As youth protests culminated in a Parliament March in New Delhi in the third week of July, and as reels of young protesters went viral on social media, most Nepalis were watching the developments in India with a sense of dread: What will happen to the government of Narendra Modi? Most Nepalis had one (expressed or unexpressed) wish: May what happened in Nepal on September 9 never happen in India.
Why did Nepalis think so? Why did they wish what they wished?
As people sharing an affinity with India on multiple levels and in multiple layers, Nepalis have always wished well for India and the Indian people. But the reason they had that particular wish is because of their own lived experience of youth protests and the events that followed.
Few may have thought the protests of September 8, 2025, called by the Gen Zs, would spiral into a mammoth mass agitation. The common feeling among the people at large, who had full support for the anti-corruption protests, was that the demonstration would be peaceful, and the nation would return to business as usual on September 9.
That was not meant to be.
The protests were an expression of pent-up frustration against malgovernance, which had been building for years. Students from schools, colleges, and universities were ready to hit the streets if that would help hold the government - thought to be thoroughly corrupt and utterly insensitive to the youth's voice - to account.
It would probably have ended up that way too. But when protesting youth clashed with police personnel in Kathmandu on September 8, the first day of the protest, and the police opened fire, the protest took a deadly, ugly turn. Young students were shot; over a dozen of them died while undergoing treatment in hospitals. Curfews failed to deter the angry youths, and the government ministers showed no sign of reassuring them that their genuine concerns would be addressed. Instead, government ministers, including the Prime Minister of the day, continued to speak of the Gen Z protesters in denigrating terms. It was, therefore, evident that the protest would continue on September 9 and that it would turn violent. But that it would burn down the nation was beyond anyone's imagination.
What happened on September 9 was something that Nepal had never witnessed in its history-the total breakdown of law and order. Police posts, the houses of political leaders, Singha Durbar (the Rana-era palace that houses the administrative offices of the Government of Nepal), the Supreme Court, the Parliament building, ministers' quarters, hotels and supermarkets were attacked, vandalised, looted or set ablaze. The nation had fallen apart; anarchy had been loosed upon Nepal, it seemed. Anyone who witnessed any of this would break down in tears.
Amid this moment of chaos, arson attacks, looting and vandalism, just anybody's house could be burnt down, just any leader could be chased away from his dwelling place, anybody could be killed. Common people prayed for peace and for the restoration of law and order. The situation began to normalise after the Nepal Army appealed for calm and was mobilised to restore order.
The rest, as they say, is history: the resignation of Prime Minister KP Oli, the formation of an interim government under the leadership of former Chief Justice Sushila Karki, the announcement of elections for the House of Representatives, the then serving Mayor of Kathmandu Metropolitan City Balendra Shah joining the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), the RSP emerging as the largest force, and the formation of the government under the leadership of Balendra Shah.
Wounds And Scars
The deaths of September 8 and the vandalism, arson attacks, deaths and destruction of September 9 not only left a deep scar on the country's image of peace and harmony but also challenged the long-held notion that Nepal and Nepalis are fundamentally peaceful, with no animosity or ill feeling towards anyone. Neither the political parties that were in power at the time nor the youths who led the protests have been able to come to terms with the trauma of loss and destruction.
While the old guard lives with the guilt of its apathy towards the legitimate concerns raised by the youths, its insensitivity and lack of readiness to address their demands, and the repercussions of what a ban on social media platforms would entail for the youth, many now believe that an earlier political response-a call for talks by the Prime Minister, young leaders of the ruling parties mediating talks between the government and the Gen Zs, and some reassuring words from people in power-would possibly have reduced the risks of violence. Maybe the chaos of September 9 would not have followed; maybe the nation would not have been inflicted with such pain and loss.
On their part, those who led the protests (the majority of whom are leading the government today) have answers to why they had to hit the streets on September 8, but they have no reasonable justification for the anarchy that followed the next day. The two sides blame each other for the incidents of September 8 and 9. Questions of accountability for both the violence and the destruction are avoided by both sides as far as possible.
At times, some political actors of the pre-September 8 order point to conspiracy theories that the whole episode was orchestrated by 'foreign elements' bent on destabilising not only Nepal but the whole of South Asia (implying India as well), but these claims are difficult to substantiate with the available evidence.
Message to India
Some argue that India's situation is incomparable to that of Nepal. True, but not entirely.
Nepal's Gen Z protests were fuelled by years of malgovernance that had gnawed at the nation to its core, a lack of accountability, corruption and a lack of opportunities for the youth. The frustration had reached a boiling point; the government's decision to ban 26 social media platforms acted as a trigger that unleashed it.
In India, the NEET paper leaks and controversial remarks by a Supreme Court judge appear to have worked as a catalyst in uniting the youth in protest.
In India, the restraint shown by the youth helped keep much of the movement peaceful, and the security forces appear to have acted with restraint, although allegations of excessive force have emerged. The resignation of Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, interpreted as a 'victory' by protesters, led the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) to call off the immediate protests, but the possibility of their resumption still remains.
Youths in India and Nepal have common aspirations: They want jobs, they want transparency, accountable government, corruption-free governance, they want to be heard, they want results, and they want the government to safeguard their future in their own homes. When their expectations are not met, when they feel that the government is treating them unfairly, when corruption, or the perception of corruption, becomes rampant, they can resort to protests and demonstrations.
Needless to say, Nepal and India differ significantly in size, economic structures and political dynamics. Yet the dynamics of youth movements and the government response offer valuable lessons for each other.
First, when the youth rise and speak out, the government must listen before anger becomes rage. Undermining their voices and denigrating them can be costly. On their part, the youth need to be cognisant that governance is about process, the government has limitations, and it is not always possible to address all of their demands. Maturity, tolerance, reason and the ability to listen to the other side are the hallmarks of leadership.
Second, institutions and the way they function can be flawed. But they need reform; destroying physical structures is not the answer. They can be destroyed in a matter of moments in a fit of rage, but doing so will also destroy your image, your reputation and belittle your national and global standing.
Third, toppling the government might give a sense of respite for a moment, but being in government and being able to work as per the expectations of the people is a whole new ball game. In Nepal, criticism of the governing party that came to power after the Gen Z movement is growing, mostly because the new ministers are facing the challenge of proving themselves different from those whom they deposed in September 2025. They are being questioned for failing to deliver on the promises they made. This, in turn, is helping supporters of the old establishment vindicate their claims that the youth have neither the skills nor the acumen to run the country.
So finally, it all boils down to this: The right to protest is fundamental in a democracy. The responsibility to govern is equally fundamental. When governments mistake dissent for a threat and protesters mistake destruction for change, the end result is the erosion of democratic order. Both sides should be mindful of the fact that a moment of political anger should not inflict lasting damage on the nation's future.
The Indian people and the government are wise enough not to repeat Nepal's mistakes.
(The author is a Kathmandu-based journalist)
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author
