Submit your Article

Nepal’s private sector has called on the government to create a safe and conducive environment for conducting business and economic activities, citing recent targeted attacks on businesses that have spread fear among investors.

In separate statements, two of Nepal’s largest private sector umbrella organizations—the Confederation of Nepalese Industries (CNI) and the Federation of Nepalese Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FNCCI)—expressed serious concern over increasing attacks on industries and businesspersons. They reported widespread vandalism, looting, and destruction of property, which have displaced workers and jeopardized investor confidence.

The CNI warned that continued insecurity could lead to increased unemployment and a sharp decline in foreign direct investment (FDI). "The private sector should be allowed to operate without fear. If investors feel unsafe, it will severely affect economic stability and job creation," the statement read.

CNI also emphasized that rebuilding the public and private properties damaged in the attacks will require billions of rupees—resources that the government cannot provide alone. "The private sector is a major source of income for the government, and its support is crucial for reconstruction efforts," it added.

The FNCCI echoed similar concerns, highlighting that the aspirations of the younger generation—such as dignified employment, self-employment opportunities, and effective use of tax revenues—should be addressed urgently. The organization called on the government, political parties, and stakeholders to exercise restraint and engage in dialogue to revive economic momentum.

“In this peak tourism season, we must send a positive message to the international community,” FNCCI stated.

The statements follow the September 9 attacks on several private businesses, including luxury hotels, car showrooms, and departmental stores. Over two dozen hotels were vandalized, with total damages reportedly exceeding Rs 25 billion.

Three days after violent protests shook the nation, Nepal is gradually returning to normalcy with heavy security deployment and cautious optimism among the populace. However, the process of government formation remains the key focus, as citizens look to political stability for lasting peace.

The recent unrest in Nepal, largely driven by the youth-led “Gen Z" movement, erupted over demands for political reform and accountability. Protesters accused political leaders of inaction, corruption, and a disconnect from the people’s concerns. The protests quickly escalated, turning violent, leading to mass prison breakouts, damage to public and private property, and a paralysis of normal life in many parts of the country. To restore order, the government deployed the Nepal Army, Nepal Police, and Armed Police Force, enforcing strict security measures across affected regions.

Currently, night-time curfews are strictly enforced, with heavy deployment of military personnel across major urban areas. During the daytime, prohibitory orders are in place, allowing individuals to move about but banning public gatherings. Main streets remain largely deserted, although some private vehicles are seen on the roads. Public transportation remains suspended.

Banks and small markets, especially in inner city areas, have cautiously reopened, but major business houses and offices remain closed. Government offices, including Nepal Police headquarters, are slowly resuming operations. The police have urged the public to submit photos, videos, and any proof of individuals involved in the recent violent acts. More than 11,000 inmates who escaped during the chaos are still at large. Authorities have called on them to return voluntarily, and security forces have begun arrest operations targeting escaped prisoners.

Despite signs of recovery, fear lingers. "There are still fears that mobs could attack again. It would be a huge relief if a new government is formed soon," said Kishwor Tamang, a shopkeeper in Kathmandu. In the wake of the crisis, the nation’s attention has shifted toward forming a new government. President Ram Chandra Poudel has taken the initiative, holding consultations with representatives of the Gen Z movement, leaders of major political parties, and constitutional experts.

A key debate centers around the potential appointment of Sushila Karki as the new Prime Minister. While one faction of the Gen Z protesters supports Karki—a former Chief Justice known for her integrity—others oppose her candidacy. Furthermore, the 2015 Constitution bars non-members of Parliament from holding the prime ministerial post, posing a constitutional hurdle. Initially, the Nepal Army facilitated early discussions for government formation. Now, President Poudel is taking the lead amid rising pressure from political parties to adhere strictly to constitutional provisions. 

