Context

• The political turmoil in Nepal following the Gen Z protests of September 2025 marks a significant turning point in South Asia’s democratic landscape.
• Unlike previous uprisings in Nepal that were largely steered by political parties, this movement was spearheaded by the younger generation, frustrated with systemic corruption, elite domination, and lack of economic opportunities.
• The resignation of Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli, the swearing-in of former Chief Justice Sushila Karki as interim Prime Minister, and the dissolution of parliament reflect both the fragility and resilience of Nepal’s democratic framework.
• Placed against the backdrop of wider regional unrest across South Asia in the 2020s, Nepal’s transition underscores broader themes of generational change, institutional weakness, and the struggle for political legitimacy.

Regional Context of Turbulence

• The upheavals in Nepal cannot be examined in isolation and the wider South Asian region has experienced a wave of political instability throughout the decade.
• Myanmar reverted to military rule in 2021; Afghanistan fell to the Taliban the same year; Sri Lanka’s Aragalaya protests of 2022 toppled President Gotabaya Rajapaksa.
• Also, Pakistan witnessed widespread protests in 2023 following the arrest of Imran Khan; and Bangladesh’s Sheikh Hasina resigned under pressure in 2024.
• Although these events share common threads, particularly the role of disillusioned youth and high youth unemployment, each country’s crisis stems from its unique political trajectory.
• Myanmar and Pakistan remain dominated by their militaries, Afghanistan continues its cycle of failed foreign interventions, while Sri Lanka and Bangladesh suffered from entrenched dynastic rule.
• In all cases, however, young populations have emerged as catalysts of change, challenging authoritarianism, corruption, and political inertia.

Nepal’s Distinctive Path

• Nepal’s political journey diverges from its neighbours in significant ways.
• Since the 1990 Jan Aandolan, which curtailed monarchical powers and introduced multi-party democracy, Nepal has seen frequent government changes, seven since the adoption of the 2015 constitution alone.
• This apparent instability masked deeper continuity: the same handful of leaders, from Oli to Prachanda to Sher Bahadur Deuba, repeatedly rotated in office, entrenching corruption and stalling economic growth.
• The Maoist insurgency (1996–2006) and subsequent peace process transformed Nepal into a republic in 2008, but the promise of stable, inclusive governance has not been realised.
• Instead, the 2025 protests reflect a rejection not just of a government, but of an entire political class perceived as self-serving and unaccountable.

The Interim Government and its Challenges

• The intervention of the army in facilitating talks and ensuring security, along with President Ramchandra Paudel’s reliance on military mediation, underscores the fragility of civilian political authority in Nepal.
• The appointment of Sushila Karki as interim Prime Minister marks a cautious step towards restoring stability.
• Her three stated priorities, ensuring elections on March 5, 2026; investigating police excesses and protest violence; and tackling high-level corruption, are ambitious yet fraught with difficulty.
• Nepal’s judicial system lacks mechanisms for fast-track prosecutions, and political gangs infiltrating the protests complicate accountability.
• More significantly, calls for constitutional amendments risk destabilising the fragile consensus built since 2006.
• Proposals to abolish federalism or alter proportional representation would alienate marginalised groups such as the Madhesis, Janjatis, and Tharus, potentially reigniting ethnic tensions.

Youth, Democracy, and the Question of Legitimacy

• At the heart of Nepal’s crisis lies a generational divide. Youth unemployment, exceeding 20%, fuels resentment against a political elite seen as benefiting from cronyism while ignoring structural reforms.
• The Gen Z protests highlight a hunger for new political platforms, but the challenge remains whether these movements can institutionalise themselves into coherent parties capable of governing.
• The upcoming elections provide both opportunity and risk. Established parties require time to undergo internal renewal, which veteran leaders may resist.
• At the same time, new youth-led forces may struggle with organisation, while pro-monarchy factions could attempt to exploit disillusionment.
• Thus, the March 2026 elections will be a critical test of whether Nepal can transition from protest-driven change to durable democratic renewal.

India’s Role and Regional Implications

• India, often accused of meddling in Nepal’s affairs, has so far responded with restraint.
• Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s congratulatory call to Sushila Karki signalled goodwill without overt interference.
• Given the turbulence across South Asia, stability in Nepal is in India’s interest.
• A fair and peaceful electoral process would serve as a counter-example to the democratic backsliding seen in neighbouring states.

Conclusion

• Nepal’s current phase of political transition encapsulates both the promise and peril of generational change in South Asia.
• While the Gen Z protests have succeeded in breaking the monopoly of entrenched elites, the task ahead lies in converting popular anger into institutional reform without destabilising the fragile democratic consensus.
• The March 2026 elections will be decisive: if conducted fairly, they could herald a new era of accountable governance; if undermined by opportunism or constitutional adventurism, they risk plunging Nepal back into cycles of instability.