Experiences of a common man!

Tag: Nepal democratic crisis 2025

Extremism and Communal violence in Bangladesh; Extremism in Nepal

Dangers of Extremism: A Warning for Nepal from Bangladesh’s Communal Violence

The last eighteen months have witnessed a seismic shift in the political landscape of South Asia, as powerful, youth-led revolutions in Bangladesh (June-August, 2024) and Nepal (September, 2025) overthrew respective governments. Born from shared frustrations with corruption and economic despair, these movements represent a generational demand for a new social contract. However, the initial euphoria of political change can obscure profound dangers. This analysis argues that the the post-revolutionary collapse witnessed in Bangladesh, which allowed growth of extremism and communal violence, is a cautionary tale for Nepal. Because institutional fragility and digital manipulation are vital features of both movements, the lessons from Dhaka must be urgently heeded in Kathmandu.

1. A Tale of Two Revolutions: The Shared DNA of Discontent

To understand the divergent paths of Nepal and Bangladesh, it is strategically vital to first recognize the parallel triggers that led to their respective uprisings. Though ignited by different sparks, a government job quota in Bangladesh and a social media ban in Nepal, the underlying grievances were nearly identical. In both nations, a combustible mix of economic stagnation, systemic corruption, and deep-seated frustration with an aging, self-serving political class created fertile ground for mass mobilization. This shared DNA of discontent explains not just why the revolutions happened, but why Nepal must now study the tragic turn its neighbor’s revolution took.

1.1. Bangladesh’s “July Revolution” (2024)

The movement that would become Bangladesh’s “July Revolution” began with a seemingly specific grievance. In June 2024, the Supreme Court reinstated a 30% quota in government jobs for the descendants of freedom fighters, a move students saw as a direct threat to merit-based opportunity. This student-led protest rapidly grew into a nationwide mass uprising as it tapped into a deep well of public dissatisfaction with Sheikh Hasina’s authoritarian government, rampant corruption, and a prolonged economic downturn.

The government’s brutal response served only to escalate the conflict. A fact-finding report by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) later confirmed a “systematic and widespread use of unlawful force.” Crucially, this was not just the work of state security forces. The government deployed its own political cadres. The Chhatra League (the ruling Awami League’s student wing) acted in concert with police, attacking protestors with “blunt weapons, machetes and firearms.” This violent crackdown, which resulted in as many as 1,400 protest-related deaths and thousands of injuries, transformed a student movement into a revolution that brought the government down.

1.2. Nepal’s “Gen-Z Uprising” (2025)

In Nepal, the catalyst was the government’s fateful decision to ban 26 social media platforms. The official justification was a regulatory dispute; major platforms like Meta had failed to comply with national registration laws, while others like TikTok had. For a generation whose social, economic, and emotional lives are built on digital platforms, this was not a mere regulatory issue but a profound assault on their livelihood and freedom. The ban, however, was only the spark that lit a long-smoldering fire.

The deeper causes of Nepal’s “Gen-Z Uprising” mirrored those in Bangladesh. Youth unemployment had reached a critical level of over 20%, forcing over 2,000 young Nepalis to leave the country every day for job opportunitiies. The nation’s political system was dominated by a trio of aging leaders, K.P. Sharma Oli, Sher Bahadur Deuba, and Pushpa Kamal Dahal, engaged in a musical chair of corruption and stagnation. Public anger reached a boiling point with the viral “#NepoKids” trend, which contrasted the lavish lifestyles of the political elite’s children with the daily struggles of ordinary citizens. The speed at which the Oli government subsequently disintegrated was astonishing, exposing a hollowed-out state revealing that its authority was merely a facade.

While both revolutions were born from a shared wellspring of democratic hope, the immediate aftermaths revealed a terrifying divergence, with Bangladesh descending into a sectarian violence that Nepal must now studiously avoid.

