Nepal’s Gen Z revolt is a mirror Bangladesh should study hard

Call it what it is: a legitimacy crisis with revolutionary energy. Nepal's streets did not wake up one morning and decide to overthrow a government for sport. A sweeping ban on 26 social media platforms detonated public trust, protests erupted, at least 25 people (as of the latest count) were killed in clashes, and Prime Minister K P Sharma Oli resigned amid burning symbols of state power. The ban was rolled back soon after its imposition, but the fuse was already lit. This is not a tidy textbook revolution yet, but it is no routine protest either.

Let's be precise on the trigger. Kathmandu tried a hard pivot to platform regulation by blocking Facebook, YouTube, WhatsApp, X, and more after the companies refused to register locally. Young Nepalis saw it as a gag order on modern life. The curfew did not cool anything. Parliament was stormed, state buildings torched, the ban withdrawn, and Oli still exited stage left.

But the spark is not the fire. Nepal has been marinating in scandal for years, from the fake Bhutanese refugee racket to gold smuggling and notorious land grabs, with big names circling accountability and often escaping it. Add to that youth underemployment and a political class that treats public patience like an infinite resource. When a government that has not delivered decides to switch off the public square that lives on phones, it advertises weakness, not strength.

Read more

Nepal’s youth have given their verdict

The constitutional question now is simple in text and messy in practice. Nepal's constitution says a prime minister can resign and the same council of ministers keeps the lights on until a new council is formed. Appointment pathways run through Article 76, with confidence votes under Article 100. On paper, this is fine. In a boiling street context, with mass resignations and calls for dissolution, the risk is presidential overreach or improvised caretaker deals that stretch the spirit of the law. Nepal's courts have previously overturned unconstitutional dissolutions, so the judiciary is not shy. The system has the rules, but rules need political actors willing to play by them.

How to land the plane? First, a credible independent inquiry into the killings with legal consequences, not cosmetic committees. Second, a transparent digital governance reset based on lawful orders, narrow tailoring, and appeal rights, not blanket blocks that punish citizens and small businesses. Third, a time-bound roadmap to a confidence vote, or if numbers do not exist, to early polls inside the constitutional frame and supervised by an empowered election commission. Fourth, fast-tracking anti-corruption cases that everyone in Kathmandu knows by name. Without justice, you only buy downtime.

Bangladesh knows this script. Our July uprising began with a quota dispute, but it was the state's force posture that converted grievance into a mass movement. The prime minister resigned on August 5, 2024 and an interim set-up followed, while the dead and injured climbed into grim four figures. The UN fact-finding report this February described systematic abuses. The government published an initial gazette listing 834 martyrs. We wanted stability but had to swallow a hard truth first: impunity is the real arsonist.

So, is Nepal an uprising or a revolution? Labels are a vibe, outcomes are policy. Bangladesh last year delivered regime change and mounted a still-unresolved constitutional debate about interim authority and election timelines. Nepal today sits at the hinge moment between negotiated reset and uncontrolled cascade. The equation is clear: youth networks plus perceived injustice plus digital chokeholds equal a legitimacy cliff.

Read more

From Dhaka to Kathmandu: How Gen Z is confronting power in South Asia

Is there a great game connection? Geopolitics always hums in the background. India and China track every tremor in Kathmandu for obvious reasons. But neither New Delhi nor Beijing banned Facebook in Nepal. External players may exploit openings, but they do not create the governance vacuum that invites them. Blaming geopolitics is a convenient alibi that delays the adult work of reform.

The playbook for getting out of this without breaking the republic is not rocket science. Do not pour kerosene on Wi-Fi and call it governance. Do not use live ammunition on teenagers and call it crowd control. Do not launder scandals through endless committees and call it accountability. Ensure a short, credible election roadmap with guardrails, supervised procurement for security gear with human rights safeguards, and a judicial fast track for graft and abuse cases. If you must regulate platforms, do it the boring way with due process and content-neutral rules that survive court review. That is how you de-risk the street and onboard the generation that will actually pay the taxes.

For Bangladesh, the comparative lesson is double-edged. First, never again treat digital rights as a luxury item. When the street is online, a platform blackout is a force multiplier for anger, not a safety valve. Second, interim does not mean indefinite. Our path improves only when the rules are clearer than the personalities. The more our institutions behave like institutions, the less any single crisis becomes existential. Nepal's shock should prompt us to finish our own homework on police reform, election administration, party finance transparency, emergency law, and other essential reforms.

The takeaway for the region is practical. South Asia does not have a protest problem; it has a consent problem. Governments that earn consent through delivery and fairness rarely face mobs at their doors. Governments that mock consent will keep discovering that Gen Z is not a focus group, it is a force. If we insist on stability without justice, we will keep buying quiet that expires before the ink on the curfew order dries. If we invest in institutions that outlast leaders, we might finally get the most underrated outcome in politics—boredom. Boring budgets, boring elections, boring headlines. That is the growth hack the subcontinent needs next.

Barrister Khan Khalid Adnan is advocate at the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, fellow at the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, and head of the chamber at Khan Saifur Rahman and Associates in Dhaka.

Views expressed in this article are the author's own.

Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.