police, and Armed Police Force, enforcing strict security measures across affected regions.

Currently, night-time curfews are strictly enforced, with heavy deployment of military personnel across major urban areas. During the daytime, prohibitory orders are in place, allowing individuals to move about but banning public gatherings. Main streets remain largely deserted, although some private vehicles are seen on the roads. Public transportation remains suspended.

Banks and small markets, especially in inner city areas, have cautiously reopened, but major business houses and offices remain closed. Government offices, including Nepal Police headquarters, are slowly resuming operations. The police have urged the public to submit photos, videos, and any proof of individuals involved in the recent violent acts. More than 11,000 inmates who escaped during the chaos are still at large. Authorities have called on them to return voluntarily, and security forces have begun arrest operations targeting escaped prisoners.

Despite signs of recovery, fear lingers. "There are still fears that mobs could attack again. It would be a huge relief if a new government is formed soon," said Kishwor Tamang, a shopkeeper in Kathmandu. In the wake of the crisis, the nation’s attention has shifted toward forming a new government. President Ram Chandra Poudel has taken the initiative, holding consultations with representatives of the Gen Z movement, leaders of major political parties, and constitutional experts.

A key debate centers around the potential appointment of Sushila Karki as the new Prime Minister. While one faction of the Gen Z protesters supports Karki—a former Chief Justice known for her integrity—others oppose her candidacy. Furthermore, the 2015 Constitution bars non-members of Parliament from holding the prime ministerial post, posing a constitutional hurdle. Initially, the Nepal Army facilitated early discussions for government formation. Now, President Poudel is taking the lead amid rising pressure from political parties to adhere strictly to constitutional provisions. 

The private sector, which suffered major losses due to vandalism and disruption, is slowly regaining its footing. Business leaders have expressed determination to rebuild despite the challenges ahead.  However, the tourism industry has taken a severe blow. Several hotels were targeted during the unrest, and the perception of instability is expected to significantly reduce tourist inflow in the short term. As the country cautiously recovers, all eyes are on the nation’s leaders to form a stable and inclusive government that can restore public confidence and chart a path toward lasting peace and economic revival.

The senators of the United States (US) Foreign Relations Committee have urged to keep peace in Nepal through democratic process. 

Issuing a statement on Thursday about the recent political development in Nepal, senators, Jeanne Shaheen and Chris Van Hollen, said, “The incidents of violence, loss of the lives and arson that occurred in Nepal lately are not acceptable. We extend deep condolence to the families of those killed during the recent protests”. 

Appealing for holding those involved in extreme suppression against the citizens to account, the senators noted, “Nepal has gained significant achievements during the last two-decade of its democratic exercise. It is ever necessary to protect the achievements earned with substantial contributions of the citizens”. 

Stating that the peaceful, dynamic and full democratic Nepal is the shared concern of the people of Nepal, the United States and the region, the senators expressed their confidence that the Government of Nepal would put tough measures to control corruption and fix institutional weaknesses to win the trust of the citizens. 

Residents of Nepal’s capital rushed to buy groceries Thursday morning when the army briefly lifted a curfew it imposed to quell violent protests that toppled the country’s government, as confusion set in about who would govern the Himalayan nation, Associated Press reported.

Nepal army, which took control of the capital Tuesday night after two days of protests that burned government buildings and businesses, lifted the curfew for four hours Thursday morning. People rushed to buy rice, vegetables and meat, while others took the opportunity to pray at Hindu temples.

Armed soldiers were guarding the streets, checking vehicles and offering assistance to those in need.

It remained unclear who would take control of the government as the search for an interim leader continued, according to Associated Press.

Soldiers guarded Nepal's parliament and patrolled deserted streets on Wednesday with the capital Kathmandu under a curfew, after two days of deadly anti-corruption protests forced Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli to resign, Reuters reported.

The upheaval in the poor Himalayan nation was unleashed by a social media ban that was announced last week, but was rolled back after 19 people were killed on Monday as police fired tear gas and rubber bullets to control crowds.

The death toll from the protests had risen to 25 by Wednesday, Nepal's health ministry said, while 633 were injured.

