Category World News

Islamabad, Pakistan – On Sunday, Nepal’s then-Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli mocked youth protesters, who were planning a major agitation the following day in the capital, Kathmandu, against corruption and nepotism.

By calling themselves the “Gen Z”, the protesters seemed to believe they could demand whatever they wanted, he said.

Less than 48 hours later, Oli was an ex-PM, and the Gen Z protest movement he had spoken dismissively of was discussing who should lead Nepal. That was after police firing on protesters on Monday killed at least 19 people, further inflaming passions. On Tuesday, protesters set fire to the parliament building and homes of several prominent politicians, as members of Oli’s cabinet quit and pressure mounted on the PM himself – ultimately leading to his resignation. The combined death toll from clashes on Monday and Tuesday has now reached 31.

Those dramatic events have turned the Himalayan nation into the latest cauldron of political change, after similar youth-led movements in Sri Lanka‚ in 2022, and Bangladesh, in 2024, also led to the overthrow of governments in those South Asian nations.

Experts say that Nepal’s political churn has consequences not just for the nation of 30 million people, but for the broader region and the world, rooted in the country’s own tumultuous political history and its legacy of balancing ties between India, China and Pakistan.

Here’s what happened and why it matters to the world:

What’s happening in Nepal?

On September 8, tens of thousands of young people came out to protest corruption and nepotism. A government ban on social media platforms only aggravated their anger.

After some protesters broke through barricades and entered the parliament complex, security forces fired live bullets, tear gas shells and water cannons at them. At least 19 people died, angering youth across the country.

New protests – far more violent – erupted on Tuesday. Politicians’ homes and offices of political parties were broken into and set on fire. The building that housed Kantipur Publications, Nepal’s biggest media house, was also torched.

By afternoon, Oli had announced his resignation, but the protesters, who have described their agitation as a “Gen Z movement”, are now demanding the dissolution of parliament, new elections, an interim government they help choose until then, and the prosecution of those who ordered the firing on September 8.

The army has taken over the streets, and a curfew is in place in Kathmandu.

But this was not Nepal’s first encounter with mass student unrest. The country’s modern political history is filled with student movements, palace interventions and cycles of violence, including a decade-long civil war.

From Rana rule to the Panchayat era

Several educated Nepalis had participated in undivided India’s freedom struggle against the British, and inspired by the subcontinent’s independence from colonial rule in 1947, became a part of a larger movement calling for the end of direct rule by Nepal’s Rana monarchy.

In 1951, opposition to the Ranas – including from educated sections of the elite – culminated in what was the country’s first modern revolution. The Ranas were forced to accept indirect rule through a tripartite agreement. Nepal’s King Tribhuvan, who had fled to India in the protests, returned. A government was formed with members of the Rana clan and the Nepali Congress (NC) – the main political party at the time.

Then, in 1959, the country held its first general election, with the NC’s Bishweshwar Prasad Koirala becoming prime minister. But just a year later, King Mahendra Bir Bikram dismissed the Koirala government after its popular land reforms angered sections of the country’s ruling elite. Instead, the king imposed what became known as the “panchayat” system, a party-less order that governed Nepal for nearly three decades, with the monarch at its helm.

With political activity curtailed, student protests became one of the few outlets for dissent. Campus agitations over political and educational reforms occurred through the 1970s and 1980s.

The sustained political protest over the years eventually brought down the panchayat system in 1990 and reopened the door to parliamentary politics.

The armed rebellion and the emergence of a republic

Between 1996 and 2006, the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) waged a rebel-led war aimed at toppling the monarchy for democratic rule. The conflict killed more than 10,000 people.

In 2006, protests involving political parties, civil society and students forced the monarch, King Gyanendra, to cede power. The movement paved the way for the abolition of the monarchy and, in 2008, the declaration of Nepal as a democratic republic.

Since then, eight men from the three main parties – the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist) (CPN-UML), the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre) (CPN-MC) and the Nepali Congress (NC) – have led the country 14 times between them. Oli, who resigned on September 9, was serving his fourth term.

Observers say that though the Oli government’s recent social media ban was a lightning rod for protesters, the Gen Z movement is built on underlying grievances that have simmered for years.

Rajneesh Bhandari, an investigative journalist based in Kathmandu, says the demonstrations reflected “frustration” against the rulers for their “corruption, acts of nepotism, and their bad governance”.

“This shows that the Nepalese youth held resentment against the rulers who did not pay heed to their demands, or communicated with them, and continued to act in an arrogant manner,” he told Al Jazeera.