2. The Aftermath in Bangladesh: When Political Upheaval Uncorks Communal Hatred

The power vacuum that immediately follows a successful revolution is a period of extreme vulnerability. State institutions are weak, the rule of law is tenuous, and the raw anger that fueled the uprising can be easily manipulated. In Bangladesh, this vulnerability was ruthlessly exploited by extremist elements who redirected legitimate political anger toward sectarian violence. The movement’s initial focus on democratic reform was hijacked, and the nation’s Hindu minority became the new target.

2.1. A Minority Under Siege

In the weeks following Sheikh Hasina’s ouster, a wave of violent attacks was unleashed against Bangladesh’s Hindu community. The motives were a toxic blend of political retribution, rising anti-India sentiment, and pre-existing local tensions over land and blasphemy allegations. Hindus were widely perceived as allies of the ousted Prime Minister, making them convenient scapegoats.

The experience of Chakravarty, a pharmacist, provides a harrowing account. He recalls hearing a mob chanting slogans before they attacked his shop. “I quickly put the shutter down,” he said, “I was trapped inside for about two and a half hours.” Later that night, Chakravarty returned home to find his house completely destroyed. The attack, however, was more than just physical destruction; it was the tearing of a social fabric. Chakravarty emphasized that such violence was “unprecedented” in his region. “People here work together – even celebrate together in religious festivals,” he noted. “This has never happened before.”

This was not an isolated incident. The sharp increase in religious radicalism was tragically exemplified by the lynching of Dipu Chandra Das this week. These targeted assaults underscore a grim reality: when state authority collapses, minority communities are often the first to suffer.

2.2. The Mutation of a Movement: From Political Protest to Mob Rule

The attacks on the Hindu community represented a dangerous perversion of the “July Revolution’s” original goals. An uprising that began as a pro-democracy movement devolved into targeted communal violence where, as a PGurus report noted, “mob rule and religious extremism are increasingly replacing the rule of law.”

This devolution from protest to persecution was systematic. The OHCHR report confirmed attacks on religious minorities, and data from Bangladesh’s National Security Intelligence (NSI) agency detailed 37 distinct violent attacks targeting these communities between August 5 and 15 alone. A movement born from a demand for accountability from an abusive state, which deployed its own party cadres as street muscle, devolved into a new form of mob rule.

The tragic events in Bangladesh serve as a stark and unequivocal warning for Nepal’s own precarious post-revolutionary path.

3. A Clarion Call for Nepal: Navigating the Post-Revolution Minefield

This analysis now turns to its core argument. While Nepal’s “Gen-Z Uprising” was not rooted in religious conflict, the country now exhibits many of the same vulnerabilities that allowed extremism to flourish in Bangladesh. The current political instability, the profound erosion of state authority with constant threats from the ousted Prime Minister, and the very digital tools that powered the revolution create a minefield of latent dangers. These vulnerabilities could be exploited by extremist elements, whether domestic or foreign, to inflame ethnic or religious divisions and derail the nation’s democratic aspirations.

3.1. Identifying Latent Dangers

Nepal’s primary risk factors form a triad of institutional weakness and digital volatility that demands immediate attention.

  • A Brittle Power Vacuum: The sudden collapse of the Oli government and the installation of a fragile interim administration under former Chief Justice Sushila Karki have created a period of profound political uncertainty. This leadership vacuum, while born of a popular mandate, leaves the nation without the established structures needed to enforce order and mediate conflict.
  • Erosion of State Institutions: The astonishingly rapid disintegration of the police and government apparatus during the protests revealed a critical lack of institutional resilience. The police effectively vanished from the streets, demonstrating that the state’s authority was a facade. This makes the country dangerously susceptible to organized mobs, as there is no credible force to maintain law and order.
  • The Disinformation Accelerant: A forensic analysis by the threat intelligence firm Cyabra revealed that a coordinated network of inauthentic social media profiles acted as a “violence accelerator.” This network, comprising up to 34% of the conversation on X (formerly Twitter), systematically amplified the most aggressive narratives. This is evidence of hybrid warfare tactics being deployed against a domestic population, where digital manipulation serves as a force multiplier for street-level violence.

