Nepal has reversed its controversial ban on social media after massive youth-led protests erupted into violent clashes with police, leaving at least 19 people dead and over 100 injured.
The unrest reached boiling point on Monday when thousands of young demonstrators stormed parliament in Kathmandu, demanding an end to the week-old ban on 26 social media platforms, including Facebook, YouTube, and Instagram. Protesters also used the moment to call out deep-rooted corruption, carrying placards with slogans like “Enough is enough” and “End to corruption.”
The government backed down late Monday after an emergency cabinet meeting, with Communications Minister Prithvi Subba Gurung announcing the decision to lift the ban, saying it was meant to “address the demands of Gen Z.”
What began as anger over losing access to social media had quickly transformed into a broader anti-corruption movement. Protesters pointed to the lavish lifestyles of politicians’ children — exposed through a viral “nepo kid” campaign — as proof of systemic graft. “Rather than the social media ban, I think everyone’s focus is on corruption,” protester Sabana Budathoki told the BBC. “We want our country back.”
Violence spread beyond the capital, with clashes breaking out in towns across Nepal. Police responded with water cannons, rubber bullets, and batons. Some demonstrators hurled stones at Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli’s house in Damak.
Oli said he was “deeply saddened” by the bloodshed, blaming “infiltration by vested interests” for the scale of the violence. The government has promised an inquiry, financial relief for victims, and free medical care for the injured.
But fallout came quickly: Home Minister Ramesh Lekhak resigned on Monday evening following outrage over the security forces’ handling of the protests.
The ban, imposed last week, was initially justified as a measure against fake news, hate speech, and online fraud. Officials argued they were not banning social media outright, but requiring platforms to register under Nepali law — a move critics saw as an authoritarian crackdown on free expression.
