Submit your Article

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.

The long-standing comradely relationship between KP Sharma Oli and Bidya Devi Bhandari has soured. Soon after Bhandari openly challenged her removal from the post of party chair, the Central Committee of CPN-UML officially decided to bar the former head of state from active party politics.

Although UML leaders have defended the midnight decision, claiming it was made to uphold the sanctity of the presidential office, many within the party and the general public remain unconvinced. While it’s still unclear how this episode will unfold, Bhandari has signaled her intent to stay active in party politics. However, by denying her even an ordinary party membership, the UML has created a barrier for her to engage directly with party leaders and cadres.

Previously, there were assumptions that a fair number of party leaders and cadres might support Bhandari, but the Central Committee meeting told a different story. Only a handful of leaders stood by her, while the overwhelming majority sided with Oli, which is likely due to his current status as Prime Minister. Just two leaders, Surendra Pandey and Yubaraj Gyawali, opposed the party’s decision to bar Bhandari from political involvement.

Bhandari’s limited support within the party’s Central Committee poses a serious challenge to her ability to become politically active or pose a meaningful challenge to Oli, who retains a firm grip on the party. Oli is poised to secure a third consecutive term as party leader, barring any dramatic developments. In Bhandari’s absence, no leader appears willing to contest the party leadership at the upcoming general convention.

Meanwhile, within the Nepali Congress (NC), senior leader Shekhar Koirala has been meeting with both ruling and opposition party leaders, though the reasons remain unclear. Prime Minister Oli, however, reportedly views these meetings as attempts to unseat his government. Seven NC second-rung leaders also held a luncheon at Prakash Man Singh’s residence, but the meeting failed to generate any notable impact within the party.

Koirala has separately met opposition leader Pushpa Kamal Dahal and former President Bhandari. He has grown increasingly vocal in criticizing the government, arguing that UML is attacking the core values of the NC and that the party should withdraw from the coalition. Some speculate that Koirala is positioning himself to become prime minister by dismantling the current coalition. However, he lacks the numbers needed to become the parliamentary party leader. Koirala believes that if he can ascend to the premiership before the party’s general convention, he could influence the party’s internal elections.

Several key bills related to land, education, and the Constitutional Council have become contentious issues among coalition partners. Serious differences persist between NC and UML on these matters, and while they may not immediately threaten the coalition, they are a source of growing friction. Senior leaders from both parties are engaged in ongoing discussions, but efforts to bridge the divide have thus far failed. NC leaders are also pressuring President Ram Chandra Poudel to reject the bill concerning the Constitutional Council.

UML is under public scrutiny for its apparent double standards on the “cooling-off” period in the Civil Service Bill. While some of its National Assembly members support removing this provision, both the NC and the CPN (Maoist Center) are firmly opposed to any compromise. In a previous incident, the bureaucracy altered a draft bill passed by the House of Representatives, prompting the formation of a probe panel to investigate.

Within the Maoist Center, the rift between party chair Dahal and Janardhan Sharma is deepening. Sharma is reportedly trying to form a rival faction within the party. Recently, he publicly remarked that apart from Manmohan Adhikari, all communist leaders have engaged in the accumulation of vast wealth, a comment that has irritated Dahal. While several second-tier leaders are seeking a change in leadership, Dahal remains unwilling to step down.

The Rastriya Prajatantra Party, once in the national spotlight, is now mired in internal disunity. Senior leaders like Dhawal Shumsher Rana and Prakash Chandra Lohani have criticized party chair Rajendra Lingden for alleged bias against party members and cadres. Senior leader Rabindra Mishra, however, remains silent amid the growing intra-party conflict.

This week, media reports suggested that Prime Minister Oli is planning an official visit to New Delhi. Some outlets have speculated on possible dates, but officials have yet to confirm details. Nonetheless, both countries have recently discussed important matters such as mutual legal assistance and an extradition treaty.

