Why youths in Nepal suddenly erupted into bloody protest

Although Nepal, at the foot of the Himalayas, is well known for its geographical diversity, cultural heritage and rich history, its journey as a state has been far from smooth. Since independence the country has passed through many political experiments—sometimes monarchy, sometimes democratic rule, and at times military influence. After the abolition of the monarchy in 2008 and the transition to a republic, Nepalis hoped for a new future. People expected that after years of turmoil a democratic culture would be established, corruption would decrease, development would be for all, and governance would become transparent. Sadly, those expectations remain unfulfilled.

The recent deaths of at least nineteen people in student and youth protests under police gunfire have proved that political instability is still part of Nepal’s everyday reality. The generation used to expressing themselves on social media exploded in anger when the government suddenly tried to silence them. On 4 August 2025, the Nepalese government abruptly announced that Facebook, WhatsApp, X (Twitter) and twenty-six other popular social media platforms could no longer be used. The government argued that these were operating without official registration in Nepal and that, in the interests of national security, their activities needed to be controlled. But ordinary people, especially the young, saw this as an infringement on democratic rights.

Within days the situation turned tense. On Monday morning, thousands of students and young people gathered in front of Parliament in the capital, Kathmandu. At first the protest was peaceful, confined to slogans and processions. But when demonstrators tried to cross the barricades of Parliament House, clashes broke out with the police. According to the police, they only fired into the air to control the situation, but eyewitnesses insist that the bullets were aimed directly at the protesters. As a result, at least 19 people were killed and many more injured. A protester described the heart-rending scene of watching his friend collapse before his eyes after being shot in the head.

Many say that although the movement began with the ban on social media, beneath it lies long-standing anger and frustration. Allegations of corruption against the current government led by Prime Minister K. P. Sharma Oli are nothing new. Lack of transparency in public projects, abuse of power, waste of resources and the pursuit of party interests have eroded young people’s trust. At the same time, economic inequality is increasing. Unemployment, overdependence on foreign jobs and the lack of opportunities in the domestic market have fuelled further discontent.

For the younger generation, social media is not merely a place of entertainment; it has become a space for organisation, a platform for expression and an integral part of democratic practice. When the government imposed a ban, they took it as a deprivation of fundamental rights. Many youths believe it is not only about communication but a political tactic to silence their voice. When this frustration joined with corruption, inequality and political instability, the protest quickly erupted.

Political instability in Nepal is nothing new. Power changes hands frequently, party feuds flare up and no long-term policy is implemented. As a result, the younger generation has increasingly lost faith in politicians. They feel that the current political leadership is incapable of solving the country’s problems. That is why they themselves have taken to the streets to make their stance clear.

Although the protest began peacefully, excessive use of force by the police turned it violent. Tear gas, rubber bullets and even live ammunition have further damaged the government’s image. In a democratic state, the use of lethal force to suppress peaceful protest undermines the legitimacy of government in the eyes of the people. Analysing this event, two major mistakes stand out. First, the government did not try to find the root cause of the protest, but treated it merely as a law-and-order problem. Second, by banning social media it sought to gag the public, which only fuelled anger.

The end of the monarchy and the start of the republic in 2008 was a major milestone in Nepal’s history. A new constitution, multi-party democracy and promises of civil liberty had made people hopeful. But in reality governments have repeatedly collapsed, constitutional disputes have arisen and political parties have been preoccupied with their own interests. As a result, the values that democracy was supposed to protect—transparency, accountability, and public participation—are still not functioning.

Today’s generation realises that the elected government is not serving the people but is prepared to take any step to stay in power. That is why they have taken to the streets demanding the true spirit of democracy. At the heart of their movement are anti-corruption positions, the demand for equality, and the right to free expression.

Nepal’s political turmoil is not only an internal problem, it can affect the whole of South Asia. Because of its geographical position, Nepal is strategically tied to India, and China also gives it importance. Instability in Nepal could intensify the strategic rivalry between its two powerful neighbours. At the same time, the ban on social media and police repression are increasing international concern over Nepal’s human rights situation. Economically, the situation is also risky. Remittances from foreign employment are one of the main pillars of Nepal’s economy. But if political and social unrest continues, even that economic foundation could be shaken.

There are two ways forward out of the present crisis. One is the path of repression, where the government takes a harsher stance and uses force to suppress the movement. This may increase violence, weaken democracy and cast a long shadow over Nepal’s future. The other is the path of dialogue and reform, where the government listens carefully to the demands of young people, cracks down on corruption and builds transparent administration. By withdrawing the ban on social media and protecting freedom of expression, the government could regain trust.

Today’s situation shows that the essence of democracy is not just elections. True democracy means ensuring people’s fundamental rights, bringing transparency and accountability in governance, and giving citizens the opportunity to express themselves freely. When a government turns away from these, citizens erupt in protest, especially the young who live with dreams of the future.

The decision to ban social media in Nepal, the deaths of young people by police bullets and the government’s unaccountable behaviour have only deepened the crisis. Now the question is whether the government will go down the path of repression or that of democratic dialogue and reform. The anger that has now spread to the streets is not confined to social media; it is the outburst of long-pent-up resentment against corruption, inequality and ineffective governance. If this discontent is not properly addressed, Nepal’s political instability will deepen further. But if dialogue, reform and accountability are pursued, Nepal’s democracy may yet be revitalised.

Chiraranjan Sarkar: Columnist