Submit your Article

Nepal’s prison system reflects the deep contradictions of a country that has enshrined human dignity and humane treatment in its Constitution but has failed to translate these guarantees into practice. Overcrowding, poor facilities, and a purely custodial approach have left correctional facilities overwhelmed and ineffective. Article 20 of the Constitution prohibits torture and cruel treatment, while Article 21 secures every person’s right to dignity, yet prison conditions in Nepal remain far from these commitments.

The Prison Act, 2079 introduced a significant legal breakthrough by incorporating provisions for humane treatment, classification of inmates, and the possibility of open prisons. Particularly important is Section 41 of the Act, which explicitly authorizes the establishment and management of open prisons, outlining the criteria for selecting eligible prisoners and the conditions under which they may serve their sentences in less restrictive environments. This section embodies a shift from viewing prisons solely as spaces of confinement to institutions of correction, emphasizing rehabilitation and reintegration. However, despite the legal foundation, practical implementation has been timid, with only a handful of facilities in Nuwakot and Pokhara functioning under the open or semi-open model.

The reformist intention of the legislature is further supported by the Criminal Offense (Sentencing and Execution) Act, 2074, particularly Section 28, which provides courts with discretion to impose non-custodial alternatives to imprisonment. Under this provision, probation, parole, community service, or other supervisory mechanisms can be applied in place of incarceration, subject to specific terms and conditions designed to ensure accountability. This provision complements the philosophy of open prisons by reducing reliance on imprisonment for non-violent offenders and promoting rehabilitative sentencing. Yet in practice, judges have been reluctant to fully exercise these powers, and the probation system remains underdeveloped and disconnected from the open prison framework.

Experiences from the few open prisons in Nepal demonstrate the transformative potential of this model. Inmates in Nuwakot and Pokhara engage in agriculture, carpentry, and other vocational activities, with a portion of their earnings supporting their families. They live under minimal security, governed largely by trust and self-discipline. This aligns with the intent of Section 41 of the Prison Act, which envisions open prisons as mechanisms of rehabilitation rather than exclusion. Comparative evidence from countries like India, where Rajasthan’s open prisons have functioned successfully for decades, and from Scandinavia, where open and semi-open prisons form the mainstream correctional system, further reinforces the practicality and effectiveness of this approach.

The judiciary has echoed this reformative vision. The Supreme Court of Nepal has, through multiple rulings, directed the State to ensure humane treatment of prisoners and explore alternatives to custodial punishment in line with constitutional mandates. The Court has recognized that incarceration must not merely punish but must prepare inmates for reintegration. However, judicial pronouncements have not been matched by executive commitment, and without budgetary support or political will, the directives remain aspirational rather than operational.

Critically, Nepal’s hesitation stems not only from administrative inertia but also from entrenched societal attitudes. Many perceive open prisons as leniency, ignoring that overcrowded, punitive prisons actually heighten risks to public safety once inmates are released. Reformative measures such as those envisioned in Section 41 of the Prison Act, 2079 and Section 28 of the Sentencing Act, 2074 are not concessions to offenders but investments in safer communities. They recognize the inevitable truth that prisoners will return to society, and the State must decide whether they return as broken individuals or as rehabilitated citizens.

For Nepal to address its correctional crisis, open prisons must become policy rather than experiment. This requires amending the Prison Act, 2079 to provide clear and transparent criteria for eligibility, ensuring oversight and accountability, and linking probation and parole more coherently with open prison management. Courts must more actively apply Section 28 of the Sentencing Act to divert non-violent and first-time offenders from closed prisons. The government must allocate resources for training, infrastructure, and monitoring. And civil society, academia, and the media must help shift public perception by highlighting the successes of rehabilitative justice models.

Prisons are not merely holding cells; they are mirrors of the State’s humanity. Continuing to ignore constitutional guarantees and legislative provisions will perpetuate a system of abuse, inefficiency, and insecurity. The open prison model authorized under Section 41 of the Prison Act, 2079, coupled with the non-custodial alternatives under Section 28 of the Sentencing Act, 2074, offers Nepal a pragmatic, cost-effective, and humane path forward. The question is whether the State has the courage and will to put its own laws into practice, or whether these progressive provisions will remain unimplemented words on paper while prisons collapse under their own weight.

