Revolution of Nepal: The Revolution Against corruption and old age

Nepal is living through a moment that many are calling a revolution. For years, frustration had been building over corruption, nepotism, and the lack of accountability in government. Ordinary citizens watched as public money disappeared, politicians enriched themselves, and basic services failed to improve. Young people, especially, felt shut out of opportunity and ignored by those in power. They expressed that frustration online, where social media had become a rare space to speak freely, organise, and share evidence of wrongdoing.

When the government of Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli suddenly banned more than two dozen social media platforms in early September 2025, the move felt like a final insult. Officially, the ban was presented as a regulatory measure, but for millions it looked like an attempt to silence dissent. Overnight, creators lost their audiences, small businesses lost their marketing channels, and activists lost their main tool for coordination. Gen Z, already angry at corruption, poured into the streets. Within days protests spread across Kathmandu and other cities, and clashes with security forces left at least nineteen people dead. The government lifted the ban, but by then it had lost control of the situation.

Underlying the anger was also a fear that Nepal’s sovereignty was being compromised. Oli’s government had been unusually close to Beijing, signing on to parts of China’s development initiatives and echoing Chinese positions. Some of these steps were not in themselves illegal or unprecedented, but in a climate of secrecy and mistrust they were seen as proof that Nepal was sliding under foreign influence. For many, it felt as if decisions about their country’s future were being made somewhere else, without debate or consent. That impression fed conspiracy theories: that foreign powers were manipulating the protests, that elites had planned the social media ban to justify a crackdown, or that the entire crisis was a staged fight for control. None of these stories have been proved, but in a country where facts are scarce and institutions are weak, rumours fill the gaps left by official silence.

Amid the slogans and numbers are real people. Young students skipping classes to march in the streets, parents searching for their children after police confrontations, small shop owners watching their online income disappear with the bans. A college student from Lalitpur, interviewed while using a VPN to stay connected, summed up the mood simply: “They send their children abroad with stolen money and silence us at home. We’ve had enough.” That sense of having “enough” united people across class and region, and within a week the Oli government collapsed.

Nepal now has an interim administration and a promise of fresh elections. But the deeper questions remain. Can any new leadership clean up entrenched corruption? Will there be real accountability for the killings during the protests? Can the state rebuild trust and protect space for free expression, both online and offline? And will Nepal find a balanced foreign policy that reassures its citizens while navigating its powerful neighbours?

This uprising is not just a change of faces at the top. It is a generational demand for dignity, transparency, and sovereignty. Whether that demand becomes real reform or fades into disappointment will depend on what happens next. For now, what began as a reaction to a social media ban has become a sign of something larger: a society no longer willing to be silent.

Deaths & Injuries

In the initial protests (September 8-9), till now around 50 people have been confirmed killed when police opened live fire in Kathmandu and other cities.
Dozens more were injured in some reports over 300-400 people, many with serious wounds.
As the unrest continued, the death toll rose. A more recent count places 72 dead after bodies were found in buildings set on fire and in other damaged areas.
Over 2,100 people injured, per health ministry updates.

Damage to Property & Infrastructure

More than 300 local government units (municipal/rural units) across Nepal were damaged, some offices fully destroyed by arson or vandalism.
Major metropolitan cities like Biratnagar, Birgunj, Bharatpur, Pokhara saw heavy destruction, with offices, vehicles, documents and records destroyed.
Homes of mayors and political leaders were also attacked and burnt in several places.
Significant public buildings were burned, including provincial assembly buildings, government offices, police stations, and parts of the parliament complex.
An estimate of damage to public infrastructure is around NPR 200 billion (Nepali rupees), though this covers mainly the buildings themselves and does not fully account for all vehicles, equipment, or ongoing administrative losses.

Nepal has erupted into revolt. What began as protests against corruption and a sudden ban on social media has transformed into the downfall of Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli and the rise of an interim government. Behind this dramatic turn are grievances that are deeply felt: lack of accountability in government, nepotism, misuse of power, and a sense among many that ordinary citizens have been ignored for too long. Still, amid the anger and the chanting, rumors and theories are spreading some rooted in fear, others in real geopolitical tension. Among these are conspiracies claiming outside forces India, the United States are orchestrating events. Whether true or not, the belief in external manipulation reveals how fragile trust in institutions has become.

First, it’s important to understand what set things off. For years, citizens have seen public funds misused, civil servants unpunished, projects left incomplete, and elites enriching themselves while people in the streets struggle. When the government banned some 26 social media platforms, claiming regulatory issues, many saw it as a direct attack on free speech, a move to silence the very tools people used to expose corruption. That ban ignited widespread protests. Young people left their homes, went into the streets, and demanded more: not just a change of leader, but a change in how things are done.

