In September 2025, Nepal witnessed a historic turn in its politics: Sushila Karki, a former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, was appointed as interim Prime Minister, becoming the first woman ever to hold that office in Nepal. She takes office in the wake of intense civil unrest, the resignation of Prime Minister K. P. Sharma Oli, and the dissolution of parliament.
What provoked the Gen-Z Revolution:
- The immediate trigger was a ban on social media platforms (Facebook, X, YouTube etc.), which drew widespread anger, especially among younger generations (“Gen Z”).
- Broader issues: long‑standing grievances over corruption, nepotism, and perceptions that the political class was disconnected from ordinary citizens.
- The protests turned deadly: dozens of people died, over a thousand were injured, and large parts of Kathmandu saw clashes, curfews, and damage.
In reaction to mounting public pressure and violence, Oli resigned, the parliament was dissolved, and a caretaker government was established. On 12 September 2025, Sushila Karki took oath as interim Prime Minister. Elections have been scheduled for 5 March 2026.
Karki’s background is central to her appointment: she was Chief Justice (2016‑17), known for a strong anti‑corruption stance. Her reputation among youth protesters, civil society, and neutrals helped her emerge as a compromise figure.
Lucky Bisht and His Prediction
An additional factor that has caught public attention is a video by Lucky Bisht, a former RAW (India’s external intelligence agency) officer, in which he reportedly predicted the fall of Nepal’s government and a “Nepal’s fall” scenario.
Key details about that prediction:
- The video is from December 2024.
- In that video he made general statements about weak governance, corruption, instability in Nepal. It was not explicitly a forecast tied to a specific social media ban or a clear timeline.
- Since the recent events have unfolded (protests, resignation of PM, appointment of Karki), internet users have revived this video and claimed that his prediction came true. However, fact‑checkers say that while some statements are eerily similar, there is no evidence that he accurately foresaw the exact chain of events.
So while the Bisht video is interesting, it appears more like a generalized warning than a precise prophecy. It resonates because many saw in those earlier remarks some truths about instability, but one must be cautious about attributing too much predictive power.
Is This Related to a Bigger Game?
Political crises don’t happen in a vacuum. Several dimensions suggest this Nepal upheaval is connected to deeper trends:
- Generational anger and political legitimacy: The Gen Z protests echo similar uprisings globally, where younger citizens demand accountability, transparency, less corruption, and more inclusion. Nepal is no exception. The rise of social media amplifies these voices, hence bans or regulatory efforts backfire and produce wider unrest.
- Weak institutions and elite capture: Longstanding problems with corruption, nepotism, and political stagnation have eroded trust in political institutions. When the trust deficit is large, a triggering event (like a social media ban) can be the spark.
- Role of technology & information: The social media ban illustrates how controlling information is increasingly difficult. Citizens expect freedom of expression, and restrictions are often interpreted as power grabs.
- Regional geopolitics: Nepal is strategically located between India and China. Both have interests in Nepal’s internal stability. Changes in Nepal can ripple outward: trade, border issues, foreign policy alignment, investments, cross‑border migration/security. Outside powers may not directly cause these protests, but their influence matters in how internal institutions respond.
So yes, in a sense, this is part of a bigger game: of power between elites and citizens, of information control, of regional influence. But the locus is internal: unless external forces overtly manipulate events, the roots are domestic.
Why Some Indian Neighbours Are in “Destruction”
You ask why India’s neighbours (Nepal in this case, possibly Bangladesh, Sri Lanka etc.) are facing such destabilizing crises. Some possible explanations:
- Historical legacies: Many South Asian states have had colonial histories, weak democratic institutions or fragile systems of checks and balances. This often results in corruption, nepotism, weak social safety nets — conditions ripe for popular dissent.
- Youth bulge and expectations: Countries with large young populations see rising expectations — jobs, education, opportunities, digital access. When the system does not deliver, frustrations mount quickly.
