Submit your Article

The restoration of democracy in 1990 and the promulgation of one of South Asia’s most progressive constitutions ushered in a new era for Nepal’s media sector, which had long been under strict state control during the 30-year Panchayat regime. The constitution provided an enabling environment where both journalists and investors could operate free from fear of arbitrary arrest or harassment.

It explicitly prohibited the banning, seizure or cancellation of newspaper registrations, giving private investors a sense of security. 

Many top political leaders, who were primarily educated in India and exposed to global democratic ideals, understood that freedom of speech and expression was the cornerstone of democracy. At the same time, Nepal’s economic liberalization policies, which encouraged deregulation, privatization and an open-market economy, expanded the advertising market, the primary revenue source for the media industry.

In this environment, a significant number of private investors entered the media sector. On the one hand, this helped establish media as a legitimate industry, a major development compared to the Panchayat years when outlets served mainly as political tools for the ruling regime or opposition forces fighting for democracy. Media was then less a profession or industry and more of a mission, funded by both sides for political ends. On the other hand, journalism began to emerge as a glamorous and financially rewarding career, attracting growing numbers of professionals.

This surge also pushed universities to introduce journalism education and the media industry quickly absorbed the graduates. In the initial years, the Nepali media landscape was dominated by newspapers which broadly fell into three categories. The first were party-affiliated papers, serving as the mouthpiece of major political parties. The second were state-owned newspapers which enjoyed strong influence. The third were privately owned broadsheets which soon rose to prominence, led by Kantipur. The daily, which was launched in 1993, has grown into one of Nepal's most influential media houses today. Many newspapers, however, shut down over time due to unsustainable business models.

Since 1990, the media industry has expanded rapidly in both reach and diversity. As of 1 Sept 2025, data from the Department of Information and Broadcasting shows Nepal has 8,000 registered newspapers, 5,135 online media outlets, around 700 radio stations and 250 television stations. While this growth has enhanced access to information and amplified diverse voices, the sector continues to face challenges of quality, accountability and financial sustainability.

From the mid-1990s onward, newspapers gradually lost their monopoly as the primary source of information for the Nepali people. Although state-owned television and radio stations were already popular, the rise of private radio broadcasting reshaped the landscape.  Community radio stations, in particular, gained immense popularity for their ability to deliver news instantly. In rural areas, they became transformative platforms for disseminating news, information, education and public service messages, as well as amplifying the voices for marginalized groups, including women.

Television expanded shortly thereafter, rapidly increasing its reach nationwide. But the most disruptive change came with the rise of online news portals, which began to pull audiences away from print, radio and television. Mainstream media, once the dominant source of reliable information, has since seen declining readership and revenue as digital platforms mushroomed.

Nevertheless, Nepal’s mainstream media has made profound contributions to the nation’s socio-political development, particularly during the democratization process. Following the 1990s political changes, the country entered a turbulent period marked by two major challenges: The Maoist insurgency, which sought to impose a one-party communist regime through armed struggle and the monarchy’s attempts to reassert power, both of which undermined the constitutional order established in 1990.

During this period, the media came under attack from both sides. On one hand, it faced repression from the monarchy, particularly between 2001 and 2006, when censorship, harassment and confiscation of journalistic materials were common. On the other, the Maoists targeted journalists and media institutions, resulting in the deaths of over 36 media workers. These dual pressures placed media outlets in an extremely precarious position, as they struggled to uphold the principles of press freedom and democratic accountability amid criticisms that media should remain neutral and refrain from political engagement.

Despite censorship, threats and violence, the media remained steadfast in its commitment to democratic values, human rights and civil liberties. It continued to serve a watchdog role, exposing abuses of power and advocating for political reform. Today, however, the rapid expansion of digital media and video-sharing platforms presents new challenges to the sustainability and credibility of traditional media institutions. While the technology has improved access to information, it has not provided an adequate substitute for quality journalism. Independent, institutionalized and trustworthy media is essential in an environment increasingly polluted by misinformation, disinformation and propaganda. Yet, as outlets continue to investigate corruption and hold those in power accountable, they continue to face hostility from political actors and state institutions. This growing antagonism undermines press freedom and poses a serious threat to democracy.

