Submit your Article

In the quiet corners of Nepal’s bustling cities and serene villages a silent crisis is unfolding. Hidden behind veils of cultural norms, economic hardship and peace, is a chorus of silent cries echoing in the shadows. While the nation takes pride in its rich heritage and culture, resilient people, an alarming number of children and adolescents struggle with their mental health that remain unacknowledged and untreated.

Mental health issues among children in Nepal are on the rise. According to a 2023 report by UNICEF, nearly 20 percent of Nepali children show signs of anxiety, depression and other psychological conditions. Yet, only a few of them receive the help they need. In a society where mental health remains heavily criticized, their children often endure their struggles in silence, their cries enveloped by cultural norms.

Parents often push their children to excel academically, believing success in education is the only pathway to succeed in life. To add to their burden, children are often forced to follow passions or career paths chosen by their parents. They are forced into professions their parents once dreamt of but could never achieve themselves. However, this pressure can lead  to anxiety, depression and even suicidal thoughts. According to a 2022 study by the Nepal Health Research Council, Suicide was the leading cause of death among Nepal youths aged 15 to 24.

One of the most significant barriers in addressing the issue is societal perception of mental health. Many parents, bound by traditional beliefs and limited exposure to psychological conditions, perceive mental health conditions as a sign of weakness or even spiritual imbalance. They even believe it to be karma or some sort of evil spirit. Some parents even unacknowledged their kids’ conditions thinking they are making excuses to hold back from their responsibilities. Furthermore, the cultural emphasis on obedience and respect often leaves little room for children to voice their own dreams or dissent.

This lack of understanding and autonomy from parents is the reason why kids nowadays are distant from their parents. They seek solace elsewhere, their eyes glued to glowing screens, scrolling endlessly through the comfort of social media. They find the sense of belonging in the digital world, the happiness that seems absent at home. The only comfort or understanding they get from their parents is when they score 100 percent on a test or when they do better than some relatives’ kids. They are often called disrespectful or ungrateful when they try to isolate themselves from their parents hoping that would help them or they would find peace .

The consequences of neglect puts an impact on their social , academic and emotional behaviors, with some contemplating  self harm. Children feel like they are screaming underwater, the hidden cries not letting them find the way out. Silent cries are more dangerous than open cries as silent cries affect them from deep inside their heart and brain which leads them self-isolating, losing empathy and hating themselves. 

Despite the challenges, hope is not lost. There are many organizations and activists working tirelessly to break the stigma surrounding mental health in Nepal. But first and foremost, the house environment and family support is necessary and important as home is the place they are suffering most at.. Nepali parents are simply too uneducated about mental health; they neglect the silent cries so awareness should be spread.

In early October this year, Supreme Court Justice Prakash Man Singh Raut took charge of the judiciary as its head. Raut, a former advocate at the apex court, will lead the judiciary for nearly 18 months. While defending the special hearing at the parliament for his new role, Raut presented a 24-point action plan outlining his vision to make much-needed reforms in the judiciary.

But will CJ Raut really be able to walk the talk as the chief of a key organ of the state and restore public faith in it?

To safeguard democracy and maintain public trust, the judiciary must be fair, impartial and independent, which is a formidable task, indeed.

For Raut, the first challenge is improving the relationship between the Nepal Bar Association (NBA), an umbrella organization of Nepali attorneys, and the bench, at a time when the tussle between the two is worsening. This has resulted in delays in the appointment of judges in various courts, landing the judiciary in a mess and making the already-lethargic justice delivery system even worse.

Amid this tussle comes the apex court administration’s contempt of court case against the head of the NBA, Gopal Krishna Ghimire, in response to his demand for revisions in the ‘faulty’ Judicial Council Regulation. This comes after the council amended the regulation, placing the Supreme Court’s chief registrar at the second rank of high court if s/he gets appointed as a high court judge prompting the bar to decry the move as anti-constitutional.

