Submit your Article

Nepal is already caught in the geopolitics of great power competition, and we cannot escape from it. The only option left for us is building our capacity to deal with the fast-changing geopolitical situation. There is a national consensus that Nepal should use the current situation as an opportunity to advance its economic interests. Foreign and geopolitical experts, including this scribe, often wonder whether we have built our capacity to deal with the complex, uncertain, and chaotic world. In one way or another, Nepal is already bearing the brunt of increasing geopolitical tensions. The pressing issues that the global community is confronting are growing tensions between the US and China, the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war, Taiwan tension, the Middle East crisis and the impacts of climate change. The impact of those issues in Nepal is evident in the conduct of foreign policy, the economy, and to some extent, the domestic political landscape. Over the past few years, we have already become hostages of indecision, ill-decisions, delayed decisions, or fractured decisions on important bilateral, regional or global issues.

To deal with the complex geopolitical situation and other global issues, Nepal needs to pay serious attention to strengthen the existing mechanisms and create new structures, if required. First, it needs to make the existing mechanisms effective. Second, it needs to work out whether it needs new mechanisms. Third, there should be effective and timely coordination among the key state institutions. 

Let's begin with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA). The ministry has 10 divisions covering all countries, regional and global organizations. However, these divisions fall short of human resources and expertise to deal with global issues, given the workload of all divisions. The creation of divisions is based on geography, not issues. Like in many other countries, there are no think tanks within the ministry to support its functioning. Nor is MoFA tolerant or positive about the government think-tank, the Institute of Foreign Affairs (IFA). MoFA officials have yet to realize the importance and role of think-tanks. They think, since they are involved in all bilateral, regional and multilateral negotiations, they have first-hand information on all issues and do not require inputs from any think-tanks. That is why, for a long time, the IFA has been left totally paralyzed.

And it is because of this hubris, the units within MoFA have failed to produce in-depth reports on important bilateral and regional issues. Take the examples of America's Indo-Pacific Strategy and China's Belt and Road Initiative. There has been no serious research and studies on either of these. As MoFA has not developed its capacity, other ministries and departments cannot take its support. Based on conversations with government officials, this scribe can conclude that there is a vague understanding of these issues among them, and they are facing difficulties in taking decisions. There is another side to the story too; there is a lack of independent experts and scholars who can conduct in-depth study and research on what Nepal's position should be in the changing geopolitical situation. There are some non-government think-tanks doing research, but government agencies and officials do not take them seriously due to their poor quality.

The underlying problem is that there is a serious flaw in the appointment of the foreign minister. Those who have at least some idea about foreign policy or geopolitics should be appointed foreign minister. On the one hand, the tenure of foreign ministers is usually short, while on the other, it takes several months for them to grasp the basic knowledge of how MoFA functions and what the key issues are. Foreign embassies or permanent representatives are one of the important wings of the ministry. However, they are almost dysfunctional. Barring some exceptions, Nepal is sending inexperienced, low-profile politicians as its ambassadors to key global capitals such as New Delhi, Washington and Beijing. 

There are some basic problems with ambassadors appointed on political quotas. First, they lack knowledge of the basics of how diplomacy works. Second, they usually do not cooperate with their respective division at the ministry; they do not even feel comfortable reporting to the foreign secretary. They work directly with the foreign minister or the prime minister. Whereas, career ambassadors have the tradition of not taking decisions out of fear of being dragged into controversy. That is why they confine themselves to day-to-day administrative tasks. There is, therefore, a need for a complete overhaul in the functioning of the ministry and its units.

Another equally important issue is the lack of cooperation between state mechanisms, mainly the Office of the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers (OPMCM). Currently, there is a lack of coordination between OPMCM and the Foreign Minister. In some cases, the OPMCM takes decisions without consulting or informing MoFA. One example of this is the appointment of ambassadors. There is also a lack of coordination between the foreign ministry and other ministries. In principle, all decisions and communication related to foreign policy should be conducted through MoFA, but this is not happening. At the same time, there is a lack of consultation between MoFA and security agencies. Not only is there a lack of coordination among ministries, but there is also a lack of coordination between MoFA, and provincial and local governments.

Experts have been raising this issue for a long time. But political leaders do not take these issues seriously because they are wielding foreign policy to advance their party and personal interests. If all the activities and processes are made transparent, they fear losing the privilege of making secret deals or appeasing others to remain in power. This is why they usually do not want to include MoFA officials in talks with other countries, except in formal delegation-level meetings. At the same time, Nepal seriously lacks capable human resources to deal with the complex geopolitics. This should be our priority issue although it may not be a priority issue for our politicians. Our politicians should realize that they alone cannot handle foreign policy in this complex geopolitical situation. Politicians may have certain issues with the foreign ministry, but there cannot be its replacement. They, however, have all rights to restructure it.

