Thread by @deepdownanlyz

🚨 Nepal is boiling.

But Wait..
Is the world’s only Hindu Rashtra making a comeback?

What began as a Gen-Z outcry against a social media ban has turned into something far bigger anger at corruption, misgovernance & failed democracy.

Now, with protesters demanding a “Modi-like PM” and the Nepal's Army Chief addressing Nation under the portrait of Nepal’s first King…

On September 4, KP Oli govt announced ban on Social Media.

And unrest irrupted.

The immediate spark was a sudden ban on 26 social-media platforms Facebook, X, Instagram, YouTube and others — which removed the primary organizing and grievance-sharing channels for the youngest Nepalis.

But the protests weren’t only about apps: Gen-Z crowds were expressing long-standing frustration with corruption, nepotism, cronyism, youth unemployment and economic stagnation.

The unrest turned deadly: dozens killed and hundreds injured during clashes, and the government quickly rolled back the ban amid mounting pressure.

But damage was done.

What began as student-led street actions escalated very quickly. Protesters pushed toward the federal parliament, clashes produced live rounds, rubber bullets and mass arrests, and in several spots government buildings and senior officials’ residences were torched or vandalized.

The army’s intervention and the symbolism of a king’s portrait:

When the Army Chief, General Ashok Raj Sigdel, made a national address seeking calm and when footage/photos from army locations showed a historic royal portrait in the background, there comes a strong message and mood.

The Nepal Army was deployed to restore order; curfews were imposed and the prime minister resigned within days.

The Nepal Army historically traces lineage to the Shah monarchy and, in ceremonial spaces, portraits of founders like Prithvi Narayan Shah are common.

A portrait behind a COAS during a crisis is a symbol — and symbols matter in politics because they communicate continuity, legitimacy and identity.

That portrait also symbolizes where Nepal can find prosperity and peace.

It was King Birendra, who made monarchy constitutional and power was passed to representative govt.

After the assassination of King Birendra, Gyanendra took over the throne and regime became authoritarian.

After years of unrest, full democracy was established in 2008 but it never succeeded in Nepal beyond some ceremonial constitutional changes.

Nepal, the only Hindu Rashtra, became secular under
the rule Maoist, Communists, Centrists.

Nepalese dream of corruption free and people first governance never got realised.

IN this whole process, Nepalese PMs have been more often than not leaning to Chinese side and had troubled relation with India.

The pro-monarchy and Hindu-Rashtra currents: are they real?

Yes — they exist and are visible.

Since early 2025 there have been organized pro-monarchy rallies and public calls by some groups to restore a Hindu state, including large demonstrations that drew thousands and occasional violent clashes.

Campaigns for “Hindu Rashtra” and a constitutional monarchy have presence in public debate, amplified by parties such as Rastriya Prajatantra Party and by activist networks.

But the scale matters: while visible and vocal, these movements have not yet achieved a clear majority mandate across Nepal’s diverse electorate.

They are one of several competing fault-lines (ethnic, regional, class, generational) in Nepali politics. So: the sentiment is real, not merely an online meme — but it was not so relevant till this GenZ protest happened.

GenZ protest has opened door for all possibilities in Nepal.

Protestors want an accountable, reformist govt that's why Kathmandu's governor Balendra Shah is their favourite.

A young technocrat with no prior affiliation. But Question arises: Can he win election beyond city of Kathmandu and form a majority govt without Party affiliation?
Answer is NO.
Because parties have means, mechanism, cadre etc to get election results in their favour.

Will external power make him their pawn to make Nepal vassal state?

Answer is YES.

So What can be the binding force for Nepal?

Answer is what King Birendra did in 90s.

Set Up Monarchy with people's representatives in key decision making.

Balendra's popularity is limited to Gen z but Monarchy is known to all age group.

Getting Monarchy back to power with people like Balendra being part of it is not a bad idea.

Nepalese still proudly call their country Hindu Rashtra.

Modi's popularity their shows they want a unapologetic progressive system of governance.

I am not saying this out of blue:

Historically Nepal was the world’s only official Hindu kingdom until the monarchy was abolished in 2008; the idea of a Hindu Rashtra draws on that heritage.

Surveys and reportage show a large Hindu majority (over 80% by the 2021 census), and for many Hindus the monarchy symbolized unity and cultural dignity.

But turning cultural majority into a state form requires law, votes, constitutional change — and those are heavy hurdles.

After 2008 the republic and secular articles are embedded in institutional law and international commitments. Restoring a religious monarchy (or a Hindu state) would need broad parliamentary consensus or a referendum — not a quick executive reorder.

Symbolic momentum alone is insufficient without political and institutional machinery.

There is another angle that Nepal needs to worry about and India will be closely monitoring:

Geopolitics: India, China, and why the border angle matters

Nepal sits between India and China; any big domestic shock has external strategic consequences. Under KP Oli, Kathmandu shifted closer to Beijing (BRI agreements, a new 2020 map that hardened claims on border tracts), creating distrust with New Delhi.

Amid the unrest, some commentators and officials warned about “political cadres” or spoilers exploiting protests and noted how border tensions could be inflamed if instability persists.

India publicly voiced concern and appealed for calm — and New Delhi will be watching whether instability produces an opening for more China influence or for a change in Nepal’s domestic regime that affects bilateral cooperation. I

In short: external actors watch and, at times, exploit openings. But rigorous evidence that a foreign state orchestrated the protests has not been produced; most reporting points to domestic grievances with opportunistic exploitation.

How India is reading this situation:

Stable and Independent Nepal will be India's first priority.

Majority of Elected govt have faced serious corruption charges and have inclination toward's India's adversaries.

Due to corruption, Nepal became centre of action by external forces against India.

India's cultural ties with Nepal and Nepal's royal family have been very strong before it hit some lows due to multiple reasons during late years of King Gyanendra rule.

Indians wont feel bad if Nepal goes back to progressive Monarchy and Hindu Rashtra state.

So: is “Hindu Rashtra” or a monarchy-plus-democracy hybrid loading?

Short answer: Possible but not imminent.

Evidence for a comeback includes visible pro-monarchy mobilization, cultural resonance of royal symbolism, and an army that references historical legitimacy.

Against that: the republic is constitutionally entrenched, mass national consent appears fractured (not consolidated behind royals), and international/legal constraints make a sudden, formal restoration hard. Plausible scenarios:

(A) symbolic revival: more royal imagery and influence without legal restoration;

(B) hybrid compromise: stronger executive powers, national unity rhetoric, perhaps a referendal push — slow, contested;

(C) full restoration: unlikely without broad elite and institutional collusion (including parliament, judiciary and international acquiescence).

My read: watch symbolism and institutional moves (curfews, army legal posture, parliamentary maneuvers).
Symbolism signals intent; institutions deliver reality.

What to watch next & the practical bottom line:

If you want to track whether Nepal moves toward a religion-backed monarchy or merely a more muscular, conservative republic, watch for three things:

(1) Formal legal steps - Bills, constitutional amendments, emergency decrees;

(2) Institutional alignment - Does the army move from caretaker to political arbiter (statements, arrests, direct governance actions);

(3) Mass legitimacy — large, repeated nationwide rallies with clear, unified demands for monarchy/Hindu Rashtra.

Right now, the Gen-Z uprising has re-opened the door to contested narratives (including pro-monarchy ones) but has not yet closed it in favor of a royal restoration.

For now, the stronger signal is youth demand for accountable, effective government, which can take many institutional forms — not an automatic return to the old order but can be a possibility.