Submit your Article

As a decor enthusiast, you are always on the hunt for something novel to add to your house. Perhaps you want a new centerpiece for the dining table or you think your living room walls could use something else besides that lone clock and the painting you have had for years. Sometimes, you suddenly get the urge to replace the vases around the house with something spectacular. Come to think of it, you need new planters as it’s time to repot your green babies. But where can you find decor items that aren’t mundane and don’t cost an arm and a leg? This is where you might be stumped. Here is a carefully curated list of places where you can pick up some super interesting things for your home. 

Toit Studio

This ceramics studio, located in Sanepa, Lalitpur, has an interesting range of vases, planters, plates, mugs, jugs, and bowls and trays that you can use in the kitchen or bathroom, among other things. There are a variety of shapes and sizes available, and they are really aesthetic. Most of the things you find here are stuff that you might have seen on Pinterest. Pick a piece or two to change the look of your space. The good thing is that the price range is affordable. But they don’t accept cards so make sure you have digital payment or cash with you when you go there. 

Sana Hastakala

Founded in 1989 and backed by UNICEF then, Sana Hastakala is an NGO that empowers marginalized communities through traditional skills and modern techniques. It’s a treasure trove of Nepali handicrafts. From rugs and table runners to felt shoes, slippers and more, there’s a lot of good stuff here. The prices, we feel, are cheaper than other handicraft stores in Kathmandu. The quality of the products is top-notch. The outlet is located in Jhamsikhel, Lalitpur near the Army Chief’s residence and it’s open from Sunday to Friday from 10 in the morning to six in the evening. We recommend going with a friend as you might need help deciding what to buy as there’s just so much to choose from. 

Deego Nepal

Deego Nepal is a sustainable lifestyle brand founded in 2019. They avoid plastic in their products which are crafted from eco-friendly materials like bamboo by women in Bardiya, Dang, and Kapilvastu. They have meticulously woven baskets, trays, placemats, and coasters among other things. All this can add a touch of rustic charm to your decor. Consider replacing your regular stools with bamboo stools from Deego Nepal to infuse nostalgia and warmth into your space. The items might be a little on the pricier side but considering their quality and that they are mostly handmade it’s justified. They have a physical outlet at Bhanimandal, Lalitpur, but you can also buy their products online or from different concept stores and marts in the city. 

Kamakhya Decor

A lot of stores customize furniture pieces these days. You can show them a photo of the design you want and they will be able to replicate it for you. Kamakhya Decor in Naxal, Kathmandu, is a good place to do that. They have a range of fabrics, colors, and materials to make all kinds of items according to your needs. They will also do it for cheaper than most places. There are some readymade items at the store if you need to replace something at home and can’t wait. But they will make your order in a week or less so even that shouldn’t be a problem. They have a range of cabinets, side tables, racks and other functional but pretty things. 

Masta Kala

The company was founded in 2018 with an aim to create unique, functional products that resonate with people’s emotions. It draws inspiration from Nepal’s rich cultural heritage. You get a range of elegant home decor items at Masta Kala which is located at Sanepa Chowk in Lalitpur. You can also personalize items like key holders and name plates among other things. Be warned though, a trip to Masta Kala can leave your purse lighter as you will want to buy everything you see. The store is pleasing and makes shopping a relaxing experience. 

Pia Nepal

If you don’t want to hunt around for the perfect piece that can be a focal point in your home, and don’t mind spending a little more for it, Pia Nepal could be your option. An artisanal luxury brand, it has everyday items like lamps, bowls, and wall hangings that can lend a regal vibe to your space. The items are carefully created to feel like a special piece and you can see perfection in the details. We feel their products, however small or big, add a subtle charm to our spaces. It’s about an understated elegance that you won’t get anywhere else. 

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.

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.

Habeas corpus, popularly called the “great writ of liberty,” is one of the fundamental laws that guarantee individuals protection of personal freedom from any unlawful or arbitrary detention. It is an essential instrument of doing justice according to the rule of law and thus the cornerstone of every constitutional democracy in the world, including Nepal. The phrase originates from the Latin “habeas corpus,” which means literally, “you shall have the body.” By this law, a person who has been unlawfully detained or imprisoned may have recourse to a court of law to challenge that detention. Keeping all the constitutional and other legal provisions provided for the protection of personal liberty in Nepal in mind, habeas corpus is a prominent instrument in the dispensation of justice, human rights, and the accountability of state organs.  

