Why social media bill is deeply problematic
In recent years, Nepal has witnessed exponential growth in the use of various social media platforms. The most popular social media platforms include Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, Instagram and LinkedIn. Among these, Facebook maintains strong dominance over the Nepali social media landscape. According to data from the NapoleonCat, there were 16,479,500 Facebook users in Nepal as of Aug 2024, accounting for 51.6 percent of the population. Of these, 55.9 percent were male.
However, Facebook’s user base is gradually declining as adult users shift toward TikTok and GenZ increasingly favors platforms like TikTok and Instagram. Meanwhile, X is gaining popularity, particularly among news-savvy and politically-engaged users. But it has also become a tool for political propaganda, with ‘cyber armies’ from various political parties engaging in online smear campaigns and character assassination. This toxic environment is pushing intellectuals and thoughtful users away from the platform.
LinkedIn, on the other hand, is growing steadily in popularity among professionals seeking networking and career development opportunities. The spread of misinformation, disinformation, hate speech and cybercrime has become a pressing issue globally. Many countries are grappling with how to regulate social media in ways that respect freedom of speech while addressing these concerns. While many European nations have developed balanced approaches, several South Asian countries, including Bangladesh, are using social media regulations to suppress political opposition.
Nepal is no exception. For over 15 years, authorities have misused Section 47 of the Electronic Transaction Act to arrest journalists and silence critics. Recently, this trend has intensified, with ruling party leaders increasingly targeting those who voice dissent. Criticisms of the government or political parties are often misclassified as fake news or hate speech, even when it clearly is not. This raises concerns that new laws may also be exploited for similar purposes.
In February, the government introduced the Social Media Act Bill in the National Assembly, the upper house of the country’s federal parliament. The Bill has sparked public debate due to several fundamental flaws. The first and foremost is the flawed legislative process itself: government officials involved in consultations have adopted a narrow, bureaucratic perspective.
There is a belief within bureaucracy that regulation can be achieved by simply creating a department. This approach fails to recognize that regulating digital platforms is far more complex than overseeing traditional media like radio, television or print which are historically governed by the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology and its subordinate bodies.
Social media regulation is multi-faceted and far-reaching. No state agency can realistically monitor an entire population. Yet the ministry appears to consult only with stakeholders like the Federation of Nepalese Journalists (FNJ), organizations of journalists affiliated with major political parties and a handful of non-governmental organizations close to the ruling parties. Independent academics and experts outside the political sphere are largely excluded from the process.
This issue is not limited to social media bills; similar problems exist in other media-related legislation. While parliament has the authority to correct fundamental flaws, lawmakers often lack necessary expertise. Many rely on briefings from NGOs. This limited input, combined with their often weak academic backgrounds, proves insufficient. Lawmakers frequently raise concerns merely to appease journalists rather than engaging meaningfully in the legislative process.
From top to bottom, the bill is riddled with problems. The preamble fails to affirm commitment to international treaties and conventions and other legal instruments to which Nepal is a party. The country has signed international treaties and conventions expressing its full commitment to upholding freedom of speech and expression. But the principles laid out by those international conventions often clash with the narrow understanding held by many Nepali politicians who view criticism as a threat rather than a democratic right.
The 2015 constitution, like its previous versions, contains progressive provisions when it comes to safeguarding freedom of speech and expression. The draft briefly touches the constitutional provision of freedom of speech and expression but remains silent about international commitment. Regarding the international part, the bill states that as other countries are formulating the news, Nepal also needs to formulate the law which is a misrepresentation of Nepal’s international commitments. The Supreme Court has also delivered landmark verdicts upholding these rights.
However, recent rulings by lower courts appear to contradict the precedents set by the apex court. These decisions only briefly acknowledge the constitutional guarantee of free speech, signaling a shift away from the earlier commitment to protecting this fundamental right.
The Social Media Bill reflects this trend. It fails to clearly state that its purpose is to strengthen freedom of speech and expressions. Instead, it focuses more heavily on regulating social media users, given the impression that its main intent is to restrict, rather than protect, free expression.