The private sector, which suffered major losses due to vandalism and disruption, is slowly regaining its footing. Business leaders have expressed determination to rebuild despite the challenges ahead.  However, the tourism industry has taken a severe blow. Several hotels were targeted during the unrest, and the perception of instability is expected to significantly reduce tourist inflow in the short term. As the country cautiously recovers, all eyes are on the nation’s leaders to form a stable and inclusive government that can restore public confidence and chart a path toward lasting peace and economic revival.

Nepal is in the grip of one of the gravest crises in its recent history. What began as a youth-led movement against corruption and political stagnation has exposed deep fractures in the country’s political system and raised urgent questions about the future of its democracy.

On Sept 8, thousands of young people, primarily from the GenZ demographic, gathered in Kathmandu to protest corruption, unemployment, and the government’s controversial ban on 26 social media platforms. The ban, announced by Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli’s administration, was justified on the grounds that the platforms were not formally registered in Nepal. For many youths, however, it symbolized an attempt to silence dissent and stifle the online activism they had relied on to hold leaders accountable.

The protesters had already mobilized campaigns such as Nepokids, which exposed the lavish lifestyles of politicians and their families. That day, they marched toward the restricted zone around the Federal Parliament. When some entered the compound and set parts of the building on fire, police responded with live ammunition, killing 19 demonstrators. The use of lethal force shocked the nation and ignited mass outrage. Home Minister Ramesh Lekhak resigned that night, and the government hastily announced the lifting of the social media ban. But the damage was done.

On Sept 9, tens of thousands of people poured into the streets of Kathmandu and beyond, demanding justice for what they called a massacre. As protests spread like wildfire and turned violent, Oli resigned in the afternoon. His departure, however, did little to calm the situation. What began as a protest against corruption and authoritarian overreach descended into chaos. Infiltrators, some linked to suspected criminal groups and political spoilers, transformed demonstrations into waves of arson, lynching, looting, and assaults. GenZ representatives distanced themselves from the violence and appealed for calm, but their calls went unheeded.

Scenes of destruction dominated both social media and news channels: crowds ransacking and burning state institutions such as the parliament, the Supreme Court, ministries inside the Singha Durbar complex, and police stations. There were prison riots and mass escapes in different parts of the country. Private residences of prominent politicians were also attacked. Former prime minister and Nepali Congress president Sher Bahadur Deuba and his wife Arzu Rana Deuba, the foreign minister, were assaulted inside their home before being rescued by the Nepali Army. Media outlets were not spared either, as angry mobs set fire to the offices of Annapurna Media Network and Kantipur Media Group.

The delay in deploying the Nepali Army to restore order raised serious questions. Only by midnight did the Army intervene, assuming full responsibility for security. So far, more than 30 people, including security personnel, have lost their lives, and different parts of the country are still under curfew and prohibitory orders.   

This situation did not emerge overnight. It was the culmination of years of growing disillusionment with the political class. Since the restoration of democracy in 1990, three major parties—Nepali Congress, CPN-UML, and CPN (Maoist Center)—have dominated the political landscape. Over three decades, they rotated in power but failed to deliver stability, prosperity, or accountability. Instead, they became synonymous with corruption, patronage, and personal enrichment.

Government offices turned into hubs of bribery, where basic services became nearly inaccessible without paying officials. Meanwhile, leaders and their families flaunted wealth, living in stark contrast to millions struggling with unemployment and poverty. Bureaucrats, rather than serving as a check, colluded with politicians to deepen corruption.

In recent years, comparisons with Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, both rocked by mass protests against corrupt elites, circulated widely in political circles. Analysts warned that unless Nepal’s leaders stepped aside for a younger generation, frustration could erupt into something uncontrollable. Instead of heeding these warnings, senior leaders tightened their grip, refusing to retire or allow generational change.

Opposition forces, including the Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP) and royalist groups, sought to exploit popular anger. Earlier this year, the RPP staged large demonstrations, some of which turned violent. Former King Gyanendra Shah openly backed a royalist revival, though divisions within the monarchist camp weakened the movement. For mainstream parties, this brought temporary relief.