The government has declared Madhesh Province a disaster-affected zone due to a prolonged drought that has severely impacted drinking water supplies, irrigation, and agriculture. Climate change is dramatically reshaping life in the region, from drying springs to plummeting rice yields. Locals say they feel increasingly estranged from the very elements that once sustained them. “Neither the rice feels like ours anymore, nor the water,” many say, as parched fields and vanishing water sources force families to walk miles just to collect a single bucket.

The discord between CPN-UML Chairman KP Sharma Oli and former President Bidya Devi Bhandari has further escalated, with both remaining adamant in their respective positions.

Prime Minister Oli and a majority of leaders in the party’s Central Committee (CC) believe that a former head of state should not return to active party politics. However, Bhandari has shown no signs of heeding the suggestions from Oli, UML leaders, or even opposition parties. A day after Oli instructed the CC members not to act as a ‘spokesperson’ for the former president, Bhandari warned against attempts to ‘terrorize’ her supporters. Speaking to a group of journalists, she reiterated her return to UML politics and firmly stated that she would not back down.

Whether out of deference to Oli or genuine concern, most CC members have echoed the view that a former president re-entering active politics would have negative implications for the nascent republic. Only a few leaders spoke in her favor during the CC meeting, and even they refrained from explicitly endorsing her political comeback. Meanwhile, most CC leaders have rallied behind Oli’s bid to lead the party for a third consecutive term at the upcoming general convention. To facilitate this, the UML is preparing to amend its statute at the upcoming statute convention. Some party leaders have even suggested that the ongoing CC meeting should unanimously propose Oli as party chair for the next five years.

A one-on-one meeting between Oli and Bhandari on Sunday failed to narrow the rift; instead, it appears to have widened it further. Outside the UML as well, the political environment remains largely unfavorable for Bhandari’s return. The largest party, Nepali Congress, has reiterated its stance that former presidents should refrain from active politics. “We have a clear position that the former president should not engage in active politics,” said NC leader Gopal Man Shrestha.

The main opposition, CPN (Maoist Center), has not taken a clear position, partly due to its own moral quandary, as former Vice President Nanda Kishwor Pun has already joined the party, ignoring similar objections about returning to active politics. Speaking from her private residence, Bhandari made it clear that there is no turning back. Oli and Bhandari have long shared a cordial relationship. Oli played a key role in securing her presidency in 2015.

At that time, there had been intense debate within the UML over the party's presidential nominee. Senior leaders like Madhav Kumar Nepal supported Jhala Nath Khanal or Astha Laxmi Shakya, but Oli stood firmly behind Bhandari. During her tenure, Bhandari and Oli maintained a close working relationship, with Bhandari often criticized for approving Oli’s decisions, including the controversial dissolution of Parliament, without any scrutiny. 

Tensions began to surface when Bhandari publicly expressed her intent to return to active politics. Initially, Oli did not oppose her. However, in her Nepali New Year message, Bhandari hinted at the need to review the party's current leadership, an indirect challenge to Oli’s position. This statement was widely interpreted as a signal that she aimed to displace Oli.

Despite the tension, the two leaders continued to meet regularly, either at Baluwatar or at Bhandari’s residence. In June, Bhandari visited China for a week, and the two met both before and after the trip. Her supporters claimed that China sees Bhandari as a future leader of the UML, potentially uniting the broader left. According to Bhandari, she had informed Oli of her intention to return to politics even while serving as president.

Relations soured further after Bhandari declared in an interview last week that she wishes to lead the party. In response, Oli reminded her that her party membership renewal is still pending. Bhandari had relinquished her UML membership after becoming president in 2015, upholding the principle that the head of state should remain impartial.

After her term ended in 2022, Bhandari submitted an application to renew her party membership. She claims to have done so six months after leaving office, and at the time, no UML leaders raised objections. However, party leaders now argue that the issue is political rather than technical. It remains unclear how the UML will resolve the matter of Bhandari’s return to active politics.

Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli is preparing to lead the CPN-UML for a third consecutive term, a move not uncommon in communist parties. To facilitate this, the party is set to amend its statute at the upcoming statute convention next month. The proposed amendment would remove the two-term limit and the 70-year age cap for the party leadership. The rationale is straightforward: Oli is already 74, and party insiders argue there is no other leader capable of steering the party through the current challenging situation.

“In the seventh general convention, I myself had proposed the 70-year age limit, but the context of the party and the country has changed entirely,” Oli told the UML Central Committee on Monday. His push for a third term is not without precedent. Madhav Kumar Nepal, now leading a separate party, served as the UML's executive general secretary for 15 years, from 1993 to 2008. Still, within UML, there is no clear or consistent policy regarding age or term limits for top leadership roles.

Oli’s supporters insist he must remain at the helm for at least five more years, arguing that the party faces a monumental challenge in becoming the largest political force in the 2027 elections. Within the UML, Oli continues to project himself as the undisputed leader, and is determined not to allow the rise of any rival faction. According to leaders close to him, Oli has repeatedly made it clear that he will not settle for being the party's second-in-command.

Oli has also consistently warned against the formation of factions. In the ongoing Central Committee meeting, Oli cautioned leaders against acting as “spokesperson” for former president Bidya Devi Bhandari, as speculation grows about her potential entry into party politics. Among UML’s senior leadership, figures such as Ishwar Pokhrel, Yubaraj Gyawali, Astha Laxmi Shakya, Ram Bahadur Thapa, Surendra Pandey, Shankar Pokhrel, and Pradeep Gyawali remain influential. Of these, only Pokhrel and Pandey are seen as sympathetic to Bhandari.

Oli first became UML chairperson in 2015 after defeating Madhav Kumar Nepal, and won again in 2021, decisively beating Bhim Rawal, despite his aim for a unanimous endorsement. Following disagreements with Oli, Nepal left UML to form the CPN (Unified Socialist), while Rawal also exited the party. Within Nepal’s communist parties, long-term leadership is not uncommon. CPN (Maoist Centre) Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal has led his party since the 1980s without holding intra-party elections and has indicated that he intends to remain in power indefinitely.

Dahal’s key rivals, Baburam Bhattarai and Mohan Baidya, have already departed from the Maoist party. Although Janardhan Sharma has emerged as a potential challenger, he has yet to pose a serious threat to Dahal’s leadership. Meanwhile, CPN (Unified Socialist) Chair Nepal has refused to step down, despite ongoing corruption cases filed against him by the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority.

UML, however, has traditionally operated differently from the Maoists and other fringe parties. Since 1990, it has held regular intra-party elections to choose its leadership, the last of which was in 2021 that re-elected Oli. To win a third term, Oli will once again need to secure internal support.

The recent public statement by former President Bhandari announcing her return to active politics has sparked criticism of Oli’s third-term ambition. Oli maintains that he deserves another term, citing significant progress in party organization. He told the Central Committee that ordinary party membership had increased by 28 percent under his leadership. Moreover, he emphasized the absence of ideological or policy disputes within the party and called on all members to work collectively to position UML as the decisive political force in 2027.

Bhandari’s re-entry into party politics could pose a serious challenge to Oli’s dominance. However, Oli has publicly stated that a former head of state should not return to active politics, arguing that doing so would undermine the dignity of the presidential office. Referring to leaders close to Bhandari, he accused them of deliberately trying to create discord within the party. Oli is aware that Bhandari’s political engagement could lead to the emergence of a strong rival faction, potentially challenging his leadership at the upcoming general convention. In recent months, Bhandari has been quietly working to consolidate her influence within the party. Nevertheless, Oli continues to enjoy a firm grip over the party, with dissenting voices largely subdued.

Former President Bidya Devi Bhandari’s announcement to rejoin active politics has raised widespread concerns about the impartiality and integrity of the presidency. Political leaders and experts argue that her decision undermines Nepal’s nascent republic, which is already facing challenges from royalist forces.

