Submit your Article

Sanjay Upadhya is an author, journalist and analyst. ApEx talked to him regarding the recent GenZ movement in Nepal. In this interview, he talked about the new political course after the protest, foreign policy priorities and geopolitical factors. Excerpts:

How do you view the GenZ protests and their aftermath?

The protests held on Sept 8–9 marked a significant awakening among a new generation of Nepalis eager for change, driven by frustration with corruption, misgovernance, and stifling politics. Despite the tragic violence that overshadowed the event, the resilient spirit of the movement remains evident. Subsequently, there has been a noticeable lack of clear leadership within GenZ, leading to some division. Various groups are articulating diverse demands and ideas, thereby confounding the average Nepali. If Nepal’s youth succeed in bridging these divisions and presenting a unified platform, the movement has the potential to evolve into a stable political force rather than a transient social phenomenon. Whether through electoral participation or sustained civic pressure on traditional parties, this generation bears the responsibility of redefining Nepal’s political discourse, shifting from mere power preservation to principles of accountability, inclusion, and innovation.

Do you see any geopolitical factors behind the GenZ protests?

The primary causes of the protests were deeply entrenched in local concerns and had been increasingly intensifying over time. Geopolitical considerations also contributed, reflecting the priorities and aspirations of various external groups active within Nepal. Certain factions emphasized the importance of Nepal avoiding the adoption of authoritarian tendencies and practices influenced by foreign powers and their financial and developmental assistance. Others sought to defend their traditional spheres of influence within the nation. Additionally, some parties aimed to prevent instability in Nepal from impacting their own borders and sensitive regions. Although tell-tale signs abound, the full extent of external involvement in these protests may remain forever uncertain.

What are your thoughts on the foreign policy priorities of the new government?

Given the interim nature of the current administration, its foreign policy must remain rooted in continuity rather than experimentation. So far, it has acted prudently by reaffirming Nepal’s traditional diplomatic principles such as non-alignment, peaceful coexistence, and sovereign independence. With a government primarily focused on maintaining law and order, restoring public trust, and creating a conducive environment for elections, these priorities are sufficiently broad to occupy its efforts and resources. In this context, implementing any drastic measures would not be practical or prudent.

How might major powers such as India, China, and the United States view the recent political developments in Nepal?

Each of these major powers is likely to interpret recent political developments through the lens of its aspirations for Nepal. India anticipates observing Nepal confidently advancing along a pathway toward a stronger parliamentary democracy that can safeguard New Delhi’s primary political, diplomatic, and security interests. The United States seeks assurance that Nepal remains committed to democratic values, human rights, and transparent governance, while resisting undue external influence. 

In an era of intensifying competition between democratic and authoritarian models of governance, Nepal’s ability to maintain its independence and pluralism carries symbolic importance beyond South Asia. China’s emphasis is on maintaining Nepal’s stability and security. Beijing supports Nepal’s efforts to adhere to commitments such as the One China policy and hopes that Nepal can maintain its independence and remain free from unnecessary external pressures. Beijing’s broader strategic vision views a stable Nepal as essential for regional security and as a buffer against external interference in Tibet.

What approach should Nepal take to maintain balanced and cordial relations with all major powers in this evolving context?

The interim government must prioritize its fundamental obligation to ensure that elections are conducted on 5 March 2026. Subsequently, upon assuming office, the new administration may concentrate on overseeing Nepal’s foreign policy, guided by principles such as non-alignment, sovereign equality and mutual respect. Traditionally, these tenets have allowed Nepal to maintain cordial relations with all major powers without becoming overly dependent on any single one. Overall, Nepal should exercise caution to prevent actions or statements that could disrupt the nation’s fragile geopolitical stability amid the swiftly evolving global landscape.

It is unsurprising that it is getting hard for the members of GenZ to channel a unified, coordinated voice. After all, while I am not, in any way, minimizing or downplaying the role of youths on Sept 8, I am not completely sure that we are dealing with a real movement.

We are talking about something very loose, not even a network but a “dynamic” that, though super powered by social media enabled connectivity, is itself disconnected and divided on many instances. A movement requires organization, a vision, precise and articulated goals and a unifying leadership.

GenZ, at least for now, has no organization but has some vague though important goals. Certainly, there is a common thread bringing all youths together, the dream of a country free of corruption and nepotism, a nation that can tap into its immense potential by offering opportunities to all.

But it appears divided on many key issues like the direct election of the prime minister. It also lacks, at least in the traditional sense, a real leadership. Some personalities have emerged and they have taken a more prominent role but they cannot legitimately proclaim to represent the great diversity of the whole GenZ.

There are several groups representing different interests, each assuming the responsibility of bringing forward certain voices, channeling particular perspectives and views that reflect the complex reality on the ground. In a way, such division mirrors the fragmentation of Nepali society where caste and ethnicity still have a huge role.