Nepal's army said that relevant parties were coordinating to tackle the situation after the protests and resolve the issue. Media also said preparations were being made for authorities and protesters to hold talks, without giving details. Reuters could not independently confirm the information, according to Reuters.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called for a thorough investigation and restraint Tuesday following deadly protests in Nepal that left 20 people dead and forced Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli to resign.

"I'm closely following the situation in Nepal and I'm deeply saddened by the loss of life," Guterres wrote on X.

"I urge a thorough investigation, restraint to avoid further escalation of violence and dialogue towards forging a constructive path forward," he said.

He called on the authorities to "comply with human rights law," underscoring that protests "must take place in a peaceful manner, respecting life and property."

He also called for compliance with human rights laws.

The Ministry of External Affairs of India has expressed sorrow over the loss of many young lives in the recent incidents taking place in Nepal since Monday.

As the Ministry states, it is closely watching the developments in Nepal since yesterday.

In a statement issued today, the Ministry conveyed that its thoughts and prayers are with the families of the deceased, wishing for the speedy recovery of the injured.

As a close friend and neighbor, the Ministry expresses hope that all concerned bodies will exercise restraint and address any issues through peaceful means and dialogue.

India also takes note that authorities have imposed curfew in Kathmandu and several other cities of Nepal, the statement reads.

Similarly, Indian nationals in Nepal have been advised to exercise caution and adhere to the steps and guidelines issued by the Nepali authorities.

The Government of Nepal’s arbitrary decision of Sept 4 to impose a blanket ban on 26 social media platforms including Facebook, YouTube, X, Instagram and LinkedIn, will have far-reaching consequences for Nepal’s digital ecosystem, democracy, freedom of expression and independent journalism. 

Social media in Nepal has become a vital space for civic engagement, where citizens, activists, and journalists share critical information, challenge state narratives, and demand accountability from those in power. Silencing these platforms not only undermines constitutional guarantees but also pushes dissent underground, fostering fear, censorship, and self-censorship.

Silencing dissent and independent journalism 

Media Action Nepal’s record shows that nearly 2,500 professional journalists—at least 1,000 of them formerly associated with corporate and big media houses in roles ranging from reporters to editors—are now running independent small newsrooms, providing the public with information of public interest. Alongside them, thousands of digital content creators engage with audiences, expose frauds, scrutinize governance failures, and contribute to Nepal’s economy through taxes they pay. These two sections of the media ecosystem have become inseparable from the lives of people in Nepal and the diaspora, serving as watchdogs over the state. Their independence from political parties has irritated the ruling coalition, which has repeatedly harassed journalists under the Electronic Transaction Act merely for reporting. This blanket ban is the government’s latest attempt to silence critical and independent voices.

Political motive

A second driver of this regressive move is political cunning. The Nepali Congress–CPN-UML coalition has grown increasingly wary of emerging political forces, independent candidates, and analysts who might challenge its dominance in the upcoming by-elections in Rupandehi district. Reports of former President Bidya Devi Bhandari attempting to position herself to lead CPN-UML have further fueled Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli’s insecurities, leading to this decision rooted as much in personal ego as in political control. None of these justifications, however, can legitimize a measure that gravely undermines press freedom, shrinks civic space, and erodes the democratic aspirations of the Nepali people.

Arbitrary and authoritarian 

This blanket ban on social media is neither legal nor constitutional. The Supreme Court of Nepal, in its recent order, did not authorize an administrative prohibition of social media platforms. Rather, it instructed the government to draft appropriate legislation to regulate digital platforms in line with the Constitution’s guarantees of fundamental rights. By issuing a sweeping administrative order, the GoN has misinterpreted the Court’s directive and acted far beyond its authority.

The Constitution of Nepal enshrines clear protections that this ban directly violates. Article 17 guarantees the right to freedom of opinion and expression; Article 19 guarantees the right to communication; and Article 27 guarantees the right to information. These provisions make it clear that in a democratic system and an open market economy, global digital connectivity cannot be arbitrarily censored. Democracy and authoritarianism cannot co-exist, and any restrictions on fundamental freedoms must be lawful, proportionate, and strictly necessary.

