What many Nepalis never anticipated is now unfolding before their eyes — a political and moral crisis that questions the very survival of the nation. The much-celebrated Gen-Z revolution, once hailed as an organic and homegrown movement for systemic change, has ended abruptly and inconclusively.

Analysts argue that the movement, which began with immense energy and genuine frustration against corruption and misgovernance, was hijacked midway. The recent agreement between the Gen-Z representatives — led by Sudan Gurung — and President Ramchandra Paudel, facilitated by Nepal Army Chief General Ashok Raj Sigdel, concluded with the appointment of former Chief Justice Sushila Karki as the interim Prime Minister. Alongside this, the House of Representatives was dissolved, paving the way for midterm elections scheduled for March 5, 2026.

However, this political arrangement, though presented as a compromise, fails to address the fundamental demands of the Gen-Z demonstrators. Their protests, which erupted on September 8, were driven by anger at the corruption-ridden political system and the perceived failure of the 2015 Constitution to deliver prosperity or justice. Tragically, the state’s heavy-handed response left at least 76 citizens dead, many of them young protesters, while thousands remain injured and are undergoing treatment across various hospitals.

A midterm election, therefore, is not a solution but an added financial and moral burden on an already struggling nation. The spirit of the Gen-Z movement was never about reshuffling faces in power — it was a call for a complete overhaul of the system that has normalized corruption, political exploitation, and national humiliation. The protesters demanded the abolition of the costly provincial structure and the suspension of the current Constitution, which they view as a Western-imposed charter that fragmented the country and drained its resources.

Yet, since the movement was effectively “abducted,” several voices — possibly influenced by political or foreign interests — have begun to reinterpret the Gen-Z agenda. Some now argue that the demonstrators were not opposed to federalism, secularism, or republicanism. But this narrative contradicts what was witnessed on the streets.

On September 10, as the Nepal Army facilitated dialogue between protesters and authorities, thousands of citizens gathered near Bhadrakali Temple, in front of the Army Headquarters, chanting for the restoration of the Hindu Kingdom. For many participants, the revolution symbolized a longing for a corruption-free, unified, and culturally rooted Nepal — a nation anchored in the values of honesty, identity, and tradition, represented by a constitutional monarchy.

Since the formation of the interim government, political observers have started warning about a new geopolitical risk. Many believe that the current arrangement may tilt against both Indian and Chinese interests, aligning instead with Western powers, particularly the United States and the European Union. If this prediction proves accurate, Nepal could be heading toward another phase of external manipulation — a scenario the country can ill afford.

The 2015 Constitution, widely regarded as influenced by Western advisors and aid institutions, has already failed Nepal on multiple fronts — politically, economically, and socially. The Western narrative of “inclusive democracy” has instead produced instability, corruption, and disillusionment. The suspicion is growing that Western powers prefer to keep Nepal perpetually poor and weak — a pawn to balance against regional giants India and China. Geopolitically, this is a suicidal trajectory for Nepal.

At present, the nation stands at a dangerous crossroads. Various factions within the Gen-Z movement have splintered, each advancing different agendas. Amid this confusion, the only credible escape from the current political and constitutional crisis may lie in reinstating the 1990 Constitution. By suspending the existing framework, Nepal could regain the stability of a tried and tested system — one that balanced democracy with national unity.

Given the rising uncertainty in foreign policy and escalating internal security threats, many believe that restoring the monarchy, even in a constitutional form, could provide a stabilizing force. The King, as the head of state, could assume responsibility for foreign policy and defense, ensuring that Nepal’s sovereignty is not traded for foreign influence. Without such decisive action, the country risks descending into chaos — potentially producing its own “Zelenskyy” figure, drawn into great-power games at the expense of national integrity.

Ultimately, Western domination in Nepal does not only endanger Nepal’s future but also threatens the strategic balance of South Asia. Both India and China have strong reasons to be concerned. A Western-controlled Nepal could become a geopolitical pressure point for the region. Therefore, it is in the interest of both neighbors to formulate a coordinated Nepal policy aimed at restoring political stability and protecting indigenous values, culture, and traditions that foreign-funded NGOs and imported ideologies have undermined for years.

Nepal stands today at the edge of a defining moment. Either it regains control of its destiny through national unity and sovereign leadership — or it becomes another casualty of global power politics. The choice must be made now, before survival itself slips beyond reach.