The evolution of media in Nepal reflects the broader political and technological transformations the country has undergone. From the rise of radio in the 1990s to today’s digital disruption, media has consistently played a central role in supporting democracy, informing the public and amplifying marginalized voices. Protecting independent and institutional media is, therefore, vital to safeguarding democracy from collapse.

Unfortunately, mainstream media’s importance often goes unrecognized, except within the business community, which has begun to voice concerns.  In an interaction organized by the Confederation of Nepalese Industries (CNI) recently, top business leaders underscored the need for independent media that can question the government, ensure accountability and raise awareness on business and economic issues. Encouragingly, the private sector has recognized that while digital platforms may fulfill the need for instant information, they cannot replace the role of independent media.

This perspective highlights a crucial distinction between institutional media and the rapidly growing digital platforms. While digital platforms have significantly increased access to information and diversified voices in the media landscape, they often lack the editorial rigor, accountability structures, and ethical standards upheld by established media institutions. Digital platforms are frequently driven by clicks, algorithms, and viral content, which can prioritize sensationalism, misinformation, or unverified news over facts and context. In contrast, mainstream media—with its professional journalists, editorial oversight, and commitment to journalistic ethics—serves as a cornerstone of reliable information and democratic discourse.

The business community's support for independent media is particularly significant. It reflects an understanding that a functioning democracy, rooted in transparency and informed public debate, creates the foundation for sustainable economic growth. Independent media exposes corruption, monitors public spending and informs policy debates—all of which contribute to a healthier economic climate. Their support is thus not only altruistic but also a recognition of the symbiotic relationship between a free press and a thriving economy.

In conclusion, while digital platforms may serve as supplementary sources of information, they cannot replace the foundational role of independent, institutional media in a democratic society. It is essential that all sectors, not just the business community, actively support and defend mainstream media. Without strong, independent journalism, democratic accountability weakens, public discourse deteriorates and the very fabric of democracy comes under threat.

Nepal, a landlocked country situated between two major economies—India and China—faces numerous developmental challenges. Among them, the growing influence of informal trade stands out as a major obstacle to economic growth and institutional stability. While formal trade is regulated, taxed, and contributes to the state’s capacity, informal trade operates outside the law. It includes activities that are unregistered, untaxed, and often illegal. Over time, this shadow economy has become deeply embedded in Nepal’s economic structure. In many ways, Nepal suffers more from the harmful effects of informal trade than from any shortcomings in formal trade.

Informal trade in Nepal takes many forms. It includes the smuggling of goods such as gold, fuel, medicines, money laundering and electronics across open borders. It also includes unregistered businesses, undocumented labor, and transactions carried out entirely in cash to avoid tax and regulation. Nepal’s long and porous border with India, combined with difficult-to-monitor terrain in the north, makes informal trade easy to conduct and hard to control. On the domestic front, many small and medium-sized enterprises operate without any legal registration. As a result, they fall completely outside the formal economic system.

The scale of informal trade in Nepal is vast. Estimates suggest that the informal economy may account for 35 percent—40 percent of the country’s GDP and more than 80 percent of total employment. This means a large portion of Nepal’s economic activity is hidden from the state. It does not contribute to taxes, cannot be properly measured, and creates unfair competition for businesses that do comply with the law. While formal trade has its own inefficiencies—such as bureaucratic delays, red tape, and occasional corruption—these can be addressed through policy reforms. Informal trade, by contrast, creates deep and lasting damage that is harder to fix. It undermines public revenue, weakens institutions, and limits Nepal’s ability to plan and deliver services.

Addressing the informal economy is not simple, but it is necessary. A multi-pronged approach is needed—one that focuses on simplifying formal procedures, using technology, building trust, and offering real incentives for businesses and workers to shift into the formal system.