Internationally, Nepal has binding obligations as a State Party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), ratified in 1991. Article 19 of the ICCPR guarantees the right to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, across frontiers. Restrictions are permissible only under very narrow conditions—to protect the rights and reputation of others, national security, public order, or public health and morals—and even then, they must meet the three-part test of legality, necessity, and proportionality. The government’s blanket ban fails on all three counts. It is not based on law passed by Parliament, it is disproportionate in its scope, and it undermines the very essence of freedom of expression itself.

By imposing such an arbitrary ban through administrative order, Nepal not only violates its own Constitution but also disregards its international human rights commitments. The action sets a dangerous precedent of executive overreach, reverses the principle that rights are the rule and restrictions the exception, and risks isolating Nepal from the global democratic community. This ban is unconstitutional, arbitrary, and unlawful. It must be immediately repealed, and any future regulation of digital platforms must be pursued through transparent, participatory parliamentary processes in compliance with Nepal’s constitutional guarantees and international obligations.

Broken connectivity

The ban also strikes at the heart of social and economic life. For millions of Nepali people with family members working abroad, social media platforms are essential tools for affordable and instant communication. Cutting off these channels deepens the isolation of families and disrupts the social fabric of a nation heavily dependent on remittances. Economically, the decision will hurt small newsrooms, digital-first outlets, and independent content creators who rely on social media for visibility, outreach, and revenue generation. At a time when Nepal is striving to expand its digital economy and global connectivity, this ban risks isolating the country from international networks, stifling innovation, and discouraging investment in the digital sector.

Civic assault

There is no space for attacks on fundamental freedoms in a democracy. The arbitrary suspension of social media platforms is not only unconstitutional but also a direct assault on civic space and public trust. Unless revoked immediately, this ban will leave ruling parties morally and politically accountable to the people of Nepal and will bear long-term costs in terms of public legitimacy, international credibility, and democratic backsliding.

This ban represents a regressive step that jeopardizes democratic values, erodes citizens’ trust in institutions, and undermines Nepal’s international commitments to human rights. Such measures weaken—not strengthen—democracy, and risk pushing Nepal further away from its democratic aspirations and obligations.

Restore freedoms

First, the government must withdraw this administrative decision without delay. Any attempt to deactivate or restrict social media platforms in the absence of legislative or constitutional grounds amounts to authoritarian overreach. Second, regulation of digital platforms, if required, must strictly comply with constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression, right to communication, freedom of association, and right to information, as well as Nepal’s binding obligations under international human rights treaties.

Third, any future steps regarding social media governance must follow due process and democratic procedure. A comprehensive and transparent legislative process through Parliament is the only legitimate avenue for framing social media laws. This process must be inclusive, consultative, and rooted in the principles of legality, necessity, and proportionality as laid out in Article 19 of the ICCPR and Nepal’s own constitutional framework. Administrative shortcuts, like the present order, erode the very foundations of democracy and push the country toward authoritarianism.

If the ruling parties continue to enforce this ban, they risk being held accountable not only by the Nepali people but also before international human rights mechanisms. Democracy is built on freedoms, not restrictions—and it is only by respecting those freedoms that Nepal can maintain its democratic credibility at home and abroad.

The author, a global advocate for freedom of expression, is the founding chair of Media Action Nepal

At least 19 people have been killed and dozens injured in Nepal after demonstrations against a government social media ban led to clashes between protesters and security forces, BBC reported.

Thousands heeded a call by demonstrators describing themselves as Generation Z to gather near the parliament building in Kathmandu over the decision to ban platforms including Facebook, X and YouTube.

Nepal's Minister for Communication Prithvi Subba told the BBC police had to use force - which included water cannons, batons and firing rubber bullets.

The government has said social media platforms need to be regulated to tackle fake news, hate speech and online fraud, according to BBC.

