The crisis in violence-torn Nepal highlights a volatile mix of youth activism, social media, government censorship, and governance issues. The government's ban on more than two dozen social media platforms, including Facebook and X, has led to violent clashes, resulting in casualties and unrest. This situation reflects a broader global challenge of striking a delicate balance between state power and individual freedoms, especially as digital platforms become the voice for the youth.
Nepal's protests, mainly led by Gen Z, demonstrate that social media is not just a communication tool but also a catalyst for political action. Young people make up a large part of Nepal's population and rely heavily on platforms like Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, and Reddit to organise, express their dissent, and highlight issues of corruption and inequality. Their online outrage quickly gave way to street protests, demonstrating that digital spaces have become essential for political expression.
The Nepal government's attempt to limit social media activism through a ban on platforms backfired. The government claimed the ban was to fight misinformation, hate speech, and fraud, but sections saw it as censorship aimed at silencing opposition. The ban disrupted daily life, impacting businesses, tourism, and personal communications, while also increasing public anger. The protests, which resulted in multiple deaths and injuries, showed that restricting online platforms can have serious consequences.
This scenario essentially highlights two sides of social media: One about freedom of expression, and the other about guarding individual freedoms and drawing boundaries to guard against misleading information. The Nepal crisis illustrates how a simplistic regulatory approach — focused only on control — does not solve deeper issues like corruption, economic inequality, and political disenfranchisement. Governments need to understand that social media serves both as a platform for expressing grievances and as a means for dialogue and reform.
India, with similar demographic and socio-economic conditions, can learn important lessons from Nepal’s experience since there is an overlap. India’s youth, too, are heavily dependent on social media and have been using the platform to express themselves fearlessly. Also, like Nepal, unemployment is a major issue that India is also grappling with. While India’s leadership haven’t taken social media critics lightly, there has been a measured tolerance hinging on accountability without overtly resorting to extreme steps like blanket censorship.
A crucial aspect is the role of government regulation. Social media is flooded with false information and misleading narratives, sometimes threatening social unity and stoking unrest. In the guise of regulating misuse, the government cannot impose a blanket ban on what is now becoming the voice of common citizens. Yes, protecting people’s dignity, privacy, and stopping misinformation are crucial, but not at the cost of stifling all voices. There is a need for extreme caution here.
The crisis in Nepal offers key lessons for India and other democracies across the world, where social media has become a part of day-to-day lives. Social media can empower youth and force a change; it has led to reforms and policy decisions and has been a crucial tool in the hands of the helpless. Governments must recognise their responsibility and listen, engage, and reform. Suppressing online dissent through bans and censorship might create a temporary façade of control, but it ultimately risks sparking larger unrest. Upholding freedom of expression, installing reasonable checks and balances, and encouraging fair dialogue are crucial steps for ensuring social stability in an expanding digital space.
