Is freedom of expression only for journalists and media houses?
On recent attempts to muzzle free speech by state-related actors
Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening from Kathmandu. This is Issue 192 of Kalam Weekly, the only newsletter you need to keep updated with everything happening in Nepal.
A big thank you to Ms Yukta Yadav for becoming my newest paid subscriber. Your support and readership are what enable me to continue producing this newsletter every week. Thank you so much for your support!
The Nepali media landscape is broken. Corporate media collude with business interests while mushrooming digital media outlets are patronized by political interests. Amidst the barrage of information, thoughtful, independent analysis has become difficult to find. That is where Kalam Weekly comes in. We have no masters except you, our readers.
That is why we need your support. If you value the insights and analysis this newsletter provides, please consider pledging a paid subscription. Readers abroad can click the button below while those in Nepal can click this link for more information on how to become paid supporters.
Together, we can understand Nepal better.
In this newsletter:
Natural gas deposits discovered in Dailekh
Oli to inaugurate Nepal’s first flyover
Nepal mulls ways to bring back Nepalis from Israel
Recommendations
The deep dive: Is freedom of expression only for journalists and media houses?
Natural gas deposits discovered in Dailekh
A preliminary report submitted by the China Geological Survey (CGS) has reportedly confirmed the presence of a 1.12 billion cubic meter reservoir of methane gas in Dailekh district’s Jaljale. CGS, CNPC Xibu Drilling Engineering Company, and Nepal’s Department of Mines and Geology had been exploring the area for petroleum and gas deposits ever since signing a government-to-government deal in 2017. Drilling began a few years later, and earlier in January, shale and sandstone rock deposits had been extracted from the region and sent to China for analysis. Now, it appears that Nepal’s struck gas.
The news has already sent Nepalis into a giddy frenzy. A report in The Kathmandu Post exclaimed that the gas discovery “marks a turning point in Nepal’s quest for energy independence,” while Republica said that there were “signs of hope for a bright future for Nepal.” Even Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli expressed happiness over the discovery on social media, writing that this was good news for the country. But Nepalis have a habit of putting the cart before the horse. It will certainly take decades before Nepal can even tap into the reservoir. Nepal lacks the necessary infrastructure and expertise and will therefore have to rely heavily on China. That in itself is not a bad thing, but world history has shown that allowing a foreign country to tap into your natural resources rarely goes well for the host country. Given Nepal’s notorious corruption and red tape, I will be pleasantly surprised if I get to use that natural gas within my lifetime.
Natural gas is methane, and it is generally considered cleaner than petroleum or liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), which most of Nepal uses for cooking. Burning methane is cleaner, but in its raw form, it is far deadlier for global warming than carbon dioxide. According to the United Nations Environment Programme, methane is responsible for more than 25 percent of global warming. While CO2 is more harmful in the long run, methane is 80 times more damaging in the short term, for around 20 years. After this time, methane dissipates, but before it does, it traps 80 times more heat than CO2. And methane leaks during extraction and transportation all the time. As it is colorless and odorless, detecting leaks is significantly more challenging. Nepal will need to be particularly careful while extracting and transporting the gas, but careful oversight has been Nepal’s strong suit.
The days of oil and gas money propelling entire countries from dirt-poor to first-world status are also long gone. By the time we can access and utilize the gas, the world may already have transitioned from fossil fuels to clean energy sources like hydroelectricity. I’m not trying to rain on anyone’s parade, but let’s be realistic here. We are not going to turn into Dubai overnight just because we’ve discovered natural gas. The best outcome would be that Nepali households gain access to affordable energy, enabling them to cook, clean, and stay warm. Perhaps locals in the area and Karnali Province will see their fortunes improve. But most importantly, a few dozen politicians will see their net worths expand exponentially in the process.
Oli to inaugurate Nepal’s first flyover
On Friday, June 20, Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli inaugurated the Gwarko flyover, the first flyover road in Nepal. The flyover, which is roughly over 540 meters in length, goes up and above Gwarko Chowk to the south of Kathmandu, and is expected to alleviate traffic congestion along the Ring Road. The flyover, which was supposed to be completed in February last year, is only coming into operation now. Yet, it has created much excitement among Kathmandu’s road users, who anticipate a traffic jam-free ride.
They are mistaken. A single flyover is unlikely to reduce traffic jams. Yes, the Gwarko-Satdobato area might see fewer jams, but what a flyover does is move the point of congestion. It does not resolve the problem of the jam, just shifts it further along the line. Research shows that flyovers are at best a short-term solution, and eventually, the flyovers themselves become too congested to function as intended. This particular flyover also presents an impassable barrier for pedestrians.
The approach of Kathmandu’s planners and designers is still very much road-centric. Despite the reams of literature that show otherwise, city engineers and donor agencies like the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) continue to prioritize expanding existing roads and building new ones to manage traffic better. It is as if everyone has taken pains to ignore “induced demand,” a phenomenon where an increase in the supply of a good or service increases its consumption. Building more roads only encourages people to buy more vehicles to utilize those roads. Kathmandu’s focus remains on moving vehicles rather than moving people. No matter how many flyovers are built in the Kathmandu Valley, traffic will never get better unless we invest as much money into developing a proper public transport system.