Undeniably, countries across the world are moving quickly to regulate social media to mitigate its negative impacts on society and democracy. But such efforts must never come at the cost of fundamental freedoms, especially freedom of speech, expression and press. Nepal should study how other nations have successfully enacted social media without undermining democratic rights.
Before drafting the bill, the government should have consulted with representatives of major social media companies. Content regulation and moderation are core to the functioning of these platforms, and without their cooperation, any regulatory framework is likely to fail. In this context, Nepal’s top political leadership should use its diplomatic and political channels to engage with these companies. For instance, a few months ago, there was communication between Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli and Elon Musk on certain issues. This shows such outreach is possible.
Regrettably, the ministry issued a public notice demanding that social media giants register in Nepal and obtain licenses. It even set a deadline that went ignored. The ministry also threatened to shut down social media platforms, a move widely seen as immature and impractical. A more constructive approach would have been to initiate dialogue, revise the proposed provisions in consultation with these companies and then develop a feasible licensing system.
As it stands, the bill grants sweeping powers to a government-formed department to oversee all social media-related issues. Given the scale and complexity of regulating digital platforms, this is highly problematic. What’s needed is an independent, empowered commission—free from political interference, bureaucratic control, corporate influence and other vested interests. Such a body should be authorized to work directly with social media companies to ensure effective and fair regulation.
The current draft appears to be designed with the aim of removing political content critical of ruling parties. In recent years, there has been a clear trend of political parties using state agencies to target and punish critics of the government and party leadership. If passed without meaningful amendments, the bill risks becoming an extension of the Cyber Bureau, an institution that has already been misused for political purposes.
One positive aspect of the bill is its commitment to launching a large-scale awareness campaign on the responsible use of social media. It proposes to raise public awareness through publications, broadcasts, websites, seminars, public service announcements and dialogues. However, the government does not need to wait for the bill to be passed to begin this vital initiative.
In conclusion, the government must take proactive steps to address the fundamental flaws in the draft bill as it is evident that the agencies involved have failed to adequately study international best practices or documents prepared by global institutions.
Why social media bill is deeply problematic
In recent years, Nepal has witnessed exponential growth in the use of various social media platforms. The most popular social media platforms include Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, Instagram and LinkedIn. Among these, Facebook maintains strong dominance over the Nepali social media landscape. According to data from the NapoleonCat, there were 16,479,500 Facebook users in Nepal as of Aug 2024, accounting for 51.6 percent of the population. Of these, 55.9 percent were male.
However, Facebook’s user base is gradually declining as adult users shift toward TikTok and GenZ increasingly favors platforms like TikTok and Instagram. Meanwhile, X is gaining popularity, particularly among news-savvy and politically-engaged users. But it has also become a tool for political propaganda, with ‘cyber armies’ from various political parties engaging in online smear campaigns and character assassination. This toxic environment is pushing intellectuals and thoughtful users away from the platform.
LinkedIn, on the other hand, is growing steadily in popularity among professionals seeking networking and career development opportunities. The spread of misinformation, disinformation, hate speech and cybercrime has become a pressing issue globally. Many countries are grappling with how to regulate social media in ways that respect freedom of speech while addressing these concerns. While many European nations have developed balanced approaches, several South Asian countries, including Bangladesh, are using social media regulations to suppress political opposition.
Nepal is no exception. For over 15 years, authorities have misused Section 47 of the Electronic Transaction Act to arrest journalists and silence critics. Recently, this trend has intensified, with ruling party leaders increasingly targeting those who voice dissent. Criticisms of the government or political parties are often misclassified as fake news or hate speech, even when it clearly is not. This raises concerns that new laws may also be exploited for similar purposes.
In February, the government introduced the Social Media Act Bill in the National Assembly, the upper house of the country’s federal parliament. The Bill has sparked public debate due to several fundamental flaws. The first and foremost is the flawed legislative process itself: government officials involved in consultations have adopted a narrow, bureaucratic perspective.
