The youth of Nepal is angry. The new ban on prominent social media sites like Facebook, YouTube, WhatsApp, Instagram and Snapchat has touched a raw nerve among young Nepalis. They use these platforms to vent pent-up frustrations, connect with friends, and keep abreast with the rest of the world. They were already antsy, fed up with the country’s woeful health and education systems, and rampant corruption and nepotism—so much so that many of them saw no future in the country. The ban on the platforms that are an integral part of their lifestyle will only amp up their disillusionment. In the past few days, the social media ban has also made them unleash their wrath at ‘Nepo kids’: children of prominent politicians who owe their social standing to their parents rather than anything they have done. The young folks, or members of Gen Z, are gathering today at Maitighar Mandal in Kathmandu to say ‘enough is enough’. They will no more silently tolerate one after another injustice heaped upon them.

The government would be foolish to take them lightly. Such impromptu youth-led movements have toppled even entrenched regimes, even in our own neighbourhood, most recently in Bangladesh. These movements have a momentum of their own and it is impossible to predict their outcome. But the world over, what fuels them is the apathy of the ‘old establishment’ to concerns of the youth and systemic efforts to suppress free speech. The anger of Nepali youths is justified too. The decision to regulate social media platforms in order to bring them in line with Nepal’s legal and social realities was right. Yet the execution was dead wrong. First, these platforms should have been regulated through an overarching law, not a Cabinet decision. That is also precisely what the Supreme Court had asked of the government, a verdict the ruling parties have twisted to serve their vested interest. There is also room to suspect some questionable provisions the government was foisting on these platforms—like the one requiring them to remove ‘problematic content’ within 24 hours, a provision which could easily be weaponised to stifle free speech—partly dissuaded them from registering in Nepal.

In South Asia, Nepal still enjoys comparatively greater press freedom—a rough proxy for free speech. Yet this standing has taken a hit of late, thanks to various restrictive bills on social media and media. And successive governments have been culpable. Again, evidence from around the world suggests free speech is not something that can be taken for granted. Constant vigilance is a must to keep the free speech flame burning. We also hope that the government, the upholder of Nepal’s democratic values will, albeit late, heed people’s voice. Above all, it means accommodating the voices of the youth, Nepal’s future leaders and builders. Bringing foreign apps that refuse to abide by the country’s rules under the legal purview might seem like a worthy cause. And it is. But even more important is to honour the sentiments of your own people, especially the young.