Submit your Article

The study titled ‘The immortality of too much money’, published in PNAS Nexus in June 2025 by Jackson Trager and Mohammad Atari, looks at how people around the world judge those who have far too much money. It clearly separates excessive wealth when one person holds a huge share of money from economic inequality, the overall gap between rich and poor in a society. The Gini coefficient measures this gap, with 0 meaning everyone has the same and 1 meaning one person has everything.

Across 20 countries and over 4,300 people, most do not see extreme wealth as very wrong. But views differ greatly. In rich and fair countries like Belgium and Switzerland, people are more likely to call it immoral. In poorer and less equal places like Peru and Nigeria, they accept it more, seeing it as a sign of hope or survival. The research uses Moral Foundations Theory, which says we make quick moral calls based on six basic feelings: care for others, equality, reward for effort (proportionality), loyalty to groups, respect for leaders (authority), and purity or avoiding things that feel dirty or wrong.

People who value equality and purity most strongly say too much money is bad. Those who focus on effort, loyalty and authority are more okay with it. A smaller study in the United States with 315 people showed that purity concerns go beyond money—they also make people judge too much ambition or pleasure as wrong. This explains why we call some rich people “filthy rich.” The study matters because as the world’s wealth gap grows, understanding these moral views can shape laws on taxes and fairness. In equal societies, people worry more about the harm of excess. In unequal ones, they often defend the system.

Shadow of plutocracy

The world’s richest one percent now hold more wealth than 95 percent of humanity combined. Oxfam  described this as “the shadow of global oligarchy” looming over multilateral decision-making. According to Oxfam’s report, over a third of the world’s 50 largest corporations—collectively worth $13.3trn—are now controlled by billionaires, either as CEOs or principal shareholders.The imbalance is particularly stark between the Global North and South. Countries in the Global South, which account for nearly 79 percent of the global population, own just 31 percent of total global wealth. The concentration of extreme wealth is not just an economic issue but it’s a moral and political crisis that undermines democracy and fuels inequality worldwide.

A 2014 survey in 44 countries found most people see the rich-poor gap as a big problem. It links inequality to poor health, more crime, less trust and lower happiness. Early lab tests with US students showed they prefer to share equally, even if it means less for all, and get angry at unfair sharing.

But some experts say people actually like unequal results if the process seems fair if effort and skill decide who gets more. This is procedural fairness (fair rules) versus distributional fairness (same amounts). However, Moral Foundations Theory splits fairness into equality (same for all) and proportionality (more for those who deserve it). Western studies focus on harm and justice. Other cultures add respect for leaders and purity. These ideas connect with purity, giving real meaning to“filthy rich.” Nepal’s Hindu and Buddhist roots also teach balance and clean living, stressing the need to keep the self and society clean from corruption, and treating greed as a demon.

A wave against filthy rich

At first glance, the recent GenZ protests might seem like a reaction to the Oli government’s decision to ban 26 social media platforms. But to call it just that would be missing the point entirely. What we’re seeing is not merely digital outrage—it’s a moral uprising.

For many young Nepalis, the ban was the last straw. Years of frustration over corruption, unemployment, impunity and the politicization of state institutions had already created a boiling pot. The social media ban was simply that one extra degree that made the water boil.

Let’s be honest—this anger isn’t just about losing social media. It’s about a political system that has long rewarded power over principles. It’s about leaders who preach sacrifice but live in luxury, often funded by public money. It’s about “Nepo kids” flaunting privilege while young people with talent and degrees struggle to find opportunity.

If the political class still believes this movement is about social media, they’ve missed the heart of the issue. What GenZ is demanding is course correction—a cleansing of the system, not a cosmetic fix. Corruption has become so normalized that even small acts of honesty now feel revolutionary.

And here’s where a new lens becomes important. Recent research based on Moral Foundations Theory shows that people’s moral sense is grounded in six values: care, equality, proportionality, loyalty, authority and purity. The study found something fascinating—those who value equality and purity are more likely to view excessive wealth as morally wrong. The equality link is obvious. But purity? That’s usually about cleanliness or sanctity. Yet, it gives us new meaning to the phrase “filthy rich.”

This insight hits close to home in Nepal. Corruption here isn’t just a governance issue—it’s a moral one. Our failure has been to treat it purely as a legal problem, not a cultural or ethical one. Until we rebuild our moral foundation—individually and collectively—no law, commission, or anti-graft body will be enough.

The GenZ movement, in essence, is calling for that moral reset. It’s telling every political party, leader, civil society group and citizen: clean your own house first. Because real change won’t come from outside; it will come when we restore integrity as a national value.