There is a belief within bureaucracy that regulation can be achieved by simply creating a department. This approach fails to recognize that regulating digital platforms is far more complex than overseeing traditional media like radio, television or print which are historically governed by the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology and its subordinate bodies.
Social media regulation is multi-faceted and far-reaching. No state agency can realistically monitor an entire population. Yet the ministry appears to consult only with stakeholders like the Federation of Nepalese Journalists (FNJ), organizations of journalists affiliated with major political parties and a handful of non-governmental organizations close to the ruling parties. Independent academics and experts outside the political sphere are largely excluded from the process.
This issue is not limited to social media bills; similar problems exist in other media-related legislation. While parliament has the authority to correct fundamental flaws, lawmakers often lack necessary expertise. Many rely on briefings from NGOs. This limited input, combined with their often weak academic backgrounds, proves insufficient. Lawmakers frequently raise concerns merely to appease journalists rather than engaging meaningfully in the legislative process.
From top to bottom, the bill is riddled with problems. The preamble fails to affirm commitment to international treaties and conventions and other legal instruments to which Nepal is a party. The country has signed international treaties and conventions expressing its full commitment to upholding freedom of speech and expression. But the principles laid out by those international conventions often clash with the narrow understanding held by many Nepali politicians who view criticism as a threat rather than a democratic right.
The 2015 constitution, like its previous versions, contains progressive provisions when it comes to safeguarding freedom of speech and expression. The draft briefly touches the constitutional provision of freedom of speech and expression but remains silent about international commitment. Regarding the international part, the bill states that as other countries are formulating the news, Nepal also needs to formulate the law which is a misrepresentation of Nepal’s international commitments. The Supreme Court has also delivered landmark verdicts upholding these rights.
However, recent rulings by lower courts appear to contradict the precedents set by the apex court. These decisions only briefly acknowledge the constitutional guarantee of free speech, signaling a shift away from the earlier commitment to protecting this fundamental right.
The Social Media Bill reflects this trend. It fails to clearly state that its purpose is to strengthen freedom of speech and expressions. Instead, it focuses more heavily on regulating social media users, given the impression that its main intent is to restrict, rather than protect, free expression.
Undeniably, countries across the world are moving quickly to regulate social media to mitigate its negative impacts on society and democracy. But such efforts must never come at the cost of fundamental freedoms, especially freedom of speech, expression and press. Nepal should study how other nations have successfully enacted social media without undermining democratic rights.
Before drafting the bill, the government should have consulted with representatives of major social media companies. Content regulation and moderation are core to the functioning of these platforms, and without their cooperation, any regulatory framework is likely to fail. In this context, Nepal’s top political leadership should use its diplomatic and political channels to engage with these companies. For instance, a few months ago, there was communication between Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli and Elon Musk on certain issues. This shows such outreach is possible.
Regrettably, the ministry issued a public notice demanding that social media giants register in Nepal and obtain licenses. It even set a deadline that went ignored. The ministry also threatened to shut down social media platforms, a move widely seen as immature and impractical. A more constructive approach would have been to initiate dialogue, revise the proposed provisions in consultation with these companies and then develop a feasible licensing system.
As it stands, the bill grants sweeping powers to a government-formed department to oversee all social media-related issues. Given the scale and complexity of regulating digital platforms, this is highly problematic. What’s needed is an independent, empowered commission—free from political interference, bureaucratic control, corporate influence and other vested interests. Such a body should be authorized to work directly with social media companies to ensure effective and fair regulation.
The current draft appears to be designed with the aim of removing political content critical of ruling parties. In recent years, there has been a clear trend of political parties using state agencies to target and punish critics of the government and party leadership. If passed without meaningful amendments, the bill risks becoming an extension of the Cyber Bureau, an institution that has already been misused for political purposes.
One positive aspect of the bill is its commitment to launching a large-scale awareness campaign on the responsible use of social media. It proposes to raise public awareness through publications, broadcasts, websites, seminars, public service announcements and dialogues. However, the government does not need to wait for the bill to be passed to begin this vital initiative.
