EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & STRATEGIC OVERVIEW

1. 1 The Event Context

The CESIF Roundtable brought together the emerging "Gen Z" political class and Nepal’s established political leaders ("Silver Sages"). The session was not merely a grievance hearing but a deep review of Nepal’s political and governance crisis. The proceedings were framed by a scenario (September 2025 Interim Government), but the analysis remained firmly rooted in the immediate crisis of governance, economic exodus, and the collapse of the relationship between the state and citizens.

1.2 The Core Thesis: The "Two-Speed" Nation The central finding of the conference is that Nepal is fracturing into two different realities:

• The Analog State/ The Old/Slow State: Represented by the "Syndicate" of political parties, the sluggish bureaucracy, and a system where access to Singha Durbar System depends on connections. It relies on nepotism, slow response times, and an old legitimacy.
• The Digital Nation: Represented by Gen Z, operated through digital networks, global connectivity, and a demand for immediate, data-driven delivery ("Technocracy”).
• The Friction Point: The conference concluded that the collision of these two speeds—digitally connected generations and a political structure that works in decades—has caused a "State Meltdown" (Mr. Hari Sharma), meaning the government has lost moral credibility.

 

1.3 Key Strategic Risks Identified

• The Sovereignty Trap: Amb. Vijay Kant Karna cautioned Nepal becoming a “battleground” for geopolitical interests due to weak domestic governance.
• The "Kakistocracy" Danger: Senior leaders warned that if the current parties collapse without a structured alternative, power may fall into the worst actors of society. (Amb. Madhuraman Acharya).
• The Regional Domino Effect: A consensus emerged that Nepal is on the same trajectory as Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. Without an immediate "Course Correction," the combination of "Hunger of the Stomach" and "Anger of the Mind" will lead to total systemic collapse (Mr. Sambhu Ram Simkhada).
•  

THE DOMESTIC RECKONING

I. The Anatomy of the "Gen Z" Uprising: Structure and Speed

Ms. Tashi Lhazom described the movement as a decentralized organism driven by “mudda” (issues) and content rather than the personalities of the leader. She challenged the traditional requirement for charismatic leadership for the movement to carry out which she considered as the biggest strength, preventing co-option by established parties. As a result, a de facto leader was born out of necessity. Further, she labeled the current administration a “Kleptocracy”- ruled by thieves, for thieves at the cost of people – asserting: "In my 25 years of existence, seeing the same four leaders rotate... if that is the definition of Nepali democracy, we reject it."

Ms. Ashmita Rijal supported this characterization, rejecting the establishment critique that the movement failed due to a lack of command structure. According to Rijal, it is because of this very nature of “leaderless” the youth felt safe to join in critical mass. She noted, "We didn't know who the leader was, but we joined based on the content... If there had been a specific leader, the youth power would never have reached that intensity."

This definition of "movement velocity" was contested by Mr. Sambhu Ram Simkhada and other senior analysts, who questioned whether a "27-hour" eruption could be seen as a legitimate mandate. However, Mr. Lekhnath Pandey, intervening from the floor, sharply disagree this "analog" metric. He introduced the concept of "Network Politics," arguing that in the age of AI and hyper-connectivity, time is compressed. "You judge the speed by old standards," Pandey argued. "The movement didn't lack a mandate because it was fast; it was fast because the technology allows it. A 24-year-old has already delivered the verdict while we are still debating the process."

Ms. Ojaswee Bhattarai reinforced this generational disconnect as a clash between "Digital Power" ( digital coordination) and "Analog Governance" ( outdated governance). She ridiculed the expectation that youth should spend 50-year in student union politics before leading. Her argument was absolute: "If digital awareness and coordination can topple a government in two days, expecting us to follow a 50-year-old analog political roadmap is absurd."

 

II.  Bureaucratic Violence and the "Passport Office" Economy

The discourse shifted from political theory to the deep-rooted economic reality of the Nepali youth. Mr. Manish Khanal provided a harrowing description of the "Queueing Culture" that defines Nepal where citizens spend their lives lining up for everything be it for licenses, degrees and taxes with no dignity or certainty. He contrasted the "hourly wage" dignity of peers in the West with the "monthly uncertainty" of Nepal, stating, "A citizen is reduced to someone who stands in line... We spend our lives in queues just to validate our existence."

Mr. Aayush Bashyal extended this grievance to a structural critique of the nation’s economy. In one of the most cited metaphors of the session, he declared that the Parliament and Judiciary were no longer the vital organs of the state. "The true heartbeat of our nation is not the ministries, but the Passport Office in Tripureshwor," he argued. He further asserts that the country is surviving only because people are leaving to work abroad. This was reinforced by Ms. Rose Kandel, who cited migration statistics (3.2 million abroad, 26% GDP from remittances) to demand that the government stop trying to "prevent" migration and start managing it through "Foreign Diplomacy" to ensure dignity for workers, acknowledging that the state has lost the economic argument to keep them home.

