Submit your Article

We know that the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789 was the first document to refer to social, economic, and cultural rights, including the rights to education, work, property, and social protection. In 1941, the Atlantic Charter was declared, which paved the way for the development of an International Bill of Rights during 1942–45. The adoption and proclamation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1948 marked a historic milestone in the field of human rights.

The historic Article 2, which states that “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind… no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional,” affirms that everyone is equal, irrespective of differences. The UDHR also emphasizes public participation. Article 21 declares that everyone has the right of equal access to public service in their country, and further elaborates on the right to periodic elections and secret ballots.

Article 25.1 states: “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and wellbeing of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing, and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age, or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.”

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) of 1976 and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) of 1976 oblige signatory nations to uphold human rights. The UNDP also highlights human rights as a central concern. Nepal is a signatory to these conventions, covenants, and protocols.

Article 1 of the UDHR—“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights”—clearly enshrines the principle of equality. Article 2, which prohibits distinctions of any kind, further reinforces this. These are moral claims, inalienable and inherent in all human beings by virtue of their humanity. Over time, these claims have been articulated and codified into what we now call human rights, and have been translated into legal rights through national and international law. The basis of such legal rights lies in the consent of the governed—the subjects of these rights.

Human rights are well defined in the following lines: “The values of dignity and equality of all members of the human race, like many other basic principles which underlie what we today call human rights, can be found in virtually every culture and civilization, religion and philosophical tradition.” 

Human rights: Comments and interpretations (1948)

The United Nations once designated the International Year of Human Rights “to broaden and deepen human rights learning on the basis of the principles of universality, individuality, interdependence, impartiality, objectivity and non-selectivity, constructive dialogue and cooperation, with a view to enhancing the promotion and protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms.”

The first article of the UDHR expresses universality through the principle of human dignity. The second article guarantees entitlement to rights without discrimination of any kind. The Preamble recognizes the “inherent dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family” as the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world.

In Nepal, the culture of human rights is relatively new. The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) was established in 2000 as a statutory body under the Human Rights Commission Act of 1997. Its responsibilities, now constitutionally mandated by the Constitution of Nepal (2015), complement the work of the Supreme Court, the Office of the Attorney General, and other judicial and quasi-judicial bodies.

The Commission was founded in line with the 1991 UN-sponsored Paris Principles, a detailed set of guidelines on the status of national institutions. These principles, endorsed by the UN Commission on Human Rights (1992) and the UN General Assembly (1993), became the foundation for the NHRC’s establishment. As per Article 248 and 249 of the Constitution of Nepal, the NHRC is meant to function as an independent and autonomous constitutional body.

Every year on Dec 10, the world observes International Human Rights Day, a reminder of the inherent dignity and equal rights of all members of the human family. The United Nations first recognized the day universally in 1950. Yet, it is regrettable that human rights violations persist in many forms.

The commemoration of this day reminds us that human rights must never be violated. The principles of the UDHR, adopted in 1948, remain crucial to creating a more just and rights-friendly world. However, violations continue, and the struggle for human dignity remains urgent. Discrimination based on caste, religion, gender, and disability persists across the world. While constitutions guarantee human rights, implementation often falls short. Even the Human Rights Commissions, which are tasked with addressing these issues, sometimes fail to respond adequately. Gender-based violence, domestic abuse, sexual exploitation, and human trafficking remain widespread—dark stains on humanity’s conscience.

The UDHR is reinforced by two essential covenants adopted in 1966—the ICCPR and the ICESCR—which clarify and enact the rights it proclaims. Today, new challenges such as climate change threaten the realization of human rights globally. World leaders must unite to address discrimination, inequality, and violence of all kinds. Human rights have become a global concern, essential for building a just and peaceful world. The core message of commemorating the 76th International Human Rights Day and the UDHR should be the vision of a discrimination-free world.

The KP Oli government is fully responsible for Monday’s massacre. I was an eyewitness at the Civil Hospital in New Baneshwar from 12 noon to 7 in the evening, while under curfew. I had gone there for a routine check of my wife’s poor health. Tear gas smoke filled the hospital premises, yet the doctors and nurses continued administering first aid to the wounded protesters. Some, gravely injured, had to be treated on the ground as the emergency ward overflowed. The indiscriminate use of force by security personnel was a gross violation of human rights. Meanwhile, human rights watchdogs failed to monitor effectively. No commissioner was present on the ground; instead, they remained in air-conditioned rooms issuing press statements.

Thus, the NHRC was negligent in monitoring the human rights situation. The demands of GenZ are genuine, yet the government has shown total indifference to the gross violations committed against protesters in today’s context.

On India’s Independence Day, Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced what he called a “gift” for consumers this Diwali in the form of long-awaited Goods and Services Tax (GST) 2.0 reforms. The announcement was expected to come from the Finance Minister, the chair of the all-powerful GST Council, but many got a surprise when the PM, on August 15, announced the upcoming GST reforms in keeping with his promise to reduce the rates before Diwali 2025, even before a formal approval from the council. 

The government wants to move to a simplified tax structure of five and 18 percent, replacing the current tax rates of 12 percent and 28 percent. This move from the Modi government is meant to increase revenues amid rising concerns in Nepal regarding a surge in imports from India.     During its 56th GST Council meeting, India proposed reducing the four main revenue slabs of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) to two main ones, after the US decided to impose a 50 percent tariff on most Indian products, apparently to increase revenues by increasing domestic consumption.     Accordingly, the previous four slabs of 5, 12, 18 and 28 rates have come down to only two main slabs of 5 and 12 percent. As for some tobacco, pan masala products and expensive vehicles, GST has surged to 40 percent.

The council has reduced the rates for daily necessities, which were charging 18 percent GST, to five percent, covering more than 175 items, including toothpaste, talcum powder and shampoo.

Meanwhile, five percent remains the rate for items of daily consumption, other food items, FMCG and other items. What’s more, the Modi government has proposed reducing the GST from 12 to five percent on hotel bookings and cinema tickets. The council has proposed reducing the GST on medicines and medical supplies under health services, which are currently charging 12 percent to five percent.

If things go as planned, medicines used in the treatment of cancer will enjoy GST exemption along with personal health insurance and life insurance. According to Indian media, there is a possibility of reducing the GST from 12 to 5 percent by exempting products like paneer, pizza, bread, khakra, fruit juices, coconut water, butter, cheese, pasta and ice cream.

What’s more, the council has proposed a five percent GST on chemical fertilizers used in agriculture, clothes, solar panels, stationery, beauty products, umbrellas and shoes. Under the new scheme of things, the Modi government has proposed reducing GST to 18 percent from 28 percent on electronics like TV sets and AC equipment as well as on petrol hybrid cars.

If not implemented properly, the proposed two-rate structure of five percent and 18 percent could be a perfect opportunity for disaster with the 13 percentage point difference between the two rates turning out to be a golden opportunity for tax evaders. This huge difference in rates can also lead to an inverted tariff structure for almost all supplies, which is why it is assumed that input tax credit has been allowed for this slab.

The council’s decision will take effect once the Government of India publishes it in its gazette.

Meanwhile, Nepali experts and traders fear that the extensive changes in indirect tax rates in the form of GST on the part of India will adversely affect Nepal's industry and business.

At a time when the gray market is moving parallely in Nepal, the unauthorized import of cheap goods will increase even further, causing a negative impact on Nepal's industry and business sector, and subsequently on the overall revenue and the economy as a whole. Entrepreneurs warn that the Indian government’s move will pose a huge challenge to Nepal's industries that are producing essential goods.

The government should take adequate steps to protect relevant domestic industries from harmful effects of the Indian move. 

The Government of Nepal’s arbitrary decision of Sept 4 to impose a blanket ban on 26 social media platforms including Facebook, YouTube, X, Instagram and LinkedIn, will have far-reaching consequences for Nepal’s digital ecosystem, democracy, freedom of expression and independent journalism. 

Social media in Nepal has become a vital space for civic engagement, where citizens, activists, and journalists share critical information, challenge state narratives, and demand accountability from those in power. Silencing these platforms not only undermines constitutional guarantees but also pushes dissent underground, fostering fear, censorship, and self-censorship.

Silencing dissent and independent journalism 

Media Action Nepal’s record shows that nearly 2,500 professional journalists—at least 1,000 of them formerly associated with corporate and big media houses in roles ranging from reporters to editors—are now running independent small newsrooms, providing the public with information of public interest. Alongside them, thousands of digital content creators engage with audiences, expose frauds, scrutinize governance failures, and contribute to Nepal’s economy through taxes they pay. These two sections of the media ecosystem have become inseparable from the lives of people in Nepal and the diaspora, serving as watchdogs over the state. Their independence from political parties has irritated the ruling coalition, which has repeatedly harassed journalists under the Electronic Transaction Act merely for reporting. This blanket ban is the government’s latest attempt to silence critical and independent voices.