But Oli’s decision to ban social media reignited the anger. In a society where traditional institutions had lost credibility, digital platforms were one of the few tools young people trusted to challenge corruption and mobilize peers. The ban was thus seen as both authoritarian and deeply out of touch, adding fuel to an already volatile situation.

Now, Nepal faces a momentous political test. Demands from Gen Z protesters—particularly for an end to corruption and a stable government—must be addressed. Yet political stability also requires preserving the constitutional framework.

There are growing calls for President Ram Chandra Poudel and Army Chief Ashok Raj Sigdel to act strictly within the constitution while picking the head of interim government. Civil society, the media, and the legal community have warned that any deviation could push Nepal into uncharted territory.

Constitutional experts argue that the only viable way forward is to dissolve parliament and call fresh elections under the 2015 constitution. Abandoning the constitution, however, would be disastrous. Drafted after the abolition of the monarchy, it was the product of seven years of painstaking negotiation. Despite criticism from Madhes-based and royalist groups, it remains Nepal’s most inclusive charter to date. Rewriting it in today’s polarized climate would be nearly impossible.

The three major parties still control more than two-thirds of parliament, meaning no political roadmap can succeed without them. Yet their leadership has lost legitimacy in the eyes of young people. Unless they bring in new leaders and show genuine willingness to reform, protests are unlikely to subside.

The violence has struck a fragile economy already under strain. Nepal faces rising external debt, difficulty paying civil servants, and eroding investor confidence. The Sept 9 attacks paralyzed the private sector, long considered the country’s growth engine. Thousands of jobs have been lost. Without quick stabilization, more youths will migrate abroad, draining Nepal of much-needed human capital.

Education has been disrupted, with private schools and colleges targeted. Tourism, which peaks in September, has been devastated by attacks on hotels and travel businesses. Trade, too, has stalled as customs offices were vandalized. Without urgent international aid, Nepal risks sliding into deep recession within months.

International partners, particularly India, China, and Western donors, must play a constructive role in supporting Nepal’s democratic institutions, stabilizing the economy, and deterring external actors from exploiting the turmoil.

Despite the destruction of parliament, courts, and ministries, state institutions must not grind to a halt. The judiciary has pledged to resume partial services, and ministries should operate from makeshift offices. 

Nepal now stands at a crossroads. The crisis is both a warning and an opportunity. It has revealed the extent of public anger against a corrupt elite, but also the determination of a new generation to demand accountability.

As the Nepal Army initiates formal talks with representatives of the Gen-Z protest movement, pressure is mounting on President Ram Chandra Poudel to find a solution within the framework of Nepal’s 2015 Constitution. The recent upheaval has raised profound questions about the durability of the current republican system and the path forward for a deeply divided society. 

Following the unprecedented violence that erupted on September 9, political parties, civil society, and their affiliated organizations remained largely silent. Dozens of political leaders were targeted, with protestors torching homes and launching violent attacks that sent many into hiding. The security situation has now begun to stabilize under the command of the Nepal Army, which has taken full control of national security.

In the aftermath, key political forces including the Nepali Congress, CPN-UML, and CPN (Maoist Center) have issued coordinated press statements urging all parties to seek a resolution within the bounds of the 2015 Constitution. They have made it clear that they do not seek to lead or claim stakes in the upcoming interim government; their primary concern, they say, is the preservation of the constitutional order and the republican system established after 2006.

Ousted Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, currently residing under army protection in Shivapuri, issued a public appeal emphasizing his commitment to the current political system. “This constitution gave the youth freedom of speech, movement, and the right to question authority,” Oli said. “It is my responsibility to protect this system. I am hopeful that there will be no compromise against the republic.”

Pushpa Kamal Dahal, Chairman of CPN (Maoist Center), echoed similar sentiments, noting that the demands of the Gen-Z movement are not aimed at dismantling the political system, but rather at ensuring accountability and change within it. “We must listen to the young generation,” he said, “but within the framework of the constitution.”