Nepal’s youth are not just demanding better governance; they are demanding a cleaner conscience from those who lead. And that’s a revolution worth standing for. Nepal’s Gen Z revolt  isn’t just protesting a social media ban but they’re demanding a moral reckoning.

Building a cleaner future

To end corruption, Nepal should make purity a daily rule. Require all officials to show their money and spending openly online. Use digital technology to watch government buying and stop secret deals. Prosecute the big theft cases quickly and fully. Pay honest workers much more to reward real effort.

Teach school children about these six moral feelings. Help them see how too much of anything, especially stolen money, harms everyone. Give young people real roles in anti-corruption offices. Their fresh eyes can keep the system honest.

The study warns that without change, old habits return. But Nepal’s youth have shown moral fire. By treating corrupt wealth as a stain on the country’s soul, leaders can build trust, close the wealth gap and create fair rules for all. This is the path to lasting good governance.

The author is an advocate

Nepali Congress General Secretary Gagan Kumar Thapa has said he is ready to forgo his candidacy for any position if party leaders agree to hold the party’s general convention on schedule.

Speaking at the Central Working Committee (CWC) meeting that resumed on Tuesday, Thapa proposed holding the party’s regular convention in December-January. He also stated that he would accept the condition barring both general secretaries from contesting in the same convention if that helps move the process forward.

“If you say the two general secretaries cannot contest this time and that helps us take the party toward the convention, we are ready for that,” Thapa told fellow leaders. “Let’s make that a commitment to untie the knot.”

Thapa proposed holding the 15th general convention from Dec 31 to Jan 3, stressing that if it cannot be organized by then, the only alternative would be a special convention. “If we cannot complete it in Poush under any circumstance, then there’s no other option but a special convention,” he said, noting that the party’s statute mandates it.

Thapa argued that the Nepali Congress should not head into elections without holding its convention, as it provides a platform to connect with the public and elect new leadership. “We must go to the people with renewed legitimacy. The general convention is our bridge to the voters,” he said.

Thapa also admitted that the party, which once led political movements, is now facing protests from within. “We are being cornered in the streets by our own people. If we fail to answer the questions of our cadres and supporters now, the voters will deliver their verdict during the elections,” he warned.

Thapa questioned whether the public and party committees were still waiting for the Congress to act. “Are people eagerly waiting to vote for us? Are our committees just sitting idle?” he asked, adding that voters would not wait indefinitely for Congress to resolve its internal disputes.

He dismissed claims that the recent GenZ movement was entirely sponsored, saying such interpretations were unfair.

Meanwhile, Acting President Purna Bahadur Khadka said efforts were underway to resolve all differences through consensus. “We are trying to create an environment where all agendas can be concluded through agreement,” he said, adding that informal meetings would continue in that regard.

However, the party remains divided over whether to hold the convention before or after the upcoming elections. The establishment faction, represented by Joint General Secretary Mahendra Yadav, has proposed holding the regular convention between 8-11 May 2026, while Thapa’s camp is for holding the convention in December.

The CWC meeting, which had been repeatedly postponed over disputes regarding the convention date, resumed at the party’s central office in Sanepa on Tuesday.

Dissenting leaders have already submitted signatures from 54 percent of convention representatives demanding a special convention if a regular one is not held before the vote.

At a separate gathering in Thapagaun, dissident leader Jagadishwar Narsingh KC accused the party’s central office in Sanepa of becoming “powerless” and claimed the party was being directed from Singapore, where party president Sher Bahadur Deuba and his wife, Arzu Rana Deuba, are currently undergoing treatment. “The party is being run from Singapore. Sanepa is helpless,” KC said, alleging that Deuba would return before the elections to distribute tickets in his favor.

Incidents of violence and murder against women in Nepal are on the rise, revealing the persistent and systemic nature of gender-based violence (GBV) deeply rooted in patriarchal structures. According to a recent report published by the WOREC Nepal, a total of 308 cases of gender-based violence were recorded between April and June 2025 across the country.

Of these, 41 cases were documented through media monitoring, while 267 cases were directly collected from WOREC’s working areas through its primary sources. The data shows that 21 were cases of murder, and three of attempted murders.

Globally, the trend mirrors a grim picture. Reports by UN Women and UNODC show that in 2022, around 48,800 women and girls were killed by their partners or family members worldwide. The number rose to 51,100 in 2023, meaning an average of 140 women and girls were murdered every day by someone within their own family. Alarmingly, 60 percent of these killings were linked to domestic violence, deaths that occurred because the victims were women.

The WOREC report shows that most of the victims of murder were young women in their most productive years. Among the 21 murder cases recorded between April and June 2025, 29 percent (six women) were between 18 and 25 years old, while 24 percent (six women) were aged 26 to 35. Another 19 percent (four victims) were girls under 18.