3.2. Avoiding the Bangladesh Playbook

The most critical lesson from Bangladesh is how political grievances and geopolitical tensions were weaponized against a local minority population. Rising anti-India sentiment was skillfully channeled into attacks on Bangladeshi Hindus. Nepal is vulnerable to similar manipulations.

Given Nepal’s strategic position as a buffer state between India and China, it is already a theater of geopolitical competition. In Bangladesh, anti-India sentiment was the narrative used to target Hindus. In Nepal, with its complex ethnic and regional dynamics, this same digital playbook could be deployed with devastating speed to turn geopolitical tensions into targeted ethnic or regional violence.

Nepal’s new leadership faces a dual challenge: it must simultaneously focus on rebuilding state institutions while building immediate societal resilience against the threat of extremism.

4. Conclusion: Securing a Fragile Peace

The youth revolutions in Nepal and Bangladesh were born from legitimate democratic aspirations. Yet, the tragic aftermath in Bangladesh reveals the grave danger that awaits when a power vacuum is filled not by democratic institution-building, but by extremism and mob violence. The specific mechanisms seen in Dhaka, where a government blurred the lines between state and party violence, and where geopolitical narratives were weaponized to incite sectarian hatred, now represent a clear and present danger for Kathmandu.

The analysis presented here distills into a final, powerful takeaway for Nepal’s new leaders and its vibrant civil society. The urgent priority must be to secure the fragile peace by fostering national unity, methodically rebuilding the rule of law, and aggressively combating the sophisticated digital manipulation that threatens to tear the social fabric apart. Nepal’s hard-won political revolution must not be allowed to curdle into sectarian conflict. The profound responsibility now falls to Nepal’s youth to learn from the tragic lessons of its neighbor and dedicate itself to building a truly inclusive, stable, and resilient democracy.

Democracy symbols

Why Modern Democracy is an Illusion

By means of ever more effective methods of mind-manipulation, the democracies will change their nature; the quaint old forms—elections, parliaments, Supreme Courts and all the rest—will remain. The underlying substance will be a new kind of non-violent totalitarianism.

– Aldous Huxley (Brave New World Revisited, 1958)

Democracy in modern times is an illusion. It is a doublespeak for elites who ask for our votes while legitimising their control. We are living in a system that calls us free while we are imprisoned by emotions shaped by algorithms, propaganda, and continuous surveillance.

Athenian Democracy

Most historians agree that democracy originated from Athens. The people in Athens, a Greek city-state, developed democracy to conduct public affairs. The concept was simple. The citizens gathered in the Agora for Assembly (Ekklesia) to vote on laws, declare war or peace, decide foreign policy, and oversee public spending. Participation was a civic duty, not a choice.

There were no elections in Athens, though. They believed that elections could be rigged by the wealthy, the eloquent, or the well-connected. Because elections could give rise to oligarchy, they used lottery to select their representatives. Although fateful, they thought the random choice was more democratic as everyone had equal opportunity. They had also invented the kleroterion, an allotment machine to prevent rigging of the lottery.

One of the biggest problems of the Athenian Democracy was that it included citizens only, which included men born in the city. Women, slaves, merchants, and foreigners were excluded from voting. Even the original democracy was not fully democratic.

Plato’s Democracy

In the Republic, Plato discusses five kinds of regimes:

  • Aristocracy: Rule by the wise philosopher king who is benevolent and not tyrannical,
  • Timocracy: Rule by honour-driven soldiers. Ancient Sparta is an example.
  • Oligarchy: Rule by the wealthy landowners who put money above all increasing the gap between the rich and the poor. A capitalist state gives rise to oligarchy.
  • Democracy: Rule by the many after revolution against the oligarchs. Democracy can descend into mob rule and then into tyranny.
  • Tyranny: Rule of the “protector” of the people who crushes his enemies and develops a system to protect himself. By the time people recognize the tyrant, they are already under his control.

