At first glance, the ongoing turmoil in Nepal following the expression of the anger and frustration of the Nepali youth that has led to the resignation of the K P Oli-led coalition government could have been inspired by the student-led movement, which overthrew the regime of Sheikh Hasina last summer, and the ouster of the Sri Lankan President Gotabaya Rajapaksa and his brother Mahinda, the Prime minister, in 2022 by angry protestors.
On closer scrutiny, however, there seems to be a vital difference among the situations in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and Nepal.
To begin with, the uprising in Sri Lanka was essentially spontaneous against the then regime for its poor governance, particularly the deteriorating economic conditions. The uprising, by all indications, was not guided and instigated by the foreign forces, notwithstanding what a handful of conspiracy theorists suggested otherwise.
The same, however, cannot be said to be the case in Bangladesh. Many published reports and analyses, including those by the ousted Hasina and her colleagues, did indicate that hostile foreign forces were behind the violent change of the government.
Reportedly, the so-called “ Deep State” of the United States and the Pakistani ISI were viewed as such hostile forces.
Seen in the above light, the youth-led agitation in Nepal seems to be rather spontaneous. Though the rash driving of a minister’s car, causing harm to a schoolgirl, provided the spark to the discontents over the banning of social media by the Ola government, it is now widely accepted that popular angst was growing slowly but steadily over the years against Nepal’s political elites, irrespective of their party affiliations. They were seen as not only incompetent but also corrupt.
As per Transparency International 2024, Nepal ranks in 107th position out of 180 countries in its Corruption Perceptions Index. And in February 2025, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) placed Nepal under the grey list for the second time (initially from 2008 to 2014) for its failure to curb money laundering and other financial crimes effectively, and for failing to regulate cooperatives and real estate. As a result, the country would be put under more scrutiny.
According to a survey conducted by the Asia Foundation, the proportion of Nepalese who see their country as going in the right direction had dropped between 2017 and 2022, with only 41.7 percent seeing it as right.
The trust in political parties of all the other state institutions was also the lowest, at just 44 percent. For citizens, issues such as corruption, inflation, lack of jobs, deteriorating economic conditions, limited access to education, access to roads and rails, and foreign intervention in internal affairs were all equally important.
Reportedly, Nepal’s economic fragility has led to the massive emigration of its youth, with over 700,000 leaving for foreign countries, including India, in FY 2023/24 alone. According to the International Labour Organization, youth unemployment remained alarmingly high at 19.2 percent, fueling this exodus.
Viewed thus, the turmoils in Nepal can be compared with those in Sri Lanka, not in Bangladesh.
Incidentally, experts say that the Bangladesh economy under Hasina was much better than what it is today, be it in GDP growth, inflation, or employment generation. That there is now a worsening of the communal situation and a spiraling of mob violence in Bangladesh is a different story.
Sri Lanka has now returned to the path of political stability. It has a new President who was democratically and peacefully elected. No political party was banned, and everybody was free to participate in the election process.
The same has not been the case with Bangladesh. Awami League has been banned. Islamists, who have become extremely powerful, want a new constitution that will be run by Sharia law, and minorities will lose their constitutional rights. When and how the next elections will be held remain highly uncertain.
It is too early to say anything now about Nepal’s political future. Nepal’s current constitution, adopted in 2015, was not prepared for a situation where a Prime Minister resigns without an alternative, leaving the President, who must appoint a new government, without control. The Army appears to have to take the initiative to control the law and order situation.
At the time of writing, the agitators have laid out a series of political and social demands, calling for sweeping reforms in governance and an investigation into assets looted by politicians over the past three decades.
It may be noted that since its democratic transition in 2008, Nepal has witnessed 15 different governments, averaging one administration every 14 months. Interestingly, when communist Oli became prime minister in 2024, he had already served three previous stints in the top job.
The government he has been leading is a grand coalition combining Nepal’s two most powerful parties – supposedly pro-China Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist–Leninist) and the pro-India Nepal Congress (NC). That has made for meek opposition. In fact, an opposition party becoming a part of the ruling coalition and vice versa has been a routine feature since 2008.
