KATHMANDU: During the Gen Z movement, 19 people were martyred on September 8. As the new generation took to the streets expressing dissatisfaction with widespread corruption and inequality in the country, the rulers fired at them, leading to nationwide mourning, shock, and outrage.

The next day, enraged crowds engaged in vandalism and arson, targeting physical structures of the state’s three main organs—from the President’s Office to various government buildings, political party offices, leaders’ residences, commercial establishments, and schools. The destruction within a few hours resulted in the loss of property worth billions.

Some reports suggest that those causing such destruction during the Gen Z movement were not genuine protesters but infiltrators and anarchic elements, and that the incident was premeditated. However, this article does not discuss that aspect. So, what is the root cause of this situation? It is essential to analyze it deeply. Superficial commentary not only fails to uncover the truth but also aggravates the situation and pushes society toward darkness.

Some people speaking about the Gen Z movement claim that this young generation is reckless and violent, and that this is why the destruction occurred. But that is not the case. The reason today’s youth took to the streets lies in the irresponsible speeches made by mainstream leaders over the past three decades.

In the past, the irresponsible language of political party leadership created a foundation for violence to erupt. Leaders such as KP Sharma Oli, Pushpa Kamal Dahal, Madhav Kumar Nepal, Baburam Bhattarai, Sher Bahadur Deuba, Rabi Lamichhane, Durga Prasai, and Balendra Sah have all used political speeches not seriously but as tools to generate competitive excitement.

Their style of defaming opponents and rivals, undermining and insulting respected state organs and institutions, and exploiting the past for vested interests continually sent endless negative messages to society.

When prime ministers themselves call the courts ‘brokers,’ when the opposition accuses those in power of treason, when leaders of newly formed parties label all leaders of old parties as corrupt, and when businesspeople are depicted not as the backbone of the country’s economic development but as fraudsters and looters, what effect does this have on the mindset of the common citizens—especially the new generation, who, having witnessed the leaps of developed countries, expect the same here?

Their trust in state institutions, rulers, parties, and leaders diminishes. In their eyes, the dignity of institutions and leadership declines—whether political or non-political.

The Communist Party of Nepal (UML) Chairman and immediate past Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, who is considered skilled at speaking blunt and harsh words, is constantly surrounded by controversy because of his own statements. Some of his past speeches are unacceptable. He spares no effort to belittle or provoke others.

When senior leader Madhav Kumar Nepal was not allowed to speak while they were together in the UML, Oli, after the party split and became the CPN (Unified Socialist), even resorted to venomous attacks against leader Nepal. In one event, he expressed that he would “wash his mouth” for merely mentioning Nepal’s name. This statement, lacking even minimal human decency, drew widespread criticism. Similarly, his jibes at Bhim Rawal and Ghanshyam Bhusal, and his remarks regarding Rajendra Lingden and Kamala Thapa, did not sit well with some UML cadres.

The Communist Party of Nepal (UML) Chairman and immediate past Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, who is considered skilled at speaking blunt and harsh words, is constantly surrounded by controversy because of his own statements. Some of his past speeches are unacceptable.

When the UML-Congress coalition took shape on July 11, 2024, after Pushpa Kamal Dahal (Prachanda) stepped down amid the “magic number” maneuvering, he began speaking recklessly, apparently oblivious to the potential consequences of his words.

Referencing popular uprisings in Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, he provoked by suggesting that a similar situation would arise in Nepal, that people would surround Singha Durbar and Baluwatar, and that those in power would be shown their place.

While he was alternating power between Congress and UML and venting his frustration at suddenly being removed from power, within a year, the opposite happened as he had predicted.

The democratically elected government was overthrown by the force of the Gen Z movement. Leaders’ homes, who became targets of public anger, were burned, and they had to flee.

In September 2023, Kathmandu Metropolitan Mayor Balendra Sah posted on social media that when the police stopped and checked the city vehicle carrying his wife, he wrote, “If from tomorrow any vehicle of our Metropolitan is stopped by the government, I will set fire to Singha Durbar!”

He may have been venting this anger merely to admonish the government, but how would this Facebook post by the popular mayor among youth have influenced the new generation?

Certainly, it would have left an impression that Singha Durbar must be burned. Indeed, two years after Balendra’s threat, during the youth-led movement, public structures including Singha Durbar were reduced to ashes.

Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) President Rabi Lamichhane expressed disagreement with the judicial decision-making process and launched a nationwide signature campaign alleging bias in the court’s verdict against him, undermining the judiciary’s credibility.

Having gained fame through journalism and popularity among people in a short time, he spoke without considering the long-term consequences.