But there is an opportunity for a shared leadership that could help turn GenZ into a real movement with a loose structure but clear objectives and common messages. Such a type of leadership would not be centered on charismatic individuals but rather it would reflect a more inclusive and egalitarian approach.

In a way, social media that have been correctly criticized for enabling misinformation and disinformation, spreading chaos and confusion, could play a positive role in ensuring that the less visible voices can be finally heard.

Yet, at the end of the day, GenZ might need something different and more powerful and it is here that deliberative practices could become useful. I imagine a sort of “States General” of the GenZ or a “General Assembly” where the diverse voices can find a common platform.

Let’s call this idea the GenZ Civic Forum. Such a proposition would be based on the best practices stemming from deliberative democracy where, in general terms, citizens come together to listen to each other, reason together and then deliberate.

The GenZ Civic Forum could come alive both in the online sphere but also in person. Both processes would be complementary to each other with the former offering an opportunity to individual youths or groups of them to elaborate proposals in an initial stage.

An online platform, in essence a web site, could be created for this purpose where new ideas and propositions would be uploaded and visible to other users. It would be essential that each proposition would entail a certain level of details and specifics rather than generic and simplistic ideas just being thrown out.

Basically, while the format should not be overly complex, users would be requested to make an effort at elaborating and elucidating their propositions, including by bringing in some comparative examples from other nations. Each proposition, once uploaded, could be assessed and even scored by other users in what could be a scoring system.

To simplify the experience, propositions could be made in different categories. One, at macro level, related to the biggest issues like the nature and shape of political systems, for example about direct or indirect election of the Prime Minister or issues related to the electoral system. Then at a lower level, propositions could be fielded through sub-categories in areas like basic education, science and innovation, health, business and commerce, social protection.

In a second phase, online discussion forums could be organized around the above issues. It would be improbable that consensus would emerge on every single issue but at least, the participants would educate each other by listening to each other. Clear moderation rules should be set in order to ensure that everyone would have an opportunity to share her idea and the principles of inclusion and equalities are fully respected and upheld.

With some creativity and ingenuity, it is very possible to imagine in person gatherings at local levels wherever feasible and possible. There would be common rules that would follow the key cornerstones of deliberative democracy where participants set aside for a moment their held positions and genuinely try to understand others’ views.

Local experts could be called to share their opinions and expertise.

For example, professionals with a health background could share their thoughts about how to improve the public health system and fully regulate private hospitals. Experts from education would share their considerations on ways to strengthen community schools.

Imagine a local GenZ Civic Forum where in one session participants delve on matters related to one particular area while in the next one, they focus on another area. At the end, common propositions would be forged once the participants would spend time to reflect and talk to each other in an open, unbiased and respectful manner.

We could even envision a central level Civic Forum with representatives from the local forums. I do understand that many readers might find these ideas excessively naïve or idealistic but deliberative democracy is a reality and it is being practiced around the world, both in the Global South and Global North.

Is it going to be easy? Is it going to be that simple to run GenZ Civic Forums local and at national level? There will be challenges and difficulties and many details must be sorted out but the bottom line is that a different way of doing politics is not only imaginable, it is also possible.

In the end, even if all the challenges are sorted out, the dream of a deliberative democracy wave powered by GenZ might not happen. The incoming elections are pushing many members of the GenZ to make a choice and take a side, often by deciding to run themselves.

Rather than trying to find a common position, they will be under pressure to differentiate each other and try to emerge from the pack. Having members of the GenZ running for elections is a very good thing but let’s not forget that politics as usual are ineffective and traditional election based democracy is in crisis and not only in Nepal.

It is a pity and a missed opportunity but the good news is that deliberative democracy can co-exist with elections… This means that the GenZ Civic Forum can become a reality even if there will be a big number of GenZ elected in the next parliament.

At the end of the day, politics should not happen only in the chambers of powers but also in the chambers full of unelected citizens. Also because the new crop of MPs will be always in need of a reality check and it will not harm them to stay quiet and listen to the citizen peers, not only once in a while but periodically and in a structured fashion where deliberative democracy will reign. 

Time is running out for former Sushila Karki’s government to prepare for the March 5 elections. Tasked solely with holding polls within a stipulated timeframe, the administration has failed to create a conducive political and security environment. Engagement with political parties has been minimal, the security situation remains fragile, and confusion persists over election security modalities. Political parties, meanwhile, remain reluctant to participate. Deep-seated problems within the government are compounding the crisis.

Flawed beginning

From day one, Karki adopted an overtly anti-party stance, engaging primarily with self-styled Gen-Z activists who lack institutional legitimacy. Allowing such individuals to attend government meetings eroded trust and convinced political parties that the administration sought to undermine them. Her early hints at arresting party leaders further deepened hostility, damaging her neutrality as the head of an election government.