One of the first priorities should be to make it easier for small businesses to formalize. Many avoid registration simply because the process is slow, complex, and costly. Nepal should adopt a digital, one-window registration system that reduces paperwork and lowers barriers to entry. If formality becomes easier and less expensive, more businesses will join.

Another key step is improving border management. Nepal cannot control smuggling effectively using traditional methods alone. New technologies such as automated scanners, GPS tracking, and electronic cargo systems should be introduced. Just as important is cooperation with neighboring countries. Shared data and joint monitoring can help prevent illegal trade across borders.

The informal economy also depends heavily on cash, which makes transactions untraceable. Promoting digital payments is a powerful tool to reduce this dependence. However, digital infrastructure alone is not enough. The government must also invest in public awareness, digital literacy, and incentives to encourage both consumers and businesses to use digital platforms.

To support this shift, the state should reward those who comply. Businesses that register and follow regulations should receive benefits—such as tax breaks, better access to finance, and eligibility for government contracts. This changes the perception of regulation from being a burden to being a business opportunity.

Labor reform is another vital area. Most informal workers in Nepal lack legal contracts, benefits, or protections. To bring these workers into the formal economy, Nepal must design labor policies that fit the needs of small enterprises. Portable social security schemes, flexible contracts, and minimum wage protections should be introduced even for small and transitioning firms.

Overall, the informal economy reflects not just illegal behavior, but deeper problems in Nepal’s institutions and systems. It is not enough to use force or punishment. What Nepal needs is transformation—simple, transparent, and fair systems that encourage people to participate legally. Informality is often a result of necessity, not criminal intent. That’s why the government must respond with practical solutions that make formalization more attractive and accessible.

In conclusion, while informal trade may provide income and survival for many, it does long-term harm to Nepal’s economy. It limits tax collection, distorts markets, and weakens the foundations of good governance. Compared to formal trade, whose problems can be corrected through reform, informal trade creates much deeper challenges. If Nepal wants to build a resilient and inclusive economy, it must take bold steps to reduce the size and influence of its informal sector. By simplifying procedures, using technology, and offering clear incentives, the country can bring more of its economy into the formal fold—and unlock its full potential for growth and prosperity.

On September 4, 2025, the Government of Nepal decided to block social media platforms that have not been registered in Nepal. The decision has created a wave of divided opinions - some people argue that this is the right move to ensure accountability from social media platforms, while many civil society organizations, digital rights advocates, and concerned citizens have condemned it as a regressive step against digital freedom.

From my standpoint, while regulation is necessary, blocking platforms undermines the very freedoms we are trying to protect.

Registration is necessary - but blocking is not the answer

To put it straight: the debate is not about whether social media platforms should be registered in Nepal or not. They should be. These platforms are global companies making significant profits, also via operating in Nepal. Like any other company working here, they must comply with Nepali regulations, ensure transparency, and clearly state how and why they are collecting and using the data of Nepali citizens. That expectation is fair and necessary.

However, blocking access to unregistered platforms is not the right way forward. Social media has evolved into more than just entertainment or casual networking - it has become a central place for people to express themselves, connect with communities, access information, promote businesses, and even mobilize for social causes. For many, these platforms are now tied to their daily lives, their livelihoods, and their freedom of expression.

Cutting off access does not solve the underlying problem; it only punishes ordinary users.

The role of social media platforms

It is also true that social media platforms have a responsibility. If the Government of Nepal has been repeatedly asking them to register and they have not complied, these companies should at least provide a formal response or clarification. Ignoring regulatory requests only deepens mistrust and leaves citizens caught in the middle of a standoff between government and corporations.

Why blocking is a problem

Blocking social media platforms creates several issues:

Restriction of freedom of expression: Social media has become one of the most accessible means of voicing opinions, especially for young people, marginalized groups, and most people. Blocking platforms limits these freedoms.