In the midst of upheaval, conspiracy theories often flourish. Nepal’s current moment is no exception. Here are some of the major theories that are circulating (whether substantiated or not):

Some theorize that the US, or elements within it (sometimes called the “Deep State”), have backed the protests. The idea is that Western powers prefer a government that is more aligned with their interests especially as Nepal begins to navigate its position between China’s growing influence and other global powers. People point to revived US aid projects, and wonder whether such aid isn’t purely humanitarian but has strings channels that could influence domestic politics.

There are claims that India is interested in seeing Oli removed because of his China-leaning posture. Some believe Indian intelligence agencies or political actors are, behind the scenes, giving support to movements or rumors, or enabling groups (royalist sympathisers, young protest organisers) that are opposed to Oli. The argument goes: if Nepal is seen as aligning more closely with China, that has strategic implications for India’s borders, trade, and influence.

Some speculation frames the movement less as driven by Nepalis alone, and more as one piece in a broader regional contest (India vs China vs the US). According to these views, domestic discontent is real, but outsiders may be amplifying it funding NGOs, aiding communication through overseas diasporas, leaking media narratives, helping structure protest messaging to tilt outcomes in favor of governments they prefer. Critics of this theory say there’s little credible evidence; supporters point to the speed and coordination of protest organization once the social media platforms ban was announced.

Media outlets and political opponents in Nepal and neighboring countries have discussed the idea that protests are being “timed” or “staged” to weaken China-friendly governments. Some Indian media, for example, have alleged that the unrest might be part of a US strategy to counter China’s influence in South Asia. Others counter that similar logic is applied every time there is domestic unrest anywhere automatically blaming some foreign power is a simplification that shifts blame away from local governance failures.

Nepal has long been in a delicate position between India and China. Border disputes, trade blockades, and influence from both sides have shaped memories. That makes people more sensitive to signs that foreign interests may be at play. When things happen fast, and the official story is inconsistent or delayed, rumors fill in the gap. For many, the state is not seen as a reliable source. Media misreporting or selective reporting strengthens doubts. Nepal does receive foreign aid, engages in diplomacy with big neighbours, signs infrastructure deals, hosts Chinese delegations. That opens real possibility of external influence, which makes conspiracy theories more believable. Whether or not influence is covert, interaction is overt and that gray area invites speculation. Observers point out that once the social media ban happened, protests popped up rapidly in many cities. Some see that as evidence of pre-planning or external support. Others see it as the consequence of pent-up frustration and modern communication tools (VPNs, diaspora networks). Either way, it helps fuel stories about someone pulling strings.

The corruption, inequality, and governance failures are real. The ban on social media was a trigger that resonated widely.

The protests were large, youth-led, decentralized, and spread fast.

The Oli government had taken steps aligning it more visibly with China, which worried many in Nepal and overseas analysts.

Direct proof that either India or the US funded or directed the protests in a decisive way.
That foreign powers planned the timing of the ban or protests to exact outcome.
That the key actors coordinating on the ground were under external control.

There’s a danger that these conspiracy theories, even if partially true or not, risk overshadowing the real grievances of people on the ground. Students, workers, families who feel betrayed by corruption their voices can be drowned out if too much attention is given to “who is behind this” instead of “why this is happening.”

Also, when foreign interference is alleged, it can be used by some leaders as excuse: to dismiss legitimate protests as outside meddling, to crack down on dissent, or to shift attention away from accountability.

Nepal’s revolution, whatever one believes about external involvement, must be understood first as a response to domestic failures: corruption, lack of accountability, suppression of expression. The conspiracy theories about India or the US aren’t surprising they reflect both real geopolitical tensions and a deep distrust by the populace in the national leadership.

What will matter most now is whether new leadership can rebuild trust, open up space for free speech (including online), show real accountability, and ensure any foreign engagement is transparent. If that happens, Nepal could turn this moment of crisis into one of renewal. If not, the conspiracy theories will persist, and the dissatisfaction that fuelled the revolt may echo again.

Nepal’s revolution shows what happens when corruption, suppression, and foreign policy ambiguity pile up without addressing the voices of young people. The revolution wasn’t just about banning Facebook or Instagram; it was about a generation saying: “Enough.”

People came out not just for a change of face, but wanting a change of system. Not just “who leads”, but “how we lead”. The bigger test now: will the interim government and future leaders actually deliver? Or will the cycle repeat?

Nepal deserves more than promises. It deserves transparency, dignity, fair opportunity and a sense that its citizens are heard, not silenced.

By Shreedeep Rayamajhi