In conclusion, the government must take proactive steps to address the fundamental flaws in the draft bill as it is evident that the agencies involved have failed to adequately study international best practices or documents prepared by global institutions.
An ode to Karnali
What do the Nepalis in general think of Karnali? Rather than answering this question outright, let’s explore the roots of the word ‘Karnali’. Epistemologically speaking, Karnali, a region named after the river with the same name, derives its name from Karnal, a musical instrument of the Damai people.
Indeed, Dalit settlements dot the banks of the Karnali, suggesting a historic link between the river and these peoples, their customs and traditions. Most importantly, in Khas language, Karnali is synonymous with a big river.
Undoubtedly, city dwellers see Karnali as the land of pain, poverty and problems. Aligning with this prevailing mentality, the Nepali media and I/NGOs often portray Karnali as a land of suffering and problems.
Looking through a different lens, Karnali is very unique, diverse and prosperous.
Karnali is quite different from images that the media and development agencies often portray, describing the region as poor and backward. It is the land of hope and happiness. The word ‘Karnali’ itself symbolizes musical heritage, culture and civilization. From very early on, Karnali is showing and inviting the state to utilize its resources believing that its rivers, rivulets, lakes, hills, Himalayas, trekking trails, herbs, cultural heritages, Patans (expansive grasslands) have the potential to transform the national economy as a whole.
Pratap Pariyar, a senior citizen from Sinja-Simpati, Jumla district, observes: By nature, Karnali is very multi-colored. Indeed, the region has different specialities that can give the region a turnaround. It has Yarsagumba, a precious herb and Nepal’s longest river—the Karnali—that can generate thousands of megawatts of green energy. Its pastures, waterfalls, Himalayas and other attractions beckon tourists from far and wide. But the general understanding of Nepalis regarding Karnali is very old and immature.
People compare Karnali with a pathetic picture of poverty. Our identification with the pathetic picture, where a child’s face is covered with flies, is condemnable. Indeed, if people investigate or study Karnali, it’s a boon and blessing of nature. Hydro, herbs and heritage are the gems of Karnali. The region probably has the most unique cultural and religious practices in Nepal. Lama Vishnu is one of the several unique cultural practices whereas Masto is another religious sect that worships Nature only. These are some of the glimpses of the diversity of the region.
Undoubtedly, Karnali is the land of a boundless potential and myriad possibilities. This is not a subjective statement coming from Nepalis, including the people of Karnali; this is a unanimous voice from international scholars, experts and tourists. But “concerned authorities” of the state have failed to recognize the true potential of Karnali and their activities show a deep-rooted indifference toward the development of the region.
A case in point: The state has not bothered to conduct proper research on the potential of Karnali and invest in it. The ministers and commissioner of the planning commission are busy seeing only poverty, showing the state’s unwillingness to find out the root cause of poverty and backwardness. In fact, Karnali is not poor; leaders and states make it look so.
Generally, leaders and stakeholders point to the geography of Karnali as a major barrier to development. If so, why are some of the districts of the Tarai plains suffering from poverty? Why is the economic status of the people living in Namche so high compared to Kathmandu? Situation, mentality and investment matter more than geography. In the context of Karnali, topography is not the cause of poverty as the region has the natural resources necessary to bring prosperity to the entire nation.
Another aspect that allows the state and the media to label Karnali as a downtrodden region is the sociopolitical aspect marked by impunity, corruption and social disharmony. These factors give the media the content to disclose the dark side and hide the very bright side of Karnali. As a watchdog of the society, the media should write both ‘bad news’ and ‘good news’ about Karnali by monitoring each and every activity with the main focus on the local people’s wellbeing. In this process, it should not spare leaders, who harm Karnali.
Besides these two major components, leaders, cadres, bureaucracy and citizen behavior are responsible for stereotyping Karnali, which they need to shun. From now on, the political representatives of Karnali must act as the voice of the region. Only if they work as the backbone of Karnali will the whole nation be able to see the region in a different light.
