Nepal’s crisis shows why Maoism has no future in South Asia

On September 9, 2025, Nepal’s Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli stepped down under the thunder of protests, violence, and bloodshed. What began as a backlash against a draconian social-media ban, targeting platforms like Facebook, X, YouTube, and others, quickly spiraled into one of the deadliest civil uprisings the country has seen in decades: at least 19 to 20 lives lost as security forces opened fire, buildings and senior leaders’ homes torched, and streets in Kathmandu turned into battlefields .

That the resignation of Oli followed calls from the youthful, Gen Z-driven movement for accountability and transparency is no coincidence. The protesters were incensed not only by censorship, but by a broader systemic rot, corruption, authoritarianism, and generational betrayal. Their courage to challenge entrenched power delivered a political hammer blow: the PM yielded his seat in hopes of forestalling further chaos. But it is clear this is not a mere political shuffle, it is a defining moment of generational repudiation of violent ideology and disorder.

Nepal’s descent into chaos bears the hallmark of a movement that, under the guise of Marxist-Maoist dogma, has thrived on instability. From the brutal decade-long Maoist insurgency that ended only in 2006, Nepal has oscillated in cycles of upheaval: revolt, fragile truce, fractured coalitions, and resurgent militant politics. Repeated political resets have become normalized, an unending audition for power rather than governance. Frequent “refine and revise” political shepherding marks the real cost of Maoist ideology: endless instability amid periodic infusions of violence birthed in ideological purism.

Contrast this with India’s long, slow fight to outlast and outmaneuver Maoist extremism. The Naxalite-Maoist insurgency once claimed swathes of India’s “Red Corridor.” At its peak in the late 2000s, nearly 180 districts were affected and the conflict exacted heavy costs, with more than a thousand casualties annually . But concerted counter-insurgency efforts, bolstered by development projects and security initiatives, have turned the tide. Between 2004 and 2014 there were 16,463 reported incidents of Naxal violence; from 2014 to 2024, that number dropped by 53%, violent incidents were cut nearly in half, casualties of security forces dropped 73%, and the geographic footprint shrank to just 4,200 square kilometers from over 18,000 .

In Odisha, fatalities among both Maoists and civilians plummeted. By 2024, only 10 fatalities were recorded in LWE-related incidents, a stark contrast to previous years and testament to the efficacy of sustained policy, targeted security operations, and grounded development .

These contrasting arcs, Nepal’s collapse into sudden revolt and India's steady reduction of extremism through system-building, reveal the ultimate weakness of Maoist ideology: it inherently rejects the institutions needed for stability. Ideological violence may seem, for a moment, to break chains and topple symbols. But left unchecked, it delivers nothing but chaos, death, and hollow revolutions.

Nepal today stands at a crossroads. The protests that forced Oli’s resignation were both spontaneous and deeply informed, driven by youthful outrage, but also by a longing for accountable governance. If the country is to honor this uprising, it must draw lessons. It must shun the siren call of ideological purity dressed as populist reform. Instead, it must build inclusive institutions, prioritize justice over vendetta, and commit to governance under rule of law, not revolutionary exaltation.

For India too, the lesson stands clear. Its long war against Maoist extremism is not over yet, underground cells remain, some districts may still be vulnerable. But the overall trajectory is unmistakable: ideology can be outgrown when met with robust security, thoughtful development, and institutional legitimacy. The strategy proves that Maoist rebellion does not deliver real liberation, it delivers only suffering.

Now is the time for Nepal to chart a different course. If India teaches us anything, it’s that ideological insurgency can be quelled, not by yielding to its grievance-laden rhetoric, but by offering real alternatives: equitable development, participatory democracy, and transparent politics. Youth need hope, not hatred; policies, not purges; civic inclusion, not cults of personality.

As Nepal edges out of this week’s flames, it must refuse the allure of Maoist romanticism. It must anchor itself in civic institutions and democratic norms, or risk recycling the same old cycle of violent upheaval. The failure of Maoist ideology is not just political, it’s moral. When protesters revolt not for utopian revolution, but for justice, accountability, and peace, it’s time to affirm democracy, across Nepal, across South Asia.

It’s time to say, once and for all: the age of Marxist-Maoist extremism is over.