Lessons from another revolution

It is being said that history will hail the recent anticorruption movement in Nepal, popularly being called the ”Gen-Z protests,” as a paradigm shift in the political landscape of South Asia. Led largely by young people, this movement, which escalated dramatically in September 2025, was initially sparked by a government ban on various social media platforms, but it quickly morphed into a massive public outcry against widespread corruption, nepotism, and political elitism. The unrest culminated in the resignation of Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli and the dissolution of Parliament.

Another aspect that caught global attention was the violence and viciousness the protests brought. Demonstrators attacked the Parliament building, setting fire to the premises. The actual headquarters of the Prime Minister—an old, white palace converted to an office in the capital, Kathmandu—was set ablaze, along with the offices of the President, the Supreme Court, key government ministries, and several police stations. The businesses and homes of influential families were also targeted, including several stores belonging to a popular supermarket chain in Nepal. The most noteworthy attack was on the house of former Prime Minister Jhalanath Khanal, which was set on fire.

Media houses have hailed this movement in Nepal as nothing short of a revolution. But is this the only form of revolution that deserves recognition? Is violence the only language that the political class acknowledges? Can change only be brought by fire and brimstone?

In this light, I am reminded of the Anna Hazare Movement in India. As a Gandhian and passionate social activist, Hazare went on a 13-day hunger strike in 2011, demanding a powerful anticorruption authority. This grassroots advocacy moved corruption into the heart of public discussion and led directly to the passage of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013—India’s Ombudsman system—a clear demonstration of its transformative power.

The Philippines currently finds itself at a similar crossroad. The nation’s unfolding concern over the anomalous flood projects mirrors the era in India marked by widespread scandals like the 2010 Commonwealth Games and the 2G Spectrum scam. Many vital lessons from the Anna Hazare Movement can inform and empower the citizens of the Philippines today.

First, the movement was fundamentally a campaign of nonviolent civil resistance (Satyagraha), intentionally modeled after the principles of Mahatma Gandhi. Hazare’s act of a “fast unto death,” rooted in Gandhian nonviolence, was a potent symbol of self-sacrifice and purity of purpose. This moral clarity, contrasted sharply with the government’s perceived corruption and scandals, allowed the movement to galvanize an unprecedented, broad base of public support, particularly among the urban middle class. By casting the fight as one of moral citizens versus a morally bankrupt state, this overwhelming grassroots legitimacy created enormous public pressure, making it politically unsustainable for the government to ignore the demand for the Lokpal anticorruption bill.

Another positive to emerge from the movement was the mobilization of people, especially the middle classes, who normally would not take to the streets.

This grassroots advocacy successfully propelled the issue of corruption into the heart of public discourse and led directly to the passage of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013—India’s national Ombudsman system—a clear demonstration of the movement’s transformative power. Ultimately, the protests served as a profound wake-up call for India. Remarkably, the protests in Nepal and the Hazare Movement achieved similar results: both witnessed a substantial uproar among young demographics, solidified tangible political demands, and successfully engineered a major transition in political leadership.

In my humble opinion, this form of protest constitutes the real elements of a revolution. Nonviolent methods, like the hunger strike and mass civil resistance used by the movement, represent a superior method for enacting social change compared to violence. Critically, nonviolence undermines the moral legitimacy of state repression; when a nonviolent movement is met with force, it can trigger a “loyalty shift” among police, military, and institutional elites who may refuse to attack peaceful citizens. Conversely, resorting to violence alienates potential supporters, gives the state a legal and moral justification for brutal crackdown, and often leads to prolonged conflict rather than lasting, democratic reform.

These comparisons offer a compelling lesson on the efficacy of social change. A movement’s strategic use of “Satyagraha” and peaceful mass rallies guarantees a durable moral legitimacy, ultimately compelling the establishment to legislate and democratic routines to function, without bloodshed or systemic destruction. History clearly suggests that profound and lasting reform is more securely anchored by Gandhian principles of nonaggression than by chaotic confrontation.

——————

Gauri Singh is a lawyer and advocate practicing in India.