IPGAD Global Discourse Series: Experts Dialogue on The Recent Crisis in Nepal Implications for South Asia and Beyond

On October 5, 2025, the Institute for Policy, Governance and Development (IPGAD) held a session under its Global Discourse Series titled “The Recent Crisis in Nepal: Implications for South Asia and Beyond.” The event brought together academics, diplomats, and policy experts from Bangladesh, Nepal, India, Pakistan, Malaysia, and the United Kingdom. The aim was not just to analyze Nepal’s immediate political turbulence but to consider how its effects might ripple across South Asia.

The discussion made it clear that Nepal’s situation cannot be separated from the wider regional context. Sitting between India and China, the country is exposed to competing pressures—political, economic, and strategic. Internally, persistent corruption, fragmented party politics, and weak institutions have created openings that domestic actors and foreign powers alike have sought to exploit. Youth mobilization, fueled by social media and digital networks, has amplified these tensions, challenging traditional authority while exposing gaps in governance.

Panelists pointed out that the crisis in Nepal is a mirror for broader patterns across the region. Labor migration, trade flows, and cross-border projects could all be disrupted if instability continues. The role of regional frameworks like SAARC and BIMSTEC came under scrutiny, highlighting both their potential and their limitations in preventing crises from spilling over. Generational differences, coupled with the rise of digital activism, add layers of complexity that make policy responses difficult.

The session concluded that Nepal’s trajectory is a warning for its neighbors. Without accountable leadership, functional institutions, and careful regional coordination, similar pressures could unsettle other South Asian countries. The events in Kathmandu are not just about one nation—they are a reflection of shared vulnerabilities, the limits of governance, and the urgent need for thoughtful engagement across the region.

Moderator

 Md. Mostafa Hosain

Assistant Professor, School of Law

Brac University & Honorary Research Director, IPGAD

Md. Mostafa Hosain moderated the session. He noted that IPGAD, though established only a few years ago, has become active across several countries through its research and policy dialogues. Introducing the day’s agenda under the Global Discourse Series, he stated that the discussion would focus on the recent developments in Nepal that have drawn significant regional and international attention. He focuses on regional integration and formalization as a key actor of the revolution, inspired by the anti-corruption research initiative. He added that the session aimed to shed light on the current issues in Nepal before introducing the distinguished attendees.

Inaugural Address

Dr. Isharaf Hossain

President MWRC, Malaysia & Chairman, IPGAD

Dr. Isharat Hossain, President of the Muslim World Research Centre (MWRC) and Chairman of IPGAD, delivered the inaugural address of the session. Having been active in security and strategic studies for several decades, Dr. Hossain has long been regarded as a valuable contributor to regional research, particularly for his work on Rohingya repatriation.

He began his remarks by greeting the participants and acknowledging the collective effort behind IPGAD’s growing influence as a new think-tank. He noted that people like Alauddin Mahmood and Md. Mostafa Hossain are playing an important role in advancing research on emerging geopolitical challenges. This Global Discourse Series, he added, is not just a one-off event but a platform that will shape IPGAD’s future commitments and collaborations.

Focusing on the day’s theme, Dr. Hossain pointed to Nepal’s recent political developments, which have attracted significant attention both within the region and beyond. He emphasized that the ongoing movement in Nepal carries deep domestic and regional significance, given the country’s strategic location between India and China. According to him, such movements could have long-term implications for trade and regional security.

He also reflected on India’s indecisiveness in 2008, under Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, which allowed the monarchy’s downfall and opened the door for China’s growing presence in Nepal through its Belt and Road projects. Turning to Bangladesh, Dr. Hossain urged policymakers to learn from Nepal’s political example—particularly its ability to set a concrete election date, something Bangladesh has yet to do even after a year.

He further highlighted the role of Nepal’s youth, noting their unified stance against corruption rather than alignment against neighboring powers. Dr. Hossain concluded by saying that Bangladesh as a whole could take lessons from Nepal’s current trajectory, before inviting everyone to engage in the day’s discussion.

Keynote Speaker

Prof. Dr. Yubaraj Sangroula

Professor Emeritus

Kathmandu School of Law &

Former Attorney General, Government of Nepal

Prof. Dr. Yubaraj Sangroula, Professor Emeritus at Kathmandu School of Law and former Attorney General of Nepal, delivered the keynote speech with a calm but firm tone, setting the stage for a complex yet thought provoking conversation on Nepal’s current political and geopolitical position. He began by greeting the participants and noting that Nepal’s latest developments are not just domestic issues—they are tied deeply to the country’s geography and the historical tension between two of the world’s most populated and powerful neighbors, India and China.

Dr. Sangroula reminded the audience that Nepal, with its small population and limited resources, sits between two ancient civilizations with long, complicated pasts. Both India and China, he said, have gone through phases of internal dysfunction. Economic instability, cultural revolutions, and internal ideological clashes once kept both countries occupied with their own problems. For years, neither had the time or stability to extend influence over Nepal in a significant way. After the 1962 India-China war, however, the regional landscape began to shift. He pointed out that politically stable states tend to manage complex neighbors better, and for a while, Nepal was able to maintain a careful balance between the two.

The balance started to tilt after the 2000s. India’s rapid economic rise through its technology and industrial sectors gave it new leverage in the region, while Nepal found itself consumed by internal conflict and political instability. Dr. Sangroula explained that the country’s internal divisions—both between and within political parties—made it dependent on external support. China, though interested, was not fully aware of Nepal’s political nuances, whereas India’s proximity and cultural connections made it more active in Nepal’s affairs. Meanwhile, Western powers, particularly the United States, began playing what he described as a “silent but aggressive” role, aligning closely with India to contain China’s growing reach in South Asia. 

However, he noted that even as Western countries aligned with India strategically, they also worked against India’s internal issues through INGOs and soft pressure campaigns. This dual approach created an ironic situation: while Western governments sought to check China’s influence, they were also indirectly challenging India’s domestic practices. By 2015, Nepal’s balancing act among India, China, and Western powers had turned into a triangular struggle. China expanded its presence aggressively through the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), while India viewed Nepal as part of its traditional sphere of influence. The United States, meanwhile, began to show more visible interest in Nepal, partly using religious and cultural figures like the Dalai Lama to spread messages that unsettled China.

Nepal, Dr. Sangroula said, found itself entangled in these overlapping agendas. The country had once managed to handle the India-China dynamic, but the addition of the United States made things far more complicated. Even Russia later entered the picture, concerned about growing American activity in the region. Moscow, with its close ties to both India and China, saw U.S. involvement in Nepal as a strategic move that might eventually threaten its own relationship with India. As a result, within a decade, Nepal’s diplomacy became increasingly confused.

Dr. Sangroula described how these international dynamics—India, China, the United States, and Russia all operating within Nepal—ended up dividing local policy circles and think tanks. Instead of unity, the intellectual and diplomatic community fractured into competing camps: pro-USA, pro-India, pro-China, and pro-Russia. While there was no open conflict, heated arguments became common in academic and political discussions.

One of the defining moments in recent years, he said, was Nepal’s decision to join the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC). The move caused serious disagreements within political parties, especially between older leaders and younger activists. Many began questioning whether Nepal should prioritize its constitutional principles or its international commitments when the two clashed. The parliamentary ratification of the MCC further confused both the government and the public, setting a precedent that might unsettle other allies. China was outspokenly critical of the move, while India—though quiet—was also displeased.

Then came the Russia-Ukraine war in 2022. While India chose to remain neutral, Nepal took a clear stance against Russia, which angered Moscow. The decision added another layer of complexity to Nepal’s already crowded diplomatic space. At the same time, similar youth-led movements were seen across India and Pakistan, yet neither of those countries experienced regime change. Dr. Sangroula attributed this to the stability provided by their military and intelligence institutions, which helped maintain state control even amid political instability. For that reason, he said, revolutions are unlikely in India or Pakistan—Imran Khan’s failed attempt was a clear example.

In Nepal and Bangladesh, however, the story was different. According to Dr. Sangroula, there are two major reasons why such movements gain strength in these countries. First, even when governments appear stable, they often erode democratic institutions, breed corruption, and lean toward authoritarianism. Second, they fail to uphold the rule of law and human rights, weakening the very foundation of governance. In Nepal’s case, he said, the habit of forming and breaking alliances, and dividing political positions despite ideological contradictions, created an unstable political culture that paved the way for revolt. In that sense, Nepal’s recent revolution was inspired partly by the experience of Bangladesh.

He also shared two schools of thought about the origin of Nepal’s movement. One claims that the West was active behind the scenes, planting the seeds long before the unrest began, possibly as part of a broader geopolitical playbook. The other sees the uprising as largely spontaneous, fueled by the government’s decision to restrict social media. “Some say it’s a battle between the United States and China,” he remarked, “but truthfully, China had no idea what was coming.”

