This article was written by activist Ganga Bahadur Gautam as part of CADE’s Forus-led Youth Voices for Digital Rights programme

In September 2025, Nepal’s Gen Z movement did not begin with chants or crowds, but with silence. On September 4, the government abruptly blocked access to 26 major digital platforms—including Facebook, YouTube, and WhatsApp—officially citing registration and tax disputes. For young Nepalis, however, the intent was unmistakable. The shutdown came just as the viral “Nepo Kid” trend was exposing the stark contrast between the extravagant lifestyles of political elites and the reality of a population surviving on an average annual income of just $1,400.

For a generation where nearly half the population is online and youth unemployment hovers around 20%, this was not simply a question of platform regulation. It was an existential disruption. Digital spaces are where young people learn, organize, earn, and hold power to account. Cutting them off meant cutting off opportunity, participation, and voice.

When Connectivity Determines Opportunity

Over 40% of Nepal’s 30 million citizens are under the age of 25. Internet usage is expanding rapidly across the country, driven primarily by mobile broadband, particularly in urban centers like Kathmandu. Yet access remains deeply uneven. In rural and mountainous regions, unstable connectivity, high data costs, and limited access to devices mean that a weak signal can determine whether a student continues their education or drops out entirely.

Nepal’s position between China and India places it at a strategic digital crossroads, making internet governance, data protection, and digital sovereignty increasingly sensitive political issues. For young people, however, these are not abstract geopolitical debates. Internet governance directly shapes who gets access, who is protected, and who is excluded.

Digital Rights Are Human Rights

As the screens went dark, young activists refused to disappear. Instead, resistance migrated into the shadows of the internet. Students and organizers used VPNs to bypass restrictions, distributed physical flyers embedded with QR codes, and repurposed Discord—once a gaming platform—into a decentralized command center. These encrypted digital rooms became the “new streets,” where protest planning, fact-checking, and deliberation unfolded in real time.

This shift reflected a deeper understanding among Nepalese youth: digital rights are human rights. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and its General Comment No. 25 affirm that rights to freedom of expression, privacy, education, participation, and protection from harm apply fully online. When the government shut down platforms, it did not merely restrict apps—it violated these rights.

Yet young people in Nepal say they are rarely treated as rights-holders in digital policy processes. Decisions on platform regulation, artificial intelligence, data protection, and online safety are often made behind closed doors. When youth are consulted, it is frequently symbolic—invited after decisions are nearly final, or framed as beneficiaries rather than stakeholders with lived digital expertise.

From Digital Grievance to Political Reckoning

The online shutdown quickly spilled into the streets. What began as a protest against digital censorship transformed into a nationwide uprising against corruption, opacity, and exclusion. The state responded with force. Tear gas filled the air, sirens echoed through cities, and police violence claimed 76 lives—including a 12-year-old child. Hospitals were not spared. At least 34 protesters suffered gunshot wounds.

Grief radicalized the movement. The demands expanded beyond restoring internet access to include political accountability, transparency, and a rejection of Nepal’s long-standing culture of elite decision-making. Digital restriction had exposed a deeper truth: a political system disconnected from its youth.

Inequality in the Digital Age

The crisis also revealed how digital inequality mirrors existing social divides. Urban youth enjoy faster connectivity and greater visibility, while rural youth face structural exclusion. Gender compounds these gaps. Girls and young women are less likely to own devices, more likely to experience online harassment, and more frequently silenced by social norms. Digital governance that ignores these realities risks reproducing inequality rather than dismantling it.

Young activists also raised concerns about algorithmic power. Opaque systems decide what content is amplified, what opportunities are visible, and which voices are marginalized. Trained on biased data and operating without transparency, these technologies can quietly redefine young people’s rights—often without oversight or avenues for redress.

A New Model of Digital Democracy

The movement reached a historic moment on September 9, 2025, following the resignation of Prime Minister K. P. Sharma Oli. On a Discord server with more than 100,000 participants, young people organized a real-time “mini-election.” Using sub-channels for fact-checking and debate, they deliberated collectively and selected Sushila Karki as their preferred interim leader.

This exercise in digital self-governance forced traditional power structures—including the army—to recognize the legitimacy of youth-led digital collectives. It demonstrated that democracy in the digital age does not disappear when platforms are shut down—it adapts.

Governing With Youth, Not Over Them

By September 13, the protests subsided, but Nepal’s political landscape had been permanently altered. The appointment of Sushila Karki as interim Prime Minister marked a symbolic victory for a generation that refused to be governed without consent or connectivity.

Youth activists insist that shielding young people from the internet is not the solution. Governing with them is. This means institutionalized youth advisory councils, funded participation in national and global internet governance spaces, digital policy education, and accountability mechanisms that allow young users to challenge platform and state decisions.

Across Nepal, young people are already leading—using digital tools for climate action, mental health advocacy, transparency, and social justice. Their message is clear: participation is a right, not a favor.

The internet will continue to shape Nepal’s future. The question is whether young people will help govern it—or be forced to endure decisions made without them. From Nepal, the answer is already visible. When digital governance claims to be democratic, youth must be at the table.

Disclaimer: This publication was co-funded by the European Union. Its contents are the sole responsibility of Ganga Bahadur Gautam and Forus, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union