Despite all his mistakes, millions of young people who believed that the state was framing him signed the petition initiated by Rabi against the court. The respected judiciary came under attack as it was labeled biased against him. In this process, the Supreme Court, the cornerstone of faith in justice, was figuratively burned.

In September 2023, Kathmandu Metropolitan Mayor Balendra Sah posted on social media that when the police stopped and checked the city vehicle carrying his wife, he wrote, “If from tomorrow any vehicle of our Metropolitan is stopped by the government, I will set fire to Singha Durbar!”

It appears that the Gen Z generation’s perspective is primarily shaped by social media. This generation grew up with the internet and is connected to global discussions on rebellion and justice. They do not trust deceit or manipulation and will not tolerate it. They perceive things as they are.

They seek transparency, accountability, and change. But the message conveyed by Nepal’s political leadership was that all systems in Nepal have failed, all leaders are corrupt, and all institutions are incompetent.

The young generation absorbed this message literally. When the movement erupted, for them, parliamentary buildings, courts, political party offices, leaders’ homes, police stations, or private commercial buildings all became symbols of structural injustice. As a result, these structures became the targets of the youth, being burned and destroyed.

The Gen Z rebellion demonstrates the immense influence of leaders’ speeches on young minds. Therefore, in politics, speech is not merely a means of expressing ideas; it is a powerful tool for shaping social belief.

History shows that speeches by leaders such as Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King Jr., and Aung San Suu Kyi pointed the way to justice and nonviolence. But in Nepal, the opposite occurred.

Leaders’ words spread intolerance, mistrust, and hatred. Therefore, the current unrest is not just due to Gen-Z negligence but is the cumulative outcome of reckless speeches over the years.

Because of leadership failure, the state had to endure unanticipated violence. Preventing violence is the responsibility of the state. Yet the top leaders appear to be devaluing the youth who have taken to the streets rather than understanding their anger.

After the incidents, instead of addressing the core issue, efforts are being made to divert attention by blaming anarchic domestic and foreign elements for the disruption. This sends a poor message and continues to do so.

By ignoring the structural roots of the problem, the focus has been disproportionately placed on the destruction of physical structures. Moreover, there is insensitivity toward human loss. This further increases the distance between youth and political parties.

Similarly, political parties have already shown tendencies of indulging in old-style politics without undertaking internal reforms.

The Gen Z rebellion demonstrates the immense influence of leaders’ speeches on young minds. Therefore, in politics, speech is not merely a means of expressing ideas; it is a powerful tool for shaping social belief.

Except for a few notable leaders, the main leadership is blaming others for the Gen Z movement, using “conspiracy” narratives to absolve themselves. There is no self-reflection about their own incompetence, let alone an apology to the youth.

The government’s leadership was like a game of musical chairs—sometimes Deuba, sometimes Dahal, sometimes Oli—shuffling power among the three leaders of the three main parties. This strengthened the Gen Z generation’s belief that even the old structures themselves needed to be destroyed.

Crises cannot be resolved solely through violence or suppression. What is needed now to address the youth is responsible speech, positive behavior, and the restoration of a culture of dialogue for progressive change with young people.

For this, self-reflection by the leadership is essential. Leaders must introspect on their past reckless speeches and publicly accept responsibility. Observed as a movement, the Gen Z protests reflect collective and inclusive leadership. Therefore, citizen governments and political parties must take initiatives to transform the demands of Gen Z into a political agenda through dialogue and inclusive processes.

The greatest distrust the youth have expressed is toward the corruption of state structures and political leadership. Addressing this requires rebuilding institutional trust, ensuring that courts, parliament, Singha Durbar, the police administration, and political parties return to paths of impartiality and accountability.

In the digital age, anything expressed reaches millions of listeners and readers within seconds. Therefore, restraint in speech is essential.

The responsibility of words does not apply only to leaders; public figures active on social media must also be accountable for the language they use and think ten times before posting.

The chaos currently seen in Nepal is not a sudden explosion. It is the result of decades of accumulated frustration and dissatisfaction, and particularly the negative energy spread by the conduct, behavior, and speeches of leaders.

The Gen Z generation translated that rhetoric into direct action, attacking institutions that were labeled as corrupt—institutions which, from time to time, all party leaders had accused of malfeasance. Now the time has come for political leaders to understand that speech is not merely a tool of political competition but a foundation for guiding society.

If they fail to demonstrate restraint and responsibility in words, violence and chaos will deepen further. Nepal now needs conscious, responsible, and forward-looking leadership—both individuals and parties. Otherwise, the rebellion of the Gen Z generation will leave only a story of destruction in history.

(Adhikari is an advocate of human rights, democracy, and the fundamental freedoms of citizens.)