From Nepal to Indonesia, Sri Lanka to Bangladesh, Asia’s youth are furious. Protests show a generation unwilling to accept inequality and injustice as their destiny, but for lasting political change to be achieved, this rage must be channeled into reform.
Raw anger is spilling out onto the streets. On Tuesday, Nepalese prime minister K.P. Sharma Oli resigned after two days of demonstrations over a sweeping social media ban. At least 19 people were killed and hundreds more injured after scores of “Gen-Z” protesters clashed with police. The ban was swiftly scrapped, but the disenchantment has continued. The army has stepped in, urging people to back down.
Young Nepalis are fed up. Blocking the apps was the immediate catalyst for their frustrations, another reminder of living under a government that is out of touch with their concerns. These platforms are critical tools in a country where about one in four people live below the national poverty line.
Illustration: Yusha
They are a way to receive remittances and stay in touch with friends and loved ones.
Indonesia has witnessed similar scenes. Late last month, outrage erupted after lawmakers were awarded lavish housing allowances — nearly 10 times the monthly minimum wage — while ordinary citizens grappled with soaring living costs. The death of a motorcycle taxi driver, run over by a police vehicle, further inflamed tensions.
Demonstrators looted the homes of top lawmakers, torched cars and vandalized government buildings, in some of the worst violence in decades. Under mounting pressure, Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto rolled back the perks, pledging greater accountability. On Monday last week, widely respected Indonesian minister of finance Sri Mulyani Indrawati was removed. It is speculated that she was sacrificed to calm public anger.
At first glance, these protests appear unconnected, but there are common grievances. These are both nations with young populations: About half of Indonesia’s total population is younger than 30, while in Nepal, it is around 56 percent. High unemployment rates are an issue, as is a widening income gap.
These demonstrations also highlight how collective youth action can force governments into retreat. Still, outrage alone is insufficient. Asia’s history of activism shows that demonstrations can topple leaders, but without meaningful political reforms, they rarely transform societies.
Bangladesh illustrates both promise and peril. A student-led uprising last year forced Sheikh Hasina — the longest-serving prime minister in Bangladesh’s history — to step down and flee the country. Hundreds died and many more were injured in the violence. The demonstrations led to a caretaker government helmed by Bangladeshi Interim Prime Minister and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Muhammad Yunus.
He has promised to restore order and rejuvenate democratic institutions, encouraging young people to get involved. Elections are expected early next year, but whether Bangladesh transforms into a functioning democracy would depend on how credible they are.
Sri Lanka’s experience is a cautionary tale. In 2022, a largely youth-led protest movement known as the Aragalaya, taking its name from the Sinhala word for struggle, forced the resignation of Sri Lankan president Gotabaya Rajapaksa. His incompetent nearly three-year rule ended with the nation defaulting on its debt in an unprecedented economic meltdown. The government’s foreign reserve crisis meant it was unable to pay for fuel imports, leading to long petrol lines and daily 13-hour power cuts.
However, the movement lacked a coherent long-term plan, and the old guard quickly regrouped. Ranil Wickremesinghe, another member of the discredited political elite, was installed as president.
Only last year did voters finally find an alternative, electing wildly popular Sri Lankan President Anura Kumara Dissanayake, eventually giving his National People’s Power coalition a parliamentary majority. His appeal lies partly in connecting with younger voters, offering a contrast to the cronyism and corruption of politicians from an earlier era.
Asia’s youth movements could draw lessons from farther afield. In New York, the meteoric rise of New York State Representative Zohran Mamdani from assemblyman to leading mayoral contender is notable. Using viral social media campaigns and policies that speak directly to young voters, Mamdani’s popularity stems from his authenticity, a sense that he empathizes with the people he says he wants to serve. This solutions-driven idealism has channeled what could have been rage into agency.
One name that has been mentioned as a potential leader in Nepal is Kathmandu Mayor Balendra Shah. The 35-year-old engineer-turned-rapper has impressed voters with his campaign to clean up the city’s waterways, while his songs have raised the issue of corruption and inequality in the Himalayan nation.
Protests have to evolve beyond the streets and into the places where power rests and policies are made. Demands should focus not simply on toppling corrupt politicians or torching government buildings, but on reforming courts, electoral commissions and creating independent watchdogs. Movements rooted solely among students or young people risk petering out after the anger fades. Building viable political parties or coalitions that can credibly contest elections is essential.
The Arab Spring offers sobering lessons. More than a decade ago, youthful revolts toppled governments from Tunisia to Egypt and Libya, but the movement collapsed and ended with worsening repression in parts of the region.
Protesting can be thrilling and a bit addictive — but it alone cannot be the endgame. Otherwise, this generation risks squandering its opportunity for change. Burned buildings and trashed department stores would only ensure the same power structures return, with a vengeance.
Karishma Vaswani is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering Asia politics with a special focus on China. Previously, she was the BBC’s lead Asia presenter and worked for the BBC across Asia and South Asia for two decades. This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval
A report by the US-based Jamestown Foundation on Tuesday last week warned that China is operating illegal oil drilling inside Taiwan’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off the Taiwan-controlled Pratas Island (Dongsha, 東沙群島), marking a sharp escalation in Beijing’s “gray zone” tactics. The report said that, starting in July, state-owned China National Offshore Oil Corp installed 12 permanent or semi-permanent oil rig structures and dozens of associated ships deep inside Taiwan’s EEZ about 48km from the restricted waters of Pratas Island in the northeast of the South China Sea, islands that are home to a Taiwanese garrison. The rigs not only typify
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS