Nepal’s Turmoil Exposes Cracks in its Fragile Republic

Nepal’s fragile republic is in turmoil once again. A sweeping ban on Facebook, Twitter, and two dozen other platforms last week lit the spark, but the anger had been simmering far longer. Young people, already weary of corruption and economic stagnation, poured onto the streets after the shutdown cut off their campaign networks. 

Within hours, protests swelled into violent clashes that consumed the heart of Kathmandu. Parliament, the Supreme Court, and the historic Singha Durbar secretariat were set ablaze. Prime Minister KP Oli resigned and fled, while the army appeared hesitant to defend republican institutions.

For S. D. Muni, Professor Emeritus at Jawaharlal Nehru University’s School of International Studies and a former Indian ambassador to Laos, the upheaval was less a surprise than an inevitability. Seventeen years after the monarchy was abolished, he argues, Nepal’s leaders have failed to deliver on the promise of republicanism.

Successive coalitions have collapsed under the weight of corruption and infighting, leaving politics dominated by a narrow circle of elites from the hill communities. Inequality has widened, youth unemployment hovers near 20%, and remittances now account for almost a third of national income.

The protests, he notes, are shaped by a digitally connected generation inspired by figures like Kathmandu’s mayor Balen Shah. Yet the movement remains fluid—its demands diffuse, its leadership uncertain, and its symbolism vulnerable to hijack by royalists. Whether this moment produces genuine reform or merely another cycle of instability remains an open question.

In this conversation with Rajesh Mahapatra, Muni, an expert on the Himalayan country, traces the roots of Nepal’s crisis and reflects on its implications for India.

Here is the link to the video.

Edited Excerpts:

Q: Why is Nepal burning?
A: Nepal is burning because the government has failed to deliver to its people's aspirations and expectations. For over a decade, the country has experienced widespread corruption, inefficiency, and malgovernance. The republican system, established in 2008, has seen 17 years of continuous political instability and corruption. The political leadership, primarily from three major parties, has clung to power, with leaders circulating among themselves, leading to immense frustration even within their own parties.

The immediate trigger for the recent protests was the government's sudden closure of 26 social media networks, including Facebook and Twitter. This action prevented young people from communicating about issues of corruption and inefficiency, which they believed (and perhaps rightly so) was an attempt to stop their ongoing campaign. This led to a revolt, which is what we are witnessing today. While the social media ban was a trigger, the discontent had been building up for months, even years.

Q: Were the protests spontaneous or somewhat organised?
A: The protests were spontaneous in the sense that they were triggered by the social media crisis, but the disenchantment had been building up. Youngsters were already communicating and exchanging notes on issues of leadership corruption and inefficiency, forming a network that was ready to act. When this network was suddenly frozen due to the social media shutdown, it erupted. It was in the making, and if it hadn't erupted then, it would have at some later point. The feeling that the government should go because it was not delivering was already very strong; the social media ban merely served as the sudden trigger.

Q: This is not the first time we have seen a crisis of this kind in Nepal. Nepal has been struggling to stabilise as a democracy for decades. Why?
A: The political turbulence in Nepal began in the 1950s. Before that, Nepal was ruled by the Rana regime, a feudal and autocratic system. People rose against this system in the late 1940s, inspired by India's independence struggle. In 1951, with India's mediation, the Ranas were ousted and the king’s rule restored, leading up to the establishment of a Constitutional monarchy in 1959. 

However, in 1960, King Mahendra, unhappy with the limited powers of the constitutional monarchy, staged a royal coup. He threw out the elected government, dissolved parliament, and introduced the Panchayat system. The Panchayat system also failed to deliver and eventually ended in 1990, leading to the restoration of a multi-party system and representative institutions.

In the early 2000s, these new institutions faced challenges from a Maoist insurgency that demanded the end of monarchy. In 2002, the king seized absolute power, leading to a struggle until 2006. In 2008 ultimately, the monarchy was removed, and a full republican federal system was established for the first time.

However, this republican system, over the past 17 years, has also failed to deliver, leading to continued frustration. The Maoist rebellion itself arose largely because the monarchy, which had been in power for 250 years, could not deliver. Rulers in Nepal, whether under feudal or democratic systems, have historically failed to prioritise their people's welfare. This has resulted in widespread frustration, high unemployment among young people, poverty, and stark inequality, with some being immensely wealthy while others remain deeply poor. This struggle for an anchor in democracy has spanned over seven decades.

Q: Where do you think the political parties have gone wrong?
A: The struggle for power is deeply embedded in Nepal's history. Even after the republican federal system was established, leaders have continued to vie for power against each other. The three major parties and their leaders—like Deuba of the Nepali Congress, Prachanda of the Maoists, and figures like KP Oli of the Communist Party of Nepal have been changing seats amongst themselves. This is largely because no party achieves an absolute majority, leading to fragile coalitions that frequently collapse within a year or two, resulting in constant government changes and policy shifts.

