Author: Dipin Subedi
The course of politics in Nepal has become uncertain following the Generation Z (Gen Z) movement on September 8th, 2025. This movement was primarily triggered by the prohibition on social media by the government. The ban acted as a reason for immediate spark, which was a reflection of the deep-seated frustrations over corruption, nepotism, and an unaccountable governance system. Youths across the nation, hence, led street protests condemning this action. An end to nepotism and corruption was their primary demand. This movement differed from other protests in that it was leaderless. Additionally, no political party or established influencers participated in the protests, which were primarily attended by youth aged 17-28.
Photo Credit: Prabin Ranabhat/AFP/Getty Images
The nationwide movement, however, culminated in the indiscriminate killing of school children by the police while demonstrating. Mob violence ensued, and with it, chaos. Without either a pre-appointed political organization or the government claiming any responsibility, the nation has been drawn ever deeper into darkness.
It now appears, after almost four months have passed, that the voices raised by Gen Z have been silenced. The martyrs of the movement have been forgotten with an ease that feels disconcerting. The experience of the movement, however, has left an indelible mark on this generation, the pangs of which continue to trouble them. Youths in Sunsari district of Nepal, where two people were martyred on the first day, were asked to reflect upon their lived experience and the further consequences of this heightened political tension. Their responses were predominantly ferocious, though at moments they softened into a plaintive lament as they looked back and yielded to a pessimistic outlook as they looked forward.
The conversation with the youth almost invariably brought forth the major concern that precipitated the protests: corruption. This moral lapse in the governing class, they explained, had become an existential, inescapable reality. The evils of corruption had dug deep roots and become so inescapable that the horizon of opportunities was crossed out, and so was their sense of the future. In their collective awareness, corruption was also the cause of emigration, social and economic inequality, and delayed development. Although it was the social media ban that triggered the movement, they affirmed without surprise how a visceral disgust against the corrupt officials had also provided an additional force to the nationwide Gen Z movements. “The Gen Z exposed what was hidden”, they said.
They were stunned, however, at the casual disregard shown by the interim government to their demands for investigating leaders and administrators involved in corruption. One of them said, “Accountability mechanisms must be established that investigate the property and extravagant lifestyles of corrupt leaders who must face meaningful consequences.” Some believed it possible to bring back siphoned money to rebuild the infrastructure destroyed during the movement. “Even if 30 percent of the money lost to corruption were recovered”, one of them said, “reconstruction is possible”. Moreover, the youth were furious upon the apprehension of those involved in the movement instead of those who had plundered public resources. This act was to them a sign of complicity on the part of the interim government in an attempt to maintain the political status quo.
The Gen-Z participants were taken aback to an even greater extent by the conduct of old political parties. They were infuriated at their silence and claimed that old political leaders are “completely deaf” to the din of the turmoil. The youth accused the politicians of not showing an ounce of remorse or atoning for past deeds. In addition, bureaucrats were also perceived as a group that stood aloof and enjoyed their quiet comfort, as if cognizant and sure of their faceless influence upon political matters, come what may.
An inwards gaze and self-appraisal were likewise present in their conversations. They chided themselves frequently for the people they vote into power repeatedly. They said, “We are also corrupt, we keep electing the same old people, perhaps due to our caste bias and irrational prejudices”.
Upon being questioned about the root causes of the anarchy on the second day, the Gen Z youths showed exceptional sagacity in their responses. Beyond political grievances, they attributed the cause of the disorder to systemic social failings. They remembered instances where people just stood by as the houses burned. “We passively witnessed the tragedy, showing little compassion or human concern”, they said. To add insult to injury, they caught glimpses of “illicit drug users, product of deeper neglect by the authorities, joining the ranks of the agitated mob, looting whatever they could lay their hands upon, and wreaking havoc upon the community.” The youths, therefore, saw this movement not only as an eruption of political grievances but also of unattended social grievances.
Another systemic injustice they found deeply relatable was the normalization of a growing social and economic inequality. They recounted instances where they either felt or heard someone feeling trapped in a societal system where prosperity is inherited and where no ample room for social mobility allotted for merit. The injustice that barred all avenues of hope and social fairness, along with the burden of unemployment and debt, more often than not, developed into despair that proved fatal at times. They said, “Nepo kids go abroad and study, while youth in Nepal are unemployed and take their own lives.”