Plato believed that not everyone was able to lead and had to eventually give in to the desire of the public. Pacifying the people the sole objective of a democratic ruler and this would eventually lead to anarchy and tyranny.

Representative Democracy and the American Discussion

The Athenian Democracy ensured everyone’s direct participation. However, applying it to a state with large population or geographic barriers is extremely difficult. There is also a possibility of mob rule, as Plato feared, where wrong decisions and actions can also be approved by the crowd. Democracy was not a favoured form of regime.

In most of the places, representatives of an estate, clan or group ruled over the people. These were often unelected. Even when elected, like in the Roman Republic, they used to come from elite families. The Magistratus, the Senate, and the Comitia heavily favoured the oligarchs. Similar arrangements were made in the parliaments of the mediaeval period.

The concept of elected representatives became more popular after the promulgation of the Constitution of the U.S.A. and the success of the French Revolution. They were inspired by the ideas of John Locke, Charles Montesquieu, and the debates of the American Founding Fathers regarding democracy and republic.

John Locke argued for representative institutions that safeguard people’s rights in Two Treatises of Government (1689). Similarly, in The Spirit of the Laws (1748), Montesquieu detailed the idea of separation of powers. James Madison, one of the Founding Fathers of the U.S.A., strongly preferred republic over democracy:

Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention… and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.
Federalist No. 10 (1787)

Thomas Jefferson favoured broader democratic participation, argued for more trust in the “common man”, and pushed for expanding suffrage, but did not support direct democracy.

The idea of representative democracy was not uncontested, however. Rousseau, for instance, argued that true sovereignty rests with the people directly and that representation is a form of slavery:

“The moment a people gives itself representatives, it is no longer free.”
The Social Contract (1762)

Nepal’s Practice of Democracy

Nepal became a democratic state in 1951. There have also been protests in 1990 and 2006 to restore democracy. However, many indigenous peoples in Nepal have been practicing democracy since antiquity, for instance:

The Guthi System (Newar Communities)

The guthi is not only a land trust but also a self-governing social institution where decisions are taken collectively by lineage members. The leader is called thakali (not to be confused with the ethnic people, Thakali from Thak Khola area of Mustang, whose system is described in the next section).

Some of its features are:

  • Leadership rotation
  • Collective labour
  • Social accountability mechanisms
  • Participation by household, not just by individual “citizens”
  • Decisions often made through consensus, not simple majority rule
  • Certain guthi (especially diguthi) allow women significant authority

Guthis also call for collective action. Changes about to be brought by the Guthi bill were opposed in 2019.

The Thakali System

Thakali governance traditionally involves:

  • The Thakali Council (Thakali Tewa)
  • Female inheritance in some clans
  • Matriarchal features in household authority
  • A trading-network-based social order where economic cooperation required inclusive decision-making
  • Ritual and community functions coordinated by collective assemblies

The Panchayat System

King Mahendra introduced the Panchayat System in 1962. He believed partisan democracy did not suit Nepal and introduced a democratic system that valued local governance. A Panchayat at the local level included five representatives who looked after the basic needs and small judicial proceedings among the people. Although it was replaced by multi-party democracy in 1990, the system still influences the villages in Nepal and also shapes the modern local governance at the ward level.

Multi-Party Democracy with Constitutional Monarchy

In 1990, Nepal adopted a new constitution, and with it restored multi-party democracy with the constitutional monarch as the protector. Some communist groups who were unsatisfied, started an armed revolution against the government. Parties, especially Nepali Congress and CPN-UML, busy with their internal politics and unserious about the issue, let the movement grow. They also wanted to use excessive force using the Royal Nepal Army, whose deployment required the King’s permission.