Dr. Sangroula then turned his attention to the media, particularly in India, which he described as a disruptive force in South Asian politics. Indian media narratives, he said, are causing significant problems for post-movement Nepal by portraying the protests as being orchestrated by the United States. Nepal, in response, accused India of instigating the unrest. The information war has deepened mistrust across the borders.

He spoke at length about the generational divide shaping Nepal’s new politics. The Gen Z activists, he explained, are not inherently violent; many explicitly vowed to remain peaceful. Yet, their attitude toward authority differs sharply from older generations. In Bangladesh, youth movements generally listened to senior leaders, but in Nepal, young activists have grown impatient and often reject traditional leadership. “They want to lead themselves—they want to become prime ministers,” he said with a hint of irony.

Still, Dr. Sangroula insisted that the Gen Z movement should not be dismissed as wrong. The problem, he argued, lies in failing to separate the genuine reformers from the opportunists. “It’s a mistake,” he said, “to label an entire movement as misguided just because a few people behaved wrongly.” The real challenge is institutional—making governance systems more effective, accountable, and inclusive.

He divided the youth forces into two categories: the “elite youths,” who stir emotions online from their comfortable homes, and the “good youths,” who take to the streets to face the real struggles. The first group shapes perception; the second endures reality. Both exist within the same revolution, but only one carries the burden of actual change.

Dr. Sangroula concluded his address with a warning about the regional media environment. He reiterated that Indian media, in particular, continues to play a destabilizing role in shaping regional narratives and political interpretations. In his words, “It’s not the movement that’s the biggest threat—it’s the noise around it.” Managing that, he said, will be key to Nepal’s ability to move forward and define its own path in an increasingly complicated neighborhood.

Special Guest

Professor Dr. Mohammad Kamrul Ahsan

Vice Chancellor, Jahangirnagar University

Professor Dr. Mohammad Kamrul Ahsan, Vice Chancellor of Jahangirnagar University, spoke as the Special Guest at the session, offering a grounded and thoughtful reflection on Nepal’s unfolding political crisis and its similarities with the situation in Bangladesh. He began by greeting the audience and acknowledging the clarity and depth of the keynote speech delivered by Professor Dr. Yubaraj Sangroula, noting that it painted a vivid picture of Nepal’s political turbulence while echoing challenges that feel familiar to Bangladesh as well.

Dr. Ahsan emphasized that both countries are at a crossroads where they must search not only for explanations but for solutions. “The problems we face are not identical,” he said, “but the crisis is the same.” Corruption, weak institutions, and fragile governance have hindered both Nepal and Bangladesh from reaching their full potential. He pointed out that while Nepal embarked on an optimistic democratic journey after the fall of the monarchy in 2008, its progress began to unravel with the endless cycle of alliance-making and breaking that followed the adoption of the federal constitution in 2015.

He reflected on how political instability has cost Nepal valuable time and public trust. Since 2008, no government has completed its full term. This, he warned, should serve as a cautionary tale for Bangladesh. Responding to the growing debate in Bangladesh over the possible adoption of a proportional representation (PR) system, Dr. Ahsan argued that such a model could mirror Nepal’s pattern, where governments become more focused on tenure and power-sharing than on people’s real concerns. “When leaders start thinking about the next alliance instead of the next policy,” he remarked, “public welfare gets pushed aside.”

He also spoke about the honesty and resilience of the common people, both in Nepal and Bangladesh. Ordinary citizens, he said, have consistently demanded accountability and adherence to the rule of law. Yet, their calls often go unheard by political elites. “Sometimes,” he said, “the people are far more sincere about democracy than those who lead them. We need to start listening to them again.”

Turning to the geopolitical context, Dr. Ahsan observed that Nepal is caught in a delicate balancing act among four major powers: the United States, India, China, and Russia. While these dynamics shape its external policy, he stressed that there remains an underused regional platform that could bring more stability—the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC). He recalled that SAARC was once envisioned by Bangladesh’s late President Ziaur Rahman as a platform to promote collective growth and regional understanding. “We must revive SAARC,” Dr. Ahsan urged, “not as a symbolic institution, but as a real tool for integration and cooperation.”

