Kathmandu has found itself at the center of a political storm, as the reverberations of Nepal’s Gen Z movement continue to shake the country’s foundations. In a dramatic turn of events, the government and Gen Z leaders signed a historic accord on December 10, 2025, legitimizing the September youth uprising that toppled the ruling Nepali Congress and CPN-UML coalition. Yet, the celebrations were quickly tempered by controversy, allegations of foreign interference, and staggering reports of loss and destruction.
The agreement, signed by Prime Minister Sushila Karki—who now heads an interim government born from the movement—was heralded by some as a new chapter for Nepal’s democracy. On behalf of victims’ families, Bhoj Bikram Thapa also put pen to paper, sealing the 10-point accord. The document, as reported by The Kathmandu Post, recognizes the Gen Z movement as a legitimate “jana andolan,” or people’s movement, a title previously reserved for Nepal’s historic uprisings in 1990 and 2006. This marks the first time a digital-led movement has been officially acknowledged as a valid form of civic expression in the country.
The agreement’s provisions are sweeping. It mandates the formation of a commission to recommend constitutional, electoral, judicial, and public administration reforms. Justice for victims, anti-corruption measures, and the immediate release of individuals arrested during the protests are central tenets. The establishment of a Gen Z Council is also on the table, intended to support the government as it navigates this uncharted territory.
But unity was not the order of the day. As the ink dried on the historic document, a faction of Gen Z activists staged a protest outside the Prime Minister’s Office. Ajay Soraadi, a leading voice from ‘Gen Z Movement Nepal,’ dramatically tore up the agreement, denouncing it as a betrayal of the movement’s spirit. Miraj Dhungana, another prominent activist, publicly disowned the government-Gen Z pact later that evening. Their frustration was echoed by others who felt the agreement failed to capture the full aspirations of the youth-led uprising. Still, several influential Gen Z leaders—including Sudan Gurung, Purushottam Yadav, Rakshya Bam, Tashi Lhazom, and Bhawana Raut—stood by the accord, attending the signing ceremony alongside campaigners and ministers.
Prime Minister Karki’s words at the event were both hopeful and provocative. “We want youths to lead this country,” she declared, adding, “Nepal has become a leading country for Gen Z movements [around the world]. Other countries are following in our footsteps. We tried our best to make this document exemplary so that other countries can translate and follow it.” Yet, her reference to Sudan Gurung as her “son” reportedly irked some activists, who saw it as a patronizing gesture.
The accord’s preamble emphasizes the need to internalize the relevance of Nepal’s constitution and prioritize state policies in education, health, employment, housing, language, culture, gender, and collective rights. It also stresses entrepreneurship, innovation, and the strengthening of federalism and local autonomy, all under the umbrella of good governance and public participation. A high-level task force is to be formed to address the urgent and long-term needs of families of those martyred or injured in the movement, ensuring reparations such as compensation, free health treatment, education, employment, social security, and meaningful commemoration.
One of the most contentious issues is the use of force by security agencies during the protests. The agreement calls for the creation of a separate mechanism to investigate “the unjust and unlawful use of force by security agencies during various movements in Nepal, including the Gen Z movement, and to prevent the recurrence of such incidents.” The mechanism is tasked with identifying legal and institutional weaknesses and must submit its report within 90 days, with findings to be made public and acted upon immediately.
Corruption, too, is a major focus. The accord demands an end to political and policy-level corruption and the practice of appointing public officials based on party quotas. It also calls for investigations into the assets and activities of foundations, funds, trusts, and councils established by public officials and political parties, with the possibility of abolishing those found to be acting against the public interest and nationalizing their assets.
Electoral reform is another pillar, with the agreement proposing the introduction of the ‘NOTA’ (None of the Above) option on ballots, a move designed to empower voters dissatisfied with all available candidates. Free, fair, and peaceful elections are scheduled for March 5, 2026, with reforms to ensure the judiciary and constitutional bodies operate free from political interference and with greater youth representation.
The cost of the Gen Z movement, however, has been immense. According to a damage assessment presented by the National Planning Commission at the December 11 Cabinet meeting, the total damage from the September 8-9 protests stands at a staggering Rs 84.45 billion. Government and public sector losses amounted to Rs 44.93 billion, with the private sector suffering Rs 33.54 billion in damages and the community sector incurring Rs 5.97 billion in losses. The physical toll is equally sobering: 2,168 institutions and 2,671 buildings were damaged, with Rs 39.31 billion in property losses and 12,659 vehicles damaged, adding Rs 12.93 billion to the bill. The unrest claimed 77 lives—20 on September 8, 37 on September 9, and 20 in the days that followed—and left 2,429 people injured, including 17 children under 13 and 1,433 youths between 13 and 28 years old.
All seven provinces, 54 districts, and 262 local units felt the impact of the movement. The reconstruction plan, also submitted to the Cabinet, estimates that Rs 36.30 billion will be required to restore damaged infrastructure and institutions. The government has formed a committee under the National Planning Commission to oversee reconstruction, with a 75-day deadline for the initial report.
On December 11, the government moved swiftly to endorse the Gen Z agreement, instructing relevant ministries to implement its provisions as a high priority. Minister for Communications and Information Technology Jagdish Kharel announced that the agreement would be published in the official gazette and that the Gauri Bahadur Karki-led Investigation Commission’s mandate would be expanded to probe the physical and material losses from the demonstrations. The Cabinet also promoted Pushkar Sapkota to secretary at the Office of the Prime Minister and reviewed the reconstruction plan in detail, as reported by Republica.
Yet, as the government took steps to implement the accord, new controversies emerged. Leaked documents obtained by The Grayzone and reported by Republic World on December 12 allege that the United States covertly funded the Gen Z movement, funnelling $350,000 through the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the International Republican Institute (IRI). The reports claim that this funding aimed to create a “Gen Z shadow army” to engineer regime change in Nepal, countering Chinese and Indian influence in the region. The documents suggest that training programs for Nepali youth went far beyond civic education, offering lessons in protest organization, digital messaging, and resource mobilization, all with an eye to aligning Nepal’s political trajectory with U.S. interests.
These revelations have raised uncomfortable questions about the true origins and motivations behind the Gen Z uprising. While the movement was widely portrayed in Western media as a spontaneous and democratic response to government overreach—particularly after social media platforms were blocked in September 2025—the leaked files paint a picture of calculated foreign intervention. The U.S. funding, according to the documents, was just one part of a broader strategy to install a government in Kathmandu more amenable to Washington’s Indo-Pacific agenda.
The Gen Z movement has thus become a prism through which Nepal’s political, social, and geopolitical challenges are refracted. As the country embarks on a path of reform, reconciliation, and reconstruction, it must also grapple with the legacy of violence, the burden of loss, and the specter of foreign influence. Only time will tell whether the new accord will deliver on its promises—or if it will become another chapter in Nepal’s long and tumultuous quest for democratic renewal.