After the Royal Massacre of King Birendra’s family in the Narayanhiti Palace premises, the Maoists declared monarchy was dead. King Gyanendra could not gain support from the people and he had to give up his throne paving way for democratic republican system.

Multi-Party Democratic Republic

Nepal adopted the republican system on the first meeting of the First Constituent Assembly in 2008. The Second Constituent Assembly gave Nepal its current constitution which adopts competitive multi-party democratic republic. However, competition is limited by fragile coalitions, shifting loyalties, and undemocratic practices within the parties.

Democracy in Modern Times

Oligarchic Elections and Tyrannical Tendencies

In modern times, “democracy” and “republic” are often used interchangeably. Whether it is the parliamentary democracy of India, the presidential republic of the USA or the democratic republic of Nepal, people’s participation is ensured through periodic elections. Constitutions, laws, and institutions prevent the tyranny of the majority. Institutions have become more inclusive as voting and candidacy rights prevent discrimination on any grounds.

The problem, however, is that democracies have become mechanical. Elections are announced, political parties or individuals participate, people vote, and the representatives make laws or execute them according to the set principles. The actual voice of people is often lost, as they have little say in the nomination of political parties and candidates and the laws and policies the representatives endorse. This is because modern democracy is actually an oligarchy with popular legitimacy.

In an oligarchy, authority is in the hands of a select few, often distinguished by wealth, family ties, military power, or intellectual influence. Robert Michels’ “iron law of oligarchy” argues that even democratic organisations tend to concentrate power in a few hands due to organisational necessities.

The political parties and their leaders are often like oligarchs. They tend to concentrate power to themselves, depriving the general people from even the basic rights. The collective knowledge on denial of rights, political oppression, and ideological slavery is driving protests all over the world. Bangladesh’s July 2024 Uprising, Nepal’s September 2025 Protests, and uprisings in Indonesia, Philippines, and Madagascar.

There is also the danger of elected tyrants. Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and Vladimir Putin suppressed opposition and undermined democracy even though they themselves contested elections. These leaders are villains to people who follow democratic ideals. But there is also a curious case of Lee Kwan Yew, the beloved Founding Father of Singapore. He and his PAP did bring up many reforms that upscaled industries in Singapore and improved people’s lives, but he also brutally suppressed the communists.

Mind Manipulation

The villainization of some and heroization of others is the result of interest-based mind manipulation or propaganda through the use of media. Although both Putin and Yew suppressed their rivals, Putin is a villain to the West because he does not accept the Western agenda and aggressively counters them. Yew, on the other hand, is a hero because he acted to safeguard the Western interests. The US intervention in other countries is an act of peace, whereas the Russian invasion of Ukraine is imperialism. Change the news sources to Russia or Putin-supporting Russians, Putin is the hero, and the Western leaders are the villains. Truth in global politics is mediated by geopolitical interests, not universal moral standards.

Proliferation of social media has become a fuel for propaganda as explained by P.W. Singer and Emeron T. Brooking in their book, LikeWar. Politics is now a game of algorithm. If you “like”, “follow” or “subscribe” to a certain belief, you get bombarded with content that support it. Opposing political ideas become intolerable. You are fed sponsored political campaigns involving provocative statements from leaders and electoral candidates, endorsements from “influencers” who chase clout, and identity-based mobilization that hate on “others”. With unfiltered opinionated people catering to algorithm-filtered content on social media, populism is on the rise.

Populism and Celebrity Leadership

Representative Democracy inherently is a game of convincing people to elect candidates to an office. The game of throne is that of lies, and the one who can lie the most effectively is the winner. Successful is the one who either belongs to a political party with strong grassroots movements, promises to change the status quo through effective campaigning, or has made a name in the community in the past. No candidate can win elections in vacuum.

Political parties with strong grassroots movements are often the best in practicing democracy. Candidates from such parties are also the favourites. However, there is no denying that political parties and candidates are often used by the rich and the powerful to further the policies they want. The candidates also promise to provide basic infrastructures like roads and drinking water even if may be against the existing laws and policies or undermine sustainability.