The largest parliamentary party, Nepali Congress, also expressed support for the protestors’ concerns but insisted that any political transition must honor the 2015 Constitution. On Thursday, student wings of major parties staged a symbolic protest in Kathmandu, defending the existing federal and secular democratic system.

A coalition of civil society organizations has also weighed in, calling on President Ram Chandra Poudel to act as a neutral guardian during the transitional process. In a joint statement, they said: “The newly formed civilian government must prioritize anti-corruption efforts and good governance—but this must happen within the current constitutional framework.” They also emphasized that the President should be directly involved in all negotiations and peace-building efforts.

The Nepal Army, now the central mediator in the crisis, is playing a critical role in brokering discussions. After preliminary talks with Gen-Z protest leaders, the Army plans to facilitate a final round of negotiations in the presence of President Poudel, who himself is now under Army protection.

While the formation of a new interim government appears imminent, significant uncertainty looms. Speculation is growing that the incoming administration may dissolve Parliament and commit to fresh elections within a year. However, whether this will happen within constitutional limits remains a key question.

If the new government respects the 2015 Constitution, a legal and relatively smooth transition through elections is possible. But if a new constitution is pursued, the process will be fraught with challenges. The current constitution was a hard-won compromise among diverse political forces, including the Madhesi and Janajati communities, following years of civil conflict and negotiation.

Some royalist factions are pushing to dismantle the current system—particularly federalism and secularism—in favor of a return to monarchy or centralized governance. However, this would likely provoke fierce resistance from historically marginalized groups who see the existing constitution as a symbol of their hard-earned inclusion.

As Nepal stands at a critical crossroads, the path ahead is both uncertain and complex. The political vacuum must be filled carefully. Without the support of major political parties—who still command significant power in local governments—the new government could face significant obstacles in governance, legitimacy, and long-term stability. Nepal’s 2015 Constitution, once hailed as a progressive step forward, now hangs in the balance.

The Nepal Army, currently overseeing the country’s overall security situation, has initiated preliminary negotiations with representatives of the Gen-Z protest movement. According to sources, more than a dozen self-proclaimed representatives of the movement visited the Army Headquarters and met with Nepal Army Chief Ashok Sigdel.

Both Army Chief Sigdel and President Ram Chandra Poudel had earlier called on the protesters to engage in dialogue. During the meeting, the Army Chief reportedly urged the group to select a consensual representative for more focused negotiations.

Following the meeting, Gen-Z youth activists have turned to the social media platform Discord to continue internal discussions. Since early morning, they have been deliberating on choosing a representative and formulating a unified set of demands for the movement.

Political parties have begun responding after some protesters attacked leaders and residences belonging to the Nepali Congress and CPN-UML. In a press statement, the Nepali Congress—the largest party in the 275-member House of Representatives—condemned the violence and urged President Poudel to initiate dialogue among political parties.

Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli has resigned, but it remains unclear whether he continues to serve as a caretaker Prime Minister. Both Oli and President Poudel are currently under the protection of the Nepal Army. Since midnight on Tuesday, the Army has assumed control of national security operations, including the mobilization of Nepal Police and the Armed Police Force.

Uncertainty looms over whether the Army will assume full control or if a civilian government will be formed. Protesters are calling for the dissolution of both the constitution and parliament—demands that mainstream political parties strongly oppose. Despite the turmoil, one outcome appears increasingly likely: the formation of an interim government with a commitment to hold early elections.

The restoration of democracy in 1990 and the promulgation of one of South Asia’s most progressive constitutions ushered in a new era for Nepal’s media sector, which had long been under strict state control during the 30-year Panchayat regime. The constitution provided an enabling environment where both journalists and investors could operate free from fear of arbitrary arrest or harassment.

It explicitly prohibited the banning, seizure or cancellation of newspaper registrations, giving private investors a sense of security. 