NBA maintains that the council-effected change in the regulation affects career growth of senior judges working at the high court as the second rank in the court ensures early promotion to the coveted position of the chief judge and makes way for appointment as an apex court judge. NBA leaders believe the revised regulation will end up demoralizing high court judges.

Second, NBA believes that people’s faith in the judiciary is fading further with the recent judicial appointments by the council courting controversies and public criticism.

Third, certain controversial judgments on the part of the apex court over the years have tarnished the image of the apex court with the people openly criticizing them as if delays in justice delivery, corrupt practices and politicking were not enough.

Who’s responsible for this crisis in the judiciary?

Part of the blame goes to past CJs also. But is CJ Raut ready to mend ways, make a fresh start and transform the judiciary?

This question is important because the judiciary achieves legitimacy through excellent performance and impartial judgments.

At present, service-seekers feel that approaching courts for justice is a waste of time. Political agents feel safer than victims when a case lands at the courts. Public perception is that one gets justice if s/he is wealthy and/or powerful.

There’s a backlog of corruption cases in courts and if cases keep piling up with verdicts becoming a rarity, credibility of the judiciary will suffer further.

Scholars like Aristotle used to say, ‘justice is not a topic of argument but practical experience of heart’. However, that no longer remains relevant in the Nepali context.

For years, lawyers, judges, the public and other stakeholders have been demanding serious reforms within the judiciary, which has been facing some serious charges of corruption and political interference.

The actions of the Judicial Council, the apex body that appoints judges, almost always court controversy.

Owing to these factors, the new CJ should begin his reforms with the aim of enhancing the image of the judiciary as a free, fair and independent organ of the state. Obviously, the CJ can't perform this task alone, but he can at least make an honest effort.

The CJ can begin by seeking to win the trust of the NBA and the JC, especially in relation to the justice appointment process, and by taking action against judges performing below par. The JC has no other option than correcting the faulty regulation as it did not bother to consult the stakeholders while making changes in it. This move will help raise the level of public trust toward the judiciary.

The basic principles of the UN also state that the state should guarantee judicial independence, so it is the duty of all state organs, including the judiciary, to uphold judicial independence.

It’s time to steer the judiciary in the right direction by working together with all stakeholders concerned and the CJ should lead this effort.

Every day, we witness vehicles speeding recklessly on highways and even narrow roads. The roar of engines revving isn’t just noise; it’s a reminder of the ever-present danger. Overspeeding disrupts traffic, creates fear, and heightens the risk of road accidents that impact everyone—pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers alike.

The number of road accidents caused by overspeeding in Nepal is alarming. Reckless driving puts countless lives at risk daily, with many paying the ultimate price. Overspeeding is not just a traffic violation—it’s a grave threat. Without serious action, Nepal’s roads will continue to be a battlefield where speed takes precedence over safety.

Inspector Jitesh Dahal notes: “Many drivers claim ignorance of speed limits, while others justify it by saying they were in a hurry or made a mistake. Some, particularly younger individuals, speed for the thrill, even engaging in dangerous stunts they consider ‘cool.’”

Overspeeding is most common during off-hours when roads are clear. Two-wheelers are more prone to speeding than four-wheelers, as they can maneuver through narrow spaces with ease. Dahal observes that while official records don’t categorize by age, individuals aged 20-25 tend to speed more, whereas older drivers are generally more disciplined.

Certain areas are hotspots for overspeeding, posing increased risks. Highways, with long stretches and limited monitoring, tempt drivers to ignore speed limits. Residential neighborhoods and school zones, where safety should be paramount, also see reckless speeding, endangering children and pedestrians. These hotspots highlight the urgency for stricter enforcement and awareness campaigns.

Ram Laxmi Shrestha, a roadside resident, says: “I’ve seen many bikes and buses speeding dangerously, leading to potential accidents. Buses from Panauti and Dhulikhel seem to compete with each other. Some motorbikes, especially loud ones like ‘Crossfire,’ appear designed for high speeds. Authorities need to impose strict penalties.”