In the Brahma-saṁhitā (5.1), Brahmā proclaims that the Supreme Lord is complete with sat (eternity), cit (consciousness), and ānanda (bliss). Since the soul is a subtle fragment of God, it inherently shares these qualities. Just as a drop of ocean water contains the essence of the ocean yet cannot be called the ocean itself, the soul reflects the Lord’s nature but is never equal to Him. This distinction reveals that the soul’s inherent state is blissful. Just as chili is intrinsically hot, salt inherently salty, and water naturally fluid, the soul is inherently joyous. Yet, under the restless sway of the mind and worldly illusions, humans forget this foundation and construct artificial values. Can a strong house exist without a solid foundation?

In the Upadeśāmṛta, Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī classifies divine energy into three types: internal (antarāṅga), marginal (taṭastha), and external (bahiraṅga). The soul belongs to the marginal category. Internal energy is inseparable from God, whereas external energy constitutes the material world. Being marginal, the soul can either gravitate toward God or succumb to illusion—a principle psychology identifies as free will. William James aptly called humans the ‘chooser of destiny.’ Here, māyā represents the tendency to mistake the unreal for reality, making bewilderment a natural aspect of the soul’s conditioned state.

Ānanda Saṃhitā, authored by Ghanshyam Khadka, awakens the dormant joy within humans. Flowing seamlessly through the convergence of impersonalism, personalism, and science, it offers practical pathways to rediscover bliss. Khadka, who writes in both fiction and non-fiction, has also authored works such as Nirvāṇa, Putaliko Ghar, Nyāyako Avasān, Jīvan ra Nyāya, and Darbar Ko Dukhaant.

Psychology indicates that every human mind generates and concludes approximately 60,000–80,000 thoughts daily. Khadka’s work presents practical methods to channel this mental flux toward physical, mental, and spiritual purification. Napoleon Hill, in Think and Grow Rich, emphasizes persistently recording goals even before achieving them—a principle Khadka elaborates under the chapter Virecana.

Furthermore, according to American psychologist Barbara Fredrickson’s Broaden-and-Build Theory of Positive Emotions, feelings such as joy, gratitude, peace, love, playfulness, and curiosity enhance creativity, generosity, and physical well-being. They strengthen resilience and expand one’s perspective. When a person cultivates broad-minded thinking, tolerant behavior, and refined conduct, they transcend the false ego and embark on the journey toward authentic bliss.

To understand spirituality, one must distinguish between nature itself and its products. For example, a tree is not nature itself but a product of nature, composed of the five great elements: earth, water, fire, air, and ether. In Bhagavad-gītā As It Is, Lord Kṛṣṇa proclaims, “I am the seed-giving father of creation.” This clarifies the existence of the soul, the Supersoul, and the Supreme Lord.

The author further explains that as the alignment between mind and body strengthens, happiness naturally increases—a concept echoed in modern medicine as enhanced immunity. To alleviate human anxiety, Khadka offers a playful reflection: “Before birth, in the competition of 500 million sperm, only one successfully united with the egg.” Remembering this makes one feel fortunate rather than anxious. Once internalized, despair and sorrow lose their grip.

Attaining bliss requires uprooting the thorns of hardness, cruelty, and envy from the mind. In their place, the soil of the heart must be fertilized with compassion, seeded with love, and watered with friendship. Whether one gains or loses in life, if the mind rests in self-contentment and unity with the soul, worldly vicissitudes cannot disturb it. Lord Kṛṣṇa, in the Bhagavad-gītā, calls such a state sthita-prajña—where one transcends pleasure and pain, gain and loss, victory and defeat, and dwells in enduring inner peace.

Khadka likens the mind to a crystal, reflecting the colors of whatever it encounters. Similarly, a person’s life is profoundly shaped by their associations and environment. Whether one delights in the presence of others or enjoys solitude, whether one thrives by suppressing others or uplifting them—all depends on the company one keeps.

The fundamental distinction between human and animal life lies in the evolution of consciousness. Eating, sleeping, fearing, and mating exist in both. Yet when humans rise above these basic instincts, profound inquiry into spiritual truth emerges. The Vedānta-sūtra thus states: athāto brahma jijñāsā—“Now, therefore, inquire into Brahman.” Questions such as “Where did I come from? What is my relationship with the universe?” pave the path to lasting joy.