Summing up, far from an old and prevailing perception, Karnali is brimming with hope, hydro, herbs and heritage. These resources can surely help Karnali rid itself of its stereotyped image. As for the media, it should change the angle from which it sees and writes about Karnali. The media should explore the real potential of Karnali and inform the people about it. Then only the state and the people will get to know the real Karnali and its potential.
Democracy in the classroom: Rethinking education amid institutional fragility
Democracy and education share a very complementary relationship in Nepal. Nevertheless, authoritarian regimes and authoritarian pushback’s approach in the past had been unfavourable to the general public’s rights and interests. Rana rulers restricted the basic rights of education to the general people until the revolution of 1951. This deprivation led to a huge gap between the ruling class and their subjects, whose consequences are visible even today. Undeniably, the level and quality of education one attains mirrors the privileges people are born into.
Again, the setback against the education system and democracy at large occurred when BP Koirala’s first elected government was overthrown by King Mahendra’s coup d’état in 1961. Although the decades of the 1960s saw a significant shift in the establishment of educational institutions such as schools, colleges and universities, the problem was with the centralized system and powerful kingship that shaped Panchayat years by fortifying royal authority over plural values.
Researchers argue that imagination shaped by Panchayat continues to guide the narrative among the dominant political class. The operationalization was made possible through monolithic education, with the appropriation of school textbooks, such as the triumph of the ruling class and bravery narrative disseminated through Mahendramala.
The 1960s events were a blowback against the democratic consolidation of the 1951 revolution. Thirty years of the partyless Panchayat system weakened political institutions as political parties were banned, with pro-regime legal systems and a spoiled bureaucracy. At a period when civil societies were restricted from advocating and having public engagement through awareness, civic and inclusive education was a faraway dream. I reflect upon the past because it continues to shape contemporary national memory.
The political system impacts the quality and accessibility of education. While every system produces winners and losers in terms of access and opportunity, democratic governance has been more effective in expanding educational opportunities and better access to education. After the restoration of multiparty democracy in 1990, it was evident that education was democratized to a larger extent. The increase in literacy rate and initiatives such as Community School Support Program (CSSP) and School Sector Reform Program (SSRP) validate increase in decentralization and local participation. Curriculum reforms and increase in enrollment rate further complemented by the rise of English medium schools, directly influenced by the liberalization of Nepal’s economy marked a hopeful turn, thanks to the People Movement that led to change.
The royalists, with an aim of restoring the monarchy, are the victim of Panchayat era institutionalization of three pillars of Nepali identity i.e. Monarchy, Hindu Religion and Nepali language through Ek Raja, Ek Bhesh and Ek Bhasa. All the leaders of the Joint People’s Movement committee for the restoration of monarchy, who assembled last March, had either done schooling during the Panchayat regime or were bureaucrats. It’s not that all the students of the post-Panchayat era are allured by democracy. Nevertheless, it was disappointing to see many youths in Tinkune on March 29. It is pertinent to ask: did the lack of civic education after the 1990s fail our country, or did our country fail to properly support and implement civic education?
Today, Nepali education system continues to face challenges, including inadequate teacher training, curriculum development issues, the industry-academia gap and governance concerns in the post-federalism era. Simultaneously, studies have found that national education policy primarily aims to nurture law-abiding citizens who demonstrate national pride with allegiance to Nepali moral values. While the active citizenship and community involvement have been ignored, old teaching methodologies, and rote learning based on memorisation continues to shape the minds of tomorrow. The study recommended that a participatory approach to civics and citizenship education can help to nurture responsible citizens who can contribute to Nepal’s democratic and social development with the help of consequential teaching and learning.
In a diverse society like Nepal, it’s quite challenging to address the grievances of a multiethnic group who feel left behind by oppressive state policies during an autocratic era, without upholding and safeguarding democratic principles. Subsequent governments post restoration of democracy have tried to address long-standing structural, sociopolitical and economic issues. However, challenges such as poor governance and weak political institutions, corruption, unhealthy power struggles among interest groups in politics, and economic challenges persist.
