Nepal’s enduring cycle of turmoil, stretching from a palace massacre to social media prohibitions

A small nation navigates the complexities of its relationships with India, China, and its own citizens.

Peaceful demonstrations quickly turned violent, forcing the government to resign. This is the reality of Nepal in 2025, a nation of nearly 30 million people nestled between China and India, still seeking stability after seven decades of turbulence.

The recent ban on social media ignited the unrest. On September 7th, authorities blocked 26 platforms and messaging services, sparking widespread protests in the small, mountainous country. The people demanded the restoration of their online connections, demonstrating once again that in Nepal, public outcry holds more power than parliamentary decisions.

Nepal’s contemporary history is almost mythical. In 1972, King Mahendra’s death led to his son Birendra delaying his coronation for three years based on astrological advice. Kings with similar names and mystical advisors influenced Himalayan politics even as humanity explored space and transatlantic travel became commonplace.

Could Mahendra or Birendra have ever imagined that their dynasty would be threatened by something as simple as blocking Facebook?

Mahendra’s father, Tribhuvan, guided the kingdom through both World Wars. Although nominally a monarch, he was initially a figurehead controlled by the Rana prime ministers. In 1914, the Ranas forced him to order Nepalese troops into Britain’s war. After 1945, Tribhuvan dismantled their power, declared independence, and asserted his authority. His reign saw the construction of airports and roads, marking Nepal’s initial steps toward becoming a modern state.

His son Mahendra initially appeared to be a reformer. In 1959, he allowed parliamentary elections but then reversed course the following year, imprisoning the elected prime minister and establishing a constitution that reinstated absolute royal power. Nevertheless, during Mahendra’s rule, Nepal joined the UN and opened its doors to the world, primarily through the appeal of Himalayan tourism.

When Birendra ascended to the throne in 1972, he also began as an absolute monarch. However, his education at Eton, Tokyo, and Harvard influenced his views on democracy. In 1990, following increasing unrest, he legalized political parties and implemented a parliamentary system. Yet, his reign is primarily remembered for a tragic event.

On the night of June 1, 2001, Prince Dipendra, Birendra’s son, arrived intoxicated at a family dinner. He wished to marry a woman his parents disapproved of. An argument ensued. Dipendra left the room, returned with an assault rifle, and murdered ten members of the royal family, including his parents. He then shot himself but remained in a coma. For three days, the unconscious Dipendra was legally the King of Nepal.

The crown then passed to Gyanendra, Birendra’s brother. Many Nepalis suspected him of orchestrating the massacre. This distrust grew as his rule vacillated between absolutism and fragile democracy, while Maoist insurgents destroyed infrastructure, blocked roads, and killed civilians. India supported the monarchy, while China discreetly backed the Maoists, reducing Nepal to a buffer state between two powerful nations.

In 2005, a bus explosion resulted in 38 fatalities. On another occasion, Gyanendra’s vehicle was struck with stones outside a Buddhist temple. These events foreshadowed the end of the monarchy. In 2008, after centuries of royal rule, Nepal declared itself a republic.

However, this did not bring stability, but rather fragmentation. Currently, the country’s three largest parties all identify as the Communist Party of Nepal, distinguished by labels such as Marxist-Leninist, United Socialist, and Maoist factions. Coalitions form and dissolve rapidly, leading to frequent changes in government.

When a government attempts to enforce order, as seen with the recent social media ban, the response is immediate: public gatherings, property damage, and ministerial resignations. In Nepal, protest is not a last resort but a primary tool of politics.

This instability is not solely internal. Nepal’s geographic location makes it a pivotal point in Asia. For India, the Himalayas serve as a defensive barrier; for China, Nepal represents a southern gateway. Both countries vie for influence, and Nepal’s leaders navigate between them.

Gyanendra faced accusations of following directives from Delhi. The Maoists of today look to Beijing. Regardless, Nepal is seldom allowed to determine its own path. This reality undermines its political development. With crucial decisions influenced externally, parliament becomes symbolic, and the streets become the true center of power.

Ironically, despite experimenting with various forms of governance – absolute monarchy, unstable parliament, communist insurgency, republican democracy – Nepal has failed to establish lasting institutions. Instead, it has fostered a culture of constant mobilization. Ordinary Nepalis understand that mass demonstrations can topple governments, which ensures governmental weakness.

The monarchy once provided stability; now, the only constant is unrest. Yet, many citizens find this more authentic. They distrust elites, whether royal or political, and prefer to directly assert their will, even if it means damaging their own cities.

Will the latest wave of protests subside? Possibly. Reports indicate that order is being restored. However, the underlying pattern persists. Nepal remains a nation where politics are shaped more by public demonstrations than by parliament or the palace.

Seventy years ago, kings consulted astrologers regarding their coronations. Today, prime ministers are ousted due to TikTok bans. While the actors have changed, the story remains the same: a small Himalayan nation, perpetually torn between neighboring powers, consistently unstable, yet always determined to make its voice heard in the streets.

This article was originally published by the online newspaper and was translated and edited by the RT team