Many top political leaders, who were primarily educated in India and exposed to global democratic ideals, understood that freedom of speech and expression was the cornerstone of democracy. At the same time, Nepal’s economic liberalization policies, which encouraged deregulation, privatization and an open-market economy, expanded the advertising market, the primary revenue source for the media industry.

In this environment, a significant number of private investors entered the media sector. On the one hand, this helped establish media as a legitimate industry, a major development compared to the Panchayat years when outlets served mainly as political tools for the ruling regime or opposition forces fighting for democracy. Media was then less a profession or industry and more of a mission, funded by both sides for political ends. On the other hand, journalism began to emerge as a glamorous and financially rewarding career, attracting growing numbers of professionals.

This surge also pushed universities to introduce journalism education and the media industry quickly absorbed the graduates. In the initial years, the Nepali media landscape was dominated by newspapers which broadly fell into three categories. The first were party-affiliated papers, serving as the mouthpiece of major political parties. The second were state-owned newspapers which enjoyed strong influence. The third were privately owned broadsheets which soon rose to prominence, led by Kantipur. The daily, which was launched in 1993, has grown into one of Nepal's most influential media houses today. Many newspapers, however, shut down over time due to unsustainable business models.

Since 1990, the media industry has expanded rapidly in both reach and diversity. As of 1 Sept 2025, data from the Department of Information and Broadcasting shows Nepal has 8,000 registered newspapers, 5,135 online media outlets, around 700 radio stations and 250 television stations. While this growth has enhanced access to information and amplified diverse voices, the sector continues to face challenges of quality, accountability and financial sustainability.

From the mid-1990s onward, newspapers gradually lost their monopoly as the primary source of information for the Nepali people. Although state-owned television and radio stations were already popular, the rise of private radio broadcasting reshaped the landscape.  Community radio stations, in particular, gained immense popularity for their ability to deliver news instantly. In rural areas, they became transformative platforms for disseminating news, information, education and public service messages, as well as amplifying the voices for marginalized groups, including women.

Television expanded shortly thereafter, rapidly increasing its reach nationwide. But the most disruptive change came with the rise of online news portals, which began to pull audiences away from print, radio and television. Mainstream media, once the dominant source of reliable information, has since seen declining readership and revenue as digital platforms mushroomed.

Nevertheless, Nepal’s mainstream media has made profound contributions to the nation’s socio-political development, particularly during the democratization process. Following the 1990s political changes, the country entered a turbulent period marked by two major challenges: The Maoist insurgency, which sought to impose a one-party communist regime through armed struggle and the monarchy’s attempts to reassert power, both of which undermined the constitutional order established in 1990.

During this period, the media came under attack from both sides. On one hand, it faced repression from the monarchy, particularly between 2001 and 2006, when censorship, harassment and confiscation of journalistic materials were common. On the other, the Maoists targeted journalists and media institutions, resulting in the deaths of over 36 media workers. These dual pressures placed media outlets in an extremely precarious position, as they struggled to uphold the principles of press freedom and democratic accountability amid criticisms that media should remain neutral and refrain from political engagement.

Despite censorship, threats and violence, the media remained steadfast in its commitment to democratic values, human rights and civil liberties. It continued to serve a watchdog role, exposing abuses of power and advocating for political reform. Today, however, the rapid expansion of digital media and video-sharing platforms presents new challenges to the sustainability and credibility of traditional media institutions. While the technology has improved access to information, it has not provided an adequate substitute for quality journalism. Independent, institutionalized and trustworthy media is essential in an environment increasingly polluted by misinformation, disinformation and propaganda. Yet, as outlets continue to investigate corruption and hold those in power accountable, they continue to face hostility from political actors and state institutions. This growing antagonism undermines press freedom and poses a serious threat to democracy.

The evolution of media in Nepal reflects the broader political and technological transformations the country has undergone. From the rise of radio in the 1990s to today’s digital disruption, media has consistently played a central role in supporting democracy, informing the public and amplifying marginalized voices. Protecting independent and institutional media is, therefore, vital to safeguarding democracy from collapse.

