Breaking Nepal’s Cycle of Violence

Laxman Lamichhane

शुक्रबार असोज २, २०८३ | Friday September 18,2026

Nepal Touch Graphics

Karl Marx did not invent social conflict, but he offered an important way to understand how struggles over property and power drive political change. The Maoist insurgency in Nepal shows his ideas can help explain real injustices, but they are not enough alone to justify armed struggle. The youth-led protests in September 2025 raise a similar question in a new setting. How can people stand up to corruption and exclusion without facing illegal state force or seeing their movement turn violent? To answer this, the movement needs political accountability, safe spaces for civic action, and real alternatives to confrontation.

The influence and limits of Marx

The Communist Manifesto, published in 1848, places class struggle at the center of history and calls for overthrowing existing social conditions. Later, Marx acknowledged that workers could bring about change peacefully in some countries. Lenin, however, argued even more strongly for violent revolution. These writings show a line of influence, not a single set of rules that explains every communist movement or conflict.

Looking at history, two main mistakes stand out. First, it is wrong to blame all political violence on Marx since many factors such as inequality, nationalism, war, and state repression also play a part. Second, ideas do matter. For example, the Khmer Rouge said they wanted a classless society but carried out forced labour and mass killings in Cambodia. These crimes came from both the leaders' choices during the civil war and their beliefs. Seeking justice for the past should never be used to ignore the rights of real people.

Maoist Conflict and the politics of grievance

The armed conflict in Nepal from 1996 to 2006 wasn't just a copy of the class struggles seen in nineteenth-century Europe. The Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) used revolutionary language in a society marked by unequal land ownership, caste discrimination, limited political power, and unequal access to services. This helped them gain support beyond a single economic group. However, understanding why people supported the insurgency is different from saying its methods were needed or justified.

According to the UN's Nepal Conflict Report, the war led to over 13,000 deaths and included many violations and abuses by both the Maoists and government forces. The 2006 Comprehensive Peace Agreement ended the fighting and opened the door to political competition. Later, Nepal's constitution established a federal democratic republic grounded in equal rights and inclusion. These steps should be recognized, but we should not ignore the victims' suffering or assume that every action during the war was justified.

Accountability remains unresolved. Although Parliament changed the transitional justice law in 2024, the International Commission of Jurists found major gaps in addressing serious crimes. If victims have to wait through many governments, political ties may protect people from investigation. It is important to use the same standard when looking into crimes by both state officials and former insurgents.

Social media and the Gen Z protest

The September 2025 protests happened in a new political era, with young people showing anger at corruption and privilege and organizing demonstrations online. The government's broad social media ban became the main issue for protesters. Human Rights Watch reported that people learned about the gathering on 8 September through social media, including Discord. These platforms made it easier to share frustrations and organize, while the ban weakened public trust in the government. Unverified statements, out-of-context images, and calls for revenge spread quickly. While this is a reasonable risk in a turbulent protest, it does not prove social media caused the violence in Nepal. More solid, well-documented evidence comes from events on the ground.

Human Rights Watch found that on 8 September police used excessive and lethal force against protesters in Kathmandu. The organization also recorded cases of arson and assaults on 9 September by groups apparently unconnected to the first Gen Z protest. Its report noted at least 76 deaths across the country over the two days, including police officers. These conclusions should not be reduced to a single version portraying the movement as either entirely peaceful or inherently violent.

These protests were not just a generational fight. While "Gen Z" became a symbol of activism, it was not a single group with a clear plan or control over everyone who joined. Frustration about corruption, unfair opportunities, and unresponsive institutions affected people of all ages. What stood out was the mix of old grievances, fast online organizing, the state's strict response, and the breakdown of public order. Determining who gave orders, who committed crimes, or who failed to stop them requires real evidence and an independent investigation.

A practical agenda for preventing violence

First, authorities must publish and act on the results of trustworthy investigations. Authorities should share the findings from inquiries into the deaths and attacks in September 2025, keep video and forensic evidence safe, and explain their decisions about prosecutions. Investigations should look at who gave the orders for police shootings and who was responsible for arson or assaults. The same commitment should apply to cases from the conflict period: witnesses need protection, survivors should be included, and serious crimes must be investigated no matter who was involved.

Second, protests should be protected while making sure policing is safe. Police should talk with organizers ahead of time, keep their command structure transparent, give clear warnings, and respond step by step. Lethal force should only be used when the law allows it and must always be reviewed independently and quickly. Organizers should deploy volunteer marshals and create ways for the public to reject attacks on people and property. These steps cannot guarantee peace, but they make everyone's responsibilities clear before a crisis happens.

Third, replace broad digital bans with targeted and reviewable actions. Banning a whole platform can block free speech and activism when people need trustworthy information. Authorities should explain any restrictions, allow lawful challenges, and address specific illegal threats fairly. Platforms should be more open about how they moderate content, respond quickly to real threats of violence, and support independent fact-checking. UNESCO recommends digital rules that protect free speech and fight damaging content through openness and accountability.

Fourth, strengthen public information systems before the next emergency. Schools and universities can teach students how to check the date, place, and source of viral videos. Newsrooms and fact-checkers need quick access to official records, and public agencies should give timely corrections with proof. During protests, a trusted public channel should share verified updates about injuries, restrictions, and safe routes without guessing who is responsible.

Finally, solve grievances through effective institutions. Local and provincial authorities should share their responses to complaints about services, corruption, and discrimination, including deadlines and ways to appeal. Political parties should reveal their campaign funding and discipline members who threaten others. Promises of inclusion should be checked against real access to jobs, services, and policy-making in all regions and communities. When grievances are heard fairly, they are less likely to turn into arguments for using force.

Nepal cannot and should not try to eliminate political disagreement. Marx’s theory still helps us ask who benefits from an unfair system. Nepal’s experience sets a higher standard for any group or government that claims to act for justice: do they protect dissent, accept scrutiny, and give opponents the same rights? Social media can help more people take part, but it cannot replace accountable institutions. To stop another pattern of violence, peaceful change must be both possible and believable.