By Dr Prashant Khattri
Nepal has witnessed a remarkable political upheaval, a movement that rose organically against a corrupt and repressive government.
This uprising has plunged the nation into its most profound political crisis in modern history, a crisis that revealed the power of a politically conscious youth.
Widely termed by media outlets as the “Nepal Uprising,” the movement was largely led by Gen Z, whose connectivity through social media and shared frustration with systemic injustice made them a formidable force.
The tipping point of the protest arrived on September 8, when Nepali security forces attempted to suppress the youth-led demonstrations. The crackdown tragically resulted in the deaths of at least 19 protesters and left several others injured.
This violent response only fueled massive protests in Kathmandu, ultimately forcing Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli to resign. The young demonstrators were driven by their anger at rising inequality, rampant corruption, and nepotism, uniting in a collective demand for justice.
A critical moment in the movement occurred when the government banned social media platforms to curb the protests.
Far from quelling dissent, this measure enraged the youth, for whom social media had become a vital platform for expression and organization.
Notably, this movement was not orchestrated by any established political party or leadership, but emerged from a collective consciousness—a shared understanding that the government had failed its citizens and betrayed the promises of a democratic polity. In essence, this was a people’s movement, rooted in collective dreams and aspirations, rising against systemic oppression.
Understanding the Movement Through Anarchist Philosophy
Reading thinkers like Noam Chomsky, one can interpret such movements as “anarchist” in character. Importantly,
Chomsky distinguishes anarchism from the conventional fear-inducing notion of chaos. Instead, anarchism represents a social philosophy advocating a highly organized society structured democratically from the bottom up.
Contemporary usage of the word “anarchy” has often been twisted to connote disorder, danger, or primitiveness. For those in power, anarchism threatens the very foundations of authority, which explains why it is so frequently vilified.
In the 1970s and 1980s, Allan Bloom expressed concern over what he perceived as a collapse of civilization in American universities.
Students began questioning and challenging the authority of professors, refusing to blindly accept what was taught.
To traditional power structures, this liberal thought process represented a threat to established order. Chomsky similarly sees libertarian and anarchist ideals as a challenge to unaccountable authority, where hierarchies must justify their legitimacy or face dismantling.
Anarchism, Chomsky argues, is rooted in the principle that “people have the right to be free, and any constraints on that freedom must be justified.”
Systems of power, by contrast, often impose directives that limit human agency. Philosophers like Wilhelm von Humboldt warned that actions performed under compulsion reduce individuals to machines, depriving them of authentic humanity.
Alexis de Tocqueville similarly noted that hierarchical systems can advance the arts or industry, but at the cost of the artisan’s autonomy, producing frustration and discontent—a perfect soil for revolt against oppressive power.
Historical and Global Context
The Spanish Civil War of the late 1930s provides a historical example of libertarian socialism grounded in anarchist principles, seeking to dismantle both state and capitalist hierarchies. Anarchism, in this framework, aims to dismantle state power when it no longer serves its people legitimately.
This mirrors the scenario in Nepal, where the state had become increasingly tyrannical, hoarding resources and privileges among a select few, while the majority of citizens were denied the ability to realize their full potential.
In response, grassroots political power erupted, with the youth taking to the streets in a movement for the people, by the people.
Members of established political parties, including CPN (UML) and Nepali Congress, even resigned from their posts in solidarity, signaling a profound shift in the locus of political authority toward the streets and public consciousness.
Anarchism and the Future of Politics
Anarchism, therefore, represents a form of politics that allows political engagement beyond traditional structures, enabling citizens to challenge power and assert autonomy. As the twenty-first century unfolds, such movements have the potential to reset the political clock, introducing new paradigms of freedom and justice.
Chomsky notes that there is no inherent contradiction in holding anarchist ideals while engaging with state mechanisms for reform, so long as the ultimate goal remains a more just, liberated society.
Rigidity and purism, he warns, can sometimes be self-defeating, but the collective pursuit of justice and freedom remains paramount.
Nepal’s youth uprising stands as a compelling contemporary example of anarchist politics in action—a movement grounded in collective consciousness, moral outrage, and unyielding demand for accountability.
It underscores the enduring human aspiration for freedom, dignity, and participatory governance, reminding us that when formal structures fail, people themselves become the architects of change.
#NepalUprising #GenZRevolt #Anarchism #NoamChomsky #YouthPower #PoliticalRevolution #AntiCorruption #SocialJustice #GrassrootsPolitics #CollectiveConsciousness #LibertarianSocialism #DemocracyInAction #NepaliPolitics #SocialMediaProtests #JusticeForPeople
The Writer: Dr. Prashant Khattri
Assistant Professor, Department of Anthropology, University of Allahabad
Email: prashant_khattri@allduniv.ac.in