A recent audio clip referencing a Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court and implicating the chairpersons of Annapurna Media Network and Kantipur Media Group has caused significant controversy in Nepal, drawing widespread attention and debate.

In response to these events, the Supreme Court has taken action by summoning Yuvaraj Kandel, the publisher of sidhakura.com, along with Navin Dhungana, the executive editor of the website, to face accusations of contempt of court. This move is based on allegations that the website released ‘fake’ audiovisual news reports that defamed a sitting Supreme Court Justice, senior legal professionals, and various media figures.

The reports claimed that Justice Ananda Mohan Bhattarai, Chairperson of Annapurna Media Network Capt Rameshwar Thapa, and Chairperson of Kantipur Media Group Kailash Sirohiya, along with other notable figures such as Surendra Kafle, a special correspondent for the Annapurna Post, and senior advocates Hari Upreti and Kishor Bista, were involved in a secretive meeting. The reports suggested that this meeting’s purpose was to dismiss over 400 corruption cases.

Given the severity of the claims and their potential impact on public trust in the judiciary, the apex court has also directed Nepal Police to conduct a thorough investigation into the matter. The court’s actions underscore the importance of addressing false information that could harm public institutions and individuals’ reputations. It also sends a clear message about the seriousness of disseminating fake news that can damage the credibility of the judiciary. If such cases are not investigated rigorously, it could encourage the spread of similar misinformation, further eroding trust in public institutions and the media.

To prevent incidents like this from occurring in the future, it’s crucial that all branches of government—the executive, legislative, judiciary and media—operate effectively and independently. When each state organ performs its functions with integrity and without interference from others, the overall system becomes more robust and resistant to misinformation and corruption.

In a well-functioning system, the executive branch ensures that laws are implemented fairly and transparently, the legislative branch enacts clear and just legislation, and the judiciary interprets these laws impartially, upholding justice and the rule of law. This balance among the branches provides a framework in which truth and justice can prevail, reducing the risk of false reports or conspiracy theories gaining traction.

If the leadership in these branches upholds high standards of conduct and accountability, it creates an environment where trust can flourish. This trust, in turn, minimizes the chances of misleading information and corruption, causing chaos or undermining the credibility of key institutions.

When controversies or misconduct emerge involving members of any state organ, it is crucial that the leadership takes swift and decisive action. This demonstrates accountability and reinforces the principles of integrity and public trust. For instance, in the past, when Bishwonath Upadhyaya served as Chief Justice, there was a controversy involving Justice Har Govinda Singh Pradhan. Once it was proven that Justice Pradhan had engaged in misconduct, Chief Justice Upadhyaya responded by not assigning him any court cases, effectively relieving him of his judicial duties. This decisive action underscored the seriousness with which the judiciary addresses ethical breaches.

Similar principles should apply across all organs of the state. If an individual in the executive, legislative, or judiciary is proven guilty of misconduct or corruption, the leadership must take appropriate measures to ensure accountability. This could involve removing the individual from their duties, initiating disciplinary proceedings, or taking legal action as required by the severity of the misconduct.

By doing so, the leadership sets a standard of ethical behavior and sends a clear message that no one is above the law. It also helps restore public confidence in the system, assuring citizens that those in power are held to the same standards as everyone else. This approach fosters a culture of responsibility and deters others from engaging in unethical practices.

In my earlier op-ed, I argued that Nepal should aim to be a society where truth is revered and upheld in all facets of life. Unfortunately, it’s not uncommon for authorities to operate with near-total impunity, often infringing on both political and economic rights. This reality weakens the principle of justice, a principle that should be at the heart of governance.

To tackle this, we need a legal framework that fosters honesty and respect across the board. This involves not just creating new laws but also rigorously enforcing existing ones to ensure they serve the purpose of promoting truth and justice. When individuals spread false information or incite hatred, there should be tangible consequences, regardless of their rank or status. This standard should be applied equally to all, whether they’re ordinary citizens, influential politicians, high-ranking bureaucrats, or even members of the judiciary.

No one should be above the law. Anyone found guilty of disseminating falsehoods or engaging in hate speech must be held accountable and subjected to appropriate penalties. This kind of enforcement is essential for maintaining social harmony and ensuring that no one can manipulate public sentiment without facing repercussions.

In recent times, many state and constitutional organs in Nepal have faced criticism and controversy, struggling to maintain a positive image or deliver effective governance. However, one notable exception has been the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) under the leadership of Prem Kumar Rai. His tenure as chief commissioner of the CIAA has been marked by a distinct absence of controversy, and his long career in the bureaucracy had also demonstrated integrity and commitment to the public good.

Rai’s leadership style serves as a model for effective governance. He has managed to steer the CIAA with a clear focus on its core mission—to investigate and prevent the abuse of authority and corruption. This kind of leadership is precisely what other state and constitutional organs need to emulate if they are to regain public confidence and ensure the proper functioning of government.

