Contextual Overview

·       The political upheaval in Nepal following the Gen Z-led protests of September 2025 marks a significant inflection point in the region’s democratic trajectory. Unlike earlier movements in Nepal, which were primarily orchestrated by political parties, this wave of dissent was driven by the country’s younger generation. Frustrated by systemic corruption, entrenched elite control, and a stagnating economy that offers limited opportunities, this generation mobilised independently of traditional power structures.

·       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 have exposed both the fragility and resilience of Nepal’s democratic framework. When viewed against the broader canvas of regional unrest in South Asia throughout the 2020s, Nepal’s transition reflects deeper trends: a generational shift, institutional fragility, and a widening crisis of political legitimacy.

A Region in Flux: Turbulence Across South Asia

Nepal’s political turmoil is part of a wider pattern of instability that has affected much of South Asia over the past decade. In 2021, Myanmar witnessed a return to military rule; the same year, Afghanistan fell once more under Taliban control. Sri Lanka’s 2022 Aragalaya protests led to the ousting of President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, while in 2023, mass unrest erupted in Pakistan following the arrest of Imran Khan. In Bangladesh, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina was forced to step down in 2024 under intense public pressure. Though the precise causes of these crises differ, they are bound by shared threads: rising youth dissatisfaction, chronic unemployment among the younger demographic, and entrenched political elites resistant to reform. Myanmar and Pakistan remain largely under military dominance, Afghanistan continues to struggle with the legacy of failed foreign interventions, and Sri Lanka and Bangladesh have long been governed by dynastic politics. In every case, however, youth movements have emerged as powerful agents of change, challenging authoritarian structures, systemic corruption, and political stagnation.

Nepal’s Distinctive Trajectory

·       Despite sharing regional parallels, Nepal’s political evolution is marked by unique characteristics. The 1990 Jan Aandolan curtailed royal power and ushered in a multi-party democratic system, laying the foundation for political pluralism. However, since the adoption of the 2015 constitution, Nepal has experienced seven different governments—an apparent instability that has nonetheless featured a recurring cast of political actors.

·       Figures such as Oli, Prachanda, and Sher Bahadur Deuba have cycled through positions of power, embedding a culture of political inertia and corruption that has obstructed economic progress. The Maoist insurgency (1996–2006) and its eventual resolution transformed Nepal into a federal republic in 2008, yet the aspirations for inclusive, accountable governance remain largely unfulfilled. The protests of 2025 do not merely signal opposition to a particular administration; they reflect a profound rejection of an entire political establishment perceived as unresponsive, unaccountable, and self-serving.

Interim Government: Cautious Optimism Amid Challenges

·       The military’s role in facilitating negotiations and ensuring public order, along with President Ramchandra Paudel’s dependence on army mediation, underscores the tenuous grip of civilian authority in this transitional moment. The appointment of Sushila Karki as interim Prime Minister represents a cautious step toward stabilisation. Her administration has outlined three principal objectives: conducting general elections scheduled for March 5, 2026; initiating inquiries into police brutality and protest-related violence; and launching investigations into systemic corruption.

·       However, these goals are laden with complexity. Nepal’s judicial infrastructure is ill-equipped to support expedited legal proceedings, while the infiltration of protests by politically affiliated gangs further clouds the path to accountability. More broadly, proposals for constitutional amendments—including the potential elimination of federalism or alterations to proportional representation—threaten to unravel the delicate post-2006 consensus. Such changes risk marginalising ethnic and regional groups like the Madhesis, Janjatis, and Tharus, potentially reigniting long-dormant ethnic tensions.

Youth, Democracy, and the Legitimacy Crisis

·       At the core of Nepal’s democratic crisis lies a stark generational divide. With youth unemployment exceeding 20%, frustration is mounting against a political elite widely seen as benefiting from patronage networks while neglecting substantive reform. The Gen Z-led protests are not merely expressions of discontent but also indicators of a collective desire for new political paradigms. The central challenge now lies in whether this emerging movement can evolve into structured political formations capable of navigating governance.

·       The forthcoming elections present both an opening and a risk. Established parties require time—and willingness—to undergo internal reform, something that veteran leaders may actively resist. Simultaneously, new youth-led movements may find themselves hampered by inexperience and organisational limitations. There is also the possibility that pro-monarchy factions might exploit the prevailing disillusionment for their own agenda. Thus, the March 2026 elections will serve as a pivotal test of whether Nepal can transition from protest-driven activism to meaningful democratic renewal.

India’s Stance and Broader Regional Consequences

India, historically accused of exerting undue influence in Nepal’s internal affairs, has adopted a measured approach in the wake of recent events. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s congratulatory message to interim leader Sushila Karki has been interpreted as a gesture of support devoid of overt interference. Given the growing turbulence across the region, a stable Nepal is very much in India’s strategic interest. Should the electoral process proceed peacefully and transparently, Nepal could emerge as a rare example of democratic resilience at a time when much of South Asia appears to be drifting toward authoritarianism or political dysfunction.

Conclusion: Between Promise and Peril

Nepal’s current transitional moment captures both the risks and potential of generational change in South Asia. The Gen Z protests have succeeded in disrupting the entrenched monopoly of established elites, but the harder task lies ahead—translating popular discontent into structural reform without destabilising the fragile democratic consensus forged since the end of the monarchy. The general elections scheduled for March 2026 are of critical importance. If conducted with integrity and broad participation, they could herald a new era of accountable and inclusive governance. However, if they are marred by political opportunism, institutional decay, or ill-conceived constitutional experimentation, Nepal risks falling back into the cyclical instability that has plagued its modern political history.