On the evening of September 12, 2025, against the backdrop of a smoldering capital, Sushila Karki, a 73-year-old retired jurist, stood inside Sheetal Niwas, the presidential palace, to take the oath of office as the interim Prime Minister of Nepal. This was no ordinary transfer of power. It was the seismic culmination of a week of fire, rage, and revolutionary change that had shattered the country’s political order. Just days earlier, Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, a veteran politician serving his fourth term, had been airlifted from the capital by the military as his government collapsed under the weight of an unprecedented popular uprising.
The force that brought down the old guard was a digitally-native, furious, and largely leaderless movement of young people, collectively dubbed “Gen Z”. Their anger, initially sparked by a clumsy government ban on social media, rapidly metastasized into a wholesale rejection of a political class they viewed as endemically corrupt, nepotistic, and out of touch. In the ensuing chaos, which saw the parliament building and ministerial homes set ablaze, the Nepalese Army, under Chief of the Army Staff General Ashok Raj Sigdel, stepped into the void, not to seize power, but to broker a fragile peace and guide the nation back from the brink of total collapse.
The appointment of Sushila Karki, a figure renowned for her judicial integrity and zero-tolerance stance on corruption, represents a profound and potentially irreversible rupture in Nepal’s political fabric. Her ascension, driven by popular demand rather than partisan maneuvering, signifies a moment where a desperate public cry for personal integrity triumphed over the entrenched machinery of party politics. This transition, facilitated by the state’s security apparatus to avert a complete constitutional breakdown, serves as a powerful case study in 21st-century revolution, where digital outrage becomes a kinetic political force capable of dismantling a government and anointing a new, unconventional leader in its place. The events of September 2025 have placed Nepal at a critical crossroads, testing the resilience of its democratic institutions and posing fundamental questions about the future of its governance.
Table 1: Key Figures in Nepal’s September 2025 Political Transition
| Name | Role During Crisis | Background & Significance |
|---|---|---|
| Sushila Karki | Interim Prime Minister | Nepal’s first female PM; also the first female Chief Justice. Known for an uncompromising anti-corruption stance. Her appointment is a direct result of the Gen Z protests. |
| KP Sharma Oli | Ousted Prime Minister | Veteran politician serving his fourth term. His government’s social media ban and perceived corruption/authoritarianism triggered the mass protests that led to his resignation. |
| Ram Chandra Poudel | President of Nepal | Head of State and veteran politician. He played the crucial constitutional role of administering Karki’s oath, dissolving Parliament on her recommendation, and calling for new elections. |
| Ashok Raj Sigdel | Chief of the Army Staff | The de facto mediator and guarantor of stability. He engaged in dialogue with protesters and political leaders, preventing further bloodshed and facilitating the political transition. |
| Durga Prasad Subedi | Spouse of Sushila Karki | A former Nepali Congress youth leader involved in the 1973 Royal Nepal Airlines hijacking to fund an anti-monarchy movement. His past links Karki personally to the very political establishment she is now seen as transcending. |
| Prakash Man Singh Raut | Chief Justice of Nepal | The incumbent head of the judiciary. His presence underscores the central role of the legal and judicial community in this crisis, with a former Chief Justice now leading the executive branch. |
Section 1: Anatomy of a Revolution: The “Gen Z” Protests
The collapse of the KP Sharma Oli government was not the result of a traditional political campaign or a parliamentary vote of no confidence. It was the outcome of a spontaneous, ferocious, and digitally-fueled uprising that consumed the nation in less than a week. This section provides an anatomy of that revolution, tracing its origins, methods, and devastating impact.
The Spark and the Fuel
The immediate trigger for the unrest was a “clumsily enforced ban on social media sites” by the Oli government. While seemingly a minor policy issue, this act served as the spark that ignited a vast reservoir of public discontent. For Nepal’s youth, this was the final, intolerable act from a government they already perceived as authoritarian and disconnected. The ban was interpreted not as a matter of public order, but as an attempt to silence dissent and curtail the very platforms where a generation voiced its frustrations.
However, the social media ban was merely the spark; the fuel had been accumulating for years. The protests quickly evolved beyond this single issue into a broader, more profound rejection of the entire political establishment. The core grievances were systemic: endemic corruption that stifled economic opportunity, rampant nepotism that favored the connected over the qualified, and a political elite, including the 73-year-old Oli, seen as hopelessly “corrupt and out of touch”. The movement became a visceral revolt against a system that the younger generation felt had failed them completely.
