Submit your Article

The KP Sharma Oli administration’s decision to implement new legislation in Nepal aimed at controlling social media has encountered strong backlash, as supporters of free speech caution about significant risks to freedom of expression within the nation.

Communications and Information Technology Minister Prithvi Subba Gurung submitted the “Bill Concerning the Operation, Use, and Regulation of Social Media in Nepal” to the Upper House of the Federal Parliament on Jan 28, which has created controversy, with opposition parties such as the CPN (Maoist Center), journalist organizations, and civil society groups fiercely opposing it. 

The intended Bill aims to ensure that the operation and use of social media platforms are organized, safe, and systematic. Additionally, it aims to regulate these platforms by making both operators and users responsible and accountable “to foster social harmony and cultural tolerance.” 

Several aspects of the law are in conflict with Nepal’s constitution, and the use of ambiguous and incomplete terminology raises issues. Critics believe the government will use these loopholes to interpret the legislation in its favor. 

Another significant issue is the government’s direct participation as the plaintiff in all related cases, which gives authorities more power over how the law is defined and enforced.

Constitutional conflict over the Media Council Bill

The bill directly contradicts Articles 17 and 19 of Nepal’s Constitution. Article 17 preserves the right to freedom, declaring that “no one shall be deprived of personal liberty.” However, the bill goes beyond limiting personal freedom; it deliberately penalizes individuals for posting, sharing, liking, reposting, live streaming, subscribing, commenting, tagging, using hashtags, or referencing others on social media. 

Section 16(2) of the bill expressly forbids anyone from engaging in certain actions with malicious intent: “One must not post, share, like, repost, live stream, subscribe, comment, tag, use hashtags, or mention others on social media with malicious intent.” While the bill expressly criminalizes like or commenting, it fails to define “malicious intent,” making its interpretation problematic. Because the bill does not define the term’s scope or meaning, anyone charged under this clause could simply say, “I had no malicious intent,” making enforcement arbitrary and subjective.

The bill establishes a loophole through which government officials could potentially dodge accountability. If they violate the bill’s requirements, they can claim, “I did not act with malicious intent,” when the clause is triggered. It is uncertain whether they can evade blame.  The bill also has a provision for a fine of up to Rs 500,000. 

Furthermore, “ 19 of Nepal’s Constitution’ guarantees the right to communication, stating, “no prior censorship of publications and broadcasting, or information dissemination, or printing of any news item, editorial, article, feature, or other reading material, or the use of audio-visual material by any medium, including electronic publication, broadcasting and printing.”

Article 19(2) clearly states, “If there is any broadcasting, publishing or printing, or dissemination of news, article, editorial, feature, or other material through the medium of electronic equipment or the use of visuals or audio-visuals, no radio, television, online publication or any kind of digital or electronic equipment, or press, or other kind of media outlet, shall be closed, seized, or their registration cancelled for publishing, or transmitting, or broadcasting such material.”

However, the bill infringes this fundamental guarantee. Section 16(1)(a) of the bill recommends penalizing individuals for trolling photos. Where is the freedom to communicate?

Section 20 of the bill prohibits the release of confidential information, which is even more reprehensible. It will keep government defects, shortcomings, and pressing issues such as corruption, commissions, and bribery classified and concealed. If a journalist uncovers and exposes such information, they may face sanctions. This appears to be a clear implication. The government’s intention may be to conceal its weaknesses. It may seek to prosecute anyone who reveals such information.

The bill’s theoretical notion claims to “ensure the freedom of thought and expression as a fundamental right while safeguarding communication and confidentiality rights in electronic media,” however the reality appears to contradict this.

Malicious government intentions

Social media must be regulated in a number of areas. The bill does not simply contain negative provisions. However, the provisions described above violate citizens’ (users’) rights to free expression, privacy, and communication.  Furthermore, it appears that the government is contemplating using the social media bill to silence and punish its critics. Section 28 of the bill discusses the concept of “metered punishment.”

Section 28(2) of the bill specifies that “any offender who commits an offense more than once under this Act will receive double the penalty for each subsequent offense.” This means that the punishment will compound and escalate with each transgression of law. The bill appears strange. This is why many people have questioned the purpose of its construction. The punishment provisions are incredibly strange.

Is freedom of expression truly free?

In Nov 2024, freedom of expression on social media and the right to talk without fear of repercussions from the state became even more apparent. The event involving Ratan Karki, a Nepali student in Japan, demonstrated this even more clearly. Karki shared a contentious video on TikTok.  Although he made the video for fun, it might readily be believed that it was directed at the Prime Minister. Nonetheless, it was interpreted as a threat. 

