Digital Unrest

The streets of Kathmandu have turned into a battlefield, as young Nepalis clashed violently with police over the government’s attempt to block social media platforms. At least 19 people died with nearly 400, including 100 security personnel, injured while the home minister resigned. The government reversed its decision but the scars remain.

What began as protests against the government’s decision to block 26 social media platforms ostensibly for not registering under new regulations quickly spiralled into one of the most violent demonstrations in Kathmandu’s recent history.

Millions of Nepalis, particularly from Gen Z, use social media not just to communicate, but to expose corruption, inequality and nepotism. Viral videos contrasted the stark realities of ordinary Nepalis with the luxurious lifestyles of the political elite, amplifying public discontent. The heavy-handed response, involving bullets, tear gas and water cannons, was a tactical failure but more importantly, a political one. It revealed a regime fearful of its own citizens and unable to accommodate the digital age’s demand for accountability.

India, Nepal’s larger neighbour and a pivotal player in South Asian geopolitics, faces an urgent lesson from these developments. While India has its own complicated relationship with social media governance, its porous border with Nepal and shared ethnic, cultural and political affinities make it especially vulnerable to spillover effects.

But vigilance alone is insufficient. The U.S., despite its professed advocacy for democracy, has a long record of covert interference in South Asia and elsewhere. In Bangladesh, for example, it is no secret that Washington’s tacit support emboldened protests to bring down a government that was friendly to India. Sri Lanka’s economic and political crisis, an implosion that was at least partly inflamed by foreign financial interests, stands as a cautionary tale of how external actors can manipulate fragile democracies.

Nepal’s protests are particularly significant because they are led by the digital generation. Unlike earlier movements, which coalesced around political parties or labour unions, this one was apparently powered by social media itself. Efforts to suppress such platforms only fuel their allure. The ‘Nepo Kids’ videos that went viral were not the product of organized opposition but of ordinary citizens fed up with systemic injustice.

After all, Nepal has seen more than a dozen governments since it transitioned to a republic after abolishing its 239-year-old monarchy in 2008 following a decade-long civil war. New Delhi must develop a sophisticated approach in dealing with the social media problem. It must invest in indigenous alternatives that are less susceptible to foreign manipulation. Regulatory frameworks should target misinformation and malicious interference. More important than surveillance is the ability of India’s democracy to absorb and address grievances before they metastasise into mass unrest.

The challenge is not about rejecting digital platforms or suppressing all forms of dissent. It is about discerning manufactured agitation and ensuring that democracy is not hijacked by foreign agendas. In an age where geopolitics plays out online, India must act strategically, not reactively.