From Digital Outrage to Physical Inferno
The “Gen Z” movement demonstrated a new paradigm of political mobilization, one that traditional state structures were utterly unprepared for. The protests were organized and coordinated not in party offices or union halls, but on encrypted, decentralized digital platforms like Discord. This allowed for a rapid, fluid, and leaderless form of organization that made the movement incredibly resilient. The government had no central leadership to arrest or negotiate with, rendering its traditional methods of control ineffective.
The digital outrage translated into physical action with terrifying speed and intensity. What began as street demonstrations on a Monday escalated into a full-blown insurrection by Tuesday. Tens of thousands of protesters, the majority under the age of 30, took to the streets of Kathmandu and other cities. Their rage was directed at the symbols of state power. In scenes that shocked the nation and the world, protesters set fire to the Parliament buildings, the homes of the prime minister and other ministers, and various government offices, turning parts of the capital into a “burned out war zone”. The human cost of the unrest was staggering, with reports indicating that at least 51 people were killed and over 1,300 injured in the clashes.
The events in Nepal illustrate a potent and volatile fusion of digital grievance and physical action. This was more than a protest; it was a 21st-century, digitally-native insurgency against a 20th-century political structure. The movement’s origins in a digital issue (the social media ban) and its organization on a digital platform (Discord) highlight its unique character. This digital DNA enabled a form of rapid, decentralized mobilization that overwhelmed the state’s security apparatus. The outcome was not a call for reform but an act of revolutionary destruction: the physical burning of the symbols of state power. This demonstrates that the digital anger was not abstract; it translated into a kinetic, physical rejection of the entire political system. This implies a new vulnerability for governments in the digital age. They face threats not just from organized opposition parties but from amorphous, rapidly coalescing online movements that can delegitimize and dismantle state institutions with unprecedented speed. The initially leaderless nature of the uprising made it impossible for the Oli government to negotiate with or decapitate the movement, revealing a fundamental asymmetry in modern political conflict.
The Fall of the Old Guard
By Tuesday, the government’s authority had completely evaporated. With the capital in flames and his administration in tatters, Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli announced his resignation. He was reportedly airlifted out of the city by the military, a stark symbol of his government’s total collapse. His departure, celebrated by the protesters on the streets, created a dangerous and immediate power vacuum. The very success of the movement became its most pressing challenge. Having cohered around the singular goal of ousting Oli, the protesters had successfully destroyed the existing power structure without a clear, unified plan for what should replace it. This critical juncture, with the nation teetering on the edge of anarchy, set the stage for the decisive intervention of the presidency and the Nepalese Army to prevent a complete state failure.
Section 2: The Accidental Premier: A Profile of Sushila Karki
The figure who emerged from the chaos to lead Nepal was not a charismatic revolutionary or a seasoned politician, but a retired jurist chosen by the protesters themselves. Sushila Karki’s life and career, marked by a quiet determination and an unwavering commitment to judicial integrity, had inadvertently prepared her for this unique and unexpected historical moment.
Early Life and Formative Years
Sushila Karki was born on June 7, 1952, in Biratnagar, the eldest of seven children in a farming family from Nepal’s Eastern Region. Her educational path was distinguished and transnational.
She earned a Bachelor of Arts from Mahendra Morang College in 1972 before traveling to India to study political science. In 1975, she received a Master’s degree in Political Science from the prestigious Banaras Hindu University (BHU) in Varanasi. Upon returning to Nepal, she pursued a law degree from Tribhuvan University, graduating in 1978.
Her early career included a period as an assistant teacher at Mahendra Multiple Campus in Dharan. However, her commitment to democratic principles soon drew her into the political sphere. She actively participated in the 1990 People’s Movement, a nationwide agitation to overthrow the autocratic Panchayat regime and restore multiparty democracy. For her activism, she was imprisoned in Biratnagar Jail. This experience left a profound mark on her, later inspiring her to write the novel Kara (Prison), which explores the oppression faced by Nepali women.
The India Connection and a Revolutionary Spouse
Her time at Banaras Hindu University was formative not only academically but also personally. It was in Varanasi that she met Durga Prasad Subedi, a charismatic Nepali Congress youth leader who would become her husband. Subedi was a prominent figure in the armed struggle against Nepal’s monarchy. He was one of the key individuals involved in the dramatic 1973 hijacking of a Royal Nepal Airlines flight. The operation, orchestrated to seize funds from the state bank being transported on the flight, was designed to finance the Nepali Congress party’s rebellion. The funds were reportedly handed over to future Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala.