Unfortunately, mainstream media’s importance often goes unrecognized, except within the business community, which has begun to voice concerns.  In an interaction organized by the Confederation of Nepalese Industries (CNI) recently, top business leaders underscored the need for independent media that can question the government, ensure accountability and raise awareness on business and economic issues. Encouragingly, the private sector has recognized that while digital platforms may fulfill the need for instant information, they cannot replace the role of independent media.

This perspective highlights a crucial distinction between institutional media and the rapidly growing digital platforms. While digital platforms have significantly increased access to information and diversified voices in the media landscape, they often lack the editorial rigor, accountability structures, and ethical standards upheld by established media institutions. Digital platforms are frequently driven by clicks, algorithms, and viral content, which can prioritize sensationalism, misinformation, or unverified news over facts and context. In contrast, mainstream media—with its professional journalists, editorial oversight, and commitment to journalistic ethics—serves as a cornerstone of reliable information and democratic discourse.

The business community's support for independent media is particularly significant. It reflects an understanding that a functioning democracy, rooted in transparency and informed public debate, creates the foundation for sustainable economic growth. Independent media exposes corruption, monitors public spending and informs policy debates—all of which contribute to a healthier economic climate. Their support is thus not only altruistic but also a recognition of the symbiotic relationship between a free press and a thriving economy.

In conclusion, while digital platforms may serve as supplementary sources of information, they cannot replace the foundational role of independent, institutional media in a democratic society. It is essential that all sectors, not just the business community, actively support and defend mainstream media. Without strong, independent journalism, democratic accountability weakens, public discourse deteriorates and the very fabric of democracy comes under threat.

After years of tension and hostility, India and China are slowly moving toward rapprochement, signaling a potential shift in the geopolitical landscape of the Indo-Pacific region. Their recent interactions, notably during the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in Tianjin, China, are being closely observed not only across South Asian capitals but also in Western capitals, particularly Washington, DC.

On Aug 31, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi met Chinese President Xi Jinping on the sidelines of the SCO summit. This marked one of the highest-level engagements between the two nations since their last meeting in Kazan in Oct 2024. The deadly Galwan Valley clash in 2020 had severely strained bilateral ties.

During the meeting, both leaders acknowledged the progress made in stabilizing their relationship and expressed intent to build on this momentum. A particularly sensitive area—the long-standing border dispute—was a focal point. Modi noted that after the disengagement along certain friction points at the Line of Actual Control (LAC), an “atmosphere of peace and stability” had emerged. He further stated that special representatives from both countries had reached an agreement on enhanced border management.

Chinese President Xi emphasized that both sides should not let boundary issues define the overall relationship. He advocated for stronger bilateral cooperation and said, “It should be the right choice for China and India to be good-neighborly friends and partners that help each other succeed, and have the dragon and the elephant dance together.”

The ‘Dragon and Elephant’ metaphor has been previously invoked by Chinese officials, including Foreign Minister Wang Yi, who in March this year described it as the only correct strategic choice for both sides.

The Galwan Valley clash of June 2020 was the most serious military confrontation between India and China since the 1962 war, resulting in casualties on both sides. The incident led to a rapid deterioration in diplomatic, economic, and people-to-people ties. In the aftermath, direct flights between the two countries were suspended, the Kailash Mansarovar Yatra was halted, and economic cooperation was curtailed.

However, signs of normalization have begun to appear. Both the Kailash Mansarovar Yatra and direct air travel between New Delhi and Beijing are set to resume, signaling a renewed interest in rebuilding trust.

The rapprochement comes at a time when both countries are facing economic headwinds—partly due to external pressures such as the US trade war. US President Donald Trump’s administration has imposed steep tariffs on Chinese goods and extended similar measures to India, further complicating relations with both Asian powers.

