What comes to mind when we talk about Gen Z? Elder generations dismiss them as overly reliant on technology, easily distracted, impatient for quick results, and too sensitive in their outlook. Revolution is hardly the first word one would associate with them. Yet, Nepal has witnessed what is being called a Gen Z revolution—youth-led, violent, and marked by the overthrow of government alongside hundreds of incidents of violence, theft, and incarceration. It is being praised and admired by many. But is this really a Gen Z revolution, or a mere mood swing of Gen Z? Is it an anomaly or a continuation of Nepal’s history? And most importantly, can such a phenomenon be replicated in Pakistan? Let’s try to answer.
In early September 2025, Nepal’s youth erupted in protests. Corruption and nepotism have been problems of Nepal for years. Economic decline and shrinking job opportunities made things worse, resulting in mass emigration of youth. Unemployment was over 10.7%. Among 15-24-year-old youth, it hit 22.7%. GDP growth in 2024/25 was about 4.61%, but inflation and cost of living still hit hard. But these are not the problems usually associated with Gen Z, yet they took the initiative. Why? What makes this truly a Gen Z revolution is the ban on social media. Gen Z sees it as more than tools. It is voice. It is community. It is perhaps the most distinctive feature of identity of Gen Z. That ban was the last straw on the camel’s back, turning frustration into revolt. The point of enquiry here is whether it was suffocation of ideas or suffocation of amusement that led to this uprising of the youth. And was this the manifestation of emotional instability and unpreparedness to tackle the problems with logic and reason, as suspected of Gen Z. We will come to it a little later.
The consequences were immediate and harsh. Protests spread from Kathmandu to every major city. Streets turned violent. Government buildings were stormed. The prime minister resigned; the army moved in to restore order; curfews were imposed; parliament was dissolved and new elections are now set for March 2026. Stability, however, is still a distant reality. But is it new for Nepal?
Nepal has seen upheavals many times. In 1950-51, the Rana dynasty was overthrown after a century of rule, giving way to democracy. But in 1960, King Mahendra staged a royal coup and installed the “Panchayat” system – a party-less government. The episodes of upheavals include the 1990 People’s Movement, the Maoist insurgency, which dragged on for 10 years, and the 2006 movement that ended monarchy and declared a republic. Each promised a new dawn but left behind scars and broken promises. Instability did not end with the republic either. After the 2015 constitution, coalitions kept collapsing. Seven prime ministers took office in just 10 years. Leaders came and went, sometimes the same faces returning to new deals, and politics turned into a revolving door.
The latest youth uprising now joins that long list. It needs to be understood in this historical context of Nepal. It carries the imprint of a new generation but echoes the same cycle of anger, unresolved structural issues and unrest. It is a continuation of the story of upheavals. Politics is a serious matter, and it must be done with serious intentions and methods. Gen Z in Nepal though have created ripples and made it to the news, but did they have definite goals for this struggle or was it all started because the government banned their favorite social media platforms?
Apparently, they had no choice but to get to the streets and create havoc all around. It is a classical Orwellian debate. Whether the overreaching control of the government or the trivialization of politics into amusement triggered this episode is debatable. The suspicion remains—will this mark the start of a Gen Z era, or will it fade into history as just another destructive event in Nepal’s story of unrest?
Honestly, it depends on several factors and most of all it depends on the Gen Z itself.
If they live up to their self-created image of a socially conscious generation that values authenticity, inclusivity and pragmatic purpose, they can bring lasting change and break the cycle of turbulent upheavals in Nepal. However, if they succumb to older generations’ prejudices against them, and the episode collapses into nostalgia, it will be seen as a mood swing triggered by the social-media ban, not a responsible movement. So far, perhaps the only responsible thing that has emerged from it is the youth engaging in rehabilitation process. But do they have the attention span to get it completed?
As for Pakistan, such a ‘revolution’ cannot take place here for several reason. First of all, Pakistan lacks homogeneity of purpose. Each province’s problems and definition of change differ from the other. Secondly, it is multi-ethnic and divided along many lines. This, unfortunately, gives more reasons for diverging rather than converging interests. Lastly, it has no real history of mass movements led by the people alone. Change here has always come from the top. Army generals come and go. Political parties clash and realign. But it is always been a gradual process rather than a street revolution. That is why a Nepal-style Gen Z revolt is highly unlikely in Pakistan.
In fact, it cannot be replicated anywhere because of the specific conditions, historical context of Nepal and the response of its government to the initial unrest. All the factors aligned to give space to this upheaval. Will they align in some other part of the world? No one can tell. And it should not be desired or romanticized. Revolutions tear down more than they build. Without sound minds and strong leadership behind them, revolutions always end up in chaos and achieve nothing.
What Pakistan needs is not sudden upheaval but a slow evolution of its institutions and the steady growth of its nation. A nation without strong institutions, if plunges into revolution, is bound to fall into chaos, which may not be restored without some strong external intervention. Can Pakistan, surrounded by security issues, insurgency, and hostile neighbors, afford such chaos? Never! We must, however, realize that the real danger is not just in revolts but in the trivialization of politics itself. Turning a political event or political opponent into a meme may sound fun, but it has consequences. Governments find it easy to dismiss and suppress the discourse by shutting down social media, silencing voices, and suffocating ideas. However, they must realize that such tools create a force that usually destroys, dismantles, and disrupts everything in its path.