He emphasized that regional peace cannot be one-sided; it must be a win-win arrangement where countries like Nepal and Bangladesh work together, particularly on shared issues like labor migration and climate resilience. Both nations, he said, send large numbers of workers abroad, often facing similar vulnerabilities and policy challenges. “If we don’t talk about our struggles together, why should the world care about them?” he asked.

Another pressing concern he raised was environmental degradation caused by rapid infrastructural expansion in both countries. While development is necessary, he cautioned that it often comes at the cost of fragile ecosystems. He argued that resilience must not be seen as a national task but a regional one since the environment “doesn’t stop at borders.” Climate change, he warned, can disrupt not only ecosystems but also supply chains and market stability, ultimately affecting human security.

Dr. Ahsan outlined four policy priorities that he believes both Bangladesh and Nepal should focus on: ensuring accountability at all levels of governance, expanding youth employment opportunities, strengthening climate resilience, and maintaining a balanced diplomatic stance that prioritizes national interests. He emphasized that unemployment among young people has been one of the biggest triggers behind movements and unrest in both countries. “When capable young minds feel ignored,” he said, “they turn frustration into action.”

On foreign policy, Dr. Ahsan stressed the importance of a “pro-country” approach—an attitude that puts national interest before alignment with any external power. He drew inspiration from Bangladesh’s “Bangladesh First” sentiment and suggested that Nepal adopt a similar “Nepal First” philosophy.

He concluded by revisiting the spirit of cooperation envisioned during the formation of SAARC, saying that it must be reactivated as South Asia faces new and interconnected challenges. Regional problems like climate change, labor rights, and trade disruptions can only be addressed through collaboration. “We have made mistakes,” he said frankly, “but we can learn from them. Building the future is not a solo project—it’s a shared responsibility.”

Dr. Ahsan ended on a hopeful note, urging that Bangladesh and Nepal must stand together, not just in sympathy, but in joint action. “Our struggles are connected,” he said, “so our solutions must be, too.”

Guest of Honor

H.E. Md. Shafiqur Rahman

Ambassador, Embassy of Bangladesh to Nepal

His Excellency Md. Shafiqur Rahman, Ambassador of Bangladesh to Nepal, joined the session as the Guest of Honour. He began by saying that his observations might not fully align with official government assessments, clarifying that his remarks were drawn from his personal experiences and academic perspective. What unfolded in Nepal over just 36 hours, he said, was nothing short of astonishing. The speed and scale of public mobilization caught many off guard.

Ambassador Rahman described how, before the major uprising, Nepal had already been witnessing a series of protests directed at the regime. Some movements demanded the restoration of the monarchy, while others were driven by young people frustrated with political stagnation and limited opportunities. Having spent the past three to four months in Nepal, he shared that the youth climate there felt strikingly familiar to Bangladesh’s own recent student-led movements. “The youths here,” he noted, “are very aware of what happened in Bangladesh—and they’ve been deeply influenced by it.”

He reflected on the hyper-connected nature of this new generation. Social media, he said, had created a real-time consciousness across borders. Young Nepalis were not only aware of events in Bangladesh but also closely followed the situation in Sri Lanka. “They’re watching everything,” he remarked, suggesting that digital networks have become the emotional and political bridge of South Asia’s youth.

Sharing a personal story, Ambassador Rahman recalled meeting a young Nepali woman at the airport. She spoke fluent English, which, to him, reflected the strength of Nepal’s education system. But what struck him most was her frustration. She had secured a job in Dubai, yet she seemed disappointed that she couldn’t find meaningful employment at home. “That conversation stayed with me,” he said softly. “It told me more about the real problem than any policy report could.”

Employment, he stressed, is at the heart of Nepal’s growing discontent. Around ten million Nepalis—one-third of the country’s population—work abroad. When the government, during the demonstrations, decided to ban all social media platforms except TikTok, it underestimated the emotional impact. TikTok, he noted, is the most widely used platform in Nepal, but cutting access to others like Facebook and WhatsApp severed communication between millions of overseas workers and their families back home. “When you take away that connection,” he said, “you’re not just blocking an app—you’re isolating people.” The move, he argued, backfired badly and only intensified public frustration.

Despite lacking clear organization or leadership, the youth-led protests gained unexpected momentum. Ambassador Rahman pointed out that even without formal structure, participants managed to coordinate demonstrations across the country, a sign of both deep social cohesion and a common sense of grievance. He mentioned the Mayor of Kathmandu, who enjoys significant popularity among Gen Z voters. Though he publicly voiced sympathy for the youth movement, he chose not to participate directly, citing his generational difference. “Still,” Rahman said, “his endorsement meant a lot to them.”

On September 9th, the character of the protests shifted. Ordinary citizens began leaving their homes and joining the movement. Some even approached foreign embassies, questioning why diplomatic offices remained open amid the unrest. This, Rahman explained, showed how the line between political and social protest had blurred—the entire society had entered a phase of collective expression. “It was social cohesion at work,” he observed, describing the unity among diverse groups as both surprising and powerful.

He went on to frame the movement as a vivid example of dialectical materialism—the clash of classes playing out in real time. The protests, he said, revealed a widening gap between the political elite and the public. Several politicians faced direct hostility, signaling a breakdown in the traditional respect structure that had long protected leaders from accountability.

Ambassador Rahman also spoke with visible empathy about the emotions driving the protests. “The youth are not angry just for the sake of anger,” he said. “They’re sad—deeply sad—about the injustices and the stagnation they see around them.” He acknowledged that the older generation, both in Nepal and beyond, often struggles to understand the urgency and restlessness of today’s youth. “The gap isn’t just about age,” he added. “It’s about experience. The young are living in a faster, more connected world than their leaders ever did.”

He was careful, however, to avoid making any personal or politically charged comments. Instead, he emphasized that his observations came from what he had seen and heard firsthand. Concluding his remarks, Ambassador Rahman said that what the world is witnessing today is not simply unrest—it is a reflection of growing public awareness. “People,” he said, “are more conscious of their rights than ever before.”

With that note, he ended his speech by urging the audience to see beyond the surface of the protests and to recognize the social forces at play—forces driven not by chaos, but by the desire for dignity, justice, and a better future.

Panelists

Brig. General (Retd) Dr. Shafaat Ahmad

Principal Research Fellow, Foundation for Strategic and Development Studies (FSDS)

Brigadier General (Retd.) Dr. Shafaat Ahmad began his remarks with a note of nostalgia. Recalling his first visit to Kathmandu in 1976, he described the city as “peaceful and quiet,” a place where time seemed to move gently. His most recent visit in 2014, however, painted a very different picture—Kathmandu had become crowded and restless, reflecting the rapid transformations that have swept through the region. “The change has not only reshaped the city but also the way people live,” he observed.

He expressed his appreciation to the earlier speakers for their thoughtful insights, then reflected on how Nepal’s political evolution—from a monarchy that once spoke the language of peace to a more turbulent democracy—mirrors a broader loss of moral grounding in global politics. Once, he said, “morality was the talk of the day,” but those values now seem displaced by ambition and competition.

Brig Gen (retd.) Ahmad admitted that although he was a soldier for most of his life and only turned to academic study after retirement, he deeply values reflective discourse. Yet, he warned that simple values like hospitality and empathy—once central to South Asian societies—are disappearing everywhere, not just in Nepal. Real change, he stressed, should be gradual and thoughtful, “a slow transformation that begins with listening to the people.”

When questioning why revolutions erupt, Brig Gen (retd.) Ahmad pointed to one reason above all: the immaturity of leadership. “Leaders who stop listening to their people create conditions for unrest,” he said. He urged for “clarity and courage to move forward,” reminding everyone that no dynasty, however powerful, has survived beyond a century. “Even the United States, with all its confidence, should reflect on that,” he added.

Turning to Bangladesh, Brig Gen (retd.) Ahmad questioned the notion of “Bangladesh First,” asking what it truly means when vast sums of national wealth have been taken out of the country. “If that money had stayed here, imagine what it could have built,” he remarked, his tone sharp but weary. Corruption and greed, he argued, have weakened both governance and moral responsibility—not only in Bangladesh but also in Nepal and Sri Lanka.

He cautioned against the violent turn of some recent movements. While they may begin with just causes, vandalism and disorder, he said, often blur the line between justice and chaos. “We must look within ourselves,” he reflected quietly.

Brig Gen (retd.) Ahmad shared a personal academic exercise he gives to his students called Vision 2050. He asks them to imagine the country they want to see when they turn fifty. Their answers, he said with a half-smile, are filled with dreams—of becoming like Japan or New Zealand. But he posed a sobering question: “How will they get there if our leaders keep repeating the same mistakes?”

He cited Sri Lanka as an example of cautious political maturity, though he acknowledged that no one knows what the future may hold. What nations need most, he emphasized, are dignified leaders—those with integrity and restraint. Recalling Bangladesh’s former president Ziaur Rahman, he narrated an incident that captured Zia’s honesty: upon discovering a five-thousand-taka chair in his office, Zia broke it himself, declaring that a poor country should not indulge in such luxuries.