The reasons for overspeeding vary. For some, it’s the thrill of speed; for others, it’s the pressure of time constraints. When speed limits are loosely monitored and penalties are minimal, drivers feel emboldened to break the rules.

Psychologically, overspeeding is influenced by cognitive biases and emotional states. Optimism bias makes people believe they are less likely to be in an accident. Thrill-seeking behavior and peer pressure also play significant roles, particularly among younger drivers. Social influences encourage reckless driving, as individuals try to impress friends or prove themselves.

Multi-tasking while driving also increases the risk of unintentional speeding. In such situations, drivers lose focus on their surroundings. Counseling psychologist Kapil Sharma says: “Emotions like anger, depression, and anxiety can turn drivers into aggressive riders, leading to impulsive behavior on the road.”

Sharma suggests that visual techniques—such as impactful photos, videos, and slogans—can be highly effective in raising awareness. Placing such messages in prominent locations can serve as constant reminders to drive safely.

Efforts to curb overspeeding include speed cameras, fines, and awareness campaigns. However, gaps in implementation reduce their effectiveness. Speed cameras are often limited to specific areas, leaving many roads unmonitored. Fines may not deter habitual offenders, especially with inconsistent enforcement. Awareness campaigns, though impactful, often fail to reach at-risk groups like young or overconfident drivers.

With technological advancements, solutions like smart speed limiters, AI-powered cameras, and speed-sensing roads could help. However, implementing these measures requires significant investment and public cooperation, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive approach.

Young drivers are more likely to overspeed due to inexperience, peer pressure, and a sense of invincibility. Many take unnecessary risks, speeding through city streets and highways without considering the consequences. Peer pressure plays a key role—many young drivers push their limits to gain social approval. The thrill of speed can be intoxicating, but this reckless attitude often leads to accidents, putting not only themselves but also pedestrians and other road users in danger.

Stricter penalties and enhanced driver education programs are essential to reducing overspeeding, especially among young drivers. However, penalties alone are insufficient. Driver education programs must emphasize the dangers of overspeeding, incorporating real-world scenarios, defensive driving techniques, and the emotional and physical consequences of reckless driving.

As you navigate your daily commute, ask yourself: Is the time saved by speeding worth the potential cost—your life or someone else’s? Every time you press the accelerator, you make a choice. It’s not just about reaching your destination faster; it’s about responsibility. The question is, what kind of driver do you want to be? One who risks lives for speed, or one who values safety? The roads are in our hands—let’s choose to drive responsibly.

Imagine if the proposed Social Media Bill had been in place three years ago. Would Balendra Shah and Sunita Dangol have been able to connect with the public and win the local elections from Kathmandu? While their leadership and vision were strong, social media played a big part in spreading their message and gaining support. If this had been implemented three years ago, would then emerging leaders really be behind bars for voicing their opinions against the government, or would accountability still spare the powerful?

The ease of access to digital platforms has allowed many young politicians to enter the political scene. In Nepal, as of 2023, women hold 33.1 percent, and young people aged 30 or younger make up about 2.9 percent of parliamentary seats. Social media has been a key tool in breaking old rules, increasing political involvement, and driving drastic changes.

The ‘Bill Related to Operation, Use, and Regulation of Social Media in Nepal’ was introduced by Communications Minister Prithvi Subba Gurung in the Upper House on Jan 28. He said it aims to ensure good behavior and responsibility, but it has several worrying parts that challenge basic rights, especially those guaranteed under Articles 17 and 19 of Nepal’s Constitution. As a youth advocate, I still struggle to speak freely in a system that tightens control over digital spaces. This bill doesn’t just regulate—it silences, making it harder to challenge power and uphold the very rights democracy promises.