The new and old challenges to democracy influence the education system, where the dialectical relationship between the two is observable.
The overall democratization process as well as the way schools prepare students for democratic participation also influence democracy. Changes in democracy and education drive transformations in other areas, driven by cause and effect relationships. Harvard Professor Fernando M Reimers explains dialectical relations by showing the relation between the two. “Democracy causes how education prepares students for democracy and the education students receive for democracy causes democracy”. These social processes are interconnected and evolve over time. The link between education and democracy is formed through compromise and negotiation through contradiction.
When civil and political rights are democratized with impartiality, academic institutions prepare larger masses for meaningful participation in public affairs. As the curriculum in Nepali textbooks is monolithic, standardized and centralized, a revision toward an inclusive approach is really essential. These changes and awareness may lead to the inclusion of the marginalized community's history in the curriculum. Nevertheless, such transformation often provokes pro-establishment groups, dismantling the possibility of larger political participation. As the transformation of the system is not easy, investment in civic and tertiary education can complement it. Transformation is possible when the issues and grievances of marginalized people are accommodated by a curriculum with a civic-centric and equitable approach.
Democracy, which is considered a crucial political system to balance freedom and justice through a social contract, is fluid, imperfect and fragile. Democracy is a work in progress with limitations, tensions and setbacks. According to the Freedom House Index, global freedom has declined for the 19th consecutive year in 2024 with 60 countries experiencing deterioration in political rights and civil liberties. To contain the forces undermining democratic institutions, education institutions must explore the challenges to democracy and its impacts and the strategy to counter them. Amidst the backdrop of rising frustration over unemployment, inflation, political instability and government inefficiency, the public often turns to demonstrations. While these demonstrations may offer short-term satisfaction, they fail to bring lasting solutions. Vandalism against corporations, private property and media houses reveals the power of a small group of mobilizers to spark chaos by manipulating dissenters. Although large demonstrations against democracy are occasional and rare, the dissent and anti-democracy narrative is visible widely in Nepali social media spaces such as facebook, X and Tiktok, further reinforced by proliferation of digital platforms such as YouTube.
Royalist elites, in contrast, argue that restoring the monarchy would bring immediate transformation to the nation overnight. What they cannot understand is a democratic system offers rule of law, popular sovereignty, human rights and freedom of association, enabling them to protest against the current system. Reverting to constitutional monarchy cannot be a solution to the current system of governance. Strong economic policies and good governance can address current issues and grievances. The formation and development of political institutions depends on consistent effort over time. Regime change is not a solution. Fluctuations within the internal dynamics of democratic institutions and relations between democracy and society can reflect progress, a deepening of democracy, or setbacks.
Meaningful involvement of all stakeholders, such as government, community, educational institutions, is crucial to promote and adapt civic and moral education. In the times of federalism, local governance should be given more autonomy in implementing education policy and practices. Nepal lacks strong and durable political and economic institutions that are a prerequisite for a well-functioning democracy. Modern time demands responsible citizens who are capable of tackling complex social issues. German philosopher Immanuel Kant’s idea of enlightenment as “man’s emergence from his self-imposed immaturity” is quite pertinent in contemporary societies.
At a time when Tribhuvan University is struggling to attract scholars in the History program, the partnership of Kathmandu University (KU) and Southasia Institute for History and Philosophy (SIHP) to launch Master’s in History and Philosophy programme last year was a timely initiative. The role of education should be to cultivate the ability of students to think impartially, question authority regardless of regime and become a part of the transformative process. Thus, civic education plays a crucial role in shaping a workforce that advances good governance, system, integrity, accountability and a broad sense of responsibility toward society. Such an approach can undo the harm of past legacies caused by historical injustices and assist in inclusive, equitable, participatory and democratic culture anchored in civic ethics and republican ideals.