Impact on small businesses and creators: Many Nepali entrepreneurs, artists, and small businesses rely on social media for promotion and sales. Blocking platforms threatens their livelihoods.

Disruption of information access: Social media is also a primary source of news and information. Shutting platforms risks creating an information vacuum, where misinformation and rumors can spread even faster.

Loss of connection for families: The Public relies on messaging apps and social media to stay in touch with family members living abroad or in distant parts of Nepal. Blocking these platforms directly affects family communication and emotional well-being.

Negative signal to the global community: Such a move portrays Nepal as hostile to digital rights and freedom, which can harm its reputation internationally.

It is true that the Government of Nepal has the authority to regulate companies operating within its borders. Demanding registration is within its rights, and restricting services for non-compliance is legally possible. But the way this authority is exercised matters. Choosing to block entire platforms is a policy decision - one that is not the most effective or rights-respecting. Smarter alternatives that protect both regulation and citizens’ freedoms are required to be considered.

What should have been considered

Instead of blocking access, the government could have taken more constructive steps:

Dialogue and Negotiation: Establish structured discussions with platform representatives, civil society, and experts to find workable solutions for registration and compliance.

Transparency in Process: Clearly communicate to the public what the requirements are, why they matter, and how citizens’ rights will be safeguarded.

Rights-Based Approach: Ensure that any regulation respects the constitutional right to freedom of expression and aligns with international human rights commitments.

Conclusion

Yes, platforms should register and comply. But blocking them for non-compliance is a disproportionate punishment that hurts ordinary Nepalis more than the companies.

Platforms must be accountable and transparent, but accountability cannot come at the cost of citizens’ digital freedoms. Blocking platforms is a blunt and regressive tool - it restricts expression, impacts livelihoods, and risks isolating Nepali citizens in the digital age.

A Question of democratic values: At its heart, this debate is not just about regulation, it is about the kind of digital future Nepal envisions. Are we moving forward on our constitutionally recognized democratic path, where freedom of expression and access to information are respected? Or slipping into a more control-oriented and regressive approach? Blocking platforms may seem like a quick solution, but it risks eroding the very democratic principles Nepali people have worked hard to build.

As a country, Nepal needs smarter, more balanced solutions - ones that demand responsibility from tech companies while also protecting the rights of the people who use them every day.

If China wants to promote a new world order based on cooperation, respect and the rise of the Global South, then the optics at Tianjin’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit did not help. “We should advocate for equal and orderly multipolarisation of the world, inclusive economic globalisation and promote the construction of a more just and equitable global governance system,” President Xi Jinping of China said.

And yet, looking at the group picture of all the world’s leaders attending the conclave, I could not help but feel some form of sympathy for United Nations Secretary-General Guterres. He was relegated not at the center of the group, close to the host, President Xi. Rather you could notice him on the far right, the last person in a long row, very far from the real fulcrum of power projection during the ceremony.

I found this quite disrespectful for the United Nations and the role that they have been playing to promote multilateralism. This is especially true if you look at the track record of Guterres, an old style European socialist with a progressive mindset, who has always been trying to highlight the role of the Global South. The Global Times, the most influential English language media of China and the global megaphone for the Chinese Communist Party, wrote in its editorial the following: “President Xi pointed out that this summit carries the important mission of building consensus, unleashing cooperation momentum, and mapping out a blueprint for development.”

China is the second most powerful nation in the world with one of the most fascinating civilizations. Over the last two decades, it has greatly consolidated its rising status of a global power, a position that is now undeniable as Beijing is directly challenging Washington. With what is happening at the White House under a president who is, simply and plainly speaking, unfit to lead the highest office of the country that happens to also be the leader of the so-called Free World, it is natural that China is exploiting the situation.

