Safeguarding sovereignty or media censorship?

As a writer, I will continue to write as long as the fight concerns the public and the country. I often wondered what if one day every social media app and site were to shut down? This was just me being curious, not knowing the larger consequences. Today, however, such contemplation feels urgent.

As I write this, my eyes shift between the desktop and the window, reflecting on the weight of the present ban imposed by the government on 26 social media apps, including WhatsApp, Facebook, Instagram,YouTube, X (formerly Twitter), and LinkedIn.

The official reason: these apps failed to register as per the Social Media Bill tabled this year. The law mandates that social media platforms register themselves with the government, designate a contact person, and appoint a grievance officer to handle complaints. It also allows the government to deny or revoke operation if a platform is considered a threat to national sovereignty, national interest, and social harmony. Additionally, the Supreme Court has ordered both domestic and foreign social media platforms to be listed with the government to allow monitoring of “unwanted” content. 

This isn’t the first instance that Nepal has imposed such restrictions. In 2023, TikTok was banned, only to be lifted after its registration issue was resolved.

For years, Nepal had been showing improvement in the global index of freedom of speech and e-governance. But with bans on social media platforms, the country could slide down the index, tarnishing our reputation in the international arena. 

We are well aware of how social media has deeply shaped our lives. From connecting people across distances to educating minds, creating opportunities for employment, and even serving as a source of income—it has, in many ways, become another world we inhabit.

As a graduate of media studies and a current student of international relations, I understand the government’s concerns. Sure, sovereignty cannot be compromised. Yet, I also question whether such a sweeping ban is the right decision. There should be a logical and a diplomatic route to approach things that are of public concern.

Now, with the ban curtailing the very basics of our fundamental rights—the right to freedom of expression (17), in this case the freedom to choose a medium, to express, and to be seen; the right to communication (19), the freedom to speak out; and the right to information (27), the freedom to access public knowledge—I am left to wonder about the right to social justice (42), which demands ‘inclusive participation and equitable opportunities’. 

Our constitution clearly states the sovereignty and state authority of Nepal shall be vested in the Nepalis. So, without the people’s fundamental rights, sovereignty itself loses meaning. So the real question remains: is the latest ban on social media really about safeguarding sovereignty or is it a form of media censorship. 

As Nepal is set to graduate from least developed country (LDC) status in 2026, the stakes are even higher. Restrictive policies could undermine Nepal’s credibility, discouraging potential investors, international partners, and stakeholders. 

What we need is foresight and transparency in our laws and policies. As a citizen, we all must speak truth to power.