Nepal’s mass uprising raises questions on deeper causes of youth unrest

By N.S. Venkataraman* 

The recent mass uprising in Nepal, which followed similar events in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and Indonesia, is certainly a matter of concern. These four are developing countries, and some observers conclude that socio-economic issues, largely caused by widespread corruption and misgovernance, have triggered such uprisings. However, the ongoing mass uprising in France—a well-developed country—raises the question of whether socio-economic issues and corruption alone can explain these movements.

Different reasons have been attributed to the unrest in each country. In Sri Lanka, it was said to be the shortage of essential food items and an economic crisis. In Bangladesh, it was the dictatorial attitude of the government leadership. In Indonesia, anger over the perks given to politicians was cited as the cause. In Nepal, the government’s decision to ban social media posts is believed to have triggered the uprising. In France, the government’s plan to cut budget allocations for salaries and impose austerity measures is seen as the reason.

A particularly noteworthy aspect is the uniformity of these uprisings. They are often marked by street protests, storming government buildings and parliaments, forceful entry into ministers’ residences and occupying them for some time, and even setting fire to such properties. Public buildings and historical monuments have suffered serious damage as mobs engage in arson and looting. In many cases, the violence culminates in the resignation of the head of government or ministers, some of whom flee the country fearing physical assault.

Governments usually respond by attempting to brutally suppress the uprisings, often opening fire on agitators, resulting in deaths and injuries. Security forces themselves also suffer casualties. Such harsh measures typically intensify public anger and fuel the protests further.

In many developing countries, socio-economic challenges weigh heavily on the people, particularly the youth, whose aspirations remain unfulfilled. Many of them assume that inefficiency and nepotism in government are the sole reasons for their hardships. This frustration makes them vulnerable to those who deliberately seek to create unrest. Through persistent hate campaigns against the government and its leaders, such groups steadily mobilize sections of youth into violent protests. Initially, demonstrations may revolve around specific triggers, but as they grow, demands expand to broader grievances such as corruption, nepotism, and economic stagnation.

Notably, these uprisings often last only for a few days before a fragile peace returns, usually after leaders resign or are forced out. This paves the way for critics of the previous government—often the same forces who stayed behind during the unrest—to step into power. Yet, the grievances raised during the protests often remain unresolved, with only cosmetic reforms undertaken.

Political researchers now face the challenge of identifying the deeper, underlying factors behind these uprisings. Such movements often erupt suddenly, without prior signals, catching governments unprepared. One obvious reason is the disconnect between leaders and the public. Governments often fail to gauge the pulse of ordinary citizens, underestimating the intensity of anger and frustration. Without leadership, such uprisings cannot sustain themselves, but once leadership emerges, they gain momentum.

Ideally, intelligence networks should be able to forewarn governments about the build-up of unrest. Their inability to do so suggests inefficiency or complacency within both intelligence and administration. There is also speculation that external actors may instigate uprisings to serve geopolitical or economic interests. Media reports often point to the role of “deep states” in foreign countries, using discontented domestic leaders to destabilize governments for strategic gain.

It is important to note that such uprisings often involve only a fraction of the population, largely from the youth. Yet, a few thousand protestors are enough to fill the streets, create disruption, and project the image of nationwide unrest. The methodology of triggering mass uprisings as a way of destabilizing governments appears to have been fine-tuned and may recur more frequently if governments fail to read the signs. While some view these protests as “people’s power” and a revolutionary force to reshape governance, they often lead to instability rather than lasting solutions.

The only effective way to prevent such uprisings is for those in power to ensure governance that not only promotes equity and welfare but is also seen to be fair and transparent in the eyes of the people. In the coming years, dictators, monarchs, and military rulers who govern with an iron grip are likely to face increasing challenges from “people’s power.”

---

*Trustee, Nandini Voice For The Deprived, Chennai