Nepal’s prison system reflects the deep contradictions of a country that has enshrined human dignity and humane treatment in its Constitution but has failed to translate these guarantees into practice. Overcrowding, poor facilities, and a purely custodial approach have left correctional facilities overwhelmed and ineffective. Article 20 of the Constitution prohibits torture and cruel treatment, while Article 21 secures every person’s right to dignity, yet prison conditions in Nepal remain far from these commitments.

The Prison Act, 2079 introduced a significant legal breakthrough by incorporating provisions for humane treatment, classification of inmates, and the possibility of open prisons. Particularly important is Section 41 of the Act, which explicitly authorizes the establishment and management of open prisons, outlining the criteria for selecting eligible prisoners and the conditions under which they may serve their sentences in less restrictive environments. This section embodies a shift from viewing prisons solely as spaces of confinement to institutions of correction, emphasizing rehabilitation and reintegration. However, despite the legal foundation, practical implementation has been timid, with only a handful of facilities in Nuwakot and Pokhara functioning under the open or semi-open model.

The reformist intention of the legislature is further supported by the Criminal Offense (Sentencing and Execution) Act, 2074, particularly Section 28, which provides courts with discretion to impose non-custodial alternatives to imprisonment. Under this provision, probation, parole, community service, or other supervisory mechanisms can be applied in place of incarceration, subject to specific terms and conditions designed to ensure accountability. This provision complements the philosophy of open prisons by reducing reliance on imprisonment for non-violent offenders and promoting rehabilitative sentencing. Yet in practice, judges have been reluctant to fully exercise these powers, and the probation system remains underdeveloped and disconnected from the open prison framework.

Experiences from the few open prisons in Nepal demonstrate the transformative potential of this model. Inmates in Nuwakot and Pokhara engage in agriculture, carpentry, and other vocational activities, with a portion of their earnings supporting their families. They live under minimal security, governed largely by trust and self-discipline. This aligns with the intent of Section 41 of the Prison Act, which envisions open prisons as mechanisms of rehabilitation rather than exclusion. Comparative evidence from countries like India, where Rajasthan’s open prisons have functioned successfully for decades, and from Scandinavia, where open and semi-open prisons form the mainstream correctional system, further reinforces the practicality and effectiveness of this approach.

The judiciary has echoed this reformative vision. The Supreme Court of Nepal has, through multiple rulings, directed the State to ensure humane treatment of prisoners and explore alternatives to custodial punishment in line with constitutional mandates. The Court has recognized that incarceration must not merely punish but must prepare inmates for reintegration. However, judicial pronouncements have not been matched by executive commitment, and without budgetary support or political will, the directives remain aspirational rather than operational.

Critically, Nepal’s hesitation stems not only from administrative inertia but also from entrenched societal attitudes. Many perceive open prisons as leniency, ignoring that overcrowded, punitive prisons actually heighten risks to public safety once inmates are released. Reformative measures such as those envisioned in Section 41 of the Prison Act, 2079 and Section 28 of the Sentencing Act, 2074 are not concessions to offenders but investments in safer communities. They recognize the inevitable truth that prisoners will return to society, and the State must decide whether they return as broken individuals or as rehabilitated citizens.

For Nepal to address its correctional crisis, open prisons must become policy rather than experiment. This requires amending the Prison Act, 2079 to provide clear and transparent criteria for eligibility, ensuring oversight and accountability, and linking probation and parole more coherently with open prison management. Courts must more actively apply Section 28 of the Sentencing Act to divert non-violent and first-time offenders from closed prisons. The government must allocate resources for training, infrastructure, and monitoring. And civil society, academia, and the media must help shift public perception by highlighting the successes of rehabilitative justice models.

Prisons are not merely holding cells; they are mirrors of the State’s humanity. Continuing to ignore constitutional guarantees and legislative provisions will perpetuate a system of abuse, inefficiency, and insecurity. The open prison model authorized under Section 41 of the Prison Act, 2079, coupled with the non-custodial alternatives under Section 28 of the Sentencing Act, 2074, offers Nepal a pragmatic, cost-effective, and humane path forward. The question is whether the State has the courage and will to put its own laws into practice, or whether these progressive provisions will remain unimplemented words on paper while prisons collapse under their own weight.