In a certain way, it is positive for the world to have a truly multilateral order in place where countries like China, India, Indonesia, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia, Mexico and Brazil, just to mention a few rising nations, can take a leading role. I must say that leading always implies a huge responsibility and I wish that democratic principles and respect for human rights that, let’s not forget, are universal and not a western construct, could be applied to everything and everywhere. Unfortunately, it is not the case. Yet despite the differences, nations can talk and dialogue with each other even if they disagree. The use of the force should always be the very last resort and territorial conflicts should not find space in our times.

Yet Russia continues with its aggression in Ukraine and it seems disinterested in any real peace initiatives. In this scenario, it is a good thing that India and China are finally back to talking to each other and are trying hard to reset their bilateral relationships. I would wonder if the same speed of reconciliation and re-approchement between Delhi and Beijing had occurred if Kamala Harris were in the White House.

Probably the answer is yes because it is inevitable that both nations must learn to co-live in the same region but not at this velocity and depth. “Right choice for India, China to be ‘friends’, President Xi told PM Modi of India with the latter also stressing the importance of cooperation between the two countries. “We are committed to take forward our cooperation based on mutual trust, respect and sensitivity,” were the words of Modi.

Together, these two nations can truly inject a new impetus to global cooperation led by the South but as I was saying, aspiring to lead the world comes with big responsibility. President Xi is correct at deploring, as he did in his speech at the SCO, a unilateral world order where someone can bully others. This is what the White House has been doing not only against China and India but also with the Europeans and Canadians, the closest allies of the USA.

Over the past decades, China has been supporting a multitude of infrastructure around the world through its Belt and Road Initiative. This is something extremely positive even though there have been many concerns, some of which valid while others blown out of proportion, about the sustainability of the loans coming from Beijing.

Something Nepal has been fully aware of, as Kathmandu has been negotiating with its northern neighbor with due respect but also self-confidence and readiness to defend its national interests. It is apparently clear that with the void being created in Washington, China can assert itself and project its strengths, confidence and a new vision of the world. But Beijing should do more on a global level, building stadiums, hospitals, legislature building and railways is not enough.

Can President Xi assert his influence to nudge President Putin of Russia to truly seek to put an end to the war in Ukraine? Can China reassure its partners in the West that its long-sought process of reunification with Taiwan would only happen peacefully and without the threat of use of force?

Barring a few nations, no one is disputing the one-China policy but the current status quo is better than potential bloodshed in the South China Sea. In addition, many western nations have serious concerns about China’s campaign of overt and covert influence in their democratic systems.

I am at risk of being hypocritical here because, critics might say, this is exactly the same playbook that the Americans—and to a lesser extent—the Europeans have been using since the end of the second world war and certainly we cannot erase from history the scourge of colonization. As President Xi reminded the world from the stage of Tianjin that China is no more ready to accept double standards, he must himself set the high standards.

The Global Times reported that the Chinese president, during his meeting with UN SG Guterres, said that “history has revealed that multilateralism, solidarity and cooperation are the right answer to global challenges”. Therefore, it would be a great gesture for China to uphold a new world order by elevating the role of the United Nations, including by proposing new initiatives that can truly create a level playing field.

An example of good leadership on the part of China was seen during the recently held World AI Conference in Shanghai where the host nation proposed the establishment of a global AI body. This is what Guterres has been trying to promote for years and China could be a true force for good to counter the hegemonic model of AI development that the Trump administration is pursuing.

As a European living in Asia, I wish the EU could stand up on its own more strongly and promote its approach that while, far from being perfect, it is centered on the respect for human rights and democracy. Meanwhile, the rise of China and India are inevitable and should be welcome

In this context, with President Xi encouraging nations members of SCO “to oppose the Cold War mentality and bloc confrontation,” China is embracing a morally correct position. Yet will the big “dragon” further assert itself in a way that will truly respect and listen to other nations, especially those with a different political system from its own and search for a real “win-win”? Will Beijing truly espouse the UN as a global institution to co-lead the new form of multilateralism that is emerging?

Guterres, who strongly believes in the role of the Global South, should become a central ally to China’s new aspirations and vision of the world. And finally, let’s admit that the optics of that picture in Tianjin were bad.