Political motive

A second driver of this regressive move is political cunning. The Nepali Congress–CPN-UML coalition has grown increasingly wary of emerging political forces, independent candidates, and analysts who might challenge its dominance in the upcoming by-elections in Rupandehi district. Reports of former President Bidya Devi Bhandari attempting to position herself to lead CPN-UML have further fueled Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli’s insecurities, leading to this decision rooted as much in personal ego as in political control. None of these justifications, however, can legitimize a measure that gravely undermines press freedom, shrinks civic space, and erodes the democratic aspirations of the Nepali people.

Arbitrary and authoritarian 

This blanket ban on social media is neither legal nor constitutional. The Supreme Court of Nepal, in its recent order, did not authorize an administrative prohibition of social media platforms. Rather, it instructed the government to draft appropriate legislation to regulate digital platforms in line with the Constitution’s guarantees of fundamental rights. By issuing a sweeping administrative order, the GoN has misinterpreted the Court’s directive and acted far beyond its authority.

The Constitution of Nepal enshrines clear protections that this ban directly violates. Article 17 guarantees the right to freedom of opinion and expression; Article 19 guarantees the right to communication; and Article 27 guarantees the right to information. These provisions make it clear that in a democratic system and an open market economy, global digital connectivity cannot be arbitrarily censored. Democracy and authoritarianism cannot co-exist, and any restrictions on fundamental freedoms must be lawful, proportionate, and strictly necessary.

Internationally, Nepal has binding obligations as a State Party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), ratified in 1991. Article 19 of the ICCPR guarantees the right to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, across frontiers. Restrictions are permissible only under very narrow conditions—to protect the rights and reputation of others, national security, public order, or public health and morals—and even then, they must meet the three-part test of legality, necessity, and proportionality. The government’s blanket ban fails on all three counts. It is not based on law passed by Parliament, it is disproportionate in its scope, and it undermines the very essence of freedom of expression itself.

By imposing such an arbitrary ban through administrative order, Nepal not only violates its own Constitution but also disregards its international human rights commitments. The action sets a dangerous precedent of executive overreach, reverses the principle that rights are the rule and restrictions the exception, and risks isolating Nepal from the global democratic community. This ban is unconstitutional, arbitrary, and unlawful. It must be immediately repealed, and any future regulation of digital platforms must be pursued through transparent, participatory parliamentary processes in compliance with Nepal’s constitutional guarantees and international obligations.

Broken connectivity

The ban also strikes at the heart of social and economic life. For millions of Nepali people with family members working abroad, social media platforms are essential tools for affordable and instant communication. Cutting off these channels deepens the isolation of families and disrupts the social fabric of a nation heavily dependent on remittances. Economically, the decision will hurt small newsrooms, digital-first outlets, and independent content creators who rely on social media for visibility, outreach, and revenue generation. At a time when Nepal is striving to expand its digital economy and global connectivity, this ban risks isolating the country from international networks, stifling innovation, and discouraging investment in the digital sector.

Civic assault

There is no space for attacks on fundamental freedoms in a democracy. The arbitrary suspension of social media platforms is not only unconstitutional but also a direct assault on civic space and public trust. Unless revoked immediately, this ban will leave ruling parties morally and politically accountable to the people of Nepal and will bear long-term costs in terms of public legitimacy, international credibility, and democratic backsliding.

This ban represents a regressive step that jeopardizes democratic values, erodes citizens’ trust in institutions, and undermines Nepal’s international commitments to human rights. Such measures weaken—not strengthen—democracy, and risk pushing Nepal further away from its democratic aspirations and obligations.

Restore freedoms

First, the government must withdraw this administrative decision without delay. Any attempt to deactivate or restrict social media platforms in the absence of legislative or constitutional grounds amounts to authoritarian overreach. Second, regulation of digital platforms, if required, must strictly comply with constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression, right to communication, freedom of association, and right to information, as well as Nepal’s binding obligations under international human rights treaties.

Third, any future steps regarding social media governance must follow due process and democratic procedure. A comprehensive and transparent legislative process through Parliament is the only legitimate avenue for framing social media laws. This process must be inclusive, consultative, and rooted in the principles of legality, necessity, and proportionality as laid out in Article 19 of the ICCPR and Nepal’s own constitutional framework. Administrative shortcuts, like the present order, erode the very foundations of democracy and push the country toward authoritarianism.

If the ruling parties continue to enforce this ban, they risk being held accountable not only by the Nepali people but also before international human rights mechanisms. Democracy is built on freedoms, not restrictions—and it is only by respecting those freedoms that Nepal can maintain its democratic credibility at home and abroad.

The author, a global advocate for freedom of expression, is the founding chair of Media Action Nepal

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.