Nepal is on the boil. A generation is in revolt at home, even as tens of thousands flee abroad every month. Together, the dynamics of street protest and silent exodus signal a crisis not just of governance but of survival. For India, the implications are immediate and profound. What happens in Nepal does not stay in Nepal, it reverberates across an open border, shared rivers and a deep cultural kinship. The question is whether New Delhi can respond with wisdom rather than reflex, learning from history to avoid missteps that could turn sympathy into resentment.
The Gen Z protest that erupted after the government banned 26 social media platforms is unlike anything Nepal has seen. Spread across all 77 district capitals, it has claimed at least 19 lives. Yet, this is not another cycle of palace intrigue or regime change. It is a generational cry for systemic transformation, for governance that is accountable, and constitutional reform that is credible and institutions that inspire trust.
For young Nepalis, the blackout of Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp and X was not merely about apps. It was the last straw confirming what they already suspected — that a corrupt, stagnant system is unwilling to listen. If the protests are the loud revolt, migration is the quiet rebellion. More than 4,00,000 departures annually, an average of more than 1,000 a day, hollow out the very demographic that should be building Nepal’s future.
Remittances sustain the economy; they are, indeed, the lifeline of the state. But they also embody a paradox: The absent are financing a system they no longer inhabit or believe in. Those who stay behind challenge the state in the streets. Both stem from the same erosion of trust.
But the roots of this crisis lie even deeper. Nepal’s domestic politics has become a source of instability. The resignation of Prime Minister K P Sharma Oli underscores the volatility of Kathmandu’s coalition system and the exhaustion of a leadership style built on sharp rhetoric and nationalist posturing. His departure does not resolve Nepal’s instability; rather, it deepens uncertainty about succession, shifting alliances and the credibility of political institutions. The major parties — the Nepali Congress, CPN-UML and Maoist Centre — remain consumed by tactical manoeuvres and leadership rivalries rather than structural reform. Pushpa Kamal Dahal continues his balancing act, while Sher Bahadur Deuba searches for relevance. The constitution, hailed in 2015 as a landmark, has yet to deliver stability. Instead, frequent changes of government, blurred lines between governance and patronage and the persistence of corruption have eroded public faith in institutions. For Nepal’s Gen Z, this political theatre has lost legitimacy. They see a system more invested in power games than in delivering jobs, justice or dignity. This erosion of credibility explains why the protests cut across geography and class, and why the exodus is accelerating.
When a country loses its youth to martyrdom in protests or to migration abroad it risks undermining its national security foundations. Economic growth falters, political legitimacy withers and social cohesion frays. For Nepal, this convergence of revolt and exodus is existential. For India it is strategic.
An unstable Nepal risks exporting volatility across a porous border. Any collapse of state capacity will be felt in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, in Sikkim and Uttarakhand. The flows of people, ideas and anger are too intimate to be quarantined. India cannot afford complacency. History offers a sobering reminder. In Bangladesh, student protests initially animated by local grievances were quickly refracted through an anti-India lens. Perceptions of overbearing interference by New Delhi turned sympathy into hostility. Nationalism thrives on the idea of the foreign bully, however benevolent its intent.
India must not repeat this mistake in Nepal. Heavy-handed diplomacy, overt political alignment or the temptation to lecture will be counterproductive. Respect for sovereignty coupled with quiet but firm engagement is the wiser path. Bilateral irritants persist. Disputes over cartographic claims, energy cooperation and cross-border infrastructure demand deft handling. For New Delhi, the challenge is to engage without appearing to dictate, to reassure without being patronising.
First, India must first listen to the youth. It must demonstrate that it hears Nepal’s young voices through educational partnerships, cultural exchanges and digital initiatives that give them agency. The symbolism of scholarships and internships may matter as much as hydropower deals. Second, it should support governance reform discreetly. Assistance in digital infrastructure, cyber regulation and institutional strengthening should be framed as partnership, not prescription. Third, it must prepare for political uncertainty. Oli’s resignation has left a vacuum that will be filled by shifting alliances. India must keep channels open to all parties, civil society and especially to Nepal’s restless youth. Finally, India must demonstrate strategic patience, trusting Nepal’s capacity for course correction, while remaining a dependable neighbour.
The Gen Z protests and the youth exodus are two sides of the same coin. Both signal a generation unwilling to accept the status quo. Whether they remain in Nepal or depart, their message is unmistakable: Legitimacy must be earned, not inherited. If Nepal’s leaders do not hear it, the state itself risks erosion.
For India, the lesson is equally clear. Strategic interests are best served not by tactical manoeuvres but by nurturing trust — among leaders, yes, but above all among the people. The border that unites is too open to allow suspicion to fester. Nepal stands at an inflection point. The largest youth movement in its history and the largest exodus in its history are unfolding simultaneously. Both are protests against a state that has failed to deliver. Both threaten to hollow out the country’s future.
India cannot dictate Nepal’s destiny, but it can choose how it responds. If it acts with wisdom, humility and foresight it can help ensure that Nepal’s transformation is peaceful, democratic and enduring. If it miscalculates, forgetting the lessons of Bangladesh, it risks turning goodwill into grievance.
The stakes are stark: A neighbour either renewed or unravelled. The choice, in part, is India’s.
The writer is professor and dean of the School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, and an honorary professor of International Relations at the University of Melbourne