Ashirwad Tripathy, a civil and digital rights activist in Kathmandu, also emphasised that the protests were not an overnight eruption.

“The abuse of authority and corruption of the leaders of the several political parties have led to this situation. There has been long-simmering discontent and dissatisfaction against the older generation of the three main political parties, who only played musical chairs with the prime minister’s seat,” Tripathy told Al Jazeera.

Geography, neighbours and power politics

But what happens in Nepal matters well beyond the borders of the landlocked country that sits on the southern slopes of the Himalayas and is home to eight of the world’s 14 highest peaks, including Mount Everest.

Stretching roughly 885km (550 miles) east to west and about 193km (120 miles) north to south, it lies between two regional giants: China to the north and India to the south, east and west.

Though historically close to India, Nepal’s foreign alignments have shifted with domestic politics. Oli was widely seen as leaning towards Beijing, and his removal has prompted speculation about a recalibration of influence in Kathmandu.

Lokranjan Parajauli, a social scientist who has written extensively on social movements and politics, suggested the next ruler is likely to be an “independent” figure not aligned with any party.

“It is not quite clear who that new person will be, but it will be someone whom the army can trust or rely upon,” Parajauli told Al Jazeera.

Some analysts point to Sushila Karki, the former chief justice, as a possible interim choice.

“She is the most acceptable candidate, and she has a high chance of leading the next government, but no decision has been made,” Tripathy said, adding that Karki’s political and diplomatic allegiances are unclear.

Others believe that the mayor of Kathmandu, Balendra Shah, a 35-year-old rapper musician who has been heading the city since 2022, could be the other option.

However, a longtime human rights activist in Kathmandu, speaking on condition of anonymity, said regardless of the identity of the new leader, both India and China will seek stability and a government that “respects their interests”.

“Neither neighbour wants to see the other exercise too much influence in Nepal,” the activist told Al Jazeera.

Tripathy emphasised Nepal’s historical balancing act.

“Nepal has always had friendly ties with both its neighbours, China and India. Culturally, we are closer to India in the southern part, while the northern part has cultural similarities with China. But our motto has always been to maintain a balanced relationship between both countries, and we will continue the same notion,” he said.

Regional calculus

Ali Hassan, a South Asia specialist at UK-based Healix, a risk management company, argued that Oli’s fall could serve as a setback for Beijing in Kathmandu and a potential opening for New Delhi.

Sections of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) have also been aligned with the pro-monarchist movement in Nepal, which argues that the Himalayan nation needs the Ranas back in power. The former monarch, Gyanendra, received a huge public reception in Kathmandu earlier this year, pointing to the continuing support for the former rulers among sections of Nepali society. If the pro-monarchy movement gains from the current politicial crisis in Nepal, that might benefit the BJP, Hassan said.

But he added that the Gen Z protesters who removed Oli do not appear to favour a return of Gyanendra.

Meanwhile, Pakistan will also be watching developments in Nepal closely, say analysts.

Compared with India and China, Nepal’s relations with Pakistan have historically been cordial but limited in strategic significance.

Still, Nepal’s rulers have used ties with Pakistan, at times, to remind India of their own regional options. In 1960, the Indian government under Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru criticised King Mahendra’s dismissal of the Koirala government. A year later, the Nepali monarch visited Pakistan, and then, in 1963, hosted Pakistani President Ayub Khan.

More recently, at the height of India-Pakistan tensions in May, after gunmen had killed 26 civilians in Indian-administered Kashmir, Nepal hosted a delegation from Pakistan’s National Defence University, leading to raised eyebrows in New Delhi, which has long viewed Oli as too close to Beijing – Pakistan’s closest ally – for comfort.

With Pakistan having seen its share of political chaos in recent years, particularly after the removal of Prime Minister Imran Khan through a parliamentary vote of no confidence in 2022, analysts say Nepal’s crisis might have raised concerns among Pakistan’s ruling elite, too.

“Pakistani elites must be wondering how secure their grip on power is, given they are often accused of charges similar to what Bangladeshi, Sri Lankan and Nepali protesters said of their leaders, that the government is indifferent to all but themselves and is highly authoritarian,” London-based Hassan said.

But the Kathmandu-based human rights activist who requested anonymity said that from Nepal’s perspective, Pakistan would likely not be a priority for the next leader – whoever it is.

Well-known American conservative activist and staunch ally of President Donald Trump, Charlie Kirk, was fatally shot while addressing an audience at Utah Valley University (UVU) in Orem, Utah, on Wednesday.

Kirk, 31, was addressing an outdoor crowd of roughly 3,000 people at the first of at least 15 scheduled stops on a nationwide tour organised by Turning Point USA (TPUSA), the conservative group he cofounded.

