The aftermath of the Gen Z protest in Nepal is only testing the resilience of democracy. Political uncertainty has become more evident following the protest.
The fight that began as a deep frustration over corruption and economic inequality has increasingly appeared alarming due to the infiltration of actors with their own agendas. Failure to hold them accountable for their heinous crimes has not only questioned the sole legitimacy but also the future of governance in Nepal.
The ongoing political instability is a result of a long-corrupted bureaucratic structure. When states undergo such unprecedented upheaval, the resilience of independent bodies becomes instrumental for protecting democratic norms and ensuring the continuity of good governance. Among these bodies is the National Human Rights Commission, established to protect citizens from state abuse and act in accordance with the nation's conscience, which it is failing to uphold. Being the only institution that should have roared during this turmoil, just whispering signifies its ineffectiveness.
Gen Z in the streets: A battle for rights and recognition
In September 2025, the government decided to ban 26 major digital platforms, including Facebook, WhatsApp, YouTube, Instagram, and Telegram by issuing an ultimatum to register locally. In a country where platforms like these are a blessing for commerce, education, communication and activism, this act was deliberately seen as a direct attack on free expression and digital rights which initiated immediate response from youths, primarily students from universities and colleges, filling the streets of the capital and other major cities. Their slogans, "Your luxury, our misery!" and "Nepo Babies!", exemplified immense frustration with corruption, long standing political elites, and the government's growing authoritarian tendencies. What followed was more than a protest; it became a bottom-up movement that reshaped the country's political dynamics.
The state responded with force. According to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, at least 19 protesters were killed, hundreds were injured, and scores were detained as police fired tear gas, rubber bullets, and live rounds. The government imposed internet blackouts, and independent media coverage was heavily restricted.
A watchdog missing in action
Yet, as the violence escalated, the NHRC neglected to call emergency meetings, mobilize human rights monitors, or begin investigations. Instead, it only released a brief statement "urging restraint from both sides" after more than a dozen demonstrators had already died.
Its absence from protest sites, including jails and hospitals, conveys a sense of guilt and helplessness. The NHRC's inaction has been seen by many young activists as a betrayal of its basic purpose, which was to protect citizens when the government broke the law.
Why NHRC can't stand on its own feet
This failure was not an isolated incident; rather, it reflects structural weaknesses that have been eroding the NHRC's autonomy for more than a decade.
First: Politicised appointments
NHRC members still get selected based on political bargaining rather than merit. In 2020, its unilateral appointments by the Constitutional Council, without parliamentary hearings, invited countrywide and international condemnation. However, the ordinance which encapsulated the biased appointments of those appointees brought by the then Oli led government was revoked by the successive government. This act of constitutional volatility damaged the sole norm of democracy, as a result, in 2023, GANHRI downgraded Nepal's NHRC for failing to meet basic standards of independence.
Second: Financial dependence
The NHRC remains financially tied to the Ministry of Finance, which controls budget allocations and disbursement. As far back as 2016, the Commission warned that government control had "paralysed its activities." Nearly a decade later, little has changed. Without independent financing, the NHRC cannot deploy investigators, hire experts, or publish timely reports, leaving it unable to act in moments of crisis.
Third: No enforcement power
Even when the NHRC makes recommendations, government agencies fail to act upon them. Nepal does not have a legal provision forcing compliance. These ineffectiveness have, at best, reduced the Commission to an advisory body, and, at worst, to a symbolic institution.
Taken together, these constraints have turned the NHRC into a watchdog on a leash, which can bark only with political permission.
A generation filling the vacuum
Where the NHRC remained silent, Gen Z stepped in. Using VPNs, encrypted messaging apps, and livestreaming tools, young activists documented state violence as it happened while bypassing media restrictions. Hashtags such as #JusticeForProtesters and #LetMediaSpeak went viral on Nepali and diaspora networks, amplifying the voices the state tried to silence.
They documented arrests, verified footage, coordinated legal aid, and drew international attention to the brutality unfolding on the streets. They did take on the accountability role for which the NHRC was created, but failed to undertake it.
As Time Magazine has noticed, "Nepal's Gen Z has become the moral conscience of a democracy losing its voice."
Their activism raises difficult questions:
Whose rights does the NHRC actually defend?
And if it cannot act when authorities kill citizens for protesting, does its autonomy have any meaning left?
Where Nepal must go from here
If reform is urgent and unavoidable, Nepal needs a credible human-rights institution. Basic steps to this end are three:
Depoliticise appointments through open, merit-based selection.
Guarantee independent financing with non-discretionary budget allocations.
Give the NHRC enforcement authority so that it cannot dismiss its recommendations.
Nepal is at a crossroads. The Gen Z protests brought to light weaknesses not only in leadership but in the very institutions committed to safeguarding democracy. A functioning NHRC is not optional; it is the backbone of rights protection in a system where political power can shift quickly and unpredictably.
Until real reform occurs, the NHRC will continue to symbolise what Nepal aspires to be but isn't. And a democracy that relies on teenagers, not its institutions, to defend human rights is in danger.