After the hijacking, Subedi was jailed in India before eventually returning to Nepal. This connection is a critical and complex nuance in Karki’s story. It personally links the woman now seen as an apolitical “outsider” to the very heart of Nepal’s traditional, and often violent, party-political establishment. While Karki built her career on a reputation for impartiality, her personal life is intertwined with the turbulent history of the same political forces the “Gen Z” protesters sought to overthrow.
A Career Defined by Integrity: The “Firebrand Judge”
Karki began her legal practice in Biratnagar in 1979 and steadily built a reputation for diligence and integrity. She rose through the ranks of the bar association, eventually being recognized as a senior advocate in 2004. In January 2009, she was appointed as an ad hoc justice to the Supreme Court of Nepal, a position that was made permanent the following year.
Her career culminated in July 2016, when she made history by being appointed as the 25th Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, becoming the first woman ever to hold Nepal’s highest judicial post. Her tenure was defined by a “zero-tolerance” stance on corruption and a willingness to challenge powerful political figures, earning her the moniker of a “firebrand judge unafraid to ruffle powerful feathers”.
Landmark Rulings
During her time on the bench, Karki presided over several high-profile cases that cemented her public image as an incorruptible crusader. In 2012, she convicted a sitting Information and Communication Minister, Jaya Prakash Prasad Gupta, in a corruption scandal, a bold move against a powerful official. She also delivered significant judgments in cases involving corruption within Nepal’s peacekeeping missions and irregularities in the printing of polymer banknotes in Australia. These rulings sent a clear message that no one was above the law and earned her widespread respect from the public, even as they created powerful enemies within the political class.
The 2017 Impeachment Crisis
The defining moment of her judicial career came in April 2017. The ruling coalition, comprising the Nepali Congress and the CPN (Maoist Centre), filed an impeachment motion against her in Parliament. The motion accused her of “delivering biased verdicts” and interfering in executive matters. The immediate trigger was a Supreme Court ruling, led by Karki, that overturned the government’s appointment of a new police chief, arguing that the principle of seniority had been unfairly bypassed.
The impeachment motion was widely seen as a politically motivated attack on judicial independence, a blatant attempt by the executive to punish a Chief Justice who refused to bend to its will. The move automatically suspended Karki from her duties. However, it sparked a fierce public backlash. Civil society, the legal community, and the public rallied in her defense. The crisis deepened when the Supreme Court itself intervened, issuing a stay order against the parliamentary proceedings. Faced with overwhelming public pressure and a constitutional standoff, the government was forced into a humiliating retreat and withdrew the motion. Karki was reinstated and returned to her post briefly before her mandatory retirement in June 2017. This episode was pivotal; it transformed her from a respected judge into a national symbol of integrity and resistance against political overreach.
From Civil Society to Sheetal Niwas
After retiring from the bench, Karki remained a prominent public figure. She established herself as a leading voice in civil society, speaking out frequently against corruption and political malpractices. She also authored two books: her autobiography, Nyaya (Justice), and her novel, Kara. This post-retirement activism kept her in the public consciousness as a figure of unimpeachable moral authority.
It was this hard-won reputation that made her the consensus candidate for the “Gen Z” protesters when the Oli government collapsed. In a remarkable display of 21st-century direct democracy, her name emerged as the frontrunner in a poll conducted on the Discord app, the movement’s digital hub. Her candidacy was quickly endorsed by influential figures revered by the youth, notably Balendra Shah, the popular rapper-turned-mayor of Kathmandu. The protesters, having rejected the entire political class, had found their leader in a retired judge whose career was a testament to the very principles of integrity and accountability they were fighting for.
Sushila Karki’s appointment represents the triumph of personal, moral legitimacy over traditional political legitimacy. Her authority to govern stems not from an electoral mandate or the backing of a political party, but from a public reputation forged in the crucible of the judiciary. The protesters explicitly rejected all established political leaders due to perceived corruption. They sought a leader whose primary qualification was being “incorruptible.” Karki’s entire public persona, built on her anti-corruption rulings and her defiance during the 2017 impeachment crisis, perfectly matched this demand. Her legitimacy is therefore judicial and moral, not political. This creates a powerful but paradoxical premiership. While her moral authority provides a strong mandate for reform, her lack of a political party or institutional machinery makes her administration inherently vulnerable. She must now govern a fractured nation without the traditional tools of power, relying almost entirely on public goodwill and the continued support of the military. Her husband’s political past adds a layer of complexity, a potential liability that could tarnish her “outsider” image or, conversely, a bridge to the old establishment she must now manage.