While Kirk was taking questions from the audience, a single gunshot rang out from somewhere on campus. Kirk was then seen clutching his neck and collapsing from his chair, with blood gushing from the wound. He was rushed to a nearby hospital, where he later died.

Two individuals were briefly detained in connection with the shooting but were released after questioning, with authorities confirming they were not linked to the crime. The shooter remains at large, and a manhunt involving multiple law enforcement agencies, including the FBI, is ongoing.

Below is a timeline outlining the sequence of events.

12:00-12:10 pm

Just after noon (18:10 GMT), the “American Comeback Tour” event began outdoors. Kirk was seated at a table onstage under a white pop-up tent marked “Prove Me Wrong” and was answering audience questions.

Before the event, a petition urged UVU to block Kirk from speaking, but the university allowed his attendance, in line with its free speech policies.

Kirk was accompanied by private security, with extra protection provided by UVU police and local law enforcement.

12:10-12:20 pm

A few minutes into the event, Kirk was answering questions from the audience, including one about mass shootings involving transgender individuals.

The exchange unfolded as follows:

• Audience member: Do you know how many transgender Americans have been mass shooters over the last 10 years?
• Kirk: Too many.
• Audience member: Do you know how many mass shooters there have been in America over the last 10 years?
• Kirk: Counting or not counting gang violence?

Right then, a single shot is heard.

Kirk is then seen clutching his neck and collapsing from his chair, with blood gushing from the wound, prompting attendees to panic and flee the scene.

Individual seen running on the roof

Moments after the shooting, a video captured from inside a nearby building (at 2 seconds in) shows an individual running across the roof of the Losee Center, a campus building 100-200 yards (about 90-180 metres) from the event.

Additional footage shows an individual running across the roof of the Losee Center in the moments after the shooting. pic.twitter.com/5ouPzRynR3

A video shot from a different angle shows what appears to be an individual wearing dark clothing on top of the Losee Center before the shooting.

Newly posted footage shows what appears to be an individual on the roof of the Losee Center at UVU in the moments before Charlie Kirk was shot. pic.twitter.com/6LaIyepVf3

UVU spokesperson Ellen Treanor later said the shot came from the Losee Center about 20 minutes after Kirk began speaking.

Drone footage of the campus, taken after everyone was evacuated, shows police tape cordoning off a section of the Losee Center’s roof. The distance from the corner of the Losee Center to where Kirk was sitting is approximately 140 yards (130 metres), well within the effective range of most rifles.

EXCLUSIVE: Drone Footage of UVU crime scene where Charlie Kirk was assassinated today.

The footage provides an overhead breakdown, showing the location of Charlie Kirk’s tent, the shooter’s position, and the route he took to flee after the attack. pic.twitter.com/JkSUCJqOJ9

Kirk rushed to hospital in critical condition

Kirk was removed from the stage by his security detail and other staff; he was placed into a vehicle and rushed to a local hospital.

The Associated Press news agency reported at about 1:45pm that a source had informed them Kirk was in “critical condition” at the hospital.

Death reported by President Trump

At 2:40pm, President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social that Kirk had died.

Utah Governor Spencer Cox described the shooting of Kirk as a “political assassination” and expressed deep concern over the state of national discourse.

I just got off the phone with President Trump. Working with the FBI and Utah law enforcement, we will bring to justice the individual responsible for this tragedy.

Abby and I are heartbroken. We are praying for Charlie’s wife, daughter, and son. https://t.co/IteWx4OI9o

Manhunt under way

Authorities have confirmed that the shooter remains at large, and a manhunt involving multiple law enforcement agencies, including the FBI, is ongoing.

They have urged the public to come forward with any information that could assist in the investigation.

The FBI is working alongside our local and state law enforcement partners in Utah to fully investigate and seek justice in the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University. Anyone with information, photos, and video from the incident can help the FBI identity more… pic.twitter.com/JEQ22lIwfv

For many years, I have been asked whether I could forgive those who imprisoned, tortured, and dehumanised me. It is a loaded question; it is never just about personal forgiveness, but also an invitation to speak on behalf of all Guantanamo Bay prisoners. I usually reply that forgiveness is never simple, especially when justice has yet to be served.

I was held in Guantanamo for nearly 15 years without charge, subjected to treatment no human being should ever endure. I was one of countless innocent people kidnapped during the global campaign of the United States of revenge and terror after September 11, 2001, which justified the illegal invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, unleashed and legalised torture programmes in CIA black sites and at Abu Ghraib, and turned Guantanamo into a laboratory of dehumanisation.