Former Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai criticized the move, stating that it contradicts the CPN-UML’s professed ideology of multiparty democracy, as championed by Madan Bhandari. “Bhandari’s return to active politics is not just an internal party matter. It has serious implications for national interests, the spirit of the federal republic, and governance,” he said.

Nepali Congress (NC) leaders warned that Bhandari’s political reentry could intensify attacks on the republic and erode public trust in the presidency. Over the past year, Bhandari has been conducting parallel party activities and has openly declared her ambition to lead the UML and eventually become prime minister.

In contrast, former President Ram Baran Yadav (2008–2015) has refrained from active politics, focusing instead on social work. While former Vice President Nanda Kishor Pun joined Maoist politics, observers note that the roles of president and vice president carry vastly different symbolic weights, making Bhandari’s case more contentious.

Political analysts warn that if Bhandari resumes active politics, the presidency may no longer be seen as an impartial institution, weakening the republican system. Past decisions by both Yadav and Bhandari have already faced public scrutiny. Yadav clashed with non-NC prime ministers, while Bhandari was accused of favoring the UML during her tenure. Her latest move reinforces the perception that presidents prioritize party interests over national ones. Unlike in democracies where former heads of state typically engage in philanthropy, Bhandari’s decision sets a concerning precedent.

Prime Minister and UML Chairperson KP Sharma Oli has opposed Bhandari’s return, calling it detrimental to both the country and party unity. He noted that the UML supported her presidency assuming she would adhere to constitutional norms barring former presidents from active politics. “Her plan to rejoin politics is alarming, given her former role as head of state, supreme commander of the Nepali Army, and a symbol of the republic,” Oli said.

Bhandari is pressuring the party to clarify her position, reportedly seeking senior leadership status before next month’s statute convention. However, the UML has delayed renewing her ordinary membership, citing ongoing review. Senior leader Surendra Pandey claims her membership was renewed two years ago, but the party has not officially confirmed this.

Meanwhile, Bhandari has been expanding her influence through the Madan Bhandari Foundation, a think tank named after her late husband, and touring provinces to bolster her support base.

As Bhandari maneuvers for a comeback, the UML is preparing amendments to allow Oli a third consecutive term as chairman and abolish the 70-year age limit, a move opposed by Vice-chairperson Ishwar Pokhrel but met with silence from other senior leaders. Leaders like Pokhrel, Ananda Pokhrel, Karna Bahadur Thapa and Gokul Banskota have openly backed Bhandari, while top figures remain noncommittal.

Amid rising tensions, Oli and Bhandari held a one-on-one meeting at the UML headquarters on Sunday, signaling unresolved negotiations over her political future.

The private sector accounts for more than 80 percent of the national economy, according to the Federation of Nepalese Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FNCCI).  According to the apex body of the Nepali private sector, the number of private sector establishments surged from 28,600 in 1983 to 923,356 in 2018.

This growth accelerated after Nepal adopted liberal economic policies and embraced privatization in the early 1990s. The 1990 constitution, one of South Asia’s most progressive charters at that time, created an enabling environment for private sector investment, including in the media industry. In the years that followed, the private sector boomed which strengthened the economic health of private media houses. From the late 1990s through 2015, many media houses thrived financially, fueled largely by advertising from both the private sector and government. However, some also collapsed due to economic instability.

During the Maoist insurgency and the transition to the 2015 constitution, donor funding became another key source of income for Nepali media. Many outlets received substantial support to produce content aligned with the interests and agendas of international donors. In recent years, however, such funding has come under criticism, with concerns that it influenced politics and public policy in problematic ways. These funds are now in decline, leading to the shutdown of many legacy media outlets, particularly private and community radio stations that had played a critical role in informing and empowering rural communities. 

Following the promulgation of the new Constitution in 2015, and even before that, many donor organizations began shifting their focus to other regions, particularly in Africa and other conflicted-hit areas. In response, the Biden administration allocated support for independent media, including Nepal. But with the return of Donald Trump to the US presidency and the subsequent dismantling of USAID programs, media outlets that depended on American funding are now facing a deepening crisis. Across Asia and Africa, dozens of USAID-funded media organizations are on the brink of collapse. In Nepal too, media revenues from advertising are falling and international support is drying up.