Despite the fact that the video was intended to be a joke, officials are believed to have taken quick legal action. The fact that the state has issued an arrest warrant through Interpol in response has sparked interest. This demonstrates that even lighthearted disagreements can entail major risks. Similarly, Mohammed Zubair, a journalist and co-founder of Alt News, was arrested in India, highlighting the dangers that online activists and journalists confront. He was arrested for tweeting a criticism of the government and charged with “hate speech.” He had simply revealed misinformation. 

Nonetheless, he faced legal consequences. His detention and following legal battle have underlined the risks of criticizing the government under one’s true identity. It emphasizes the importance of using pseudonyms to defend one’s freedom of expression.

Is the role of government to ensure security or to stifle dissent?

The Social Media Bill is intended to protect users from cyberbullying and bogus news. However, it may accidentally silence the views of activists, marginalized groups, and people who use pseudonyms or anonymous IDs for personal security.  The bill’s broad and imprecise language, which might be used as a weapon against people who oppose the government, threatens silencing already vulnerable groups. This bill could make things much more dangerous for people who are already subjected to prejudice, abuse, and violence. It could also be used as a weapon by the government to crush dissent in the name of national security and integrity. 

Instead of providing a secure and open digital environment, such a legal system may exacerbate power disparities, pushing people from violent areas to keep silent or fight underground. While the government’s concern in combating misinformation is understandable, the extent of the measure raises serious concerns. That is, “Who is the government afraid of introducing this bill?”

If the bill is intended to safeguard citizens from dangerous content, why does it target those who use pseudonyms or false identities, particularly activists fighting for underprivileged communities?

Conclusion, in the digital age, where personal and collective identities are rapidly being formed online, the right to anonymity is critical for individual privacy and security. Nepal must acknowledge the value of this right and keep digital spaces accessible, inclusive, and free of surveillance and censorship. We must prioritize protecting the voices of the most vulnerable, those who use pseudonyms to express their opinions, campaign for change, and fight for their rights.

Days after Elon Musk, who is heading the US Department of Government Efficiency, announced a series of expenditures, including $39m allocated for Nepal, US President Donald Trump backed him saying that support to Nepal’s fiscal federalism is a fraud. 

The Elon Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) took to X on Sunday to announce that it has canceled the funding to be received by Nepal among several other nations. Nepal was set to receive $20m for fiscal federalism and $19m for biodiversity conservation. These funds were among several global aid allocations that have now been scrapped, including $40m for gender equality programs and $47m for improving learning outcomes in Asia. US President Donald Trump painted Elon Musk as his enforcer-in-chief Tuesday, hailing the tech billionaire’s zeal in implementing the blizzard of executive orders the president has issued since returning to office. In a joint interview broadcast on Fox News, the two men spent substantial time singing the other’s praises and dismissing concerns that Trump is overstepping his executive powers.

Trump has signed scores of executive directives in the past three weeks, many of which have been challenged in the courts as potentially unconstitutional. Billionaire Musk, who was Trump’s top donor during his 2024 presidential campaign, was tasked with leading the newly-created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), with the declared goal of rooting out “waste, fraud and abuse” in federal spending.

“One of the biggest functions of the DOGE team is just making sure that the presidential executive orders are actually carried out,” Musk told Fox News. In the interview, Trump insisted his policies–including a wholesale onslaught on federal institutions–should be implemented without delay and said Musk was instrumental in pushing them forward.

“You write an executive order and you think it’s done, you send it out, it doesn’t get done. It doesn’t get implemented,” Trump said. He added that Musk and the DOGE team have now become an enforcement mechanism within the federal bureaucracy to enact his administration’s agenda without anyone standing in their way—or else risk losing their jobs. And some guy that maybe didn’t want to do it, all of a sudden, he’s signing it,” Trump said.

Earlier this year, Nepal adopted its National Action Plan (NAP) on Business and Human Rights. This NAP was launched by the government of Nepal, Ministry of Labor, Employment and Social Security (MoLESS) in collaboration with the UNDP and supported by the governments of Japan and Norway. This is Nepal’s most substantial implementation on a national scale since the United Nations Guiding Principles (UNGPs) on Business and Human Rights were formally endorsed by the UN Human Rights Council in 2011. This ambitious five-year plan (2024-2028) aims to integrate human rights into Nepal’s economic development strategy, aligning with the UNGP’s 31 principles on governmental and corporate responsibilities to prevent and address business-related human rights concerns and issues. However, while this move is significant, it is essential to specifically address the challenges in the high-altitude mountaineering and adventure tourism sectors, where human rights issues remain a pressing concern. Looking forward, it is essential for Nepali businesses to implement human rights standards with active collaboration between the government and civil society.

