Columns

In recent years, South Asia has witnessed an unprecedented wave of people’s movements, led not by traditional political actors or institutions, but by youth, informal workers, and the digitally connected.

The uprisings in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal represent a fundamental shift in political mobilisation across the region. While each movement had a distinct trigger — a collapsing economy (Sri Lanka), a controversial quota system (Bangladesh), or restrictions on digital freedoms (Nepal) — all three were underpinned by deep frustration with governance failures, corruption, and political elitism.

These uprisings present both hope and caution. They have achieved swift victories in removing unpopular leaders or policies but have struggled to translate protest energy into long-term institutional change.

Causes of the uprisings

• Sri Lanka – The aragalaya (struggle)

Sri Lanka’s Aragalaya was sparked in early 2022 by an economic collapse. The country defaulted on its foreign debt for the first time in its history, accompanied by widespread shortages of fuel, medicine, and food, and record-high inflation. People queued for hours for basic essentials and the middle class slipped into poverty almost overnight.

Among the immediate causes for the collapse of the economy were economic mismanagement as evidenced by years of borrowing for large-scale infrastructure projects that created an unsustainable debt burden, poor policy decisions such as a sudden shift from chemical to organic fertilisers which devastated the agricultural sector and corruption and nepotism which concentrate power and wealth in a tight-knit elite.

There were also many deep-seated grievances which fuelled the uprising such as exclusion of public voices in decision-making and a lack of accountability and transparency in governance.

Interestingly, the informal sector and rural agrarian communities were the first to mobilise — a break from the historical dominance of organised trade unions in such movements. Their demands were later taken up by students, professionals, and middle-class citizens. The slogan “GotaGo Home” became a unifying chant across communities ultimately leading to President Gotabaya Rajapaksa fleeing the country and resigning.

• Bangladesh – quota reform protests

In Bangladesh, protests erupted after a controversial court ruling reinstated a quota system in public service jobs that favoured descendants of freedom fighters from the 1971 Liberation War. Although rooted in a specific grievance, the movement quickly expanded into a broader condemnation of cronyism, corruption, and authoritarian governance.

Some of the key causes that empowered the protests were perceived injustices in public job recruitment with the younger generations feeling that meritocracy was being undermined, rising inflation, unemployment, and urban frustration over high living costs and the suppression of dissent including the allegations of government’s heavy-handed tactics against activists and journalists.

The movement attracted university students and young professionals — particularly from urban centres like Dhaka — and was emblematic of a wider generation gap in political expectations.

• Nepal – The digital freedom uprising

Nepal’s uprising was perhaps the most digitally native of the three. The government’s introduction of restrictions on social media platforms, citing national security and morality concerns was widely seen as a crackdown on dissent and free speech.

The so-called Gen Z population, which was heavily reliant on digital platforms for expression, saw the ban as an authoritarian overreach.

Other factors including political instability, failure to deliver basic services, and frequent government reshuffles added to public frustration while corruption scandals and public disillusionment with the political elite further alienated the youth.

 Outcomes of the Uprisings

Despite different triggers and contexts, the uprisings had some common and notable immediate outcomes:

• Removal of Political Figures
• Sri Lanka: President Gotabaya Rajapaksa resigned and fled the country. His ouster marked one of the most dramatic falls from power in modern South Asian history. Bangladesh: Although the government did not collapse, it was forced to reconsider the quota system amid mounting pressure, and several high-profile arrests of activists sparked international concern, putting the government on the back foot.
• Nepal: The government quickly rescinded the ban on social media, and a few ministers associated with the crackdown resigned or were reassigned. Though there was no regime change, the political establishment was visibly shaken.
• Shift in political discourse

In all three countries, the public conversation shifted: From mere political opposition to systemic reform. From elite-dominated dialogue to a more grassroots-driven discourse, particularly around transparency and accountability.

Challenges and limitations

Despite their early victories, all three movements now face serious structural and strategic challenges:

• Leadership vacuum The Sri Lankan Aragalaya, for instance, lacked a unified political structure. Once the government was ousted, the movement faltered without a clear plan for what came next. Veteran politician Ranil Wickremesinghe stepped into the vacuum — ironically, someone many protesters also saw as part of the old guard. In Bangladesh and Nepal, the absence of a centralised leadership meant that the movements were decentralised and inclusive but also fragmented and easily undermined by state counter-narratives.
• Lack of institutional reform Policy reforms remain elusive. In Sri Lanka, while a new government is in place, the structural economic issues (debt, inflation, and corruption) remain. The political elite in all three countries have shown resilience and adaptability, absorbing the shock of protests but avoiding deep reforms. If governments continue to delay reforms, public frustration may turn into cynicism or violent radicalisation— both of which would erode the legitimacy of civic protest.

Violence and loss of moral high ground

While largely peaceful, some protests saw clashes and acts of violence, which the state used to justify militarised responses and emergency laws.

Conclusion

The uprisings in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and Nepal represent a new chapter in South Asian political mobilisation. These were not traditional protests led by unions or political parties, but rather youth-led, social media-powered, and issue-based movements that cut across ethnic, religious and class divides.

They were triggered by different events: A collapsing economy (Sri Lanka), A policy perceived as unjust (Bangladesh), And digital censorship (Nepal).

But they all reflected deeper structural problems such as Crony capitalism, Democratic erosion and Corruption.

While each achieved short-term wins, they now face the hard part: transforming protest energy into institutional change. This will require building inclusive political platforms, ensuring democratic norms, and ensuring that institutions are reformed to reflect the aspirations of a new generation.

Perhaps the greatest legacy of these uprisings is the precedent they set: governments can no longer assume that apathetic youth or disorganised civil society will stay silent. These movements have redefined the boundaries of political participation in South Asia, and their lessons will likely inform future democratic struggles across the region.

As one reflects on these events, it’s important to acknowledge that outsider perspectives are limited. Real understanding comes from those who lived through these upheavals. Still, as observers, one can recognise a tectonic shift in how power is contested in the region — a shift that speaks of new hopes, new leaders, and new challenges for South Asian democracy.

(javidyusuf@gmail.com)