Candidates working among the people for some time have a good understanding of the problems. If they already are members of political parties, they have the best chance. If they don’t belong to political parties, they may sweep the election as underdogs. However, they also must cater to people’s desire to solve the existing problems even if the solutions are illogical or problematic.

Effective campaigning, however, trumps everything else. You may belong to a political party or have good relations with the people, if you have no campaigning, you can’t win. Candidates use the rally of supporters, go to each household, meet each voter, and ask for a vote. All these have been eased by social media. And who has the best chance of succeeding in social media? Celebrities!

Ronald Reagan was an actor before he stepped into politics and became the President of the US. Donald Trump too came from entertainment industry. Nepal has also seen TV presenters and singers such as Rabi Lamichhane, Komal Oli, and Balen Shah have turned into leaders. Except Komal Oli, the existing fans of these celebrities have helped push forward their narratives, even when they are apolitical.

When leaders always cater to the emotions of the people, they eliminate opponents and gradually overreach to perpetuate their rule.

Continuation of Institutions

Democratic tyrannical leaders, unlike those like Ibrahim Traoré, need democratic institutions to legitimize their rule. Political scientists Steven Levitsky and Lucan Way describe modern states that maintain elections and courts but undermine real accountability as competitive authoritarian regimes. This is because power is most stable when people believe it is legitimate, and legitimacy is most easily maintained when people feel they are in control and believe they choose their leaders. A system seeking to control citizens without violence must therefore keep the appearance of democracy. They also need the facade for international legitimacy.

The continuation of institutions also comforts the general public. Most people stability and predictability over revolution and chaos. Keeping them provides emotional reassurance, even while policymakers, media, or interest groups subtly control outcomes behind the scenes. Moreover, the “democracy” needs to manufacture consent for self-legitimacy. The reign continues even though there the outcomes are predetermined by algorithmic control, agenda-setting, media manipulation, and financial influence. In fact, the participation itself generates consent.

War Politics

The Democratic Peace Theory (DPT) argues that democracies don’t go to war. The reality is different. Except communist dictatorships like North Korea and absolute monarchists like Saudi Arabia, almost every country claims to be democratic, hold elections, and support peace. Everyone is at war, though. From direct confrontations to proxy wars, the world is reeling with futile wars that only strengthen the elites.

Conclusion

The original Athenian Democracy included the voice of people, but it excluded women, slaves, and merchant. Compared to that, Nepal’s indigenous institutions are more democratic. Modern Democracy is different. It is representative and inclusive, but it is a rhetoric for mass control with manufactured consent. It is a system that depends on lies, propaganda, and emotional manipulation to legitimize itself. As Huxley says, the political institutions and structures remain “democratic. However, they are weak and corrupt and invoke fear and terror instead of respect and peace. Modern Democracy is an illusion that promotes hate over love, and divided identities over unity of humanity.

What’s the solution then? The solution, I think, is to give up the notion that each individual has power over the matters of the country. I don’t. Neither does the elected representative. Everyone in the society should be conscious enough to know that leadership is a heavy burden. From such a society emerge leaders who can balance practicalities with philosophy that best serves humanity. We need a grassroots movement that reinforces morality, truthfulness, and conscience. It will turn hatred into love and replace divisions with unity.

A more practical approach would be to improve civic education, strengthen institutions, and safeguard transparency mechanisms. Political parties should be made more democratic through internal debates and periodic elections of the leaders.

For Nepal, the path forward is not simply imitation of Western models but the creation of a contextual, home-grown, critical democracy that:

  • connects technological opportunity (digital participation) with local realities;
  • draws on Nepal’s traditional community governance like the guthi system, inclusive practices among multiple ethnicities and castes;
  • recognises that participation must include real agency, not just elections; and
  • safeguards against elite capture, algorithmic manipulation and institutional stagnation.

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén