Kathmandu has been convulsed by the biggest street upheaval in years after mass protests — sparked by a sudden government clampdown on social media — morphed into a broader anti-corruption, anti-elite movement led largely by young people. The unrest forced Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli’s resignation, left parts of the capital burned and looted, cost dozens of lives, and has opened an uncertain chapter in Nepali politics in which the army, the presidency and civil-society leaders are negotiating an interim roadmap — with retired Chief Justice Sushila Karki emerging as the likely interim prime minister.
How it began: a ban, a backlash, a movement
The immediate trigger was the government’s move to block or demand registration from major social platforms — including Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and TikTok — which critics said was intended to stifle dissent and control the online conversation. Young organisers, many mobilised via the platforms the government sought to curb, turned outrage into mass demonstrations in Kathmandu and other cities. What began as a digital-native resistance movement quickly broadened into open protests against corruption, nepotism and stark inequality.
From protests to crisis: escalation and damage
Protests swelled into tens of thousands at their peak. Demonstrators broke into the parliament complex and targeted symbols of perceived elite privilege — including high-end hotels and homes of political figures — with several sites set ablaze. Security forces used tear gas, water cannon and, according to multiple rights groups and local reports, lethal and less-lethal firearms in crowd-control operations. The clashes turned deadly: reporting from the past few days puts the confirmed death toll in the dozens with more than a thousand injured — figures that evolved as hospitals treated waves of casualties. Amnesty International and others have called for independent probes into the security forces’ use of force.
Political fallout: PM resigns, talks begin
Under the pressure of mounting street action and political isolation, K.P. Sharma Oli resigned in early September. Jubilant crowds entered the parliament compound after the announcement, but the unrest did not end with his departure. The power vacuum and ongoing demands — many protesters insist on structural political reforms, mass resignations and an end to impunity — set the stage for frantic negotiations among the president’s office, military leaders and protest representatives about who should lead a neutral, interim administration and how long it should govern.
The army and the presidency: broker, guarantor, or kingmaker?
Unusually, the Nepal Army has played a visible mediation role, holding talks with Gen-Z organisers and meeting with President Ram Chandra Paudel to discuss an interim arrangement. The army says it is facilitating dialogue between protesters and constitutionally mandated institutions to restore order — a role that raises anxieties given Nepal’s history and the delicate balance between civilian authority and the military. The president’s involvement is pivotal because, under Nepal’s constitution, the head of state has a role in appointing an interim executive in times of political crisis. Observers warn that any perceived overreach by the military or of-the-moment political deals could deepen divisions.
Sushila Karki: why a former chief justice?
Into that vacuum came a proposal from protest leaders: Sushila Karki, a retired chief justice who made history as Nepal’s first female chief justice and who is widely regarded as independent and reform-minded. Protest organisers publicly suggested Karki as a consensus figure who could head a non-partisan interim government to investigate the violence, oversee accountability measures, and prepare conditions for a credible transition. Multiple news agencies report that Karki has been identified as the front-runner and that a formal appointment was likely to be discussed at a presidential meeting scheduled on 12 September 2025. However, sources emphasise that legal and political hurdles remain, and not all protest factions have given full backing.
Human cost, accountability and services
Beyond deaths and injuries, the unrest disrupted daily life: schools and markets closed, flights were briefly affected, and key government services were strained. Hospitals reported surges of patients; human-rights groups have called for independent investigations into reported excessive use of force. The protesters’ platform goes beyond a single issue — it demands systemic anti-corruption measures, transparency, and mechanisms to prevent the capture of state institutions by elite networks. How the interim arrangement addresses justice for the victims and structural reforms will determine whether the protests result in lasting change or merely a political reset.
Regional and international reactions
India and China, Nepal’s two immediate neighbours with competing strategic interests in the Himalayas, have watched developments closely. International rights organisations and Western governments have expressed concern over the violence and urged restraint and peaceful, constitutional solutions. There is diplomatic interest in preserving stability — both to protect citizens and to avoid a spillover effect on tourism and remittances, crucial pillars of Nepal’s economy. Media coverage from regional outlets highlights worries about how prolonged instability could damage investment and livelihoods.
What happens next — scenarios to watch
- Consensus interim government — If President Paudel, the army and a majority of protest leaders coalesce around a non-partisan interim head (for example, Sushila Karki), the immediate aim would be restoring order, launching investigations, and setting a timetable for fresh elections or a political reform process. Implementation and buy-in across parties would be the challenge.
- Fragmentation and renewed unrest — If factions refuse to accept the interim arrangement or suspect backroom deals, street mobilisation could resume, producing further instability and risking more violence.
- Military entrenchment — Any perception that the army is overstepping could alarm civil liberties advocates and foreign partners, raising the stakes for Nepal’s democratic institutions. Observers stress the need for transparency in all discussions involving the military.
Why this matters
Nepal’s uprising speaks to a global pattern — digitally mobilised youth taking on entrenched political elites, demanding accountability and transparency. For Nepal specifically, the upheaval exposes a fragile political settlement, deep economic grievances, and the difficulty of governing a country heavily dependent on foreign employment, tourism and remittances. How leaders handle the immediate aftermath — who leads the interim administration, how accountability for the killings is pursued, and whether meaningful reforms are launched — will determine whether the protests reshape Nepali politics or become another episode in cyclical instability.
Sources: Reporting compiled from multiple news agencies. Key reporting for this article was drawn from Reuters, Al Jazeera, and other major outlets covering developments through 12 September 2025. For immediate updates, see Reuters’ coverage of Sushila Karki’s likely appointment and broader Reuters and Al Jazeera live reporting on the protests and army-protester talks.