Given this context, the time has come for Nepal’s private sector to step in, not as an act of charity, but as a commitment to safeguarding democracy. The private sector bears a huge responsibility that goes beyond profit-making. While some business houses with political connections may continue to benefit in the short term, a truly strong and sustainable private sector can only flourish in a democratic environment.

Around the world, there are examples of the private sector and middle class investing in the independent media to counter partisan journalism and to support civil society movements.

In their recent opinion piece, prominent scholars Semuhi Sinanoglu, Lucan Way and Steven Levitsky argue that a healthy private sector and a strong middle class form the backbone of a robust independent media. They have cited the example of Malaysia’s popular newspaper Malaysiakini, which, supported by the private sector and a growing urban middle class, broke the political monopoly over the media landscape.  They also highlighted several other cases where the private sector has stepped in to support independent journalism, ultimately contributing to the strengthening of democracy.

According to a 2023 study by Center for International Media Assistance, case studies in Czechia, Romania and Serbia show that the private sector can and does play a meaningful role in protecting information integrity.  While most of these efforts are modest in scale, they demonstrate the potential for private sector engagement in addressing information disorder and the wider challenges facing independent media in the region, the study states.  

In India, too, the private sector has backed some independent media platforms practicing free and fair journalism. For instance, individual investors have supported ‘The Print’, an online portal led by veteran journalist Shekhar Gupta. The portal has publicly disclosed the names of its backers.

In Nepal, however, beyond advertisement, there have been few initiatives where the private sector has provided direct funding to independent media houses, enabling them to report without business or political interference. One exception, though still debated, is Ukaalo.Com, which focuses on investigative reporting. Since its launch, questions have been raised about its funding model and sources. While the outlet positions itself as a not-for-profit entity and maintains no affiliation with political or corporate groups, there is speculation that Buddha Air provided seed funding, along with other private sector individuals. However, the media house has not made its funding details public, limiting open discussion on the issue. 

There are no major initiatives in Nepal where the private sector is supporting independent journalism for the sake of strengthening democratic discourse. The issue is not about private media houses funding outlets to serve their own business interests. Rather, it is about the private sector contributing to media that can produce genuinely independent content, countering politically and commercially influenced narratives, and tackling misinformation and disinformation.

This is undoubtedly a difficult period for Nepal’s private sector. But some business houses have seen remarkable growth and are in a position to provide seed funding for new independent media ventures. The middle-class could also step in to support such initiatives.

Now, more than ever, the private sector is becoming the victims of misinformation and disinformation. In private conversations, top business leaders have expressed concern that they are being targeted by false or misleading narratives, often amplified by certain media outlets. The most effective way to counter this is through investment in independent media for fact-checking initiatives. 

Major media organizations throughout the world have begun creating dedicated departments to counter misinformation and disinformation. In Nepal, however, effective efforts on this front are lacking. The private sector should consider investing in this area, as information integrity is vital for the business to grow.

However, the private sector is hesitant to openly support independent journalism. Many fear backlash from political parties or the government. Even those few business leaders, who have recognized the importance of independent media, choose to remain silent out of fear that any critical reporting on those in power could result in retaliation under various pretexts.

Compounding the issue is the lack of trust and communication between independent media outlets and business houses. Many business leaders feel that their issues are not adequately represented in the mainstream media. One top businessman recently told me that the media only reached out for collaboration after a crisis had already hit. This means, there is a clear need for more dialogue and consultations between independent media houses and the private sector. 

At the same time, it is important to acknowledge that the private sector has not turned its back on independent media entirely. Despite the challenges, some businesses are still providing financial support. They deserve credit for recognizing the role of independent journalism in upholding democracy.

