Recent youth-led protests in Nepal have triggered one of the most turbulent political moments in the country’s recent history. Sparked by a ban on social media and deep frustration over corruption, unemployment and inequality, the Gen Z uprising rapidly escalated into large-scale violence, culminating in the resignation of the government led by KP Sharma Oli and the dissolution of Parliament. For India, these events are not distant developments in a neighbouring state but a direct test of its regional leadership and neighbourhood-first policy.
What triggered the Gen Z protests in Nepal
The protests, which unfolded over two days in early September, reflected accumulated anger among Nepal’s youth against political stagnation, elite capture of power and shrinking economic opportunities. The immediate spark — restrictions on social media — was perceived as an attempt to silence dissent. What followed was unprecedented in scale: dozens of deaths, widespread injuries, arson attacks on government buildings, vandalisation of politicians’ homes and mass prison escapes.
The scale of unrest forced the political system into crisis mode, leading to the collapse of the government and the installation of an interim administration headed by Nepal’s first woman Prime Minister. Fresh elections have now been announced for March 5, but uncertainty continues to loom large.
Why instability in Nepal matters deeply to India
India’s relationship with Nepal is unlike its ties with most neighbours. An open border, deep cultural affinities, shared religious traditions and dense people-to-people links have historically bound the two societies together. Millions of Nepalis live and work in India; Nepali students study in Indian institutions; and Gorkha soldiers serve in the Indian Army.
Political instability in Nepal directly affects India’s security, economic interests and strategic bandwidth. As India aspires to global leadership, persistent turbulence in its immediate neighbourhood risks diverting diplomatic and strategic attention — while creating openings for external powers.
Long-standing strains in India–Nepal relations
The Gen Z uprising has exposed cracks that had been widening for over a decade. Anti-India sentiment surged sharply after the 2015 crisis, when Nepal accused India of imposing an unofficial economic blockade following the promulgation of Nepal’s new Constitution. Although India denied the allegation, fuel shortages and price spikes left a lasting imprint on public opinion in Nepal.
Territorial disputes have further strained ties. Nepal’s 2020 political map, endorsed by its Parliament, claimed Lipulekh, Kalapani and Limpiyadhura — areas India considers its own. New Delhi rejected the move as a unilateral act. Tensions intensified after India inaugurated the Lipulekh road to Kailash Mansarovar, which Nepal said passed through disputed territory.
The China factor and shrinking strategic space
Deteriorating relations with India have coincided with Nepal’s growing engagement with China. Beijing’s infrastructure investments, diplomatic outreach and strategic patience have increased its footprint in Nepal. Nepal also objected when India and China agreed to reopen trade through Lipulekh during a visit by Wang Yi to New Delhi, viewing the move as marginalising Kathmandu.
For India, disengagement or a reactive posture risks accelerating Nepal’s strategic drift northwards — a development with long-term implications for Himalayan security.
Economic cooperation as the anchor of renewed ties
Rebuilding trust requires shifting the relationship from transactional politics to durable economic interdependence. Hydropower offers the clearest pathway. Nepal’s vast hydropower potential can support its development needs while helping India meet rising energy demand. The 2024 agreement allowing India to import up to 10,000 MW of power over a decade is a significant step, but its success depends on faster transmission links and joint ventures.
Beyond energy, cooperation in tourism, infrastructure, construction, agriculture and digital startups can appeal directly to Nepal’s youth, who drove the recent protests. Supporting jobs and entrepreneurship is crucial for political stability.
Border disputes and the need for quiet diplomacy
Outstanding boundary issues remain emotionally charged. Addressing them requires sustained dialogue rather than public posturing. Reviving a joint boundary commission, backed by historical documentation and technical expertise, could help defuse tensions. Backchannel diplomacy — involving historians and survey experts — may offer space for compromise without triggering nationalist backlash.
Such engagement must treat Nepal as an equal partner, not a junior stakeholder, to rebuild credibility.
People-to-people ties in a changing generational landscape
Traditional anchors of the relationship — cross-border marriages, labour mobility and military links — are weakening among Nepal’s Gen Z, who are more aspirational, digitally connected and politically assertive. India must adapt its outreach accordingly.
Facilitating tourism, easing trade procedures, improving connectivity and collaborating on education, skills and startups can rebuild goodwill. Supporting Nepal in conducting credible elections would further reinforce India’s image as a stabilising partner rather than a meddling neighbour.
What to note for Prelims?
- India–Nepal border length and bordering Indian states
- Key disputed areas: Lipulekh, Kalapani, Limpiyadhura
- India–Nepal hydropower cooperation framework
- Role of China in Nepal’s foreign policy
What to note for Mains?
- Impact of domestic political instability in neighbours on India’s security
- Generational change and foreign policy challenges in South Asia
- India’s neighbourhood-first policy and its limitations
- Balancing strategic competition with economic diplomacy in Nepal
Nepal’s Gen Z uprising is not just a domestic political upheaval; it is a signal that old assumptions in India–Nepal relations no longer hold. For India, the choice is stark: proactive engagement anchored in respect, economics and dialogue, or strategic drift that risks turning a close neighbour into a source of enduring uncertainty.