A significant issue is the dominance of hill people, particularly those from dominant castes in the hills, who have historically captured power for centuries. This extends beyond just the government to the bureaucracy, army, and police – similar to the issue of upper-caste dominance in India. The Terai, despite having almost 35% of the population, lacks an equitable share in the country's administration and economy.

The economy has suffered greatly due to these internal struggles. Nepal has two major potential resources — tourism and hydropower, but has been unable to harness them effectively. This has perpetuated abysmal poverty in what is largely an agricultural society and a rentier state, where rulers prioritize their own advantages over the welfare of the people. The inequality permeates both the economy and politics.

Q: Where are these protests headed, politically?
A: The protesters are overwhelmingly youngsters, and individuals like Sudan Gurung are part of the social network that has formed groups such as "Hamro Nepal" or "We are Nepal". They use phrases like "nepo kids" or "baby" to highlight the corruption within political families whose children enjoy privileges while the youth struggle. The symbolism they've adopted is Western, mainly influenced by social media and platforms like Facebook and Instagram. 

A significant source of inspiration for these young people is the young mayor of Kathmandu, Balen Shah, who has consistently criticised the central government's corruption and inefficiency. These young people are well-networked in smaller groups. The revolt appears to be an amorphous grouping rather than systematically organised by a single leader.

Observing the protests over two days, the first day seemed more "civilised," with violence largely attributed to the police and security forces. However, on the second day, the violence escalated and came from the protesters themselves, targeting the system and establishment. This included burning the Parliament, the Supreme Court, and the Singha Durbar or the central secretariat, which are symbols of the republican system. This shift suggests that on the second day, political activists of other opposition parties might have quietly joined in.

There is also a strong suspicion that royalists have taken advantage of the situation. The smashing of republican institutions—like the burning of the President's official house or the house of former Prime Minister Jhalanath Khanal (who had been out of power)—seems irrational if the sole aim was to target corruption. The only political formation that would benefit from the complete destruction of the republican system is the royalists, who have consistently advocated for the return of monarchy and the removal of corrupt republican leaders. While there's no concrete evidence of royalist infiltration, the pattern of destruction strongly suggests their involvement in exploiting the youth protests.

Q: Prime Minister Oli has resigned and the army is involved. What happens next?
A: The President is still believed to be in office, despite rumours of resignation. The army has now come forward, stating its commitment to protect national property and demanding an end to the unrest. There are significant questions as to why the police and army did not protect leaders, their houses, and state institutions like Parliament, the Supreme Court, or the secretariat earlier. It's been reported that Prime Minister Oli, before resigning, asked the army to take control of Kathmandu, but the army chief reportedly stated they could not act without his resignation, which likely expedited Oli's resignation.

I cannot completely rule out the possibility of sections within the security establishments being sympathetic to royalists. While the current army chief was appointed under the democratic system, some sections, equally unhappy with the government's performance, might have allowed events to unfold. It is frustrating to learn that an institution like the national army might have abandoned its duty for a day.

Regarding the future, I do not foresee the king or royalty coming back. The youngsters leading this movement have not advocated for the return of the monarchy. While royalist forces might have used the protests as a cover for violence, they are not the spokespersons of this uprising.

Instead, an interim arrangement is more likely. There is widespread discussion about bringing Kathmandu Mayor Balen Shah to head an interim government, followed by elections to introduce new leadership and parties. However, there's still a long way to go before a stable election process unfolds and a new government is formed. Nepal's society and polity are faction-ridden, making the outcome highly unpredictable.

Q: How should India be responding to it because Nepal is very important for us strategically?
A: India should remain quiet and prioritise stability. India's official statements typically follow a known format, urging peace, negotiation, and for Nepal to find its own solutions. If India indicates any preference for a particular system or leader, it risks being politically exploited by sections of Nepali nationalism, which often harbours anti-India sentiments.

Therefore, whatever India does must be done quietly and in a measured manner, without jumping into the fire, as it cannot physically douse the unrest. India's role should be to exercise its significant goodwill, which extends across Nepal's army, establishment, bureaucracy, and political leadership. Through these links, India can work to ensure that some semblance of order returns to Kathmandu and to facilitate thinking about an alternative or interim arrangement.

Q: Are there lessons here for India’s political class?
A: The political class in India must recognise that you cannot keep people frustrated for a long time. While the Indian system is quite different, with strong roots of democracy and law and order (despite some distortions), India is not currently in a position to face a situation like Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, or Nepal.