By Dr. Viranjana Herath
Recently, three South Asian nations, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and Nepal, have marked a significant chapter in modern world history through a theme of public uprising. In 2022, the people of Sri Lanka successfully ousted the top leaders of their government, President Gotabaya Rajapaksa and Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa. Nevertheless, the new government developed from the same parliament, with several former cabinet members reappointed, literally presenting the same old wine in a new bottle. In 2024, Bangladesh witnessed a significant public protest that led to the removal of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and her government. The replacement involved an interim government led by Nobel Prize-winning economist Mohamad Yunus, who was called in for the role from the USA. In September 2025, Nepal experienced a sudden public uprising that erupted with the intensity of a volcano. The violent protest resulted in the overthrow of the government and the destruction of the country’s parliament, supreme court, and several other significant state symbols. Shushila Karki, the former Chief Justice, has assumed the role of interim Prime Minister until the upcoming general election set for next March.
Shared Similarities
Upon examining the public uprisings in the three nations, several notable similarities appeared. The underlying causes of the protests were the same as economic issues, inequalities, corruption allegations, and nepotism. Moreover, the movement was primarily initiated, led, and managed by the youth, particularly Gen Z. The role of legacy media was largely absent from the protest narrative, highlighting the significant impact of online media platforms, particularly the contributions of social media.
Sri Lanka’s Distinct Path
However, it is important to recognize that the Sri Lankan uprising possesses certain unique characteristics. The outcomes of the Sri Lankan struggle extended over various phases during the eight-month-long protest campaign. For instance, Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksha and the cabinet stepped down in March, and former Prime Minister Ranil Wickramasinghe was appointed to the position despite his party holding only one seat in Parliament. In July, President Gotabaya Rajapaksha stepped down, leading to Ranil Wickramasinghe assuming the role of acting president. The shifting of power has created a rift among the protesters. Thus, some are calling for a complete overhaul of the system and the appointment of an interim leader from outside the parliament, while others seem content with merely a change in faces. During this period, Ranil Wickramasinghe leveraged his extensive experience to weaken the protest and consolidate his authority. The protest ultimately concluded with a change in leadership rather than a complete overhaul of the system. Indeed, the constitution maintained its continuity, despite being undermined through the very articles it comprises.
Bangladesh and Nepal: Divergent Experiences
The uprisings in Bangladesh and Nepal were fundamentally different from the situation in Sri Lanka. The durations of the significant protest campaigns in both Bangladesh and Nepal were notably brief. The extensive protests in Bangladesh culminated in a month-long period, concluding with Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s flight to India. The entire duration of the protests in Nepal spanned just two days, and the interim prime minister was replaced in less than a week. Unlike Sri Lanka, both Bangladesh and Nepal have disrupted the continuity of their constitutions to a certain degree. A Bangladeshi protest leader once asserted, “We don’t want to repeat the mistakes of Sri Lanka; we need new leadership and must not allow the people’s power to be hijacked by corrupt old politicians or the system.”
Explaining the Differences
The Sri Lankan approach to power shifting is regarded by some as a more democratic process, although numerous private properties owned by politicians were burned and destroyed at one point. The protesters, while storming the premises, managed to protect key locations physically such as the president’s office and residence, as well as the prime minister’s residence. The behavior of the protesters is not surprising; from the outset, they have been peaceful and well-disciplined. The violence erupted shortly after the supporters of the government launched their attack. Consequently, the credit must be attributed to the central organizers of the protest, with no involvement from the government or subsequent authorities. It is important to acknowledge that the discipline expected was not adhered to by the protesters in Bangladesh and Nepal. They erupted like volcanoes; the central organization was relatively weak, and there were no plans in place to prevent acts of hooliganism.
Additionally, it is important to recognize that various political, historical, and social factors contributed to these differences. Some critics argue that the Sri Lankan democratic system has failed to deliver meaningful results since gaining independence. It is important to recognize that the political system of the country has not completely collapsed due to successful military coups or violent actions, even though it has faced numerous failed attempts and instances of dishonesty regarding its constitution. As a result, Sri Lankan protesters focused more on a relatively peaceful and constitutional approach to restoring normalcy in the country. However, the narratives of Bangladesh and Nepal diverged from that perspective. Bangladesh has undergone a military coup, leading to the ongoing imprisonment of political opponents, while Nepal’s monarchy was abolished, and efforts to establish a widely accepted constitution have repeatedly failed over the years. In this context, they embrace the opportunity to explore innovative approaches as a complete transformation of the system.
Moreover, the influence of the oppositions in all three countries was pivotal in shaping the ultimate outcomes of the uprisings. In Sri Lanka, the major opposition political parties did not offer complete backing for the protests, as they interacted with certain affiliated organizations. For instance, SJB and NPP, two of the main opposition parties in Sri Lanka, had their own strategies to seize power. Consequently, their support for the uprising was conditional, as both parties aimed to secure power through elections following the struggle. At the time of the uprising, there was a noticeable absence of strong opposition in both Bangladesh and Nepal. The political landscape of Bangladesh during that period was characterized by an almost one-party system, with the primary opposition leader, Begum Khaleda Zia, imprisoned and her party, the Bangladesh National Party, facing bans and restrictions on its activities. During the uprising in Nepal, the primary political players were the Communist Party and the National Congress, which formed the ruling coalition, while other significant parties offered conditional support to this coalition. Consequently, a significant void emerged in the structured political opposition, which was later occupied by unconventional Gen Z protesters.
It is important to recognize that the conventional political thought processes in the majority of the three countries underwent substantial transformation due to the aforementioned uprisings. For instance, in Sri Lanka, the subsequent president and the government were ousted by the majority voters in the following elections, who placed their trust in a new party, a new leader, and fresh representatives. In Bangladesh and Nepal, the interim governments excluded older politicians from participation.
Conclusion
Youth and digital mobilization are driving a generational shift in South Asia, as evidenced by the uprisings in Bangladesh, Nepal, and Sri Lanka. While Bangladesh and Nepal welcomed constitutional rupture, Sri Lanka maintained constitutional continuity. Nevertheless, all three demonstrate a shared distaste for established elites. Now, satisfying the needs of a connected and impatient generation is crucial to the region’s legitimacy.
Viranjana Herath is a Colombo-based researcher, academic, and lawyer who specialises in media and human rights law, journalism, and geopolitics. He earned his PhD from the Faculty of Legal Studies at South Asian University, New Delhi
Factum is an Asia-Pacific-focused think tank on International Relations, Tech Cooperation, and Strategic Communications accessible via www.factum.lk.
The views expressed here are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the organizations.
