Nepal’s Gen Z Revolt Faces Old Guard Resistance

Nepal once again stands at a political crossroads. The 2025 Gen Z uprising, which toppled the government and dissolved Parliament in just 48 hours, has ignited hopes for a “Naya Nepal” a new, inclusive and democratic nation. Yet, for many, the moment feels all too familiar: another dawn that may fade into disillusionment.

The protests, driven largely by young Nepalis frustrated with corruption, unemployment, and exclusionary politics, were leaderless yet digitally coordinated. Through WhatsApp and Discord, protesters crowdsourced a symbolic vote endorsing former Chief Justice Sushila Karki to lead an interim government and oversee elections within six months. It was an inventive democratic experiment  but one born of deep political despair.

Amid the euphoria, voices of caution have emerged. Indigenous rights activist Tashi Lahzom expressed fear that Nepal might slip back into autocracy. “Am I going to wake up as the King’s subject again? That’s really scary,” she said, anxious about rising royalist sentiment. Her concerns were echoed by Madhesh activist Anjali Sah, who worried that hard-won democratic gains  federalism, secularism, and inclusion  could be lost in the chaos. “At what cost, the loss of so many lives, the destruction of heritage, if even what we have disappears?” she asked.

This anxiety draws from history. Nepal’s political transitions  from Jana Andolan I (1990) to Jana Andolan II (2006)  have repeatedly promised transformation but ended with elite capture. The dream of an inclusive Nepal, enshrined in the Constituent Assembly I (2008), was undermined by the return of old upper-caste political forces during CA II (2013–2015). Identity-based federalism gave way to territorial arrangements that diluted representation for Madhesis, Dalits, and Janajatis.

Today, the same old guard seems poised to regain control. The UML’s K.P. Sharma Oli may have resigned as Prime Minister but continues to dominate his party. The Nepali Congress has shown no signs of internal reform or generational change. Meanwhile, the Maoist factions, once champions of revolution, appear fractured and opportunistic  their leaders trading ideology for political survival.

Figures like Balan Shah, Kathmandu’s popular mayor, and Rabi Lamichhane, the media personality-turned-politician, have drawn attention as potential disruptors. Yet even their appeal may be fleeting if structural inequalities and patronage networks remain intact. As political scholar Lok Raj Baral notes, Nepal’s dominant upper-caste leaders have repeatedly co-opted or splintered progressive movements, maintaining control through fragmentation.

The social fabric of Nepal  divided among hill high-castes, janajatis, and Madhesi groups  complicates the struggle for genuine inclusion. Despite demographic diversity, political power continues to concentrate among the Khas Arya elite. The failure of past movements to dismantle this structure has bred widespread disillusionment, especially among youth who see their aspirations betrayed by generations of leaders.

External dynamics add another layer. India’s reactions to Nepal’s internal shifts have historically influenced its political direction. In 2015, New Delhi’s diplomatic “noting” of Nepal’s new Constitution signaled dissatisfaction over how Madhesi demands were sidelined and prompted the insertion of a clause to “protect and promote Sanatan Dharma.” As Hindu nationalist sentiment grows across South Asia, the specter of a restored monarchy aligned with Hindutva politics looms larger than before.

For Nepal’s Gen Z activists, this moment is both thrilling and terrifying. Their movement embodies a hunger for democratic renewal  yet the absence of structure or leadership leaves it vulnerable to co-option. Listening to digital debates among young Nepalis, what stands out is their awareness of internal divides: hill elites versus Madhesis, secularists versus royalists, urban digital natives versus rural poor. These fractures threaten to repeat history’s cycle of false dawns.

Whether this uprising becomes a true turning point depends on one question: can Nepal’s youth sustain their movement beyond the streets and into institutions? Without that, the same entrenched elite  adept at survival and reinvention  will once again reclaim the narrative of “stability” while burying the promise of transformation.

Nepal’s Gen Z revolution has rekindled old hopes   but it also reminds the nation how fragile democracy can be when power refuses to change hands. The next few months will determine whether this is the beginning of a new era, or just another chapter in Nepal’s long story of broken promises.