A tense quiet settled over Nepal on Wednesday, following an army-mandated curfew that halted two days of anti-government demonstrations. These protests had swept through the capital, Kathmandu, and other cities, involving primarily young individuals who engaged in acts like tire burning, vandalizing government ministries, and occupying politicians’ residences, forcing their evacuation by helicopter.
The violent clashes resulted in at least 22 fatalities and hundreds of injuries inflicted by security forces. While the immediate trigger appeared to be the government’s move to restrict social media access, the unrest truly stemmed from a deep-seated fury over political graft and pervasive disparity within the 30-million-strong Himalayan country.
The official justification for prohibiting 26 social-media platforms, including Facebook, YouTube, and X, was linked to issues concerning the companies’ operations and their obligation to submit to government oversight, though protesters interpreted the action as an effort to suppress the escalating online complaints from young people incensed by the opulent lifestyles enjoyed by children of the political elite.
The stark contrast between the realities of everyday Nepalis and the opulence they witnessed showcased online sparked calls for mass protests last week—calls that only escalated following the clumsy social media ban. Even after that prohibition was lifted on Tuesday, and despite the resignations of Prime Prime Minister Khadga Prasad Sharma Oli and Home Minister Ramesh Lekhak,
“The Nepalese government sought to utilize those new social media regulations to avert precisely what occurred,” states Michael Kugelman, a D.C.-based South Asia analyst. “Consequently, it entirely misfired.”
The capacity of social media to incite widespread protest is well-known in Asia, where the internet has been a significant force behind popular uprisings that overthrew governments in and , and currently. However, this phenomenon initially gained prominence during the , when a wave of anti-government demonstrations surged across the Middle East and North Africa, largely coordinated online.
Significantly, and serving as a distinct precursor to Nepal’s current situation, attempts during the Arab Spring to restrict social media access merely exacerbated the problem: they underscored the state’s overt disregard for freedom of expression and assembly, validated the grievances of the demonstrators, and increased public support for their objectives.
It is unsurprising that authoritarian regimes were prompted by the Arab Spring to implement severe internet restrictions. North of Nepal, China’s Great Firewall emerged as the prime example of a rigorously controlled online environment. This system not only obstructs unwanted foreign information but also filters and bans politically sensitive local material.
However, the Great Firewall represents merely one component of an intricate network of layered controls in China. There, acquiring broadband or a smartphone SIM card necessitates a government-issued ID. Even accessing public WiFi demands phone number verification—likewise connected to one’s ID—while individuals utilizing China’s pervasive WeChat messaging service are required to register their bank details to become members of groups exceeding 100 participants.
These numerous verification requirements imply that even ostensibly anonymous online forum posts can lead to legal repercussions, fostering a climate of self-censorship. Should issues arise, responses are prompt and decisive, exemplified by the Chinese Communist Party’s suppression of online discourse concerning activist and journalist Sun Lin, who in November 2023 after reportedly being beaten by police as perceived retribution for critical social media posts about strongman Xi Jinping. Increasingly, are being utilized to quickly identify and eliminate sensitive content.
“Officials in Beijing are likely observing their Kathmandu counterparts with a mix of sympathy and satisfaction, considering themselves fortunate that mainland Chinese internet users cannot even long for what Nepalese have struggled so intensely to regain,” remarks Sean King, senior vice president for Asia at consulting firm Park Strategies.
However, it is not solely autocratic regimes that are battling against online free speech. Last year marked the 14th consecutive annual decline in global internet freedom, as per the 2024 Freedom on the Net report from Freedom House, which indicated that only 17% of the evaluated global populace enjoys a free and open internet.
Across from Nepal, juxtaposed against autocratic China, India serves as an example of how democratic states are utilizing progressively advanced methods to manage online discussions. Since 2023, India has, for instance, intensified its internet regulation efforts by authorizing a greater number of officials to directly issue takedown orders to technology companies—a power previously limited to its IT and Information and Broadcasting ministries.
In the run-up to last year’s general election, the Indian government also aimed to establish a “fact-checking” division tasked with correcting supposedly inaccurate reporting—a move that drew criticism from journalists and technology firms alike. Removal orders have targeted a wide range of content, from reports on a fatal stampede to caricatures mocking Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
Naturally, an entirely unregulated internet also presents challenges, as highlighted by how online hatred and misinformation to the genocide of Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar. “Regulating social media has consistently been a double-edged sword,” notes Meenakshi Ganguly, Asia deputy director for Human Rights Watch. “This is because social media can sometimes incite violence and the targeting of minority and vulnerable populations.”
Nepal’s immediate future remains uncertain. Its citizens contend with an annual per capita income below $1,400, while youth joblessness hovers around 20%. This drives over 2,000 young individuals to depart the country daily in search of employment abroad, primarily in the Middle East.
Protesters are calling for the disbandment of parliament, the widespread resignation of legislators, the immediate suspension of officials who commanded the firing upon demonstrators, and new elections. It is questionable whether these demands by themselves will resolve Nepal’s complex issues.
Optimistically, the expectation is that the country’s political leadership will learn to address criticism instead of merely suppressing it. Regrettably, the inverse lesson for authoritarian states—and those aspiring to be—is the fundamental danger of ceding control, as it is impossible to put the genie back in the bottle, and attempts to do so often only intensify the conflict.
“Resentment and frustration ought not to catch Nepal’s political leaders off guard—should they only opt to listen,” Ganguly further states. “However, as is frequently the case with governments, they typically prefer to silence critics rather than resolving the actual grievances.”