To bring about meaningful reform and reduce controversies within state and constitutional organs, the effort must begin with politicians, who often play pivotal roles in shaping the direction of governance. Politicians have significant influence across all levels of government, and their actions can either promote integrity or foster corruption. If they are involved in unethical practices, it undermines the entire system and erodes public trust.

The author is a member of the Supreme Court Bar and has been practicing corporate law for around three decades. Views are personal

Janakpur, the headquarters of Dhanusha district and part of the Madhes Province, has historical and religious importance. It is the capital of  ancient Mithila, the kingdom which on many of its frontiers is believed to have been guarded by different deities: Kshireshwor in the north, Jaleshwor in the south, Mithileshwor in the east and Kupeshwor in the southwest.

Janakpur is the sacred place where Janaki, the constant consort of Lord Ram and the dutiful daughter of Mithila King (Rajarshi) Janak, was born from the womb of Mother Earth. She is also considered the most celebrated and illustrated heroine of the Hindu epic Ramayan.

Ram, the king of Ayodhya, was married to Sita at Janakpur. The marriage ceremony of Ram and Sita, the two central characters of the Ramayan, is celebrated on the auspicious occasion of Vivah Panchami—the fifth day of the bright fortnight in the month of Mangsir (Nov-Dec). 

The legend preceding the nuptial goes like this. Ram broke a divine bow, which originally belonged to Lord Shiva, into three pieces, ‘qualifying’ him for his marriage with Sita. Per the legend, one piece flew into heaven, another entered Patal (the netherworld) and the third piece landed at the present-day Dhanusha Dham, about 40 km from Janakpur. Today also, visitors can see huge rocks shaped like a bow under a tree in Dhanusha rural municipality.

There are a large number of magnificent temples, large and deep ponds in Janakpur. These ponds are polluted, obscuring the glorious and golden past of the historic city regarded as one of the most sacred spots for millions and millions of Hindu pilgrims from the world over. Especially on occasions such as Vivah Panchami, Ram Navami and Janaki Navami, the faithful visit the city in large numbers.

The charms of Janakpur transcend beyond temples and ponds. Numerous fairs and festivals make Janakpur an attractive destination, making it a famous and foremost destination for religious-spiritual tourists. The historic place where the wedding of Ram and Sita took place is also a wedding destination for countless couples-to-be.

 Temples and more

Janakpur has been rightly called a tiny town of temples. Numerous ancient temples, statues and shrines indeed remind us of the glorious and religious chapters written about Mithila in ancient history books and several scriptures. The Ram-Janaki temple, one of the prime attractions, is a blend of classical and neoclassical design with elements of fortification and unique environmental setting. Its rare architectural elements, among other unique features, draw a large number of visitors from both Nepal and neighboring India. 

Mithila art is expanding its wings. It got an easy entrance into the UN and recently in the G-20 World Summit held in New Delhi. Moreover it has also got the GS (General Standard) trade mark. Janakpur has become the center of Mithila art and craft, but there is no sales counter for Mithila artworks at the Janakpur airport.  

Janakpur, the heart of the Mithila kingdom that embodies the teachings of Maitrei, Yagyabalkya, Gargi and King Janak and his dutiful daughter Janaki in the field of service and sacrifice appears to be losing its glory due to a dirty atmosphere and the lack of efforts aimed at preserving the Ram-Janaki temple and other heritages. The waste and rubbish piled around the temple and the city seem to have gone unnoticed in the eyes of the Greater Janakpur Development Council. 

There have been efforts to preserve this gem of a place, which is encouraging. For example, some youths have been conducting Sandhya Aarati for a decade, further highlighting the significance of the heritage site among visitors from Nepal, and beyond and giving the evenings a sublime, soothing and scented feel.

The sorry state of this priceless heritage site is calling local people, concerned authorities and other stakeholders to come to the fore for its preservation. The sooner they wake up to the task, the better.  

Every right comes with a reasonable restriction. If right goes without restriction, there would be chaos in society. In this context, the right to free speech is considered the mother of all freedoms since it has a special and crucial place in the hierarchy of freedoms. The right to think and speak freely, as well as to receive information and to participate in open discussions without fear of government restriction, could be considered the core of free speech. The freedom to converse on an issue is the opportunity to speak freely.

However, the right to speech does not give license to defame or harm others. Recently, a media outlet got a directive from the Press Council Nepal to remove a piece of fake news claiming the involvement of Justice Anand Mohan Bhattarai, lawyers and media entrepreneurs to dismiss more than 400 corruption cases. Issuing a press statement on April 28, Judges’ Society Nepal demanded stern action against Sidhakura, the show in question, for broadcasting the ‘news’ without checking the facts, thereby attacking not just a judge but the judicial system as a whole. Relevant agencies of the state have initiated legal proceedings against the media.