The Pillars of the State: Navigating the Crisis
As the political leadership crumbled and the capital burned, two state institutions remained standing: the Presidency and the Army. Their actions during the week of crisis were decisive, preventing a complete descent into anarchy and shaping the unconventional political transition that followed. Their intervention demonstrated a remarkable resilience within Nepal’s state structure, even as its democratic politics failed.
The President: Ram Chandra Poudel, The Constitutional Anchor
The role of President Ram Chandra Poudel was crucial in providing a constitutional framework for the transition. A veteran politician of the Nepali Congress, Poudel has had a long and distinguished career, having served as Speaker of the House of Representatives, Deputy Prime Minister, and in various ministerial roles before being elected as Nepal’s third president in 2023. During the crisis, he acted not as a political player seeking to exploit the vacuum, but as the constitutional head of state tasked with navigating it.
Poudel became the central node for negotiations. He held a series of critical consultations with the military leadership, the leaders of the established political parties, legal experts, civil society figures, and, significantly, representatives of the youth protesters who had brought the country to a standstill. By engaging with all stakeholders, he provided a legitimate forum for dialogue amidst the chaos.
His most important functions were procedural and constitutional. Once a consensus was reached around Sushila Karki, it was President Poudel who formally administered the oath of office and secrecy at Sheetal Niwas, legitimizing her appointment. Subsequently, acting on the recommendation of the new interim Prime Minister, he dissolved the House of Representatives and announced the date for fresh parliamentary elections. In performing these duties, Poudel ensured that the transfer of power, however revolutionary its origins, adhered to the letter of the constitution. His actions demonstrated the resilience of Nepal’s formal state institutions, which provided a crucial anchor even as the political foundations were swept away.
The General: Ashok Raj Sigdel, The Reluctant Kingmaker
While the President provided the constitutional legitimacy, the Nepalese Army, under Chief of the Army Staff General Ashok Raj Sigdel, provided the essential stability and security.
Having assumed command on September 9, 2024, General Sigdel was thrust into the heart of a national crisis. As the civilian government collapsed, the army stepped into the political vacuum, not to stage a coup, but to act as a mediator and power broker.
A Strategy of Restraint and Dialogue
General Sigdel’s approach was characterized by a combination of strategic restraint and proactive dialogue. He issued public appeals urging protesters to cease the violence and come forward for talks to prevent further loss of life. Crucially, these were not empty words. The army leadership, including Sigdel himself, engaged in direct meetings with representatives of the “Gen Z” movement, treating them as a legitimate political force. This act of recognition was vital in de-escalating the conflict and channeling the protesters’ energy toward a political solution.
During the height of the violence, Sigdel made a controversial but pivotal decision: to prioritize human life over state infrastructure. He allowed symbols of the state, including the Singha Durbar government complex and the Supreme Court building, to burn rather than order his troops to use lethal force that could have resulted in a massacre. While this decision was criticized by some, it likely prevented a far bloodier outcome and preserved the possibility of a negotiated settlement.
The Ultimatum
The army’s most decisive intervention came during the political negotiations. With the established political parties initially refusing to agree to the protesters’ demands for the dissolution of parliament, the country was heading towards a dangerous deadlock. At this critical moment, General Sigdel delivered a stark ultimatum: if the political leaders could not find a solution, the military would be forced to declare a state of emergency. This was not a threat of a coup in the traditional sense, but rather a warning that the army would impose order if the political class failed to do so. The ultimatum worked. It broke the impasse and compelled the party leaders to concede, agreeing to both the dissolution of parliament and the appointment of Sushila Karki as interim Prime Minister.
The Nepalese Army, under General Sigdel, performed a sophisticated and high-risk balancing act. It functioned as the state’s “guardian” rather than its usurper. When the civilian government under Oli collapsed, the army, as the state’s most cohesive institution, stepped into the power vacuum. Instead of seizing power, General Sigdel chose to facilitate a political solution by bringing all stakeholders to the table. His ultimate threat of a state of emergency was not a prelude to a takeover but a tool to force civilian politicians to act. This intervention, while stabilizing the country, has reinforced the military’s position as the ultimate arbiter in Nepali politics. It has successfully defined the army’s role as that of a “reluctant kingmaker” and the final guarantor of the state. While this prevented a potential civil war, it also sent a clear message to all political actors that when democratic processes fail, the army will dictate the terms of the solution. This sets a powerful and potentially dangerous precedent, as it could inadvertently weaken democratic institutions over the long term by creating a moral hazard where political factions might push crises to the brink, knowing the military will step in to broker a resolution.