BHR safety risk

Business and Human Rights (BHR) issues in Nepal are deeply entrenched in industries like adventure tourism, where structural inequalities and weak regulatory frameworks often expose vulnerable local populations on potential risks of human rights issues. The high-altitude mountaineering sector, for instance, showcases stark examples of these challenges. Indigenous Nepali workers, including guides and porters, form the backbone of this industry, yet they are disproportionately subjected to challenging working conditions, low wages and limited access to safety measures on training or equipment. Nearly half of all fatalities on Sagarmatha have been Nepali workers, highlighting the life-threatening risks they endure while facilitating the ambitions of international climbers. These figures fail to capture the many more who suffer life-long injuries, frostbite or post-traumatic stress from their work.

Those identified potential risks of these workers are compounded by cross-border employment practices, where international Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) often operate through local tour operators, distancing themselves from direct accountability for workers’ rights. This disconnect not only allows the perpetuation of unfair labor practices but also undermines the development of systemic solutions, such as robust safety standards and equitable profit-sharing mechanisms. Inadequate governmental oversight exacerbates this issue, leaving workers vulnerable to risks would not only enhance the sustainability of the world-renowned Nepali tourism sectors but also affirm the fundamental rights of Nepali workers, fostering greater equity and resilience in the industry.

National action plan

Nepali stakeholders, including civil society organizations (CSOs), business groups, academics and the media, are advocating for a participatory, transparent and accountable approach to the National Action Plan (NAP) on Business and Human Rights (BHR). Their key recommendations include:

• Inclusive process: Involve diverse groups, particularly those directly affected, and adopt the UN’s 15-step model developed by the UN Working Group on Business & Human Rights (UNWG).
• Transparency and accessibility: Ensure draft documents from agencies and businesses are made publicly available, offer platforms for feedback, and provide accessible mechanisms for redress.
• Alignment with international standards: National laws should align with international human rights norms, focusing on labor, indigenous, and gender rights.
• Integration with global frameworks: Ensure that the recently adopted NAP aligns with global initiatives, including the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Paris Agreement on climate change at a local level.
• Effective monitoring system: Develop a targeted implementation plan and system focused on mountaineering and adventure tourism, incorporating periodic reviews led by the Ministry of Labor, Employment and Social Security (MoLESS). Ensure the active participation of industry representatives, civil society organizations, local guides’ union and affected communities, in the planning and evaluation process.

Lessons from global practices

Many Western countries are pushing for stronger measures to tackle modern slavery and improve business practices. Global pressure from investors and new regulatory frameworks are encouraging stricter human rights standards, including mandatory Human Rights Due Diligence (HRDD). This year, the European Union introduced a directive requiring large companies to address human rights and environmental impacts in their operations and supply chains. It includes mandates for due diligence policies, risk assessments and climate transition plans, with penalties like hefty fines and civil liability for non-compliance. These developments are expected to inspire similar measures in other regions.

In contrast, Nepal faces hurdles in implementing binding regulations for human rights in tourism supply chains. Current strategies emphasize voluntary guidelines over mandatory requirements, which may encourage some businesses to adopt human rights disclosures. However, the non-binding nature of these measures risks inconsistent implementation by businesses, potentially limiting their impact on ensuring widespread adherence to human rights standards in business practices.

Way forward 

Nepal’s adoption of a NAP on BHR marks a vital step in promoting human rights in business practices. To advance further, Nepal should draw lessons from global efforts transitioning from soft law guidelines to mandatory, state-enforced Human Rights Due Diligence (HRDD) laws. Binding regulations that require companies to address human rights risks are too early to judge whether they are effective in driving accountability and systemic change, however, it is important for the government to take an active role in promoting businesses to respect BHR according to global UNGP standards. Instead of merely adopting Western-centric models, Nepal can tailor these approaches to its unique context, starting with a sector-specific focus.

Proper enforcement of Nepal’s NAP on BHR within mountaineering and tourism is essential. Effective implementation of NAP in these areas would ensure critical safeguards such as fair wages, safety training and equitable working conditions. However, a practical strategy could possibly involve piloting binding human rights laws in key industries like mountaineering and tourism, where vulnerable workers face some of the most severe risks. This pilot approach would allow Nepal to enforce critical safeguards, such as fair wages, safety training and equitable working conditions, while gradually building the capacity for broader implementation. By leading with tourism—a sector central to its economy and global identity—Nepal can demonstrate its commitment to protecting human rights while fostering sustainable business practices. This targeted enforcement would serve as a model for extending binding BHR regulations to other sectors in the future.

