On 5 August 2024, Bangladesh witnessed a historic turning point when Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina fled the country amid a student-led uprising that grew into a nationwide movement. Just over a year later, on 9 September 2025, Nepal’s Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli appears to have followed a similar trajectory. His attempt to suppress dissent by shutting down social media sparked a wave of protests that ultimately forced his downfall, echoing the fate of his Bangladeshi counterpart. Reports suggest that Oli may also be considering leaving Nepal, much like Hasina sought refuge in India following her ouster.

Both movements were marked by their grassroots origins and driven by younger generations determined to reclaim political space. In Bangladesh, the protests began with demands for reforms to the quota system in government jobs. Students argued that decades after independence, the continuation of such reservations—particularly the freedom fighter quota—was discriminatory and undermined merit-based opportunities. Tensions escalated further when a Supreme Court order in June last year fueled discontent, transforming a student movement into a broad-based uprising that engulfed the government.

In Nepal, the initial spark was the government’s sudden decision to block access to social media, a move that many saw as an attack on freedom of expression. Anger quickly mounted as broader frustrations with corruption, nepotism, and inequality came to the forefront. The protests soon crystallized into a generational struggle, with demonstrators, primarily from Generation Z, rallying under slogans highlighting political cronyism. The “Nepo Kids” hashtag became a rallying cry against the privileged lifestyles of political elites and their families, sharply contrasting with the hardships of ordinary citizens.

Despite the different issues at the core of each movement, the trajectory of both uprisings shared striking similarities. In Bangladesh, an estimated 1,500 protesters lost their lives in clashes with security forces, yet the violence failed to suppress the movement. On the contrary, the bloodshed widened its reach, spreading beyond Dhaka and turning into a nationwide wave of resistance. In the end, the pressure became insurmountable, forcing Sheikh Hasina to abandon her official residence and flee.

In Nepal, the security forces adopted similarly heavy-handed tactics. Demonstrations that began in Kathmandu were met with military deployment and aggressive crowd control. At least 19 civilians were reported killed in confrontations, yet the brutal response only fueled the momentum of the protests. Instead of quelling dissent, the crackdown emboldened demonstrators, drawing larger crowds and spreading unrest across multiple regions. Ultimately, Oli’s position became untenable, and resignation became his only option.

The historical irony is that both the Awami League in Bangladesh and the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist–Leninist) had themselves once spearheaded movements for political change. The Awami League had led past uprisings for democracy, while Nepal’s communists played a central role in abolishing the monarchy. Yet, when faced with their own waves of popular discontent, both parties found themselves unable to withstand the same revolutionary forces they once championed.

Observers note that these back-to-back crises highlight a broader generational awakening in South Asia. Young people, empowered by digital platforms and increasingly impatient with entrenched political hierarchies, are asserting themselves as agents of change. While the contexts of Bangladesh and Nepal differ, both uprisings underscore the shared demand for accountability, transparency, and equality.

The fall of Hasina in Dhaka and Oli in Kathmandu reflects a recurring pattern in the region: when leadership turns deaf to the aspirations of its citizens, mass movements emerge with a force powerful enough to reshape national politics. Whether these upheavals pave the way for lasting reforms or give rise to new cycles of instability remains an open question, but their immediate impact has already redrawn the political landscapes of both countries.