Section 4: A Mandate for Change: The Interim Government and the Path Forward
With Sushila Karki sworn in and the immediate crisis abated, Nepal has entered a new and uncertain phase. The interim government faces the monumental task of steering the nation through a period of profound transition, burdened by the high expectations of the movement that brought it to power and constrained by the fragile political reality.
The Nature of the New Government
The new administration led by Sushila Karki is not a conventional government. It has been described as a “council of ministers” with a narrow and clearly defined mandate. Its primary purpose is not to implement a broad policy agenda but to act as a neutral caretaker. The core tasks are threefold: to restore public order and the basic functioning of the state after the destructive protests, to oversee the country’s administration during the transitional period, and, most importantly, to create the conditions for and hold fresh, credible elections. The government has been mandated to hold these elections within six months, though a specific date in March 2026 has been announced.
The Electoral Challenge
The central objective of the interim government is the organization of new parliamentary elections, which President Poudel’s office announced would be held in March 2026 (reports vary on the exact date, citing either March 5 or March 21). This task is fraught with immense difficulty. The political landscape has been fundamentally altered. The traditional political parties are deeply discredited in the eyes of a large and newly empowered segment of the electorate. The “Gen Z” movement, while powerful enough to topple a government, is not a coherent political party with a platform or candidates; it is an amorphous network of activists.
The challenge for Karki’s administration will be to ensure a level playing field in a deeply polarized environment. It must navigate the process of preparing for elections while the very legitimacy of the old political actors is in question. The outcome of these elections will be a crucial test of whether the revolutionary energy of the protests can be channeled into a constructive, democratic political process, or whether it will dissipate, allowing the old guard to regroup and reclaim power.
Demands for Accountability
A fundamental tension lies at the heart of Karki’s premiership. On one hand, her constitutional role is that of a neutral, interim leader tasked with overseeing elections. On the other hand, the “Gen Z” movement that championed her appointment has revolutionary expectations that go far beyond a simple caretaking role. Protesters are exerting immediate and intense pressure on her government to pursue a mandate for accountability.
Their key demands include the immediate opening of corruption investigations into former Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli and his ministers, and the establishment of a formal inquiry into the deaths of protesters during the uprising. These demands place Karki in a difficult position. To ignore them would be to betray the trust of the very people who put her in power and risk reigniting protests. To pursue them aggressively, however, could be seen as overstepping her limited mandate as a caretaker, potentially alienating the established political parties whose cooperation is still needed for a stable transition and successful elections. How she navigates this tension—between her role as a neutral arbiter and the demand that she act as an agent of revolutionary justice—will be the defining challenge of her tenure.
Conclusion: Nepal at a Crossroads
The dramatic events of September 2025 were more than just a change of government in Nepal; they represented a profound political, social, and generational rupture. The rise of Sushila Karki to the premiership on the back of a youth-led digital revolution has pushed the Himalayan nation into uncharted territory, forcing a confrontation with fundamental questions about the nature of its democracy and the future of its political culture.
The crisis has revealed and accelerated several powerful trends. First, it has demonstrated the immense power of a digitally-native generation of activists. Nepal’s youth have learned that they can, through decentralized organization and sheer force of will, topple a government. This newfound sense of agency is unlikely to dissipate and will remain a potent, if unpredictable, force in Nepali politics. Second, the wholesale rejection of the established political class and the elevation of a figure prized for her non-partisan integrity suggests a potential shift in the country’s political values. There is a palpable public hunger for a new form of leadership—one based on technocratic competence and personal morality rather than traditional party loyalty and patronage networks.
However, this hopeful narrative is shadowed by a more sobering reality. The crisis was ultimately resolved not by democratic institutions, but by the intervention of the Nepalese Army. The military’s role as the final arbiter of political disputes, while preventing a descent into civil war, has been powerfully reinforced. This sets a precarious precedent, subtly undermining civilian authority and establishing the army as the ultimate guarantor of the state, a role that could be used to either protect or subvert democratic processes in the future.
Sushila Karki’s improbable premiership now stands at the center of these competing forces. She embodies the hopes of a generation for a cleaner, more accountable Nepal, yet she governs without the traditional political machinery needed to enact lasting change. The ultimate question facing the nation is whether this moment represents a temporary, emergency solution to an acute crisis, or the beginning of a fundamental and lasting transformation of Nepal’s democratic landscape. The answer, which will unfold in the run-up to the 2026 elections and beyond, will determine the nation’s trajectory for decades to come.