Delaying this awakening is perilous, as Gautama Buddha warned: “To think that there is enough time is man’s greatest delusion.” The Upaniṣads echo this urgency: life is fleeting, and the awakening of consciousness must begin immediately.

In the chapter Bhāvanā, the author examines the mind’s relationship with ego. While some philosophers define ego as false identity—accepting what is unreal as real—this presents a subtle distinction, showing that mind and ego are not entirely synonymous.

Ultimately, Ānanda Saṃhitā does not merely encapsulate philosophy in words; it provides practical guidance for attaining peace and joy in daily life. As the flow of bliss deepens, readers naturally immerse themselves, completing a transformative journey long before they realize it.

The author is a researcher, chemist, and spiritual seeker

Nepal, a landlocked country situated between two major economies—India and China—faces numerous developmental challenges. Among them, the growing influence of informal trade stands out as a major obstacle to economic growth and institutional stability. While formal trade is regulated, taxed, and contributes to the state’s capacity, informal trade operates outside the law. It includes activities that are unregistered, untaxed, and often illegal. Over time, this shadow economy has become deeply embedded in Nepal’s economic structure. In many ways, Nepal suffers more from the harmful effects of informal trade than from any shortcomings in formal trade.

Informal trade in Nepal takes many forms. It includes the smuggling of goods such as gold, fuel, medicines, money laundering and electronics across open borders. It also includes unregistered businesses, undocumented labor, and transactions carried out entirely in cash to avoid tax and regulation. Nepal’s long and porous border with India, combined with difficult-to-monitor terrain in the north, makes informal trade easy to conduct and hard to control. On the domestic front, many small and medium-sized enterprises operate without any legal registration. As a result, they fall completely outside the formal economic system.

The scale of informal trade in Nepal is vast. Estimates suggest that the informal economy may account for 35 percent—40 percent of the country’s GDP and more than 80 percent of total employment. This means a large portion of Nepal’s economic activity is hidden from the state. It does not contribute to taxes, cannot be properly measured, and creates unfair competition for businesses that do comply with the law. While formal trade has its own inefficiencies—such as bureaucratic delays, red tape, and occasional corruption—these can be addressed through policy reforms. Informal trade, by contrast, creates deep and lasting damage that is harder to fix. It undermines public revenue, weakens institutions, and limits Nepal’s ability to plan and deliver services.

Addressing the informal economy is not simple, but it is necessary. A multi-pronged approach is needed—one that focuses on simplifying formal procedures, using technology, building trust, and offering real incentives for businesses and workers to shift into the formal system.

One of the first priorities should be to make it easier for small businesses to formalize. Many avoid registration simply because the process is slow, complex, and costly. Nepal should adopt a digital, one-window registration system that reduces paperwork and lowers barriers to entry. If formality becomes easier and less expensive, more businesses will join.

Another key step is improving border management. Nepal cannot control smuggling effectively using traditional methods alone. New technologies such as automated scanners, GPS tracking, and electronic cargo systems should be introduced. Just as important is cooperation with neighboring countries. Shared data and joint monitoring can help prevent illegal trade across borders.

The informal economy also depends heavily on cash, which makes transactions untraceable. Promoting digital payments is a powerful tool to reduce this dependence. However, digital infrastructure alone is not enough. The government must also invest in public awareness, digital literacy, and incentives to encourage both consumers and businesses to use digital platforms.

To support this shift, the state should reward those who comply. Businesses that register and follow regulations should receive benefits—such as tax breaks, better access to finance, and eligibility for government contracts. This changes the perception of regulation from being a burden to being a business opportunity.

Labor reform is another vital area. Most informal workers in Nepal lack legal contracts, benefits, or protections. To bring these workers into the formal economy, Nepal must design labor policies that fit the needs of small enterprises. Portable social security schemes, flexible contracts, and minimum wage protections should be introduced even for small and transitioning firms.

Overall, the informal economy reflects not just illegal behavior, but deeper problems in Nepal’s institutions and systems. It is not enough to use force or punishment. What Nepal needs is transformation—simple, transparent, and fair systems that encourage people to participate legally. Informality is often a result of necessity, not criminal intent. That’s why the government must respond with practical solutions that make formalization more attractive and accessible.

