By: Citra Anggraini
The political unrest in Nepal in September 2025 became one of the most serious tragedies in the Himalayan nation’s history. Demonstrations that initially stemmed from dissatisfaction with social media blocking policies escalated into a wave of mass anger.
The protesters not only demanded the revocation of the policy but also vented their anger in brutal ways that harmed many. Nepal’s Foreign Minister, Arzu Deuba, was physically attacked at his residence, while Finance Minister Bisnhu Paudel was chased and knocked to the ground. The Nepalese parliament building was even set on fire, officials’ homes were destroyed, and casualties continued.
Nepal’s Prime Minister, Khadga Prasad Sharma Oli, finally resigned, but this did not immediately quell public anger. The former prime minister’s residence was also burned by the mob. This situation demonstrates how unwisely channeled expressions of discontent can escalate into chaos that worsens the situation. Instead of producing constructive change, the brutal actions have plunged Nepal into a cycle of violence and instability.
The Chancellor of UIN Sultan Maulana Hasanuddin Banten, Prof. Dr. H. Muhammad Ishom, assessed that the Nepal tragedy is an example of how freedom of expression that is not exercised responsibly can lead to destruction.
According to Ishom, freedom of expression is essential in a democracy, but when coupled with anarchic actions, it only leads to division. In the Indonesian context, Nepal’s experience serves as a reminder that the constitutionally guaranteed freedoms should be used to strengthen unity, not to create conflict.
Social media has become a major trigger for the Nepalese crisis. Young people who rely on digital platforms for communication and work feel their rights are being violated when access is blocked. However, instead of peacefully managing their anger, the protests have escalated into brutal actions targeting the political elite. The lesson for Indonesia is that digital spaces must be protected from becoming a platform for the spread of hoaxes, provocation, and emotional manipulation.
Democratic Party politician Andi Arief also emphasized that public outcry in Nepal cannot be called a revolution. He reminded that a true revolution, like the one led by Lenin in 1917, has a clear political direction and is carried out without acts of destruction.
Meanwhile, the phenomenon in Nepal is more akin to digital anarchy fueled by leaderless viral propaganda. According to him, emotional outbursts guided by social media algorithms only lead to martial law, not changes in the power structure. This view demonstrates the importance of political literacy and maturity in expressing opinions, especially for the younger generation.
The Indonesian Ministry of Foreign Affairs also took swift action in response to the emergency situation. The Director of Indonesian Citizen Protection, Judha Nugraha, confirmed that all Indonesian citizens in Nepal are safe.
According to data from the Indonesian Embassy in Dhaka, which holds accreditation for Nepal, there are 57 Indonesian citizens residing there, 43 members of an international conference delegation, two Indonesian military personnel undergoing training, and 23 tourists. The government confirmed that none of them were affected by the unrest.
Judha explained that intensive communication continues with Indonesian citizens in Nepal, including through online meetings. Contingency measures have also been prepared in case the situation worsens. After the international airport in Kathmandu reopened, the government began planning a phased repatriation for Indonesian citizens wishing to return home. This swift response demonstrates the country’s commitment to protecting its citizens amidst the uncertain global situation.
From an Indonesian perspective, the Nepal tragedy highlights that brutal action never solves problems. Violence actually causes loss of life, destruction, and political uncertainty.
Indonesia, with its long experience in managing democracy, needs to use this case as a lesson. The constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression must be exercised responsibly. Every voice expressed by the public should be directed toward finding solutions, not further escalating the situation.
Political education and digital literacy are key to avoiding the trap of digital anarchism. The public needs to be equipped with the skills to sort information, understand political processes, and express opinions in a polite and constructive manner.
Political elites also have a moral responsibility not to exacerbate the situation with divisive rhetoric. Instead, they must set an example by engaging in dialogue, respecting differences, and seeking common ground for the sake of national unity.
Nepal’s experience also demonstrates the importance of dialogue between the government and the people. When aspirations are expressed openly and with dignity, the potential for violence can be reduced.
President Prabowo Subianto has repeatedly emphasized that communication and deliberation are the best ways to resolve national problems. This directive demonstrates the government’s commitment to maintaining national stability through peaceful and inclusive means.
Indonesia has strong social capital to avoid a dead end like Nepal’s. By maintaining unity, strengthening digital literacy, and prioritizing ethical speech, this nation can ensure that democracy becomes a tool for unification, not division.
Nepal has demonstrated that brutal actions never solve problems; they only exacerbate existing social wounds. Therefore, Indonesia must remain vigilant, learn from the experiences of other countries, and remain committed to the path of dialogue and healthy democracy.
)* The author is a contributor to the Greater Indonesia Social Dialogue Forum