It may be noted that the new political era in Nepal is the result of the India-brokered peace deal in September 2006 between the seven-party democratic alliance and the Maoists, who had been engaged in a 10-year insurgency in which nearly 13000 people were killed.
India’s coalition government, led by Manmohan Singh, was then critically dependent on the support of the Indian Communists led by the CPM leader Sitaram Yechury. And it was Yechury, who, along with comrades, facilitated the virtual Maoist takeover of Nepal led by hitherto fugitive Prachanda, supreme leader of the Maoists in Nepal. The monarchy was abolished.
Equally noteworthy is that till then, countries like India, the U.S., the U.K., and even China, while opposing King Gyanendra’s direct takeover of power in 2004, had always emphasised the importance of Nepal remaining a “constitutional monarchy”.
Incidentally, only days before the present turmoil, Nepal had witnessed sporadic agitations demanding the restoration of the constitutional monarchy in the country.
Apparently, soon after Prachanda became the Prime Minister, the two countries that benefited the most were China and Pakistan.
Beijing has secured numerous sensitive projects, including the construction of roads and infrastructure adjacent to the Indian border.
Tibetans have been expelled and their offices have been forcibly closed down. A predominantly Hindu nation, Nepal has been made “secular,” and thousands of mosques have been built with Pakistani and Saudi Arabian money on the Indo-Nepalese border.
It has also been observed that India is the country most affected by the political turmoil in Nepal. All the more so, given the fact that Nepal’s leadership, whether in pre-2006 days or after, has always tried to equate China with India, even though relations with India are deeply embedded in historical, cultural, socio-economic, religious, and familial ties.
On the other hand, bilateral relations between Nepal and China are mainly focused on political and economic issues rather than people-to-people exchanges.
A unique feature of the Indo-Nepal ties is the centuries-old people-to-people ties. The Indo-Nepal Treaty of Peace and Friendship, which is a reflection of these ties, has not only ensured an open border between India and Nepal, it has also allowed Nepali nationals to work in India without a work permit, to apply for government jobs and the civil services (except for the IFS, IAS, and IPS), to open bank accounts and buy property.
However, India had waived its rights under reciprocity as a sign of further goodwill. That means the facilities available to a Nepali in India are not available to an Indian in Nepal.
Therefore, it is not surprising that, though of late many Nepali youth have gone to Malaysia and the Gulf countries for work, India has been traditionally their principal destination.
The number of Nepalis in India varies by definition. Still, estimates for Nepalese citizens range from 1 to 4 million, including both temporary and permanent residents, while the 2011 Indian census identified over 2.9 million Nepali mother tongue speakers. The open border allows for a large undocumented population of Nepali migrant workers and students, making precise counting difficult.
In other words, migration between Nepal and India has been facilitated by an open, porous border and strong familial links, such as socio-cultural affinity and the kinship factor.
Unlike the immigrants from Bangladesh, Nepalis in India are not perceived as “aliens”. And unlike the Bangladeshis, the Nepalis in India are not seen to be the source of demographic changes and growth of radicalism, particularly Islamic fundamentalism.
However, India’s traditional role and image in Nepal have recently been exploited as a political tool within the country to advance the careers of Nepali politicians, thereby fostering a love-hate relationship. And China has “enjoyed” this situation.
Viewed thus, whatever eventually happens in Kathmandu will have impacts on New Delhi and Beijing. Both will be keeping a close eye on the turmoil afflicting Nepal and try to strike a favourable balance with the new leadership.
- Author and veteran journalist Prakash Nanda is Chairman of the Editorial Board of the EurAsian Times and has been commenting on politics, foreign policy, and strategic affairs for nearly three decades. He is a former National Fellow of the Indian Council for Historical Research and a recipient of the Seoul Peace Prize Scholarship.
- CONTACT: prakash.nanda (at) hotmail.com
