New Delhi: Nepal is in the grip of its worst political turmoil in decades after youth-led protests over a social media ban erupted into a nationwide uprising against corruption and entrenched political leadership. At least 19 people have been killed in clashes with security forces, demonstrators have torched the homes of senior leaders and stormed parliament, and Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli has resigned. As Nepal stares at an uncertain future, India’s former ambassador to Kathmandu, Ranjit Rae, spoke to The Wire to unpack the roots of the unrest, the risks to Nepal’s democratic system, and how regional powers are viewing the crisis.What are the factors for these protests exploding at this time?There have been a series of corruption scams and allegations against high-ranking political leaders in Nepal, with little action taken and hardly anyone brought to book. When the previous government led by Prachanda began investigating some of these scams, cases that involved top leaders of the UML (Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist–Leninist)) and the Nepali Congress, it alarmed those parties. Soon after, the two largest parties, despite their differences, came together in a power-sharing arrangement. One is a communist party, the other a democratic, mass-based party. The UML is cadre-based. They have historically been opponents, so the perception in Nepal was that they joined hands mainly to shield themselves.The second factor was the “Nepo kids” phenomenon. The children of political leaders flaunted their wealth and lavish lifestyles, which fuelled resentment among young people. Many asked why leaders’ children could drive around in luxury cars while they themselves were working low-paid jobs in the Gulf.The third factor was that once these two big parties came together, they sidelined the charismatic leader of the Rashtriya Swatantra Party, Rabi Lamichhane, by jailing him. With him removed from the scene, there was virtually no opposition in Parliament. Prachanda was technically in opposition but had allied with both sides in the past. With nobody to challenge Oli and Deuba, it felt like the arrangement would continue indefinitely. People saw it as a game of musical chairs: Oli for two years, then Deuba, with nothing changing.Finally, the social media ban was a trigger. Instead of pressing companies to follow Nepali law, the government imposed an outright ban. This high-handed approach failed to anticipate its impact.But the scenes of violence today and the other developments, including resignation of PM Oli, were sparked by the firing on protesters yesterday that left many dead.What impact did the social media ban have?A third of the Nepalese population live abroad and stay connected with families through Facebook and Messenger. Many also depend on social media for their livelihoods. So, when the government suddenly banned several platforms, it disrupted daily life in a big way. While the ban was the immediate trigger for protests, resentment against the political class runs much deeper.Has this resentment been visible earlier?Yes. Even before the UML and Congress joined hands, frustration had been evident in elections. Over the past five to six years, smaller parties and independents have gained ground. Rabi Lamichhane’s party, for instance, won 21 seats from nowhere, while Balen Shah, an independent, won the mayorship of Kathmandu, Nepal’s most prestigious post. These were clear signs of disenchantment with established parties and leaders.Why did the big parties ignore these signals?There was a sense of hubris among the major leaders. Between them, it was musical chairs – taking turns in power, avoiding corruption investigations, and amassing huge fortunes. People saw them as hand-in-glove, with no accountability.What is the risk now?There is deep disenchantment with leaders who were entrusted to deliver on the new constitution and the promised peace and prosperity dividend, which has not materialised. Now the fear is that people may link it to the system itself not delivering. Nepal’s multi-party democratic republic is a hard-won achievement after decades of struggle, but growing disillusionment raises questions: is it just failed leadership, or is it the system itself? That uncertainty is dangerous.Could new political forces emerge?Yes. Figures like Balen Shah and parties such as the Rashtriya Swatantra Party, which has drawn technocrats and professionals, are being viewed as alternatives. But in a democracy, such forces still need to prove themselves through elections.What about the monarchy?The monarchy remains a factor in the background. The previous round of royalist protests also drew a section of the youth. It is not necessarily a reflection of the popularity of the monarchy as it is anger at the existing political leadership.Does the Nepali army have a role now?The army has a very major role in stabilising the situation.Where does India stand?India has so far issued a cautious statement, expressing sorrow over the loss of lives and urging dialogue. But the larger point is that India has historically supported the aspirations of the Nepali people, and there is no reason why it should not do so again now.For India, the policy remains clear – it has always stood by the aspirations of the people of Nepal, and that is what I expect it to continue to do.And China?I cannot speak for China, but historically both India and China have wanted stability in Nepal. Instability creates opportunities for external elements to exploit the situation. China has for years tried to unite Nepal’s left parties, but with little success. Now, with the leaders of both the Nepali Congress and the Left discredited, the old order looks to be in disarray. This opens space for newer, less ideological forces to emerge.