These statistics underscore that women aged 18–35, who are often socially and economically active, are at the highest risk of violence. According to WOREC, this reflects a control-oriented mindset born of patriarchy, which seeks to restrict women’s autonomy over their bodies, decisions, and freedoms. 

When women assert their rights or make independent choices, patriarchal structures often respond with resistance—sometimes culminating in brutal crimes like murder.

In most cases, the perpetrators are not strangers but husbands or family members. The report reveals that 43 percent (nine women) were murdered by their husbands, and 24 percent (five women) were killed by other family members. Additionally, 10 percent were murdered by neighbors, five percent by trusted friends, and 14 percent by former husbands.

This pattern aligns with global findings that intimate partner violence remains one of the deadliest forms of gender-based violence.

Among the victims, 82 percent (17 women) were married, while 10 percent (two women) were unmarried. The marital status of nine percent of victims remains unverified. These figures highlight how domestic and intimate settings, which should provide safety and support, often turn into spaces of danger and violence for women.

On June 20, in Kailashpur, Gauriganga Municipality-7 of Kailali, a 16-year-old girl, identified as Rita (name changed), was murdered by her 20-year-old brother-in-law. Rita, who had given birth just 16 days earlier, was living with her family while her husband worked in India due to financial hardship.

According to police and family accounts, Rita returned from a health post after vaccinating her newborn and found no food prepared for her. An argument followed, and her brother-in-law, angered by her complaint, strangled her to death in the middle of the night. He later dumped her body near a drain close to the house. The next morning, neighbors discovered the body. The accused has confessed to the murder, and legal proceedings are underway.

On July 7, in Belka Municipality, Udayapur, a 27-year-old man attacked his wife, Supriya (name changed), with a knife in a public area after a domestic dispute. The couple had gone to a nearby hotel for reconciliation talks, accompanied by relatives. During the discussion, the husband suddenly stabbed his wife in the chest and fled. Supriya survived and the police are pursuing the suspect.

Similarly, on 8 Oct 2024, in Belka Municipality-8, Manju (name changed), was burned to death by her 48-year-old husband, who poured petrol on her during a domestic quarrel. Despite efforts by neighbors to save her, she succumbed to her injuries. The accused was arrested and faces murder charges.

These are not isolated incidents but symptoms of a deeply entrenched patriarchal system that values control over compassion and silence over justice. The report stresses that domestic violence is often normalized within Nepali society—seen as a “private matter” that should be settled within the home. This culture of silence and reconciliation not only emboldens perpetrators but also weakens legal enforcement, leaving survivors unprotected.

Institutional tendencies to encourage reconciliation rather than legal action further exacerbate the problem. Many survivors are pressured into withdrawing complaints or “settling” cases, allowing offenders to repeat their crimes. This fosters impunity and reinforces structural inequalities that sustain gender-based violence.

According to the Nepal Police’s 2024–25 annual report, 38 women were murdered due to domestic violence, four following rape, and two due to dowry-related disputes. These numbers underline that femicide in Nepal is not merely a result of personal disputes but a grave violation of human rights arising from persistent gender inequality.

WOREC emphasizes that zero tolerance must be maintained for all forms of gender-based violence. It calls for an environment where women can report abuse without fear or stigma, and where law enforcement ensures swift investigation and prosecution.

The image of journalist Suresh Rajak, who was killed during the royalist movement on March 28 this year, comes into my mind as the world marks the International Day to End Impunity for Crimes Against Journalists 2025. Rajak lost his life in a horrific fire incident in suspicious circumstances while he was filming the demonstration from inside a house for a television channel. Despite the Federation of Nepali Journalists (FNJ) forming an investigation committee and repeatedly demanding a state-led inquiry, a proper investigation to identify and prosecute those responsible has yet to begin. In this article, the writer first provides an overview of journalist killings in South Asia, including Nepal, in 2025, followed by an analysis of the current status of justice for slain and disappeared journalists in Nepal. Finally, the article examines the underlying causes of these incidents and explores possible ways to ensure accountability and protect journalists.

Together with Rajak, South Asia witnessed the killing of nine journalists in 2025, according to a report from the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) published on 1 Nov  2025. The IFJ also confirmed that by November 2025, India recorded the highest number of journalist killings in South Asia, with four journalists—CH Naresh Kumar, Dharmendra Singh Chauhan, Raghvendra Bajpai, and Mukesh Chandrakar—losing their lives in targeted attacks, bombings or crossfire incidents. In Bangladesh, two journalists—Md Asaduzzaman Tuhin and Khandaker Shah Alam—were killed, while in Pakistan, two media workers—Abdul Latif Baloch and another unidentified journalist—lost their lives. If we look at the global picture,  a total of 99 journalists have been killed so far in 2025, according to the IFJ’s latest statistics. More than half of these deaths—50—occurred in Gaza, Palestine, followed by eight in Ukraine and six in Sudan.

