Nepal’s Gen Z Didn’t Topple the Government, But They Deserve Credit for It

Gen Z Elsewhere Must Study Nepal’s Youth and Governments Must Pay Attention

By Vishal Arora

September 27, 2025

“Gen Z” marked on the floor of Nepal’s vandalised, charred federal parliament in Kathmandu. Photo by Vishal Arora

Closer attention to what happened in Nepal suggests that the government did not fall solely because of the Gen Z protests, but because of the chain of events they triggered. It is crucial for Gen Z movements elsewhere to understand the role Nepal’s youth played in the change, so that their hopes are not misplaced and their decisions not misguided. The story also carries lessons for governments around the world.

The Plot

On September 8, protests led by thousands of young people and triggered by a social media ban began peacefully, with larger demands to end corruption and nepotism and to express disillusionments with the three largest mainstream political parties. A group of “vested interests” is believed to have infiltrated the protest and attempted to force their way into the parliament building. Police responded with indiscriminate gunfire, killing 19 young people. The act of untenable state violence turned public sentiment against the government.

However, Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli did not resign. He appeared confident that he could manage the damage to the government’s reputation.

The next day, Gen Z protesters returned to the streets, but so did the “vested” groups, this time vandalising government buildings and assaulting MPs and ministers. The police, facing public anger, was in no position to contain the unrest. Some officers were lynched by the crowd. Knowing he could soon become a target, Oli reportedly asked the army to intervene. According to an op-ed by local publisher and journalist Kanak Mani Dixit in The Wire, the army is believed to have refused unless he resigned, arguing that he no longer had public legitimacy. Oli stepped down soon after.

Who, then, were the “vested” groups? According to Dixit, “Those who flooded the streets and stormed institutions likely included common criminals, party cadres, former Maoist guerrillas, renegade Gen Z members and monarchist-anarchists acting under internal and external influence.”

The subtext of the first public address by Nepal’s interim Prime Minister Sushila Karki, appointed at the insistence of Gen Z leaders, was that young protesters had not engaged in vandalism or physical attacks. “The kind of arson and vandalism that has taken place is a criminal act. How can those who commit such acts be called Nepali? Whatever happened has surprised me. This was carried out in an organized manner. Those responsible must be punished,” she said on Sept. 14, as reported by Nepal’s Republica newspaper.

The Story

Should we then say that the “vested” groups, and not the peaceful Gen Z protesters, brought change in Nepal? The answer is a clear “no.” We must not rely on the sequence of events alone, which is merely the plot of this complex story. The essence lies in how those 48 hours are interpreted.

Gen Z’s protest brought moral weight to the issues of corruption, nepotism and authoritarianism. They were peaceful, honest, passionate and courageous, speaking out for the country as a whole. The killing of 19 young people in police firing shocked the public and turned much of the country against the government. It exposed the state’s loss of control and deepened public mistrust, destroying the government’s remaining legitimacy. That moment of crisis left the government politically vulnerable. Vested interests, sensing the state’s weakness and public anger, entered the scene to push their own agendas. They used the unrest as cover to damage property and disrupt institutions. Their actions ended up accelerating the fall of the government.

In other words, the fall of the government became politically unavoidable once it lost public legitimacy through the use of illegitimate violence. It was only a matter of time before that fall occurred, and at the tipping point, the vested groups created anarchy that forced Oli to resign. Their intrusive and unsolicited role lasted barely 48 hours within a movement that had been underway for months, initiated and led by Gen Z, a movement that continues and is likely to remain active for months, perhaps even years, to come.

Oli’s government fell because its own actions broke the bond of trust that makes rule possible.

Had Gen Z resorted to vandalism and violence, they would likely have lost the moral weight behind the popular demand for change, and with it, the strength of their voice, the trust of the people, and the opportunity to oversee a transition they continue to guard and watchdog.

Lessons

Gen Z in other countries should see this as a reminder that peaceful protest can force political accountability. The legitimacy of a government or political authority rests not only on laws and institutions but also on the consent of the people. A visible withdrawal of that consent, as expressed through large-scale, peaceful protest, creates a crisis of legitimacy for the government. In Nepal, Gen Z used peaceful mobilisation to withdraw consent in full public view, stripping the government of its moral claim to rule. They demonstrated that political accountability does not always depend on elections or elite negotiations, it can also be demanded from below, through collective, disciplined action that exposes a government’s loss of public trust.

Governments should see this as a warning. A peaceful protest led by young people expresses what many others also want to say but are afraid to do so. Silencing them through violence can backfire, especially in moments when public trust is already fragile. A state that responds with force instead of listening risks losing the moral ground entirely. Once that legitimacy is lost, even the strongest institutions can begin to falter.

You have just read a News Briefing by Newsreel Asia, written to cut through the noise and present a single story for the day that matters to you. Certain briefings, based on media reports, seek to keep readers informed about events across India, others offer a perspective rooted in humanitarian concerns and some provide our own exclusive reporting. We encourage you to read the News Briefing each day. Our objective is to help you become not just an informed citizen, but an engaged and responsible one.