When Nepal erupted into protests earlier this month, the spark seemed small: a government ban on social media platforms such as Facebook, TikTok, and Instagram. Yet, in a matter of days, the streets of Kathmandu and other cities were filled with angry young demonstrators, clashing with police and demanding change. By the time the protests subsided, at least 19 people were dead, hundreds injured, and Prime Minister K. P. Sharma Oli had been forced to resign.

The uprising was not simply about a digital ban. For Nepal’s Generation Z, it symbolised something larger: a government that seemed distant, unaccountable, and increasingly disconnected from the realities of its people. The movement reflects a deeper crisis of governance in South Asia and it offers India, a youthful democracy with its own pressures, important lessons for the years ahead.

The anger behind the ban

Nepal’s social media restrictions were intended as a regulatory measure, but they were perceived as an attack on free expression. For young people, digital platforms are not just entertainment spaces; they are channels for communication, mobilisation, and identity. Curtailing them struck at the heart of how this generation engages with the world.

But the speed and intensity of the protests revealed grievances that had been building for years. Youth unemployment is high, corruption and nepotism remain endemic, and the gap between political elites and ordinary citizens has grown sharper. For many, the ban was simply the final insult—proof that their voices did not matter.

Symbols of privilege, targets of rage

What made this uprising distinctive was its focus on symbols of privilege. Demonstrators did not only march against policies; they attacked parliament buildings, leaders’ residences, and luxury hotels. These were not random acts but deliberate statements. They highlighted the widening gulf between a governing class accused of enriching itself and a citizenry struggling for basic opportunity.

The state’s response of using curfews, tear gas, and in some cases live fire, only deepened the fury. Instead of restoring order, force fed the conviction that Nepal’s rulers were more interested in control than in listening. The resignation of Oli, and the lifting of the social media ban, came too late to restore trust.

Lessons for India’s youth-driven democracy

India cannot afford to dismiss Nepal’s turmoil as a neighbour’s problem. With over 65% of its population under 35, India’s future depends on how it engages its youth. The country’s economic growth has created opportunities, but also glaring inequalities and pockets of frustration. For millions entering the workforce each year, jobs remain scarce. For others, access to education and basic services is uneven.

Nepal’s experience shows how quickly frustration can turn into organised resistance when young people feel ignored. It also demonstrates the dangers of treating dissent as disruption. Heavy-handed attempts to silence criticism, whether through digital restrictions, censorship, or policing, risk igniting exactly the kind of backlash seen across the border.

The digital dilemma

Social media was not just a tool in Nepal’s uprising; it was the bloodstream of the movement. Despite government restrictions, young Nepalis found ways to organise, amplify, and coordinate their protests online. For India, which has occasionally debated or implemented curbs on digital platforms, the lesson is clear: bans and blockages may backfire.

Regulation of digital platforms is necessary, especially to address misinformation and harmful content. But it must be transparent, proportionate, and accountable. When restrictions appear arbitrary or politically motivated, they erode legitimacy and provoke resistance.

The importance of trust

At its core, Nepal’s crisis was about trust or rather, the lack of it. Citizens no longer believed that institutions would act fairly or that leaders represented them honestly. Corruption, nepotism, and the perception of privilege hollowed out legitimacy.

For India, this is perhaps the starkest warning. Political institutions cannot afford to appear insulated or self-serving. Efforts to curb corruption, strengthen accountability, and ensure fairness are not abstract ideals; they are essential for maintaining stability in a society as diverse and complex as India’s.

Listening before it is too late

Another lesson lies in the timing of responses. Nepal’s government underestimated the depth of discontent and overestimated the effectiveness of force. By the time it conceded ground, it had already lost credibility.

India must avoid similar mistakes by creating stronger channels of dialogue with its citizens, particularly with young people. Engaging early, listening seriously, and acting responsively can defuse crises before they explode. Dissent, far from being a threat, should be seen as a democratic resource—a way for governments to understand and address problems before they spiral out of control.

A regional signal

Nepal’s uprising is not an isolated event. Across South Asia and the wider world, youthful populations are asserting themselves more forcefully, demanding accountability, opportunity, and dignity. From Sri Lanka’s economic protests to Nepal’s digital revolt, the region is witnessing a generational shift that cannot be ignored.

For India, the message is not one of fear but of urgency. Harnessing the energy of its young citizens could be the country’s greatest strength, but only if governance keeps pace with their aspirations. That means ensuring economic growth is inclusive, institutions remain trustworthy, and policies are communicated transparently.

A cautionary yet hopeful tale

Nepal’s uprising was a crisis, but it was also a revelation: young people will no longer tolerate being sidelined. For India, it is both a warning and an opportunity. By recognising the signals early youthful frustration, distrust in institutions, digital suppression India can avoid unrest and instead channel energy into nation-building.

The power of the young cannot be underestimated. Nepal learned this the hard way. India must not.