Anti-party approach

From the outset, Karki adopted an overtly anti-party posture, choosing to engage with self-styled Gen-Z activists over institutional actors. Allowing such individuals to attend cabinet meetings blurred the line between activism and governance, eroding trust. For political parties, this was confirmation that the government was not neutral but adversarial. Her early hints at arresting senior leaders deepened hostility and exposed a worrying authoritarian streak in an ostensibly non-partisan caretaker government.

Alienating the old guard​​​​​​​

Karki has publicly said she is not interested in meeting senior leaders of major parties, suggesting they should retire to make way for a younger generation. This statement not only offended top leaders, but also ignored the political reality that leadership change is unlikely before party conventions. As prime minister, she should have engaged directly with senior leaders instead of delegating the task to the President.

Misreading the Gen-Z movement​​​​​​​

Despite aligning herself with the Gen-Z protests, Karki has shown little understanding of their structure or motives. The movement is not a unified entity but a loose network of groups with divergent demands. She has admitted meeting over 20 factions with conflicting agendas, making it impossible to satisfy all sides. Her struggle to select ministers, with youth factions opposing each other’s nominees, exposes her lack of strategic direction.

Unclear response to September violence​​​​​​​

The government has yet to clarify its stance on the September 8–9 violence, during which several people were killed and property vandalized. Police arrests have angered Gen-Z activists, while the administration has failed to distinguish between cases warranting prosecution and those eligible for amnesty. The hurried formation of the Gauri Bahadur Karki-led probe panel without consensus from parties or youth representatives has further muddied the waters.

Incomplete cabinet​​​​​​​

Despite two expansions, Karki’s cabinet remains incomplete. Rather than forming a broad-based team with diverse expertise, she has failed to reach out to capable professionals and independent figures. This delay has weakened the government’s efficiency and credibility.

Populist and risky decisions​​​​​​​

Karki has favored populist moves over substantive reforms. Her decision to withdraw security personnel from senior political leaders was rash, especially amid growing threats. Major parties now rely on their youth wings for protection. Similarly, police raids on relatives of political figures were conducted without transparency or explanation, reinforcing perceptions of bias.

Leadership under pressure​​​​​​​

Karki’s public remarks suggest she is struggling to assert herself as prime minister. She has admitted facing pressure from influential figures, including Kathmandu Mayor Balendra Shah, over arrests linked to the deaths of 19 students. Her inability to act independently or withstand external influence has raised doubts about her authority and neutrality.

Economic neglect​​​​​​​

The private sector, already battered by prolonged protests, has received little government support. Instead of ensuring business security, the administration worsened the crisis by disrupting electricity supply to industries. As a result, more than two dozen factories have shut down, deepening economic distress.

Diplomatic mismanagement

Karki’s handling of foreign affairs has been equally poor. It took more than a month to brief the diplomatic community in Kathmandu about her government’s priorities. The sudden recall of ambassadors from 11 countries, without clear justification, will leave key missions vacant for at least a year—even if elections proceed on schedule. Her claim that some ambassadors questioned the government’s longevity is unconvincing and reflects poor judgment.

A familiar pattern

Despite promising a break from the past, Karki’s administration increasingly mirrors previous party-led governments—frequent bureaucratic transfers, non-consultative decisions, populist gestures, and a failure to maintain neutrality. With time running out, Prime Minister Sushila Karki’s government appears adrift—caught between Gen-Z idealism and political realism, and struggling to deliver on its most basic mandate: holding credible elections.

Prime Minister Sushila Karki has called for support and cooperation from all sides to make the election scheduled for March 5 a success.

Prime Minister Karki held a discussion with the editors of several media at the PM residence, Baluwatar, on Friday regarding the country's contemporary political affairs, elections preparation, and government's performance, the PM secretariat informed.

Sharing that the government has put all-out efforts to create atmosphere for the election, and its positive results are on anvil, PM Karki informed that consultations were held with Gen Z groups and political parties in the meantime to that end.

Prime Minister Karki stated that she intended to ensure the success of the elections by gaining massive trust and hand over the new government before her exit.

Highlighting the government's prime objective to maintain good governance and conduct elections, the Head of the Government said the March 5 elections would be accomplished, and executive power would be transferred by encouraging the political parties to enthusiastically participate in elections rather than restricting them.

She took the leadership of the government in a challenging situation, Prime Minister Karki said, adding she would, however, not be scared of criticism.

Finance Minister Rameshwor Prasad Khanal, Minister for Energy, Water Resources, Irrigation, Kulman Ghising, Home Minister Om Prakash Aryal, Law Minister Anil Kumar Sinha and Minister for Communications and Information Technology Jagdish Kharel attended the meeting.