As economic nationalism and protectionism rise in the West, India and China are increasingly turning to each other—not out of mutual affection but pragmatic necessity. Both countries are exploring expanded market access, supply chain integration, and greater cooperation in global governance.

At the SCO summit, Modi emphasized the importance of the bilateral relationship, stating, “Cooperation between our two countries is linked to the interests of 2.8bn people. This will also pave the way for the welfare of all humanity,” he said. Despite the warming tone, deep strategic divergences remain, particularly in the Indo-Pacific region. India is a key member of the Quad alliance, along with the US, Japan, and Australia. The group aims to promote a free, open, and rules-based Indo-Pacific, which Beijing perceives as an anti-China bloc.

India has also rejected China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) on grounds of sovereignty and transparency—especially given that the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a flagship BRI project. Moreover, India remains wary of China’s growing influence in South Asia, particularly in countries like Sri Lanka, Nepal, and the Maldives, where Beijing has invested heavily under its regional outreach strategy.

Despite these regional tensions, both countries continue to collaborate on global platforms. India and China are active participants in BRICS—a bloc that includes Brazil, Russia, and South Africa—which aims to offer an alternative to Western-dominated institutions. Discussions are ongoing about introducing a BRICS currency, although differences between India and China on implementation persist.

In their statements, both leaders recognized their roles as ancient civilizations, populous nations, and key voices of the Global South. They pledged to continue cooperation in multilateral frameworks on issues like climate change, sustainable development, and global economic governance.

India-China relations have seen cyclical highs and lows since they established diplomatic ties in 1950. Major milestones include Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi’s landmark visit to China in 1988, and Chinese President Xi’s visit to India in 2014, followed by reciprocal visits and two informal summits in 2018 (Wuhan) and 2019 (Chennai). These engagements laid the groundwork for what was once seen as a promising new phase in bilateral ties.

However, the Galwan clash derailed much of that progress. Now, with global realignments and economic shifts, both countries appear to be reassessing their strategic calculus. The recent SCO declaration also criticized unilateral economic measures—widely interpreted as a rebuke of the West’s use of tariffs and sanctions. 

“Member States oppose unilateral coercive measures, including those of an economic nature, that contravene the UN Charter… negatively affecting the global economy, undermining fair competition, hindering international cooperation and the achievement of the UN Sustainable Development Goals,” the declaration states.

The meeting between Modi and Xi in Tianjin symbolizes a cautious thaw between two regional heavyweights who have more to gain from cooperation than conflict. Yet, while economics may bring them closer in the short term, deep-seated geopolitical differences will continue to shape the trajectory of the India-China relationship. Whether the dragon and the elephant can truly dance or merely avoid stepping on each other’s toes remains one of Asia’s most critical strategic questions.

Tensions between governments and social media platforms are on the rise around the world. States are pushing for regulation to combat disinformation, curb hate speech, safeguard national security, protect minors and assert sovereignty over digital space. Tech companies, however, long accustomed to operating globally with minimal state oversight, are often reluctant to comply with country-specific rules.

Increasingly, governments are requiring local registration or licensing as a condition to operate.

While some platforms accept these demands, many resist, particularly in smaller and less influential countries that lack the leverage to enforce compliance. Nepal offers a telling example of this ongoing battle. Over the past few years, the government has attempted to regulate major platforms, though critics fear such moves could also restrict freedom of speech and expression.

On August 28, the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology issued a seven-day deadline for all social media companies—domestic and international—to register locally or face progressive deactivation. While platforms like Viber, TikTok, Global View, We Talk and Nimbuzz have complied, most major players like X (formerly Twitter), YouTube, LinkedIn, Reddit, Snapchat and WeChat continue to operate without registration. Telegram, under pressure, has begun the process.

The requirement is not just about paperwork. Registered platforms must designate a local point of contact, a grievance officer and a compliance officer, effectively obliging them to establish a physical presence in Nepal. The policy reflects growing public concern over disinformation, hate speech and illegal content that many believe threaten social harmony.

