Interview | Nepal’s Ex-Foreign Minister Pradeep Kumar Gyawali on Gen Z Protests and Geopolitical Interests

The Gen-Z youth sought permission for a peaceful demonstration demanding that the government lift the ban on a social-media platform, which had been restricted to compel its local registration in Nepal. The government permitted the youth to protest. However, no one—not even the government—could have anticipated the dangerous game unfolding behind the scenes. Within two hours after the demonstration began, various elements infiltrated the crowd. They breached the restricted zone and used innocent college students as human shields while inciting them to set fire to the parliament building. In the ensuing chaos, police firing occurred, claiming the lives of 19 young people.

The government had hoped that the movement would remain peaceful. However, it failed to foresee that the demonstration would be hijacked and become deadly, or that the loss of young lives would be exploited to push the country down a dangerous path of des­truction, leading to the overthrow of an elected government and the dissolution of parliament within 24 hours.

We are observing the inception of the Cockroach Janta Party and its demonstrations in India. We do not know everything, nor are we fully aware of its key figures and some of the references surrounding it seem unusual. Nevertheless, every democracy must guarantee its citizens’ rights to peacefully assemble, organise and protest. Citizens must be able to present their demands to the government. However, any transition of power must adhere to the democratic processes prescribed by the constitution.

The fact that a permitted peaceful protest turned violent so rapidly remains a mystery in itself. On the evening of the first day of protests, September 8, the home minister resigned, taking moral responsibility for the tragic incident. The cabinet expressed deep sorrow over the loss of life and decided to lift the social media ban, order a judicial inquiry into the incident and provide free medical treatment to the injured.

However, those who hijacked the peaceful movement had a different motive. They launched a nationwide rampage the following day, which persisted until the army was deployed to restore order. Our experience shows that the proper approach is to respect the rights of peaceful protesters and seek solutions through dialogue. If underlying motives exist, it is the duty of the govern­ment to investigate and unearth the truth.

The unprecedented advancement of information technology, the expanding influence of social media, the proliferation of online misinformation and a growing sense of youth alienation from family, society and traditional democratic institutions represent the global challenges today. Young people in developing countries often appear dissatisfied with the hard-won achievements of their nations. Absorbed in the virtual world, they compare their societies to Western standards and demand immediate transformation overnight. Their aversion to—or limited understanding of—the complex processes of history and democracy appears to be a common structural challenge.

Beyond these widespread issues, geopolitical interests are also clearly at play. It can reasonably be assumed that the shifting global balance of power, the rise of Asia and the growing influence of groupings such as the BRICS [an intergovernmental organisation of 11 major economies]and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation are viewed unfavourably by certain powers that dominate world politics. Their tendency to create instability and exploit it to their advantage is well known. Therefore, I cannot dismiss the assessment that geopolitical factors played a role in the developments observed in the aforementioned countries.

Undoubtedly. Nepal and India share such a close and multifaceted relation that even minor developments across the border resonate on the other side. Positive developments yield positive outcomes, while negative events bring adverse consequences. Instability harms every sector, including economic development, cross-border trade, cultural exchange and tourism. It was alarming to hear certain protesters in Delhi chanting slogans such as “We will burn down Parliament like in Nepal”.

The primary focus of the interim government—and the administration formed following the March elections—was political revenge and retaliation. Instead of managing the transition efficiently, addressing the legitimate concerns of the youth and strengthening democratic institutions, their energies were spent in dehumanising leaders and political parties that had championed democracy for over half a century, fabricating false charges against political figures and shielding the perpetrators of violence. There is a real fear that violence could become the normalised medium to express grievance and a routine mechanism for political turmoil. We have strived to prevent this outcome.

Though holding the election by the interim government was a positive step, the promises to establish a Gen Z Youth Council, providing relief to the families of martyrs and constructing a memorial for them remain unfulfilled. Consequently, the very youth who led the movement are now returning to the streets or voicing sharp criticism against the government. While these domestic experiences may not apply to India, we believe proactive dialogue is essential to prevent youth disillusionment.