The private sector must fully understand why independent media is essential to democratic governance and why a healthy democracy is, in turn, necessary for sustainable private sector growth. There has been little public discussion about the private sector’s role in strengthening civil society and supporting free and fair journalism. If the private sector wants unbiased, balanced and trustworthy information in the public domain, now is the time to invest in independent media that can operate freely and fearlessly without political or corporate interference.

Former President Bidya Devi Bhandari has made it clear that her political ambition is to lead the party and eventually become the prime minister. She has signaled that current party leader KP Sharma Oli should hand over leadership to her, suggesting that, if necessary, a healthy internal election could decide the matter.

The UML leadership is under pressure to make key decisions at its upcoming statute convention, scheduled for next month in Kathmandu. Oli raised the issue of Bhandari’s recent political activities at the ongoing UML Secretariat meeting. “Her announcement to return to politics has increased polarization within the party,” Oli said. “To stop further division, we must move forward in a united manner. The time has come for an institutional decision.”

Oli added that Bhandari’s decision to return to party politics has now become a subject for internal party discussion, and a conclusion will be reached through dialogue. He is of the view that Bhandari needs to clearly communicate her goals and intentions. 

Bhandari has been expanding her political presence through the Madan Bhandari Foundation and recently launched her personal website to publicize her activities.

Meanwhile, the government’s image has been tarnished by corruption scandals involving cabinet ministers. Minister for Federal Affairs and General Administration, Raj Kumar Gupta, resigned following the release of an audio clip allegedly linking him to a bribery deal. Bhagawati Neupane has since replaced him. Similarly, a video implicating Land Reform Minister Balaram Adhikari has surfaced, though it remains unverified whether the clip is authentic or AI-generated.

Despite Prime Minister Oli’s declared policy of zero tolerance toward corruption, the government is under fire for failing to contain such scandals. Over recent months, corruption cases have multiplied, further eroding public trust in the political system. Many argue that coalition governments, by nature, are more vulnerable to corruption than single-party administrations.

Adding to the government’s woes, two coalition partners—Janata Samajbadi Party (JSP) and Nagarik Unmukti Party—have withdrawn support. While this may not have immediate national implications, it signals a weakening of the government’s political base. As a result, the ruling coalition has lost its majority in the National Assembly (Upper House), potentially complicating the passage of key legislation. The land reform bill lies at the heart of the dispute between JSP and the government. Notably, even NC and UML remain divided on several key provisions of the bill.

There is speculation that Prime Minister Oli may reshuffle underperforming ministers to boost the government’s performance. Some ministers have publicly stated that during their swearing-in last year, the prime minister had indicated they might be removed after one year.

The Oli government has now completed its first year in office, with a mixed record. While it has managed to ensure relative stability, it has been criticized for failing to initiate the long-promised constitutional amendments. In terms of governance, little progress has been made, although anti-corruption bodies like the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) have uncovered major scandals. Notably, the CIAA has filed corruption charges against former Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal, a move many view as politically motivated.

Ministers continue to highlight their achievements publicly, but the general public remains unimpressed by their performance.

Like in previous years, capital expenditure once again failed to meet targets. As usual, a last-minute rush in the final month of the fiscal year, commonly referred to as Asare Bikash (July Development), led to potentially inefficient spending. Such practices often open doors for corruption, yet no effective mechanism exists to monitor these expenditures.

Intra-party tensions have also escalated within the Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP). Party Chairperson Rajendra Lingden has removed Navaraj Subedi from the Disciplinary Committee and Sagun Kumar Lawati as the party spokesperson. Senior leader Dhawal Shumsher Rana has publicly criticized the move and is positioning himself to challenge Lingden in the upcoming leadership contest. The once-vocal royalist movement has lost momentum, and the RPP is now reassessing its direction. Some leaders believe that if former King Gyanendra Shah is not genuinely committed—having reportedly contributed only Rs 10m—it is time to drop the monarchy agenda and focus solely on promoting Hindu nationalism. Ironically, the royalist revival campaign has ended up dividing the RPP itself.

