Poonam Sharma
The political unrest in Nepal has again highlighted the way in which the global powers, Western institutions, and international social media platforms are influencing South Asian politics. Following the dramatic demonstrations in Dhaka at the beginning of the year, now Kathmandu has seen violent protests in which at least 20 were killed and hundreds injured. Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli, who is facing record-breaking ire, is said to be leaving for Dubai amidst a series of ministerial resignations.
But this is not just a domestic political crisis. Nepal’s turbulence reveals the geopolitics of competition between the U.S., China, and India—where social networking sites like Facebook, NGOs funded by the West, and United Nations human rights agencies have roles far exceeding their claimed mandates.
Facebook as a Protest Tool
The Nepali protests, like those in Bangladesh and Tunisia before them, were mobilized almost entirely on Facebook. It’s no coincidence. Most of the large social media sites—Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp—are American in origin and deeply embedded with U.S. political and intelligence apparatus. Far from being impartial tools of connection, they have tended to function as vehicles of regime change or social destabilization.
From the Arab Spring to Myanmar, and now in Nepal, Facebook has been an epicenter platform for organizing “Gen Z” protests. Although the local grievances are real, the international broadcasting, coordination, and framing of narratives increasingly hint at deeper foreign intervention.
UN Human Rights as a Political Lever
One remarkable aspect of the Nepal protests is the interventionist outcry of the United Nations Human Rights Council. The UNHRC remained mum when Hindus were subjected to heinous atrocities in Pakistan and Bangladesh but has been quick to sound alarms when Western-hostile regimes are in trouble.
This selective activism suggests that the UN Human Rights apparatus functions less as a neutral watchdog and more as a political lever of the Western deep state. In South Asia, where Hindu minorities face systemic violence, the UN seldom issues strong statements. Yet, in Nepal, its activism was almost immediate, coinciding with the mass protests against Oli’s government.
Western countries, especially America, seem to be utilizing UN human rights terminology as a device to bring pressure to bear on administrations leaning toward China or challenging Western diktats.
The Deep State Pattern
Bangladesh, Tunisia, Myanmar, and now Nepal—the pattern is consistent. Wherever governments lean towards China or adopt standalone nationalist policies, protests break out, usually ignited by U.S.-dominated online platforms. Once violence intensifies, UN organizations and Western NGOs spot “human rights abuses,” triggering an international legitimacy crisis for the besieged government.
This was witnessed in India during the farmers’ protests as well, when hashtags, foreign celebrities, and even UN-associated voices broadcast agitation way beyond its initial remit.
The blueprint is transparent: social media and human rights propaganda equal regime change pressure.
Why Nepal Matters Now
Nepal’s circumstances are especially delicate due to its geopolitics. Landlocked between India and China, its political allegiance has ever been disputed. Oli, who is a Communist politician, inclined strongly toward Beijing in recent times, even at the expense of estranging India. His silence in the wake of the uncontrolled expansion of mosques and Christian missionary work in Nepal had alarmed Hindu nationalists, who viewed the decline of the nation’s Hindu character as perilous.
Now, as Oli fights for his life, his flight to Dubai indicates Beijing has not provided significant backing. India has a moment of both crisis and opportunity here.
On the one hand, instability in Nepal might spread over borders, with Islamist organizations such as Lashkar-e-Taiba and ISI-sponsored agents utilizing the open border to infiltrate India. In fact, even Nepal’s own Ministry of Foreign Affairs has discreetly suggested that Islamist networks, supported by Pakistan’s ISI, were implicated in stoking the protests. On the other hand, if Nepal finds itself with a more nationalist and Hinduized government, India would have a natural ally re-established on its northern border.
America, China, and the Himalayan Chessboard
China’s silence during Oli’s downfall is telling. Despite years of investment and Communist solidarity, Beijing seems unwilling to rescue him. This indicates either strategic fatigue or a calculation that Nepal is no longer a reliable satellite.
The U.S., in contrast, has revived its old playbook. Social media interference, UN human rights missions, and secret networks appear to be working in tandem to drive Kathmandu out of Beijing’s sphere. But the risk for India is here: an America-leaning Nepal is not necessarily great news. If Washington employs Nepal only as a platform to check Beijing, it might destabilize India’s own borders and domestic security.
India has always been the natural anchor of Nepalese religion, culture, and politics. Any gap left by China’s withdrawal should be filled up by India, rather than by Washington’s deep state machinations.
Lessons for India
For India, Nepal’s crisis presents immediate lessons:
Control of Social Media – Dependence on American-controlled online platforms leaves countries exposed. India needs to solidify indigenous options to avert foreign-engineered agitations.
Strategic Depth – Security must not be confined to borders. Ever since ancient times, India’s defense extended beyond the immediate boundaries—into Tibet, Southeast Asia, and even the Middle East. The same expansive vision is needed today.
Hindu Identity Support – Nepal was once the world’s sole Hindu kingdom. To support such forces upholding this civilizational identity is not merely cultural but strategic, providing India with a natural ally in the region.
Care with the U.S. – Although China’s decline in Nepal serves India’s interests, indiscriminately opening the doors to American interference would be folly. The American deep state too frequently sees India not as an ally but as another power to be controlled.
Nepal’s instability is not a singular fit of student rage. It is one piece in a larger trend by which Western nations use social media and human rights discourses to influence political processes in strategically important countries. For India, ringed by instability in Bangladesh, Pakistan, and now Nepal, the risks are existential.
If India does not assert its influence, however, the Himalayan kingdom might be yet another piece in the global deep state game—open to Islamist penetration, foreign manipulation, and cultural decay. But if India plays its cards well, this crisis might turn out to be the rebirth of a Hindu-friendly, India-allied Nepal, restoring equilibrium in South Asia’s vulnerable chessboard.