Shining a spotlight on the Business and Human Rights (BHR) aspects of Nepal’s iconic mountaineering and trekking industry, while addressing the different issues of indigenous workers, is crucial. This approach emphasizes Nepal’s commitment to BHR as an essential framework for achieving the SDGs, promoting UN charters and ensuring better livelihoods for the backbone of its mountaineering sector.

In our society, humor often serves as a mask, allowing people to navigate uncomfortable topics. However, when it comes to casual jokes about rape, sexual violence, or harassment, the consequences can be deeply harmful. These jokes are not isolated incidents; they are part of a broader cultural pattern that has normalized hurtful humor for far too long.

The so-called rape culture refers to a societal environment where sexual violence is trivialized, excused, or even normalized. It encompasses a range of beliefs and practices that perpetuate sexual objectification, the use of misogynistic language, victim-blaming, and the minimization of severity. The language of rape culture is woven into our everyday conversations—whether in casual chats among friends, jokes on social media, family gatherings, or even catcalling on the streets. These offensive remarks don’t occur in the shadows; they happen in broad daylight, often glorified or dismissed as harmless.

Societal structure

We live in a society where rape and sexual violence are compared to clapping hands—as if it takes two to tango. This mindset denies the reality that it is never the victim’s choice to be victimized; it is always the abuser’s choice to abuse. Yet, victims are often chewed up, spat out, and left to fend for themselves, while abusers are excused, justified, and even condoned. Common comments like, “She was asking for it with that outfit,” “She’s too pretty to be single,” or “She must have lots of guys after her,” reveal how deeply ingrained these attitudes are. Such statements tie women’s worth to male attention and objectification, showing how easily harmful humor is accepted and how poorly we understand sexual assault.

These jokes and comments are not just words—they have lasting impacts on the mind, spirit, and body. For some, they may seem like a minute of laughter, but for others, they can lead to lifelong trauma, feelings of shame, guilt, fear, and isolation. The problem lies not in the joke itself, but in its normalization. Every time someone cracks a rape joke and others laugh along, it sends a message that sexual assault is something to be joked about—something acceptable, even funny. This normalization creates an environment where victims are less likely to report incidents or speak up, fearing societal judgment and backlash. It’s crucial to remember that it is not the victim’s responsibility to fix these situations; it is society’s responsibility to create an environment where victims are believed, supported, and not judged. No one asks for or deserves such violence.

Negative side of social media

In the modern era, social media plays a significant role in shaping societal attitudes and perceptions. Unfortunately, it also perpetuates the language of rape culture—whether through memes, posts joking about sexual violence, derogatory terms in online conversations, or influencers who trivialize these issues. Movies and TV shows often depict sexual violence as a plot twist or something unserious, reinforcing stereotypes of masculinity and femininity. Women are portrayed as soft, dependent, and vulnerable, while men are shown as powerful and entitled to women’s bodies. Social media often blames victims for assaults based on their behavior or appearance, making character assassination and slut-shaming easier than ever. This has created a toxic influence on society, further entrenching harmful norms.

Nepal and so-called rape culture

In Nepal, a country built on a patriarchal social structure, women are often placed in subordinate positions, limiting their power and autonomy. Men are frequently portrayed as inherently predatory, while women are depicted as passive or overly sexualized. This dynamic has made it easier to adopt misogynistic language and behaviors. The caste system further complicates the issue, as marginalized groups face disproportionately higher risks of violence and often lack social support. According to the Nepal Police Headquarters Annual Fact Sheet for the fiscal year 2023/24, 3,441 cases of sexual violence were registered. Despite strict laws against rape and sexual violence under the Muluki Criminal Code (2074), enforcement remains inconsistent. The traces of rape culture in Nepal are evident, whether in the form of historical societal norms or today’s casual jokes and humor.

Solutions

As we navigate our daily interactions, it’s high time to recognize the power of language and the impact of our words. To challenge harmful jokes, we must speak out when we hear someone trivializing rape or making offensive comments. We need to stand firm against inappropriate humor and actively promote consent and respect. Encouraging jokes that empower rather than hurt can foster an environment where everyone feels safe and valued. Social media can be a powerful tool for activism, raising awareness, and providing a safe space for survivors to share their stories, rather than a platform for bullying or perpetuating harmful stereotypes.

Let’s critically analyze the jokes we tell and hear, breaking down the everyday language of rape culture. By doing so, we can create a society where respect and empathy prevail, and where no one has to endure the trauma of being silenced or shamed.