However, enforcement of this policy is challenging. With millions of Nepalis relying on these platforms for communication, business and entertainment, abrupt bans could spark public outrage. The 2023 TikTok ban, lifted only after months of negotiation, demonstrated both the limits of state power and the possibilities of enforcement. TikTok’s eventual re-registration showed that, with sufficient pressure, even global giants can be brought to the table if they see enough value in the local market.

Nepal is not alone in this regulatory push. In 2024, Malaysia introduced licensing requirements for platforms with over eight million users. While some platforms complied, others like Meta’s Facebook and Instagram, and Google’s YouTube, are still negotiating. The European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA) is often held up as a global benchmark. It rebalances the responsibilities between users, platforms and public authorities, and the protection of fundamental rights. Nepal could draw lessons from the DSA, particularly in ensuring that regulations are not solely punitive, but also protective of democratic values.

Another growing area of concern worldwide is the protection of minors. In 2025, Australia became the first country to impose a mandatory minimum age of 16 for most social media platforms through its Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill. Non-compliance to this legislation carries heavy fines. Nepal, which is seeing increasing reports of online harms affecting children, should consider similar protective legislation.

One of the thorniest issues in social media governance is content moderation. Although tech companies have deployed large moderation teams and AI-driven tools, governments see these efforts as inadequate, especially when it comes to locally sensitive content or criticism of state policies. But beneath this lies a deeper tension: while governments claim to be fighting disinformation, they may also use regulation to suppress dissent and limit freedom of expression. In countries such as Turkey, Pakistan, India and Indonesia, social media rules have often been doubled as tools of political censorship. The same risk exists in Nepal too. Regulation is necessary, but it must not be weaponized to silence critics or undermine the press. A strong legal framework should guarantee that posts from independent or mainstream media are protected, and that takedown requests are transparent and subject to oversight. In the neighboring countries, the Indian government has taken a slew of measures in order to regulate social media platforms.

Another pressing issue is privacy. Social media companies collect vast amounts of personal data, raising concerns about misuse, surveillance and inadequate safeguards for users. Addressing these challenges requires more than registration requirements alone. As Nepal finalizes its Social Media Bill, it should adopt a multi-stakeholder governance model, bringing together not only government agencies, but also platforms, civil society, journalists, academia and international partners.

Open dialogue with major platforms can help align expectations, clarify provisions and ensure mutual accountability. Beyond that, sector-specific laws, robust data protection frameworks and digital literacy campaigns are essential. Regional cooperation, particularly among global south countries facing similar challenges, could amplify Nepal’s voice and build a stronger front for fair regulation.

So far, Nepal’s approach has leaned too heavily on government control. For regulation to be effective and democratic, the country must shift from a control mindset to a governance mindset—one that balances accountability with protection of rights. The relationship between states and social media companies is at a critical juncture. For Nepal, this is an opportunity to craft a regulatory framework that tackles online harms without undermining digital freedoms. A thoughtful, inclusive and globally informed approach could allow Nepal to emerge as a leader in social media governance rather than just another regulatory battleground.

Ultimately, the challenge lies in striking a balance between free speech, content moderation and privacy. Constant dialogue between the government and platforms is essential, given that tech companies operate globally but also be held accountable locally. Another hurdle is the aggressive lobbying that media platforms extensively engage in against regulatory efforts—a trend already visible in Nepal.

Stronger rules inevitably affect the business interests of social media companies, and resistance is fierce. Global experience shows that states face significant pushback whenever they attempt to rein in tech giants. Nepal must navigate this pushback carefully, ensuring its regulatory ambitions protect citizens without stifling democratic values. In conclusion, regulation of social media is still an evolving concept  in many countries and there is no one-size-fits-all model; the only way is to closely follow the steps taken by other countries, and learn from each other. Nepal should also closely follow the attempts being made for global governance.