Nepal, as a constitutional democracy, has solemnly ethical considerations of habeas corpus incorporated into the legal arrangement by virtue of Article 133 of the Constitution of Nepal, 2015. Under this provision, every person shall have the right to present a habeas corpus petition before the Supreme Court or the High Courts against illegal detention. 

The primary aim of the doctrine is to protect any authority, be it the government or some private entity, from infringing upon the freedom of the individual without legally acceptable justification. Habeas corpus has always been viewed by the courts in Nepal as a protection against arbitrary detention so that no one is sent to detention unlawfully.

Next to life, personal liberty is perhaps the highest right appreciated by mankind. Article 3 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person,” which basically underscores this personal liberty. Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Nepal is a party, states, “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention” and goes on to say that “anyone who is arrested shall be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for his arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges against him.” These provisions and many others have formed part of Nepal’s law and thus come under the obligations of the state to respect and enforce human rights. The Constitution of Nepal goes a further step in protection of personal liberties. It grants freedom under article 17: “No person shall be deprived of personal liberty without the due process of law.” Article 20 seeks to do justice requiring that persons arrested are informed of the reasons for their arrest and are able to access legal counsel and be produced before a judicial authority within 24 hours of their detention. In addition, article 22 specifically prohibits torture and inhumane treatment and allows for access to remedies for the victims of such wrongful acts. These protections under the constitution find additional expression in the National Penal Code of 2017 making acts such as unlawful detention, secret detention or detention under inhumane conditions punishable. Provisions for compensation to the victims of unlawful imprisonment are proof enough of how Nepal stands for the violations of personal liberty.

Nepal’s habeas corpus mechanism suffers from various hurdles for effective implementation despite these solid legal frameworks. Arbitrary detention has continued to be a concern in times of political unrest or emergencies. The authorities have consequences on dissent and political opponents using preventive detentions as constitutional law in Article 23 allows whereas these purported preventive detentions have not always been justified by evidence or due process constituting a clear violation of the fundamental rights of the individuals. The situation worsened because of the general unawareness of the citizenry about such rights and the habeas corpus mechanism. Many persons more so in rural or marginalized communities- are unaware of their right to seek justice for unlawful detention or have no means to access relevant legal aid. Another major undermining factor is delay in the judiciary. Though the Constitution prescribes that habeas corpus be acted upon without delay, inefficiency effectively causes prolonged detention without recourse. Limited judicial resources, backlogged courts, and procedural complexity would have all had a hand in the delays, thus limiting, if not incapacitating, the efficacy of habeas corpus as a remedy. There have also been recorded incidents of noncompliance of the judicial orders by law enforcement agencies, which further testify to the need for mechanisms that would enhance accountability for and adherence to the rule of law.

The challenges can be addressed by proposing several solutions. The foremost among these solutions relates to public-awareness campaigns geared towards educating the citizenry about their constitutional rights, especially the remedy of habeas corpus against unlawful detention. Legal aid services must extend in rural and economically backward areas to ensure that a person of any economic status has access to justice. Investment by the government to strengthen the judiciary with more judges, court infrastructure, and procedures ensuring the speedy hearing of cases is recommended. In addition to this, there should also be an implementable oversight mechanism to monitor law enforcement agencies and prevent their misuse. Training for policemen and other authorities must promote understanding and respect for human rights and the rule of law. Thus, independent bodies also have to be set up for the investigation of complaints regarding unlawful detention and ensure accountability for violations. In addition, a judiciary needs active enforcement of its own orders and punishment against the non-obedience so that the dignity of the system itself is upheld. 

Consequently, the most vexing problem is to strike that proper balance between civil liberty and national security. In case of disturbances to public order or national sovereignty, preventive detention can be justified by authorities under Article 23 of the Constitution. Such measures should be resorted to only in very exceptional circumstances, and when so warranted, the law must ensure proportionality and due process in their application. Clear guidelines defining the extent of powers that can be exercised in the context of preventive detention will mitigate the risk of misuse of those powers, while an independent and regular system of judicial review should be maintained. For constitutional provisions, legislative framework, and compliance with international human rights standards are indicators of the commitment of the state of Nepal to uphold the rule of law and personal liberty. The realization of these safeguards can only be through the vibrant synergy of government, judiciary, civil society, and the citizens of Nepal. Only collective vigilance will make the promise of habeas corpus as an instrument for justice and the curtailing of abuse a reality.