The government has launched parallel investigations into two controversies: the disappearance of individuals during Prime Minister Oli’s official visit to Spain, and the leaked audio implicating former Minister Raj Kumar Gupta in a bribery case. Minister for Communication and Information Technology, Prithvi Subba Gurung, confirmed that an inquiry is underway into reports that several people—outside the official delegation—who traveled with the prime minister to Spain did not return.

The Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) claims that 2.5m people have signed a petition asserting that the legal cases against party leader Rabi Lamichhane are politically motivated. The party also reports raising over Rs 4m in public donations for Lamichhane. Party workers continue to campaign door-to-door to rally support.

In a significant legal development, a division bench of the Supreme Court ruled that daughters married before 1 Oct 2015, are not entitled to ancestral property. This verdict settles a long-standing legal dispute, at least for now. The judiciary, however, remains under public scrutiny for alleged political affiliations in judicial appointments.

Meanwhile, efforts are underway to restore the trade routes and rescue stranded Nepalis after the Rasuwa landslide severed connectivity between Nepal and China. The government has requested China to install a bailey bridge before the Dashain festival.

This is a challenging time for legacy media. As an editor, I frequently encounter concerns about the financial health of media houses. It is evident that society is becoming increasingly aware of the problems that the media industry is facing. Traditional media outlets are in the midst of an existential crisis, as both advertisers and audiences are migrating to digital platforms. 

Historically, the media has weathered technological shifts. The rise of radio in the 1920s did not significantly impact print, and radio itself managed to survive the television era despite visual’s strong appeal. However, the emergence of digital platforms is different; it is pushing all traditional media to the brink. This is why legacy media are now desperately working to develop a viable blueprint for survival. At this point, the primary goal for legacy media is to survive, if not thrive. To this end, for better or worse, they are working on two broad areas.

First, they are restructuring newsrooms to reduce staffing and administrative costs. While most layoffs have already been carried out, the new model, referred to as the integrated newsroom, is still taking shape. At the same time, media houses are exploring alternative revenue streams, as income from traditional sources, particularly advertisement, is fast declining. The idea of integrating radio, television and print newsrooms into a single space has gained momentum since the 2000s. In principle, it holds promise, especially if the goal is to foster collaboration among journalists across platforms, thereby enriching content. However, if the integration is pursued purely to cut costs, it risks undermining the very strengths of radio, television and print in the long run.

We must recognize that radio, television and print each have unique characteristics that have enabled them to survive for over a century. While they may report on similar issues, each platform has its own style of storytelling, audience engagement and distinct target audience. For instance, radio content often caters to both literate and illiterate audiences. This is something print and television may not fully accommodate. Delivering the same content across all platforms may offer short-term financial relief, but it will ultimately weaken the media’s overall impact. In Nepal, some experiments have already been done and they have been proved harmful rather than good outcomes in terms of securing the advertisement. 

Consider this: why did radio survive in the age of television? Because it offered something television could not. It had unique strengths that remained relevant despite the appeal of video. Over sixty years ago, Marshall McLuhan introduced the ‘medium is the message’ concept, suggesting that the characteristics of a communication medium influence how messages are perceived. Applying this idea today, we must be cautious about full-scale integration which may reduce costs marginally but compromise content quality and diversity in the long term.

International experiences show that poorly executed integration often leads to generic, homogenized content, sacrificing depth and specialization. In reality, if a media house is committed to delivering quality content, integrated newsrooms offer limited cost savings; perhaps only in administrative overheads or rent. In some cases, integration has even led to revenue losses, as clients are unwilling to pay separately for nearly identical content across platforms.

In the pursuit of financial sustainability, media houses are now experimenting with new revenue models. However, they are still unsure which model works best in Nepal.  Globally, dozens of new models are being tested, but most are still in the experimental stage. One thing is clear: While no alternative has matched the scale of advertising revenue, these new streams are providing a crucial lifeline for media houses, at least for survival. The Nepali context is even more complex. While internationally available revenue models can be useful for academic discussions, they may not be practical in Nepali society. A copy-paste approach to these models risks losing existing readers and audiences, especially if implemented without a clear understanding of Nepali society and its media consumption patterns.

