14 Killed in anti-government protests in Nepal

Background & Grievances

• Multiple commenters stress the protests are not “kids angry about Facebook,” but the culmination of long‑running anger over corruption, patronage, and lack of opportunity.
• Local voices describe entrenched corruption “from top to bottom,” politicians enriching families while youth migrate for dangerous low‑paid work abroad.
• A viral “nepo‑baby vs regular youth” campaign highlighting the lifestyles of politicians’ children on social media is said to have triggered the government’s attempt to tighten control over platforms.
• The social media ban is framed by many as the last straw and a tool to suppress exposure of corruption and dissent, especially ahead of elections.

Police Response and Violence

• Commenters question how 14–19 people can be killed with “batons, tear gas and rubber bullets” in what are officially “crowd control” operations, criticizing the “non‑lethal” framing.
• Several note the media narrative that protests “turned violent” once some entered parliament, versus the substantive fact that “police killed protesters,” including school students.
• Some raise the familiar pattern of planted provocateurs used to justify crackdowns.

Role of Social Media & Censorship

• There’s broad agreement that social media is a key organizing and information tool; banning it removes a “pressure valve” and can drive dissent into the streets.
• Others argue social media also produces leaderless, incoherent movements, good at crowds but weak at strategy.
• Debate over whether platforms should follow local law even when it enables repression: one side says corporations shouldn’t act as moral arbiters; the other notes “local law” in hybrid or authoritarian regimes rarely reflects popular morality.

Comparisons to Other Countries

• Frequent comparisons to Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and Western states:
  • Some see Nepal’s protests as similar to Sri Lanka’s anti‑elite uprising or Bangladesh’s youth‑driven regime change that ended in a worse outcome.
  • Others contrast Nepal’s willingness to confront power with perceived complacency in rich democracies, citing surveillance, de‑banking of protesters in Canada, UK speech laws, and EU content controls.
• Several highlight that police violence against protests is common globally, from US BLM to French and UK demonstrations.

Corruption, Power, and Economics

• Anecdotes from Nepal (open talk of looting a hydro project, half a plane “reserved” for officials, omnipresent bribery) are used to illustrate systemic rot.
• A long subthread broadens this into a discussion of how corruption, lobbying, and centralized power erode governance everywhere, regardless of ideology.
• On Nepal’s potential, some argue the country could be a tourism and ski hub but is held back by political instability, anti‑market attitudes, and geography; others respond that landlocked logistics and regional constraints are non‑trivial.

Foreign Influence vs Local Agency

• Some commenters label events a “classic color revolution” and speculate about US, Indian, or Chinese manipulation.
• Others push back hard, calling this a way to deny local agency and avoid confronting genuine grievances; they note no concrete evidence of external orchestration has been presented.
• There is consensus that neighboring India and China routinely meddle in Nepali politics, but disagreement over whether that explains these protests.

Protest Effectiveness & Free Speech

• One line of debate asks whether protests “work”:
  • Some claim protests rarely change regimes and mostly measure discontent;
  • Others cite research that non‑violent movements with ~3.5% participation often succeed, and give recent Bangladesh and Indonesia examples.
• Another large subthread revisits free‑speech principles:
  • Many argue free expression (including online) is a foundational right, and losing it leads to broader repression.
  • Others insist there must be limits on genuinely dangerous speech (incitement to genocide, credible threats, organized dehumanization), while warning against broad, vague censorship powers that are easily weaponized.