EXPLAINED

Graft and Gag: Nepal’s Gen Z Protests and the Social Media Ban – UPSC Focus

By Team Superb IAS | 🕓 September 09, 2025

Why this matters

The protests in Nepal sparked by a blanket social media ban and fuelled by anger over corruption have escalated into a major political crisis, culminating in violence, curfews, and the resignation of Prime Minister K P Sharma Oli. For UPSC, this blends current affairs, India–Nepal relations, digital regulation, and ethics.

Syllabus mapping

• Prelims: Current events of national and international importance

• Mains GS-II: India and its neighbourhood relations; Governance and Social Media Regulation

• Linkages: GS-III (internal security, cyber issues), GS-IV (ethics of free speech vs harm)

The story so far

• Trigger: Nepal’s government banned 26 social media platforms for non-compliance with directives to register locally, appoint a grievance officer, and remove government-flagged content. The ban has since been lifted.

• Exceptions: Platforms that registered and avoided the ban reportedly include TikTok, Viber, WeTalk, Nimbuzz, and Poppo Live. TikTok was earlier banned in 2023 and later restored after an agreement.

• Street mobilisation: A youth-led wave dubbed the Gen Z protests saw thousands (many under 28, some in school uniforms) rally outside Parliament. Organisers asked political parties to stay away.

• Escalation: Police action led to deaths; curfew defied; arson attacks targeted the homes of top leaders, including the Prime Minister. The Home Minister resigned on moral grounds, followed by PM Oli’s resignation.

• Underlying grievances: Allegations of entrenched corruption, elite privilege (“Nepo Babies” trending), and frustration with rotating coalitions among veteran leaders.

• Organisers: Hami Nepal framed the protests as a response to government actions and corruption. A bill to regulate social media is slated for Parliament.

Why “Gen Z” protests?

• Digital-native cohort, mobilised around censorship and corruption.

• Organisational independence from party structures to retain credibility.

• Use of memes, trends, and online narratives to challenge elite privilege and demand accountability.

Why did the government ban social media?

• Official rationale: Rising cyber crimes, fake news, and misleading content; platforms monetising in Nepal while allegedly ignoring local law.

• Compliance demand: Registration, local grievance redressal, and takedown of flagged posts under court-backed orders.

• Critics’ charge: Overreach that muzzles dissent, chills press freedom, and harms tourism-driven businesses and the diaspora’s connectivity.

Social media: benefits and risks

• Advantages:

  • Real-time information, civic participation, and government outreach.

  • Small business marketing, tourism promotion, and diaspora connections.

  • Evidence gathering and accountability in public life.

  
  

• Disadvantages:

  • Disinformation, hate speech, incitement, and online harms.

  • Algorithmic amplification of polarising content.

  • Data privacy, surveillance, and foreign influence risks.

Blanket bans: implications

• Democratic costs: Curtails freedom of expression and association; drives speech to harder-to-monitor channels.

• Security trade-offs: Temporary calm vs long-term mistrust and legitimacy deficits.

• Economic fallout: Hits MSMEs, creators, and tourism-dependent services.

• Tech-policy credibility: Signals regulatory unpredictability, deterring responsible compliance.

How India regulates social media

• Legal basis: Information Technology Act, 2000; Section 69A empowers website blocking on specified grounds.

• Rules: IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (with amendments) require due diligence, grievance officers, and faster takedowns; “significant” intermediaries have enhanced obligations including originator identification under specific legal process.

• Enforcement: Grievance Appellate Committees operational for user redress; repeated non-compliance risks safe-harbour loss.

• Precedent: Platform-specific blocks (e.g., Chinese apps in 2020) citing sovereignty and security.

• Contrast with Nepal: India’s framework relies on ongoing due diligence and targeted blocking; Nepal’s step was a blanket suspension for non-registrants, triggering sharper public backlash.

Ethics: misinformation vs free speech

• Core dilemma: Balancing harm prevention with civil liberties.

• Ethical guardrails:

  • Legality: Clear, precise, narrowly tailored laws.

  • Necessity and proportionality: Least restrictive means first (labels, downranking, targeted takedowns).

  • Accountability: Independent oversight, transparent transparency reports, and time-bound review.

  • Due process: Notice, appeal, and remedy for users and platforms.

Regional implications

• Democratic stability: Nepal’s churn weakens institutions and creates governance vacuums.

• External influence: Prolonged instability invites competitive involvement by neighbours and global platforms shaping narratives.

• Cross-border spillovers: Refuge flows unlikely at scale, but border policing, misinformation, and illicit trade risks can rise.

• Economic headwinds: Investor hesitancy and disrupted tourism can slow recovery and regional connectivity plans.

Impact on India–Nepal relations

• Border dynamics: Open border requires coordinated law-and-order and information integrity measures to prevent spillovers.

• Trade and transit: Any protracted unrest can disrupt supply chains and border trade nodes.

• Development partnerships: Hydropower, transmission, connectivity, and education/health projects need political predictability.

• People-to-people ties: Worker mobility, pilgrimages, and cultural exchanges call for a stable communicative ecosystem.

• Diplomatic stance: India benefits from a stable, sovereign, and democratic Nepal; calibrated, non-intrusive support for reforms is prudent.

Way forward (policy suggestions)

• Calibrated regulation: Replace blanket bans with graduated responses—content labelling, community standards, and targeted blocking with judicial oversight.

• Platform accountability: Local compliance teams, rapid takedown workflows, and crisis protocols developed with government and civil society.

• Transparency: Public dashboards on takedown requests, rationale, and outcomes.

• Digital literacy: At-scale programmes on media literacy, fact-checking, and civic discourse.

• Institutional reforms: Anti-corruption drives with independent watchdogs to address root grievances.

Prelims pointers

• Nepal’s political actors: K P Sharma Oli; Pushpa Kamal Dahal “Prachanda”; Sher Bahadur Deuba.

• Institutions/Groups: SAARC, BIMSTEC, BBIN.

• India–Nepal border force: Sashastra Seema Bal.

• Treaty: India–Nepal Treaty of Peace and Friendship (1950).

• Capital: Kathmandu.

Mains answer scaffolds

Q1: Discuss the implications of blanket social media bans on democracy and the economy, using Nepal as a case study.

• Introduction: Define blanket bans and immediate trigger.

• Body:

  • Governance: Rights vs order; trust deficit; institutional legitimacy.

  • Economy: MSMEs, tourism, creator economy; investor sentiment.

  • Society: Youth alienation; information vacuums; polarisation.

  • Comparative: Targeted regulation and due process as alternatives.

• Conclusion: Advocate proportional, transparent, rights-respecting regulation.

Q2: Evaluate how political instability in Nepal can affect India–Nepal relations.

• Trade/transit, border management, development projects, people-to-people ties, and regional balance.

• India’s approach: Support stability, deepen development partnerships, avoid perceptions of interference.

Quick revision bullets

• Immediate cause: Social media ban for non-compliance with registration and takedown rules; later lifted.

• Nature of protests: Youth-led, leaderless, anti-corruption, online-offline synchronisation.

• Political fallout: Curfews, fatalities, resignations, and a pending regulatory bill.

• UPSC angle: Digital governance, neighbourhood relations, ethics of speech vs harm, crisis policymaking.