In conclusion, while informal trade may provide income and survival for many, it does long-term harm to Nepal’s economy. It limits tax collection, distorts markets, and weakens the foundations of good governance. Compared to formal trade, whose problems can be corrected through reform, informal trade creates much deeper challenges. If Nepal wants to build a resilient and inclusive economy, it must take bold steps to reduce the size and influence of its informal sector. By simplifying procedures, using technology, and offering clear incentives, the country can bring more of its economy into the formal fold—and unlock its full potential for growth and prosperity.

On September 4, 2025, the Government of Nepal decided to block social media platforms that have not been registered in Nepal. The decision has created a wave of divided opinions - some people argue that this is the right move to ensure accountability from social media platforms, while many civil society organizations, digital rights advocates, and concerned citizens have condemned it as a regressive step against digital freedom.

From my standpoint, while regulation is necessary, blocking platforms undermines the very freedoms we are trying to protect.

Registration is necessary - but blocking is not the answer

To put it straight: the debate is not about whether social media platforms should be registered in Nepal or not. They should be. These platforms are global companies making significant profits, also via operating in Nepal. Like any other company working here, they must comply with Nepali regulations, ensure transparency, and clearly state how and why they are collecting and using the data of Nepali citizens. That expectation is fair and necessary.

However, blocking access to unregistered platforms is not the right way forward. Social media has evolved into more than just entertainment or casual networking - it has become a central place for people to express themselves, connect with communities, access information, promote businesses, and even mobilize for social causes. For many, these platforms are now tied to their daily lives, their livelihoods, and their freedom of expression.

Cutting off access does not solve the underlying problem; it only punishes ordinary users.

The role of social media platforms

It is also true that social media platforms have a responsibility. If the Government of Nepal has been repeatedly asking them to register and they have not complied, these companies should at least provide a formal response or clarification. Ignoring regulatory requests only deepens mistrust and leaves citizens caught in the middle of a standoff between government and corporations.

Why blocking is a problem

Blocking social media platforms creates several issues:

Restriction of freedom of expression: Social media has become one of the most accessible means of voicing opinions, especially for young people, marginalized groups, and most people. Blocking platforms limits these freedoms.

Impact on small businesses and creators: Many Nepali entrepreneurs, artists, and small businesses rely on social media for promotion and sales. Blocking platforms threatens their livelihoods.

Disruption of information access: Social media is also a primary source of news and information. Shutting platforms risks creating an information vacuum, where misinformation and rumors can spread even faster.

Loss of connection for families: The Public relies on messaging apps and social media to stay in touch with family members living abroad or in distant parts of Nepal. Blocking these platforms directly affects family communication and emotional well-being.

Negative signal to the global community: Such a move portrays Nepal as hostile to digital rights and freedom, which can harm its reputation internationally.

It is true that the Government of Nepal has the authority to regulate companies operating within its borders. Demanding registration is within its rights, and restricting services for non-compliance is legally possible. But the way this authority is exercised matters. Choosing to block entire platforms is a policy decision - one that is not the most effective or rights-respecting. Smarter alternatives that protect both regulation and citizens’ freedoms are required to be considered.

What should have been considered

Instead of blocking access, the government could have taken more constructive steps:

Dialogue and Negotiation: Establish structured discussions with platform representatives, civil society, and experts to find workable solutions for registration and compliance.

Transparency in Process: Clearly communicate to the public what the requirements are, why they matter, and how citizens’ rights will be safeguarded.

Rights-Based Approach: Ensure that any regulation respects the constitutional right to freedom of expression and aligns with international human rights commitments.

Conclusion

Yes, platforms should register and comply. But blocking them for non-compliance is a disproportionate punishment that hurts ordinary Nepalis more than the companies.

Platforms must be accountable and transparent, but accountability cannot come at the cost of citizens’ digital freedoms. Blocking platforms is a blunt and regressive tool - it restricts expression, impacts livelihoods, and risks isolating Nepali citizens in the digital age.

A Question of democratic values: At its heart, this debate is not just about regulation, it is about the kind of digital future Nepal envisions. Are we moving forward on our constitutionally recognized democratic path, where freedom of expression and access to information are respected? Or slipping into a more control-oriented and regressive approach? Blocking platforms may seem like a quick solution, but it risks eroding the very democratic principles Nepali people have worked hard to build.

As a country, Nepal needs smarter, more balanced solutions - ones that demand responsibility from tech companies while also protecting the rights of the people who use them every day.