“This is the kind of leadership we need,” Brig Gen (retd.) Ahmad said firmly. “Without it, we cannot build lasting peace.” He concluded by warning that while external pressures will always exist, no country can rely solely on others for stability. True progress, he said, “comes from the discipline to change ourselves first.”

Muhammad Amir Rana

President, Pak Institute for Peace Studies

Speaking virtually from Islamabad, Muhammad Amir Rana began by expressing his agreement with the earlier discussions and set out to focus on what he called the “contextual issues” behind recent political and social developments in South Asia. His reflections carried both academic depth and personal observation, bridging ideas from philosophy, politics, and human behavior.

He began by referencing Dr. Yubaraj Sangroula’s book The Right to Have Rights, which, he said, deeply intrigued him—particularly the way it framed poverty not merely as a lack of resources but as a denial of dignity. “Dignity,” he noted, “is the key issue that triggers change.” For him, the deprivation of dignity—especially among young people—sits at the center of contemporary unrest across the region.

Rana shared that during his visits to Bangladesh, he had witnessed a variety of public discussions where people voiced strong, sometimes conflicting, opinions. Yet beneath these differences, he noticed something universal: “a shared hunger for dignity.” This, he said, is what connects movements in countries like Nepal and Bangladesh, where citizens increasingly frame their struggles around fairness and respect rather than simply economic needs. “The need to do what’s right—that’s the key phrase that binds them,” he added.

He observed that both countries, in their own ways, have found a common thread in this pursuit of dignity. However, when turning to India and Pakistan, he suggested that diversity, while a strength, also plays a dual role—it helps diffuse collective emotional outbursts that could otherwise become nationwide revolts. “Diversity,” he remarked, “is acting as a safety valve. It’s preventing emotional outbursts from uniting into one large movement.”

Rana then discussed what he called the “anti-elite wave” spreading quietly across South Asia. In Pakistan, he said, this has been visible in places like Kashmir, Gilgit, and Balochistan, where people are beginning to challenge not just state authority but entrenched power structures. He added that similar undercurrents exist in India, though they remain fragmented due to the country’s vast diversity.

While corruption remains a driving grievance, Rana argued that the issue runs deeper. The real crisis, he said, lies in the fragmented moral understanding between generations and among the elites themselves. “Different elites have different agendas,” he explained. “And that’s why the youth fail to find a common sense of dignity. They’re all angry, but they’re not angry in the same way.”

Touching on digital politics, he cautioned against one of the most common state responses to protest: shutting down the internet. “It never works,” he said plainly. “You can’t cut people off from each other and expect calm.” He added that attempts to manipulate public opinion through online means—“corrupting the algorithm,” as he put it—are becoming nearly impossible in today’s hyper-connected age.

For Rana, the rise of digital activism marks a turning point in how political energy translates into action. Online mobilization, he emphasized, is no longer an isolated form of protest—it spills over into the streets, into conversations, into collective identity. “Digital activism leads to real-life activism,” he said. “It can’t be easily contained or manipulated anymore.”

He closed on a thoughtful note, suggesting that the region’s future stability will depend less on policy and more on restoring moral balance. To him, the greatest challenge is not material but ethical—how to rebuild societies where dignity isn’t seen as a privilege, but as a right that every person can claim.

Dr. Zeeshan Hashim

Executive Director

The Policy Research Institute for South Asia (PRISA), London, UK &

Postdoc Fellow

European Research University

Dr. Zeeshan Hashim began his remarks by greeting the audience and grounding his analysis in a global perspective. He explained that the surge of the digital population is not limited to any particular region—it’s a worldwide transformation reshaping politics, communication, and public mobilization. Across countries, he said, social media has become the central platform where discontent meets opportunity, particularly as authoritarian regimes fail to guarantee basic human rights and securities that underpin a dignified life.

To illustrate, he drew parallels with Western populism, noting that the rise of figures like Nigel Farage in the United Kingdom and Donald Trump in the United States owes much to social media-driven movements. These, he said, represent an “unconventional” but increasingly powerful model of political mobilization. In his words, “Digital mobilization isn’t just an extension of traditional politics—it’s a completely different ecosystem.”