Ms. Ojaswee Bhattarai used the "Singha Durbar Pass" as a symbol to explain the youth's rage. She described Singha Durbar as a private club where ordinary people cannot enter without connections. "To enter Singha Durbar, a common citizen needs a 'pass' recommended from the inside. If you have no one inside, you cannot enter," she stated. This "locked gate" reality was used to justify the "Nepo-Baby" narrative, arguing that the system is rigged to privilege the children of the elite while locking the working class out of their own state institutions.

 

III. The Collapse of State Legitimacy and the "Arson" Debate

A pivotal segment of the proceedings was dedicated to the meticulous analysis of the state's failure during the protests (referenced as "Bhadra 23-24"). Dr. Bhaskar Gautam provided a chilling academic assessment, arguing that the state did not merely fail; its civil administration collapsed within 48 hours. He pointed to the deployment of the Army on the second day as proof that the police and civil governance had dissolved. "If a state requires the military to handle civic protests on day two, that is a collapse of public security," Gautam asserted. He characterized the last two decades of governance not as democracy, but as the "Politics of Prohibition and Revenge."

The most controversial debate centered on the burning of government/ public infrastructure (Singha Durbar). Dr. Sucheta Pyakuryal offered a symbolic meaning of this violence, refusing to classify it as mere vandalism. Dr. Sucheta urged the youth, "Don't be too apologetic about the fire. Revolution is a fire." She argued that when the public refused to extinguish the flames, they were tacitly endorsing the destruction of a system they felt excluded from. Mr. Hari Sharma accepting this fact stated that the state had "melted down" and "evaporated." He concluded that a government which uses force against its own citizens loses its soul, and therefore, "Legitimacy is broken... The only way to return legitimacy is through elections."

On the other end of the spectrum, Mr. Abhijeet Adhikari, while acknowledging the anger, he warned that the "No Political Parties" sentiment risks repeating the Panchayat era authoritarianism also called "Mandale Nationalism". He cautioned the floor not to undermine democracy while attempting to remedy its imperfection: "We must draw the thin line: Where does rejecting these three parties end, and where does autocracy begin?" He questioned the legitimacy of the "weakest government since 2015" attempting to amend the constitution, calling it a maneuver by "Shadow Politics" and invisible "Chefs" operating behind the scenes.

 

THEMATIC DIVERGENCE & GEOPOLITICS

IV. The Technocratic Trap: Efficiency vs. Inclusivity

A major difference in viewpoints emerged regarding the solution to the governance crisis. Ms. Prakriti Dhakal, an LSE graduate, pushed for "Technocratic" governance. She criticized Nepal’s elder statesmen who speak poetically. "We are done and dusted with politicians who narrate problems in poetic tones," she declared. "We need leaders who know the price of onions as well as the price of hydropower." Her demand was for data-driven governance, infrastructure that survives the monsoon ("HIT" framework), and a shift from rhetoric to delivery.

This "Technocratic" vision faced immediate intellectual pushback. Dr. Sucheta Pyakuryal warned that a pure technocracy is inherently undemocratic and exclusionary. Speaker argued, "To say we only need 'Technocrats' is undemocratic. Knowledge isn't just a university degree; we need indigenous wisdom and feminine perspective, not just capitalist efficiency." They argued that replacing politicians with experts would further marginalize women and minorities.

Ms. Tashi Lhazom, representing the Himalayan community, provided the sharpest critique of the "Inclusion" narrative. She attacked the "tokenistic inclusion" where indigenous youth are invited only to share "sob stories" or discuss climate change, but never hard diplomacy. She provided an example of Dawa Futi, an Ambassador who was asked about climate change in her village rather than political diplomacy. Tashi expressed deep alienation caused by online rhetoric calling Himalayan people as "Not Nepali," warning that if the state claims the geography but rejects the people, it creates separatists feelings.

 

V. Geopolitics: The "Pilot Error" and the "Foreign Agent" Stigma

The conference addressed the constant accusation that the youth movement was foreign-funded. Mr. Manish Khanal and Ms. Ashmita Rijal vehemently rejected the "Foreign Agent" label calling the rebellion homegrown. Khanal stated, "You call us agents of America or Europe? This rebellion is born from mass frustration... To label our genuine grievances as a foreign plot is to insult our lived reality." Ashmita noted the danger of this stigma, where merely appearing in a photo when attending such events label you a foreign agent.

Mr. Shanker Das Bairagi, a senior diplomat, validated the youth's rejection of conspiracy theories but issued a grave warning regarding the inexperienced leader who could make serious foreign policy mistakes.. He utilized the "Pilot Error" metaphor to describe foreign policy: "In other sectors, you can apologize and fix it. In foreign policy, like in aviation, a pilot's error leaves no room for 'ifs and buts'—everyone crashes." He argued that the frequent turnover of ambassadors had destroyed Nepal's "Institutional Memory," leaving the country vulnerable.

Amb. Madhuraman Acharya reinforced this fragility. He explicitly warned that dismantling the current order without a clear and structured alternative would lead to a "Kakistocracy"—rule by the worst elements of society. He advised the youth not to make politics their primary career, urging them to build professional success first, "Don't build your future on politics... Opening a party is easier than opening a company. Do not fall into that trap."

 

VI. The Existential Warning: The "Bangladesh" Scenario

The proceedings concluded with a dark, predictive analysis by Mr. Sambhu Ram Simkhada. He linked the collapse of Sri Lanka and the turmoil in Bangladesh to the current trajectory of Nepal. He warned that the leadership’s combination of "Ignorance" (of digital shifts) and "Arrogance" (of power) was a deadly combination.

Simkhada’s diagnosis was absolute: The nation is facing the simultaneous "Hunger of the Stomach" (economic hardship) and "Anger of the Mind" (intellectual/ political frustration). He left the conference with a haunting headline: "Sri Lanka Yesterday, Bangladesh Today, Who Next? If course correction does not happen, Nepal could be the answer." This sentiment was echoed by Amb. Madhuraman Acharya, who suggested that to avoid total collapse, the government must sign a formal "Charter" with Gen Z, similar to the "July Charter" in Bangladesh, to share the burden of reform before the "Anger of the Mind" destabilizes the country completely.

 

OUTCOMES, CONSENSUS & ACTION ITEMS

4.1 Strategic Consensus

1. Rejection of the "Foreign Agent" Narrative: All participants agreed that labeling youth protests as "Foreign Funded" (CIA/India) is invalid and dangerous political tactic. It was agreed that the unrest is a homegrown reaction to "Composite Governance Failure" where the machinery works but delivers poor results and the "Lifestyle Gap" between the elite and the citizenry.
2. The "Passport Office" Reality: All parties acknowledged that the State has lost its ability to economically motivate youth to stay in Nepal. The focus must shift from "preventing" migration (which is currently impossible) to "managing" it via dignity-based diplomacy.
3. Legitimacy Crisis: There is a binding agreement that the current government operates only as a technical "Election Government." It has no moral mandate to amend the Constitution or extend its tenure beyond six months. The only path to restored legitimacy is through fresh elections.

 

4.2 The "Technocratic" Split (Dissenting Opinion)

While Gen Z participants Ms. Prakriti Dhakal and Ms. Ojaswee Bhattarai demanded a shift to Technocracy (leaders who know the price of onions and hydropower), the Intellectual/Elder bloc (Dr. Sucheta Pyakuryal) formally rejected. They argued that pure technocracy risks "Othering" the older generation and excluding indigenous/feminine wisdom which remained unresolved.

 

4.3 Action Items & Recommendations

A. Political & Constitutional

• The "Charter" Proposal (Amb. Madhuraman Acharya): The Government should immediately draft and sign a formal agreement with Gen Z representatives—modeled on Bangladesh’s "July Charter"—to share the burden of reform and institutionalize the youth's role in the transition.
• lectoral Legitimacy (Mr. Hari Sharma): Immediate preparations for elections must be the sole priority. Any attempt to amend the Constitution by the current "weak" government must be stopped to prevent a return to "Mandale Nationalism" (Autocracy).

 

B. Economic & Diplomatic

• Foreign Policy Institutionalization (Mr. Shanker Das Bairagi/ Amb. Madhuraman Acharya): Implement the "3 Cs" (Consistency, Coherence, Credibility) and "3 Ds" (Defense, Development, Dignity). Foreign policy must move from "Personality-Driven" to "Institution-Driven" to avoid dangerous "Pilot Errors."
• Migration Diplomacy (Ms. Rose Kandel): Shift the Ministry of Foreign Affairs' focus from "Remittance Collection" to "Dignity Assurance." Establish government-to-government agreements that ensure the quality of life for the 3.2 million Nepalis abroad.
• Startup Liberalization (Ms. Rose Kandel): Immediate removal of import/export tax barriers for startups to create a favorable domestic economy for the youth who wish to stay.

 

C. Infrastructure & Development

• The "HIT" Framework (Ms. Prakriti Dhakal): Prioritize Highways (Monsoon-proof roads), I-ways (Digital infrastructure/Data centers), and Trans-ways (Energy gateways).
• Track 2 Diplomacy (Ms. Tashi Lhazom): formally utilize Himalayan/border communities as cultural bridges for "Track 2 Diplomacy" with China, instead of sidelining them.

 

4.4 Final Conclusion

The Record of Proceedings confirms that the "Gen Z" phenomenon in Nepal is not a temporary outburst but a "Generational Turning Point" (Mr. Shanker Das Bairagi). The aftermath of movement remains the primary threat: Nepal has a history of successful revolutions (1990, 2006) followed by failed transitions.

The ultimate warning of this conference is that the "Pass System" of Singha Durbar has been broken by the "Network Politics" of the street. If the established leadership attempts to respond with "Arrogance and Ignorance" rather than a "July Charter" style partnership, Nepal could move from governance failure into total state collapse.