The recently enacted bill makes us question whether the transparency and accountability push of Sumana Shrestha would have achieved similar backing. The speed at which anti-corruption campaigns and gender justice campaigns for Niramla Pant’s case—today being the 2,386 day—spread across society would potentially have slowed down if this bill were in effect. The new legislation contains restrictive measures that restrict the voices of activists as well as public participation.

Problems with the bill

Section 18: Digital speech criminalizing

Section 18 of the bill says that if anyone does something harmful to national interests with bad intentions that causes hatred among groups or harms relations between federal units, they will face a five-year prison sentence, a fine of up to Rs 500,000, or both.

The definition of “bad intentions,” which is vaguely defined, creates possibilities for unfair enforcement. Under this policy, the authorities could falsely claim protection by countering their bad intentions. My detention could happen when I expressed criticism and opinions about my country's leaders, even if my motives were innocent. Are we not entitled to use our freedom of expression? We live in a democracy, and we have the right to free speech.

As an advocate and leader, will I be jailed simply for raising concerns about the government on social media? Meanwhile, those in power will have the freedom to do anything they want and misuse their authority without consequences. Where is the accountability for government officials who manipulate information and spread propaganda? Is this justice?

Sections 21, 22, and 23: Restricting political expression

Sections 21, 22, and 23 propose up to three years in prison or a fine of up to Rs 1.5m for hacking into someone’s identity or information via social media, tricking people, or blackmailing respectively.

The bill’s unclear language on “making fun of images, trolling, negative comments, and spreading false information” could be used against activists, journalists, and politicians who challenge the government. If I speak up about my village’s struggles, can those in power really accuse me of a crime? Over 50 journalists and activists faced arrest and harassment because of defamation laws in 2023. Activists, especially women fighting for gender equality and political changes, could be labeled as threats simply for demanding change.

This bill does not offer protection—it offers control. If laws are meant to protect democracy, they should safeguard free speech, not make it a crime. We do not need new ways to silence voices—we need real enforcement of existing laws that protect people, not punish them. We need a system that upholds justice, not fear. Will we let our voices be silenced, or will we stand against this growing threat to our democracy?

Section 20 (1): Government control over digital space

Section 20 (1) prohibits the sharing of secret information, potentially stopping journalists and whistleblowers from exposing corruption or governance failures. Instead of holding the powerful accountable, this law protects those in power by making it a crime to speak out. How will citizens ensure openness when the government itself decides what remains “secret”?

Adding to the concern, the government proposes a “Quick Response Team” with unchecked power to act against social media users—an emergency-level mechanism being misused to police opinions rather than respond to genuine crises. Who will monitor this team's actions? What safeguards exist to prevent abuse? In a democracy, should questioning authority be treated as a crime?

The bill enables a surveillance state disguised as regulation. Instead of protecting citizens from real threats, it strips away their right to express, criticize, and demand accountability. Is this the future of digital freedom in our country—where questioning power is outlawed, but those in power can manipulate the system without consequence?

A step backward for women and youths

My efforts to advocate the basic rights of women during my early period of leadership brought me persistent online harassment and opposition, particularly from men living in my community. The new legislation will make no difference unless the current rules receive proper enforcement. We require genuine action, which entails both keeping existing laws in force and holding those responsible for crimes accountable and safeguarding those standing up for justice. The use of legislation should never serve as a tool for denying people their right to disagree. People will not succeed in silencing those who choose to speak out.

For young leaders navigating Nepal’s political landscape, this law presents yet another barrier. Social media has been a powerful equalizer, allowing new voices to challenge established hierarchies. The strict regulation of online platforms, together with tools to silence political opposition, would erase all the recent political progress toward inclusivity. This measure gives the government control of public speech by both scaring citizens into silence and limiting their freedom to speak out.

As a society striving for gender equality, governance openness, and civic empowerment, we must ask: Do we want a future where new leaders are silenced before they even begin?