- Economic pressures: Inflation, inequality, lack of jobs, cost of living all contribute. The recent global inflationary pressures, supply chain disruptions, rising costs of energy etc., also affect these countries heavily. Governments perceived as corrupt or out of touch are punished more harshly.
- Information flow & digital culture: Social media accelerates exposure of wrongdoing, organizes protests, mobilizes disparate citizens. Governments trying to clamp down often find the suppression becomes the very cause of deeper unrest.
- External economic and geopolitical pressure: Some neighbours are more vulnerable to external debt, foreign policy pressures from major powers. Mismanagement of such pressures becomes internal political vulnerabilities.
Is India Next?
This is a speculative question, but worth exploring: could India see something similar?
Reasons it seems less likely — or at least more complicated:
- India has larger, more diversified institutions, a long history of electoral democracy, and a more developed state apparatus. These provide buffers.
- Although corruption and censorship complaints exist, there is greater institutional inertia: political parties are entrenched, media relatively freer, civil society stronger in many places.
- India also has greater economic scale, more diversified governance, and more experience with regional diversity. Though unrest does happen, destabilization to the extent seen in Nepal is harder.
- India’s federal structure disperses power: state governments can address grievances locally, which may reduce pressure on the centre.
Reasons it’s not impossible:
- Youth expectations are growing rapidly. Unemployment, inflation, and access to opportunities are serious concerns across India.
- Digital mobilization is widespread. Content regulation or curbs on digital expression can trigger backlash.
- If economic conditions deteriorate significantly, or if state corruption scandals reach tipping points, protests may grow.
- Discontent in India also has identity, regional, and religious‑political dimensions which, if mismanaged, could intersect with economic issues in destabilizing ways.
Why India Probably Won’t Face Exactly This Situation (or Soon)
India’s scale, diversity, and institutional depth give it some advantages:
- Redundancy in governance: Multiple layers (central, state, local), checks and balances (judiciary, press, civil society). Even if governance fails somewhere, others may pick up slack.
- Economic resilience: Larger economy, more diversified, more internal demand. While shocks hurt, India has more capacity to absorb.
- Rule of law: Though not flawless, strong constitutional institutions, judiciary, and free media provide pressure valves.
- Political legitimacy and electoral system: Politicians are more directly accountable via frequent elections, unlike Nepal’s top‑heavy system.
- Geographical scale and heterogeneity: Localized grievances rarely convert into nationwide upheaval.
- International attention & diplomatic buffers: India is central geopolitically; external actors watch closely, which adds pressure for stability.
My Personal Opinion
The situation in Nepal is both alarming and hopeful. Alarming, because it shows how fast things can unravel when public trust in leaders evaporates, when institutions are seen as corrupt, and when even attempts to control information (like social media bans) ignite deeper grievances. Hopeful, because the uprising shows the power of youth, civil society, and the demand for accountability. The appointment of Sushila Karki suggests that even entrenched systems can shift when enough people act.
Lucky Bisht’s prediction, in my view, is a symptom of something larger: when many people can see that structures are weak, that governance is failing, predictions or warnings tend to emerge. But predicting does not equal causing. The fact that his video is now viral reinforces how narratives of prophecy appeal during crisis — but what matters more is what institutions do now.
For India and other neighbours: vigilance is essential. While India may avoid a collapse of government, complacency would be dangerous. The arrival of young, digitally connected citizens, growing inequality, perception of corruption, and demands for dignity are real risks everywhere. Political leaders must respond proactively — not just with suppression but with reforms: transparency, inclusion, accountability, trust building.
Finally, I believe that Nepal’s interim government has a moment: if Sushila Karki uses this time to restore trust, pursue justice (for protest‑deaths, corruption), and prepare for fair elections, Nepal can emerge stronger. But if old elites simply rearrange power or suppress dissent, the cycle may repeat. For the region, Nepal’s experience is a warning: democracies are fragile when their moral and institutional legitimacy is neglected.