Against this background, let’s delve into freedom of speech. 

Constitutional scenario

The Constitution of Nepal 2015 prohibits the enactment of any law and order at the cost of fundamental freedoms and constitutional values. Article 1 declares any law, which is inconsistent with the constitution, ‘void’, meaning that the fundamental freedoms, which include freedom of speech and expression, cannot be curtailed in the name of any law.

Article 16 states that every person will have the right to life with dignity. Article 17(1) guarantees the right to freedom, including personal liberty. Article 17(2) guarantees fundamental freedoms, like freedom of opinion and expression; freedom to assemble peacefully; freedom to form political parties; freedom to form unions and associations; freedom to move and reside in any part of the country; and freedom to engage in any occupation.However, these freedoms are not unrestrained. As with every right, the right to speech and expression also come with reasonable restrictions. A citizen cannot exercise his freedom of speech in a way that undermines the nationality and sovereignty or jeopardizes the harmonious relations among the people, incites hatred, defamation, offense or is contrary to decency or morality or public order.

This way, a person can voice his concerns in every way, and the way he wishes to but cannot defame or challenge other’s dignity or the law of the land. Simply put, you can enjoy your rights without violating others’ rights. Article 19 deals with the right to communication. This clause prohibits pre-censorships of publication and broadcast of content or information through any medium. This means broadcasting or press materials cannot be seized at the sweet will of the government.

The constitution disallows untouchability and discrimination and prohibits them under Article 24. This means one is not competent to shape his views discriminating against his fellow citizens or members of the family. Article 27 envisages that every citizen will have the right to information. Right to speak or right to know is considered part and parcel of speech and expression and the same is the case with right to privacy (Article 28), which guarantees a person’s right over personal facts, leaving it up to the individual to decide when and under what circumstances to make them public. 

Remedy

The constitution provides remedy clauses that confer a citizen the right to move the Supreme Court (under Article 133) and High Court (under Article 144) at the instance of violation of his/her fundamental rights.

Judicial interpretation 

The Supreme Court in the case of Advocate Ratna Kumari Shrestha v Sudhir Sharma, editor-in-chief of Kantipur daily and others (2073 BS NKP, Decision Number 10370) held, in the name of the exercise of press freedom, it would not be justified to allow one to affect the dignity, independence and functioning of the courts. Nor, would it be in the interest of a democratic system to regulate press freedom at the cost of contempt of court. Both of these institutions—press and judiciary—should have to stand within their limits. If there is dissemination of information in such a way that it would tend to diminish the authority of the court, judges or cause contempt of court, then it would not be considered an exercise of the freedom of the press, rather it would form a basis for punishing an outlier on the charge of contempt of court. In the name of freedom of speech and expression, a media has no right to arbitrarily criticize the court’s decisions and thereby adversely affect the dignity of the court which would have an impact on the people’s faith in the judiciary. A media will be liable for contempt of court if it disseminates information to downgrade the authority and sanctity of the court and judgeship, the apex court held further.

In Thir Prasad Pokharel v Harihar Birahi, editor of Bimarsha Prakashan Pvt Ltd (2049 BS NKP, Decision Number 4604), the apex court held that Nepal’s constitutional norm and values are clear on a point that there shall be no pre-censorship, neither cancellation of registration of the newspaper, nor shall there be any shutdown or confiscation of printing press.

Global precedents

In India, the preamble of the Indian Constitution at the very outset clarifies that the democratic credentials, like liberty of thought, expression and belief; justice along the social, economic and political; or equality and fraternity, would be secured and promoted by the governments. Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech and expression.

The laws in the USA not only recognize the right to fly the national flag but it has gone to the extent of holding flag burning as an expression of free speech and expression of its citizen against the establishment but Indian constitution does not approve the latter part of the right, India’s apex Court ruled in the case of Union of India v Naveen Jindal (2004). 

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that the Congress shall create no law abridging the liberty of words or of the press.  In the 19th century, Germany guaranteed freedom of opinion in its Constitution with an express prohibition of press censors.

Interestingly, Sweden became the first country in the world to adopt a provision for the availability of official information for the citizens on their demand. The right to freedom of speech is recognized as a human right under article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

The way forward

The right to freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution.  It expressly guarantees the right to voice our concerns through speech, expression or vote. Yet, it does not confer a license to defame others or violate the laws of the land. So, the freedom of speech is neither unrestrained, nor does it allow us to question the sanctity and integrity of others.

Publishing a fake news content to defame persons of high moral character or to post comments on social media to defame others or to speak in a way that tends to undermine the authority and sanctity of judicial institutions cannot be considered part and parcel of freedom of speech. It's high time to protect and promote the constitutional ethos, for Nepal deserves to uphold the press freedom by every possible means and in every given way.