In my cell, I once opened a boxed meal to find the words “We Will Never Forget, We Will Never Forgive” scrawled on the inside of the box. I wrote back: “We Will Never Forget, We Will Never Forgive, We Will Fight For Our Justice.” For this, the camp administration penalised me with “food punishment” and solitary confinement, claiming that my message was a death threat.

Today, on the 24th anniversary of the September 11 attacks, “Never Forget, Never Forgive” echoes once again. These words are presented as grief and as a desire to honour the memory of those lost, but they also carry darker implications. As someone directly affected by the aftermath of 9/11, I believe it is crucial to consider what those words really mean, especially when they are used as a rallying cry for revenge, retaliation, retribution, or vengeance, rather than as a thoughtful appeal for justice, accountability, and meaningful reflection. Once again, the question of revenge and forgiveness circulates in public discourse, yet rarely do commentators pause to ask what forgiveness truly entails.

In cases such as CIA black sites, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and the many other atrocities committed in the name of fighting “terror”, forgiveness cannot be reduced to an individual act. The harm was inflicted on a global scale, touching tens of millions: those tortured, those killed in drone attacks, the families left behind, and entire communities in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, and Somalia, to name only some. I remain unwilling to step forward and say “I forgive”, because forgiveness is not mine alone to give. For it to carry weight, it must be offered collectively, by victims, survivors, and even the dead. And the dead, of course, cannot forgive.

Despite the scale of harm in question, some voices have emerged claiming to forgive the atrocities they endured at Guantanamo. While this may appear noble, it is crucial to understand that treating forgiveness as a purely personal choice ignores the vast harm inflicted on tens of millions in the so-called war on terror. In other words, when individuals extend forgiveness for personal gain — whether for fame, recognition, or profit — it becomes an act of betrayal.

To those offering such forgiveness, I ask: Who exactly are you forgiving? Torturers who never apologised? Governments that deny their crimes? Has anyone even asked for your forgiveness, or are you offering it freely to those who insist they have done nothing wrong? Have you thought about the families wiped out in US drone strikes, erased in an instant and forgotten? Have you thought about those who never left CIA black sites — whose names remain unknown, whose deaths were never recorded, whose bodies were never returned? When the machinery of violence remains untouched, what does forgiveness mean if not to comfort the guilty and erase the suffering of the victimised?

These questions point to a deeper problem: why is it always the wronged who are asked to forgive? Why must the abused carry the moral burden of healing a world that continues to brutalise them? Long before any investigation, accountability, or even acknowledgement of harm takes place, the wronged are urged to move on for the sake of peace and others’ comfort. This pattern is clear in the behaviour of the US, which marches forward proudly, cloaked in the language of democracy and human rights, while the victims of its brutality are told to wait, to be patient, and to forgive.

This moral double standard reveals everything about who is recognised as human and who is not. When the US kills, tortures, or disappears people, such actions are framed as necessary, strategic, or even heroic. But when survivors speak out, demand accountability, or refuse forgiveness, they are portrayed as bitter, vengeful, and ungrateful. This hypocrisy is no accident; it is built into the very architecture of oppression.

We cannot begin a conversation about forgiveness before justice or reparations. To discuss forgiveness in such a context is nothing more than an attempt to whitewash and justify crimes committed. Forgiveness is not a one-sided act, a gift from the wronged to the wrongdoer without any expectation of accountability. True forgiveness is inseparable from justice. Insisting on forgiveness before justice is not a path to healing; it is a strategy to erase the truth. It demands silence instead of memory, submission instead of resistance. It turns the conversation about forgiveness into yet another instrument of control, designed to absolve the guilty and shame the survivor.

True forgiveness cannot be granted while the systems of oppression in question remain intact. The US has not officially ended the so-called war on terror. Guantanamo remains open, and the machinery of detention, torture, and extrajudicial killing continues in various forms. The government has neither taken responsibility for the harm it caused nor acknowledged victims and survivors. There has been no meaningful compensation, no effort to make amends.

How can we speak of forgiveness when the same imperial power that claimed to be defending the innocent after September 11 now enables and partners in genocide, in the killing of tens of thousands in Gaza? The ethical failures that allowed Guantanamo to exist are mirrored today in the support for policies that subject Palestinians to starvation and mass slaughter. Forgiveness is not a blanket absolution for injustices committed. Some crimes may never be capable of earning forgiveness. Perhaps the only principled response to such atrocities is to refuse to forgive and to refuse to forget. Never forgive. Never forget.