They deduced, therefore, that societal values and institutions have quite an influence upon each other. The indifference shown by the political and administrative institutions towards the suffering of the common people has robbed trust and belief in their country and society.
In a melancholic retrospection, the youths also realized they had been the victims of a power struggle. Mob violence hijacked the movement that demanded transformation and accountability. The long-hoped-for transformation came to an abrupt end, and a generational optimism in the youths was curtailed prematurely. They somewhat felt dejected that their optimism dragged their society into fear and confusion, leaving no room for calm speculation about the future.
According to the youths, their whole generation is not only disappointed with the political elites and institutions post-movement but has started to lose faith in the practice of democracy. A disquieting reality was revealed as their peers were killed with whom they joined hands, for the first time in their lives, to raise a collective voice against an unjust political system.
Furthermore, they painfully observed post-movement that the citizens and institutions of Nepal had become numb to the sacrifices endured by advocates of change.
Participants engaged in a sustained discussion on another misunderstanding created by the chaos that transpired on the second day of the movement. They reported the creation of a yawning gulf between their age group and older generations. The latter have started to dismiss the former as ‘troublemakers’. Such a misunderstanding was an unprecedented outcome of the movement, they say, which has torn asunder the ties of trust and faith between generations.
This was visible especially at the administration offices at the local levels. State officials brush the Gen Zs aside, and so do the security personnel. Their age group, young participants said, was perceived more as agitators and potential conspirators than citizens. Institutional and generational divide, along with social stigmatization, has assumed such proportions that it directly acts to discourage the youths from civic participation.
Young people also possess their share of mistrust of the older folks. They expressed no trust at all in the caretaker government and its ability to hold elections on time. They said, They do not trust the old politicians highly enough to believe that they will relinquish power all too readily.
The most troubling outcome of all trusts that were shattered, said the participants, was inflicted upon the youth cohort itself. “What could have been a unified youth movement”, many felt, “became fragmented in the appearance of ‘Congress Gen Z’ or ‘UML Gen Z’”. Mistrust has, as a result, started to pervade the ranks of Gen Zs, occasioned by their visible and unconditional loyalty to orthodox party lines, which has proved to be a hurdle for dialogues. In a solidarity that proved but transient, trust has become a casualty.
Finally, an unsettling yet deeply troubling question was raised frequently by the youths: “Was this revolution truly ours?” Almost everyone conveyed their own point of view to explain why the movement was derailed. While some feared that a deliberate foreign intervention was the key to this commotion, others suspected that domestic infiltrators sought to complicate and delegitimize the movement and its original intentions.
The sense of ownership over the movement was also deeply impaired, the participants believe, due to the media which unfairly defamed Gen Z. The media, they held, were instrumentalized by those in power to suppress dissent. Instead of broadcasting the genuine grievances of the youths, the media chose to ascribe to them the chaos of an external exploitation, manipulating the audience into a false rhetoric. Since a righteous indignation has been unfairly instrumentalized, the youth have grown even more frustrated.
Future Trajectory
A country engulfed in turmoil provides little hope or expectations of improved prospects for the Gen Z demographic. A few who remained optimistic continued to work for the common good despite the accusations leveled at them. In the political sphere, they prescribed constitutional amendments and the institutionalization of the right to recall petitions as significant steps towards national progress. The overarching sentiment was, however, fear: the fear of another outbreak of violence; the fear that new elections will favor none but the old faces; the fear of declining faith; the fear of disunity; the fear of stagnation; the fear, eventually, that democracy might no longer be relevant in Nepal.
Author Introduction
Dipin Subedi is a research associate at CSC, bringing a multidisciplinary approach to academic research and policy analysis. He holds a Bachelor’s degree in Applied Economics and a Master’s degree in Political Science and Government. With extensive experience in research and think tanks, he specializes in evidence-based analysis of trade, migration, climate change, governance, and foreign policy. Committed to an ecological perspective on societal issues, he emphasizes data-driven insights to inform policy and decision-making.
The views and opinions expressed in the piece above are solely those of the original author(s) and contributor(s). They do not necessarily represent the views of Governance Monitoring Centre Nepal and/or Centre for Social Change.