Dr. Hashim emphasized that digital movements are gaining traction precisely because they bypass conventional structures of power. He described several reasons for their rapid spread: they’re low-cost, emotionally charged, direct, decentralized, and driven by algorithms that amplify collective sentiment. These features allow movements to emerge spontaneously and sustain themselves without the need for rigid leadership or centralized funding.

He compared digital populism in Nepal, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka, pointing out that while the aesthetics and emotions varied, the outcomes bore striking similarities. In Nepal, online activism combined cosplay, memes, and satire to express frustration and humor; in Bangladesh, it channeled rage and grief; in Sri Lanka, it sought to inspire social change. Across all three, he observed, digital populism played a critical role in shaping political outcomes—including, in some cases, regime change.

Traditional media, Dr. Hashim argued, has been largely bypassed in this process. Social media platforms now serve as the primary arena for information exchange, emotional expression, and political discourse. This shift has weakened the gatekeeping power of mainstream media and created what he called “algorithmic politics”—a space where visibility is determined not by editorial decisions but by engagement metrics.

He cautioned, however, that digital populism is a double-edged sword. It can erupt suddenly and is difficult to detect or contain. Where democratic institutions are robust, it struggles to take root. But in societies with fragile institutions—like much of South Asia—it finds fertile ground. He identified six key factors behind its rise in the region: a large and restless youth population, deep smartphone penetration even in rural areas, growing distrust in traditional media, increasingly authoritarian governance, transnational learning from other movements, and the global normalization of digital populism itself.

Dr. Hashim noted that while digital populism empowers citizens, it also fuels political instability. It attacks traditional politics directly, eroding the credibility of established systems and leaders. Because it’s largely leaderless, it lacks structure and long-term vision. Its emotionally charged nature reinforces echo chambers, convincing people that everything is corrupt or broken, even when reality may be more nuanced. The result, he said, is often short-term victories—sometimes even regime changes—but long-term uncertainty and cyclical unrest.

He warned that this pattern could easily repeat itself in other South Asian states if lessons are not learned. “Digital populism,” he remarked, “is like a spark—it can ignite anywhere, anytime, especially where disillusionment runs deep.” Yet, he didn’t leave the discussion on a pessimistic note. Dr. Hashim proposed that leaders across the region must learn to harness the power of digital populism for constructive change. Instead of suppressing online movements, governments should engage with them, using the same tools of connectivity and emotion to rebuild trust and create more inclusive dialogue.

He concluded by emphasizing that digital populism is not merely a threat—it’s also an opportunity. “It’s a signal,” he said, “that people want to be heard. If leaders can listen and channel that energy wisely, digital mobilization could become a force for reform, not rupture.”

Dr. Raj K. Sandhu

Assistant Professor

Department of Law

University of Jammu, India

Dr. Raj K. Sandhu opened his remarks by emphasizing a key principle: nations cannot change their neighbors, and South Asian countries must focus on regional cooperation rather than isolated national strategies. He highlighted the demographic advantage of the youth, noting that they represent both a new vision and a growing consumer base. “Their energy and expectations will shape the region’s future,” he observed.

He drew attention to pressing economic challenges. The Covid-19 pandemic, coupled with the Ukraine-Russia war, has created global food shortages, while the job market has failed to keep pace with educated graduates. “There are plenty of low-paying, unskilled jobs,” he said, “but high-paying, skilled opportunities are scarce.” This imbalance, he suggested, fuels discontent and social unrest.

Dr. Sandhu situated these issues within the shifting global order, pointing out that the world is moving from a unipolar to a multipolar system. India, he said, has experienced its own movements, such as Shahinbagh, though they remain fragmented and lack unified direction. Despite declining fertility rates projected to reduce youth numbers in the future, the present demographic still favors younger populations with political influence.

Turning to foreign policy, he noted that India focuses on its immediate neighbors while pursuing its Look East strategy. Under this approach, the country has initiated several bilateral projects to strengthen regional ties. Nepal, he observed, functions as a buffer state, highlighting the strategic importance of border security. Humanitarian concerns, such as the Rohingya crisis spanning Bangladesh, India, and Myanmar, also require careful regional collaboration.

Dr. Sandhu warned that during revolutionary movements, power vacuums often allow fringe actors to seize influence, citing the French Revolution as an example with Napoleon. To prevent such scenarios, he urged stronger regional frameworks emphasizing cooperation through SAARC and BIMSTEC. Tourism, with easy visas and open borders, could also foster cross-border understanding.