Nepal, a landlocked country situated between two major economies—India and China—faces numerous developmental challenges. Among them, the growing influence of informal trade stands out as a major obstacle to economic growth and institutional stability. While formal trade is regulated, taxed, and contributes to the state’s capacity, informal trade operates outside the law. It includes activities that are unregistered, untaxed, and often illegal. Over time, this shadow economy has become deeply embedded in Nepal’s economic structure. In many ways, Nepal suffers more from the harmful effects of informal trade than from any shortcomings in formal trade.

Informal trade in Nepal takes many forms. It includes the smuggling of goods such as gold, fuel, medicines, money laundering and electronics across open borders. It also includes unregistered businesses, undocumented labor, and transactions carried out entirely in cash to avoid tax and regulation. Nepal’s long and porous border with India, combined with difficult-to-monitor terrain in the north, makes informal trade easy to conduct and hard to control. On the domestic front, many small and medium-sized enterprises operate without any legal registration. As a result, they fall completely outside the formal economic system.

The scale of informal trade in Nepal is vast. Estimates suggest that the informal economy may account for 35 percent—40 percent of the country’s GDP and more than 80 percent of total employment. This means a large portion of Nepal’s economic activity is hidden from the state. It does not contribute to taxes, cannot be properly measured, and creates unfair competition for businesses that do comply with the law. While formal trade has its own inefficiencies—such as bureaucratic delays, red tape, and occasional corruption—these can be addressed through policy reforms. Informal trade, by contrast, creates deep and lasting damage that is harder to fix. It undermines public revenue, weakens institutions, and limits Nepal’s ability to plan and deliver services.

Addressing the informal economy is not simple, but it is necessary. A multi-pronged approach is needed—one that focuses on simplifying formal procedures, using technology, building trust, and offering real incentives for businesses and workers to shift into the formal system.

One of the first priorities should be to make it easier for small businesses to formalize. Many avoid registration simply because the process is slow, complex, and costly. Nepal should adopt a digital, one-window registration system that reduces paperwork and lowers barriers to entry. If formality becomes easier and less expensive, more businesses will join.

Another key step is improving border management. Nepal cannot control smuggling effectively using traditional methods alone. New technologies such as automated scanners, GPS tracking, and electronic cargo systems should be introduced. Just as important is cooperation with neighboring countries. Shared data and joint monitoring can help prevent illegal trade across borders.

The informal economy also depends heavily on cash, which makes transactions untraceable. Promoting digital payments is a powerful tool to reduce this dependence. However, digital infrastructure alone is not enough. The government must also invest in public awareness, digital literacy, and incentives to encourage both consumers and businesses to use digital platforms.

To support this shift, the state should reward those who comply. Businesses that register and follow regulations should receive benefits—such as tax breaks, better access to finance, and eligibility for government contracts. This changes the perception of regulation from being a burden to being a business opportunity.

Labor reform is another vital area. Most informal workers in Nepal lack legal contracts, benefits, or protections. To bring these workers into the formal economy, Nepal must design labor policies that fit the needs of small enterprises. Portable social security schemes, flexible contracts, and minimum wage protections should be introduced even for small and transitioning firms.

Overall, the informal economy reflects not just illegal behavior, but deeper problems in Nepal’s institutions and systems. It is not enough to use force or punishment. What Nepal needs is transformation—simple, transparent, and fair systems that encourage people to participate legally. Informality is often a result of necessity, not criminal intent. That’s why the government must respond with practical solutions that make formalization more attractive and accessible.

In conclusion, while informal trade may provide income and survival for many, it does long-term harm to Nepal’s economy. It limits tax collection, distorts markets, and weakens the foundations of good governance. Compared to formal trade, whose problems can be corrected through reform, informal trade creates much deeper challenges. If Nepal wants to build a resilient and inclusive economy, it must take bold steps to reduce the size and influence of its informal sector. By simplifying procedures, using technology, and offering clear incentives, the country can bring more of its economy into the formal fold—and unlock its full potential for growth and prosperity.