Nepal’s 2025 Digital Dilemma: Between Censorship, Youth Protests, and Geopolitics

In September 2025, Nepal was rocked by a wave of protests sparked by the government’s sudden decision to ban social media platforms across the country. The frustration quickly spilled into the streets, with thousands of young people, many from Generation Z, demanding not only the restoration of online freedoms but also an end to corruption, political stagnation, and unemployment. This attempt to restrict the digital sphere reflected more than just domestic control: it highlighted Nepal’s struggle to navigate competing regional models of digital governance and the broader geopolitical contest over information sovereignty in South Asia. How do these bans reflect a wider regional struggle over digital sovereignty and state control?

Situated in the Himalaya range and landlocked between Asia’s two superpowers, China and India, Nepal is among the poorest countries on the continent. Nepal is still an agrarian economy, but services, especially tourism and remittances, dominate GDP. After abolishing its monarchy in 2008, Nepal established a multi-party system and a constitution that guarantees democratic governance. However, its democracy has faced significant challenges, including political instability, frequent changes of government, and occasional disputes between branches of government. Notably, since 2008, the country has had no fewer than 15 prime ministers.

Nepal’s political history and its predominantly young population set the stage for a surprising development on September 4, 2025, when the government decided to suspend 26 social media platforms, including YouTube, X, and Facebook. The move shocked many Nepalese, particularly the younger generation, as nearly half of Nepal’s 30 million citizens use social media. With a median age of 26, a significant share of the population belongs to Gen Z, the age group most active on social media.

According to authorities, the move aimed to combat misinformation, including fake news and hate speech, as well as cybercrime. Officials reported that users with fake IDs were spreading hate and rumors, engaging in cybercrime, and disrupting social harmony on these platforms. The government also claimed that the platforms failed to comply with new registration requirements, which called for them to register and appoint local representatives within seven days under the Social Media Directives 2080. By framing the suspension this way, the government positioned it as a measure of national sovereignty and control over digital spaces, while presenting the action as necessary to protect social stability and security.

However, many young Nepalese saw it as a move to suppress their voices and freedom. Starting September 5, thousands of Nepalese, mostly aged 13 to 28, took to the streets of Kathmandu to protest the blocking of social media platforms. In the following days, demonstrators set fire to several official buildings, including parliament and the residence of then-Prime Minister Sharma Oli. The Gen Z-led movement was driven not only by the nationwide ban but also by widespread anger over corruption, officials’ wealth, and allegations of public fund mismanagement. According to Transparency International’s 2024 Corruption Perceptions Index, Nepal ranks 107th out of 180 countries in perceived corruption. Meanwhile, a report by the International Labor Office indicates that youth unemployment in Nepal stands at 19 percent, six times higher than the 3 percent recorded among adults. Together, these frustrations have fuelled the Gen Z revolt.

The government reacted swiftly and forcefully to contain the protests, deploying police who used tear gas and carried out mass arrests, leaving at least 70 dead, according to local reports. This heavy-handed response reflected not only domestic insecurity but also Nepal’s delicate balancing act between asserting digital sovereignty and managing youth discontent, while signaling alignment with regional models of state control favored by China and India. Curfews were imposed in parts of Kathmandu to deter large gatherings, and officials justified the crackdown as necessary to maintain order and protect public property, though critics argued it marked an authoritarian turn that only deepened public anger. These measures further fueled youth frustration, highlighting the risks governments face when digital restrictions clash with generational expectations for political participation.

In a bid to ease tensions, authorities temporarily restored access to certain social media platforms. Yet, just five days after the protests began, Prime Minister Sharma Oli resigned under mounting pressure. Subsequently, on September 12, former Chief Justice Sushila Karki was appointed as Nepal’s first-ever female interim prime minister. This political shift underscored the growing influence of digitally connected youth, whose activism was not merely domestic dissent but also a reflection of how Nepalese politics are increasingly shaped by regional digital governance pressures.

Beyond domestic unrest, the Nepalese case resonates across Asia, where governments increasingly view digital platforms as both a tool and a threat to political legitimacy. The region experienced similar youth-led protests, reflecting a broader regional reckoning with digital sovereignty, generational frustration, and state control. In August 2025, deadly civil unrest erupted across the Indonesian archipelago, primarily in Jakarta, after the government announced a generous housing allowance for parliamentarians. Civil society and Gen Z activists mobilized online, channeling public outrage into one of Indonesia’s largest uprisings in decades, highlighting the growing importance of digital spaces in political participation. Then, in October, TikTok, with over 100 million users in Indonesia, had its local operating license temporarily suspended by the government and later restored after providing the requested data on user activity during the unrest. Excessive content moderation, government data requests, and proposed limits on social media accounts have since raised concerns about privacy and freedom of expression in the world’s third-largest democracy.

Similar dynamics are visible in India, where the government has increasingly asserted control over digital infrastructure and online spaces, particularly under Prime Minister Narendra Modi. This growing control has been evident in frequent internet shutdowns, especially in Kashmir due to the political tension between India and Pakistan, and broader media repression. In September 2025, the Indian government expanded its online censorship powers through a new platform called Sahyog, which allows district-level officials and police to order social media companies to remove content. Critics warned that the mechanism bypasses Supreme Court safeguards on free speech, enabling unchecked censorship under the guise of maintaining public order and national security. These recent measures reflect India’s broader ambition to tighten state oversight and position itself as a global leader in digital governance rooted in national interests.