He stressed the emerging influence of big data companies, which can shape public discourse and even challenge state sovereignty through algorithms. While India has taken steps to manage these tech giants, many South Asian countries remain unprepared. “Alternatives like China’s WeChat,” he added, illustrate the complex choices governments face in regulating digital spaces.

Concluding, Dr. Sandhu emphasized that democratic reform is essential to navigating these challenges. Change, he argued, must be continuous and incremental, combining institutional strength, technological awareness, and regional cooperation to ensure sustainable stability.

Dr. Noor Mohammad Sarker

Assistant Professor

Department of Political Science and Sociology (PSS)

North South University (NSU), Dhaka, Bangladesh

Dr. Noor Mohammad Sarker focused his remarks on the similarities and differences in political movements across South Asia. He began by observing that the wave of public mobilization appeared first in Sri Lanka, where income disparity, corruption, and online activism created a powerful catalyst for social change. In contrast, Pakistan’s unrest was largely managed by the military, preventing broader societal upheaval. The Maldives, meanwhile, experienced only minor agitation, which remained peaceful due to its small population, fragmented geography, and limited communication networks.

Despite these differences, Dr. Sarker emphasized a common thread: citizens across these states demanded transparency and accountability. He highlighted that people’s engagement in politics has intensified, driven by frustration with corruption, lack of opportunities, or prolonged absence of democratic culture. In Bangladesh, he noted, the public endured fourteen years with minimal democratic practice, fueling discontent and calls for change. Importantly, he stressed that these movements were primarily homegrown and not instigated by external powers.

Looking at regional implications, Dr. Sarker suggested that India could play a pivotal role in fostering cooperation. Reviving SAARC, he argued, is critical for promoting mutual understanding and stability in South Asia. He cited ASEAN as an example of an effective regional organization, noting how it suspended Myanmar in response to human rights violations, demonstrating that collective regional action can yield results.

Dr. Sarker warned that in the absence of strong regional collaboration, crises may push countries closer to China, altering the geopolitical balance. To prevent this, he advocated for proactive engagement through track-two diplomacy—informal dialogue, academic exchanges, and policy consultations—to build trust and coordinate responses. Ultimately, he argued, South Asian nations must work together to create frameworks that address common grievances, enhance transparency, and ensure that citizen concerns are met constructively, reducing the likelihood of unrest and external influence.

Vote of Thanks

Alauddin Mohammad

Executive Director

IPGAD

Alauddin Mohammad concluded the session by extending his deepest gratitude to all the distinguished participants whose contributions made the discussion both insightful and thought-provoking. He highlighted that while the discourse was framed around Nepal’s recent political developments, its implications and lessons extend far beyond Kathmandu. The session illuminated broader patterns of governance, youth mobilization, and democratic fragility that resonate across South Asia. From Dhaka to Islamabad, Colombo to New Delhi, the questions raised about leadership, accountability, and citizen engagement are strikingly relevant.

He acknowledged that the dialogue tonight had achieved more than a simple review of events. By examining Nepal’s turbulence, the speakers prompted reflection on regional vulnerabilities, shared challenges, and the interconnected nature of South Asian politics. The discussions underscored that no country exists in isolation; political decisions and movements in one state ripple across borders, influencing neighbors and shaping regional stability.

He expressed particular appreciation for the intellectual honesty and moral urgency demonstrated by the speakers. He noted how each speaker brought unique perspectives, from digital mobilization and youth activism to geopolitical balancing and institutional reform. Their insights not only clarified the complex dynamics in Nepal but also encouraged the audience to consider how similar factors play out elsewhere in the region. The conversation revealed the delicate balance between domestic governance, external influences, and the aspirations of young populations, who increasingly demand transparency, fairness, and meaningful participation.

In closing, he emphasized that this dialogue is a stepping stone, not a conclusion. The session raised challenging questions that require continued thought and action. While Nepal’s situation was the starting point, the wider lesson is that South Asia as a whole must grapple with democratic fragility, institutional shortcomings, and the pressures of social change. Alauddin Mohammad left the audience with a forward-looking reflection: who will take the next step to engage with these challenges? How can the region collectively learn, adapt, and strengthen its democratic foundations to ensure stability and resilience in an era of rapid change?

He concluded by thanking all attendees once again for their participation, their candor, and their commitment to thoughtful discussion, expressing hope that the insights shared tonight would inspire continued dialogue, collaboration, and practical action across South Asia.