According to UNESCO, 85 percent of journalist killings remain unpunished worldwide. As the majority of journalists killed this year were reporting from war zones, the prospects for justice in these cases are even slimmer.  Globally and regionally, impunity remains the norm rather than the exception.

Let’s return to the case of Nepal. In 2024, Nepal witnessed another tragic killing of journalist Suresh Bhul (30). While local authorities claimed that cattle theft was the reason behind the lynching, reports from Reporters Without Borders (RSF) revealed that Bhul had been receiving threats from local elected officials due to his activism for the right to information and his critical stance on local governance issues.

Decades of impunity

During the decade-long Maoist insurgency (1996–2006) and the post-conflict period, journalists were often targeted by both warring sides and political actors. According to Freedom Forum, 23 journalists were killed between 1996 and 2016—14 during the conflict and nine after the Comprehensive Peace Accord (CPA) of November 2006. Also, the period witnessed enforced disappearance of three journalists during the period, per data from the Freedom Forum. The Federation of Nepali Journalists (FNJ) has varying data. According to the FNJ, a total of 38 journalists were killed and four had become victims of enforced disappearances up to 2018. Since then, two more journalists—Suresh Rajak and Suresh Bhul—were murdered in 2024 and 2025, respectively

Despite the long list of journalists killed in Nepal, justice has been delivered in only a handful of cases, with convictions achieved in just a few—Dekendra Raj Thapa, Uma Singh, Birendra Shah, Arun Singhaniya and Yadav Poudel. Journalist Dekendra Raj Thapa, abducted and killed by Maoist cadres in 2004, finally received some semblance of justice after 17 years when the Dailekh district court, on 12 Dec 2021, sentenced perpetrators  to life imprisonment. In the case of Uma Singh, a radio journalist murdered on 11 Jan 2009, the Janakpur high court upheld the Dhanusha district court’s verdict, sentencing  culprits to life imprisonment with property confiscation. Progress was made in the 2007 killing of journalist Birendra Shah, with Narendra Faujdar arrested on 27 Oct 2024, and Hareram Prasad Kurmi on 10 Sept 2020, while few other perpetrators had already been sentenced to life imprisonment. 

In another landmark verdict, the Janakpurdham high court, on 21 Sept 2022, sentenced the culprits  to life imprisonment for masterminding the 1 March 2010 murder of media entrepreneur Arun Singhaniya.  In the case of Yadav Poudel, a journalist killed on 3 April 2012, in Jhapa, the appellate court in Ilam, on 8 July 2014, sentenced the perpetrators to life imprisonment. Further, cases of slain journalist Jagat Prasad Joshi and media entrepreneur Jamim Sah remain sub judice in court whereas cases related to the killing of journalists Krishna Bahadur Sen and Gopal Giri are pending before the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), reflecting long delays in transitional justice mechanisms. For the remaining majority of cases, the justice process has not even begun.

Justice delayed, justice denied
According to the research article ‘Understanding journalist killings’ by Sabine C Carey and Anita R Gohdes, published in 2020, journalists are frequently targeted because their reporting exposes corruption, human rights violations, organized crime or other politically sensitive issues that may threaten the power, reputation or interests of local authorities and influential actors. Such reporting can challenge entrenched networks of power, making journalists vulnerable to intimidation, threats or lethal attacks. Interestingly, the majority of these cases do not lead to prosecution, largely due to a combination of factors, including the lack of political will on the part of the state, weak law enforcement, insufficient legal protections and an overall lack of accountability.

Way forward

The way forward to address impunity for crimes against journalists in Nepal begins with recognizing and celebrating the rare successes where justice has been achieved, such as in the cases of Dekendra Raj Thapa, Uma Singh, Birendra Shah and Arun Singhaniya. Next, the processes of TRC and other transitional justice mechanisms must be expedited to resolve pending cases like those of Krishna Bahadur Sen and Gopal Giri. Simultaneously, the justice process should commence for the majority of unresolved killings and disappearances, including long-standing cases such as Milan Nepali, Iswor Budhathoki and Suresh Bhul. Strengthening investigative capacity, shielding judicial processes from political interference, protecting witnesses and prioritizing prosecutions even in remote areas are essential for breaking the cycle of impunity.

The author is a media researcher based in Nepal