On the other side, Nepal’s approach to digital regulation is shaped by its geographic and strategic proximity to China, sharing a long northern border with Tibet. Due to its economic dependence on Chinese investment and infrastructure projects, the Nepalese government faces mounting pressure to curb online activism that might be sympathetic to Tibetan causes. In the 2023-2024 fiscal year, China held approximately 12% of Nepal's total Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) stock, making it the second-largest foreign investor after India. Projects led by firms such as Huawei have reportedly expanded China’s surveillance footprint in Nepal, particularly over refugees and political dissidents. Moreover, China’s model of cyber-sovereignty provided a template for Nepal’s Social Media Directives 2080, which required platforms to register locally and appoint representatives.

While China and India lean toward increasingly state-centric models of digital control, other economic powers advocate for more open digital governance frameworks that emphasize freedom of expression, privacy, and cross-border collaboration. International initiatives such as the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD)’s digital partnership, formed by Australia, India, Japan, and the United States, aim at promoting an open, secure, and trustworthy digital ecosystem across the Indo-Pacific. This reflects efforts by liberal democracies to counterbalance state-centric approaches, particularly in a world increasingly shaped by China’s authoritarian influence.

By aligning closely with Chinese or Indian digital authoritarian models, Nepal is making a deliberate geopolitical choice, prioritizing state control and geopolitical interests over freedom of expression. Nepal risks becoming economically or politically dependent on these powers, limiting its strategic autonomy. These dynamics complicate Nepal’s diplomatic balancing act: efforts to preserve sovereignty and political stability may come at the cost of donor confidence, foreign investment, and its image as a democratic state navigating between two digital powerhouses.

By curbing online freedoms, Nepal risks damaging its human rights credibility and undermining its international standing. The suspension of social media platforms and the authorities’ response to Gen Z-led protests have drawn criticism from the United Nations and international media, highlighting concerns over freedom of expression and civil liberties. In the medium to long term, Nepal risks international isolation and a decline in its credibility as a democracy. Sustained censorship and repression could lead to reduced foreign aid, diplomatic pressure, and closer scrutiny from international organizations such as the United Nations Human Rights Council. Moreover, the erosion of civil liberties may undermine public trust in government institutions and weaken Nepal’s democratic resilience, as citizens may perceive the state as prioritizing control over rights and transparency.

Nepal’s approach to digital governance also carries important foreign policy implications, exposing the country’s dependence on foreign donors. Representing roughly 20-25% of the national budget, foreign aid plays a pivotal role in Nepal’s economy and significantly shapes its development trajectory. The top Official Development Assistance (ODA) donors to Nepal include the United States, China, India, Japan, and members of the European Union. Therefore, Nepal’s attempts to control online spaces and restrict media freedom could alienate Western partners such as the United States, whose aid is often conditioned on democratic governance and transparency. Such policies may raise concerns among international partners, potentially affecting future aid flows and Nepal’s global credibility as a democratic state. Balancing domestic control with donor expectations places Nepal in a delicate geopolitical position, where aligning with Chinese or Indian models of digital governance could strengthen state oversight but risk alienating key Western supporters.

Moreover, the rise of digitally native generations is reshaping the political landscape across South Asia. For millions of young people, social media is not merely a communication tool but a platform for political participation, identity formation, and collective action. In Nepal, the protests and the subsequent ousting of the Prime Minister revealed that this new generation cannot be fully silenced, even in the face of repression. Gen Z activists, skilled at using VPNs, encrypted messaging, and decentralized networks, have shown that digital restrictions often fuel greater mobilization rather than suppress dissent. Similar trends in India, Sri Lanka, and Indonesia suggest that governments in the region are confronting a politically conscious, globally connected youth that demands accountability and voice.

International social media platforms such as Facebook, X, and YouTube have become key geopolitical actors in their own right, increasingly caught between state demands for control and their commitment to global principles of free expression and open access. In countries like Nepal, these companies face mounting pressure to comply with sovereignty-based regulations that require local registration, data sharing, and content moderation in line with national laws. For small states, asserting digital sovereignty over global tech giants is both a symbolic and strategic act, as it serves as a way to project authority and reduce perceived dependence on foreign platforms. Yet, for the companies themselves, navigating these fragmented regulatory landscapes poses a dilemma: compliance risks legitimizing censorship and setting precedents that embolden other governments, while resistance can lead to bans, fines, or market exclusion. As a result, digital governance in small states has become a testing ground for how global tech firms balance commercial interests, ethical obligations, and the politics of national sovereignty in an increasingly multipolar digital order.

Looking ahead, Nepal faces three potential paths. The first is a turn toward authoritarian digital consolidation, in which the state deepens surveillance, enforces platform registration, and aligns more closely with China’s model of cyber-sovereignty. The second is liberalization under domestic and international pressure, restoring online freedoms to regain donor confidence and democratic legitimacy. The third, and perhaps most probable, is a hybrid model, which would consist of a pragmatic mix of control and openness that preserves state authority while allowing limited digital participation.

Nepal’s 2025 social media ban and the resulting Gen Z-led protests highlight the delicate balancing act facing fragile South Asian democracies: asserting digital sovereignty, managing politically active youth, and navigating regional and global pressures. The Nepalese protests revealed that digital restrictions often fuel greater mobilization rather than suppress dissent, while alignment with Chinese and Indian models of online control highlights the geopolitical constraints smaller states face. Nepal’s choices, whether toward authoritarian consolidation, liberalization under pressure, or a hybrid approach, will shape not only domestic stability but also its role in a region where digital governance, youth empowerment, and geopolitical influence are increasingly intertwined.