Since the late 16th century, advertising has remained the dominant source of income for media; first for print, and later for television, radio and digital platforms. In addition, the print industry has long relied on subscription and circulation models, while television adopted the pay-TV model. The late 1940s saw the rise of advertorial content—paid content blending advertising and editorial, which, while still present, now contributes far less to overall revenue.

Advertisement continues to be the main revenue source for both legacy and digital media. However, the advertising landscape has changed significantly. Ads are now spread across both journalistic and non-journalistic platforms, ending the long-standing monopoly of legacy media. As a result, advertising alone can no longer sustain either traditional or digital outlets. This is not just a crisis of legacy media; it also affects digital media. That is why media organizations are desperately seeking to adopt new revenue models already in use internationally. Let’s consider the current revenue crisis and examine the strengths and weaknesses of some emerging models. One income stream that Nepali media houses have increasingly embraced is organizing events focused on political, economic and social issues.

Both legacy and digital outlets have generated substantial revenue from these events. Many advertisers now prefer sponsoring such events over placing traditional ads. While this approach is not new or particularly innovative, it has become competitive, with media outlets vying to host high-profile events to generate income. Another growing trend is video advertising, particularly through social media platforms. The volume of digital advertisements is gradually increasing. Some outlets are earning respectable sums from platforms like YouTube and Facebook though some legal hassles remain. Even small revenue from these platforms is offering much-needed support to struggling media houses.

Over the past few years, there has been a debate about the feasibility of a paywall subscription model in Nepal. While the online news portal Setopati has implemented this model, another popular portal Onlinekhabar remains hesitant due to fear that it may lose readership. We, at Annapurna Media Network, are also considering this model. However, we have concluded that further preparation and deliberation are necessary before moving forward.

Broadly speaking, digital platforms offer two types of subscription models: premium where users pay to access content, and freemium where basic content is free and only select content is behind a paywall. The paywall model cannot succeed without ensuring consistent quality in both text and video content. Readers will not be willing to pay for content that is superficial or poorly produced. Without significantly scaling up our current content, this model is likely to fail. At the same time, we must avoid the mistake of comparing ourselves with international media. The fact is that only a small segment of the Nepali population is willing to pay for content, even when it is of high quality.

A close study of quality content produced by media houses shows that very few people are actually reading it. One major reason is that the private sector, intellectuals, academia and society as a whole have become highly politicized and polarized. As a result, a wider section of the population tends to consume partisan and biased news that reinforces their perceptions and views rather than content that is accurate, balanced and impartial. While Nepal’s population is not small, the country’s economic conditions limit people’s ability and willingness to pay for news content. In short, the first major challenge is to consistently produce high-quality content tailored to different segments of the population.

As mentioned earlier, there is no lack of revenue models; the real challenge lies in identifying which models are suitable for our context. Potential models include live streaming, monetizing content through social media, generating income from memberships and newsletters, corporate social responsibility (CSR) support from businesses and funding from international organizations, among others. Unlike in the past, no single platform or model now dominates the media landscape. The only viable way forward, therefore, is to adopt a mix of revenue sources. Doing so, however, requires a broad strategic plan and upfront investment in these diverse areas. Since advertising alone cannot sustain media houses, it is time to re-imagine how they operate.

One bold step could be to transform media houses into non-profit entities, which would enable them to seek contributions from various sectors of society to support media sustainability. However, the current ownership structure may limit the ability to implement all possible revenue-generating models. Over the past three decades, Nepali media have rarely embraced innovation or entrepreneurship, primarily because they could rely on steady income from advertising. They also did little to engage with or respond to readers’ preferences and feedback. Today, innovation, entrepreneurship and the ability to adapt to changing expectations of readers are not just optional; they are essential for survival.