Nepal mulls ways to bring back Nepalis from Israel
Three days ago, on June 17, Nepali Ambassador to Israel Dhan Prasad Pandit told The Kathmandu Post that all 5,500 Nepalis in Israel were safe and taking precautions as advised by the Israeli authorities. But with Iranian missiles exhausting the Israeli Iron Dome and more munitions getting through, Nepal is considering evacuating its citizens. The only question is, how to bring back 5,500 Nepalis from an active war zone?
According to Ambassador Pandit, there are no flights in and out of Israel, so evacuation on a commercial plane is out of the question. The only option left is to leave Israel by land. That too is a difficult ask, as it is not easy to travel through Israeli borders. Traveling via Syria, Lebanon, or Egypt is nigh impossible, leaving Jordan the only feasible land route out. But the Jordanian border too is currently overwhelmed with locals and foreigners seeking to flee the country as the war threatens to spiral. Migrant Nepalis working and living in Israel will not receive any special considerations if push comes to shove.
If things get worse, all other countries will also attempt to evacuate their citizens. In that case, Nepal will have to rely on the goodwill and generosity of its neighbors, particularly India. If India sends military planes, Nepalis will no doubt find space, as they’ve done in the past. But the authorities need to move sooner rather than later. Nepal needs to seek assistance from both India and China in repatriating thousands of its citizens. Those diplomatic channels need to be opened now, not 10 days later when things have gone to hell. All of this is reportedly already in a plan drafted by officials from Foreign Affairs, Home, Tourism, and Law ministries. According to The Kathmandu Post, “officials say the infrastructure is now in place to act swiftly should the situation deteriorate.” I wish I could believe that.
Recommendations
Essay: Dreams in a Time of War by Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o, Granta
Podcast: The Israeli-Iranian War: How We Got Here & What It Means, War on the Rocks
Article: Clipse Talk Love, Hate, and What Rap's Been Missing, by Frazier Tharpe, GQ
The deep dive: Is freedom of expression only for journalists and media houses?
Image: iStockPhoto
Case 1: Santosh Narayan Shrestha vs Nepal Khabar, Bizmandu
Last week, on June 10, the Kathmandu District Court issued an interim order directing two news portals, nepalkhabar.com and bizmandu.com, to take down two articles relating to Santosh Narayan Shrestha, chairperson of the Securities Board of Nepal (SEBON). The articles alleged that Shrestha had been demanding commissions through intermediaries in exchange for allowing companies to issue Initial Public Offerings (IPOs). SEBON denied all accusations, and Shrestha filed a petition at the court, alleging that the reports were false and had damaged his reputation. In response, the court directed the two media portals to remove the offending articles and refrain from any further reporting on Shrestha.
The allegations against Shrestha had long been discussed in the public sphere, with parliamentarians demanding a probe before the House of Representatives. In May, the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) also raided SEBON’s offices and seized documents for investigation. Shrestha, however, alleged that Nepal Khabar and Bizmandu’s reporting alleging specific commission amounts was fraudulent. The Kathmandu District Court summoned both media houses and petitioner Shrestha to a hearing on Wednesday, June 18. The court then reversed the original interim order until a final hearing on the case.
Case 2: Jaiveer Deuba vs Dil Bhushan Pathak
Last week, on June 11, the Nepal Police obtained an arrest warrant for journalist Dil Bhushan Pathak. The warrant was based on a complaint filed by Jaiveer Singh Deuba, the son of Foreign Minister Arzu Rana Deuba and Nepali Congress President and five-time former prime minister Sher Bahadur Deuba. Pathak had produced a YouTube video that discussed Jaybir’s alleged business investments, including his purchase of a significant amount of shares in the Naxal-based Hilton Hotel. This alleged investment had been reported months ago by largely unreliable media portals, prompting Shankar Group, the owners and operators of the Hilton, to issue a statement denying any ownership by Jaybir Deuba. Jaybir pursued legal action under the Electronic Transactions Act, alleging that Pathak had spread misinformation and caused reputational damage.
Days later, Nagarik Daily and its sister publication Republica published front-page reports alleging that Foreign Minister Arzu Rana Deuba, mother of Jaybir, had threatened publisher Shova Gyawali over the phone regarding the newspaper’s reporting on Pathak. Although Nagarik did not provide any quotes or details regarding the conversation, it insisted that the foreign minister had threatened to “bring down” the publication house and its management. Arzu Deuba responded on social media, expressing surprise over Nagarik’s characterization of the phone call and insisting that she had not threatened anyone.
Pathak, meanwhile, challenged the legality of the arrest warrant at the Patan High Court, which issued an interlocutory order directing the police not to arrest Pathak immediately. Both parties were then summoned to the court on Thursday, June 19, to present their clarifications. After the hearing, the Patan High Court upheld the interlocutory order, saying the complaint did not necessitate Pathak’s immediate arrest.
Case 3: Nepal Police vs Rama Basnet
Finally, on Sunday, June 15, a TikToker was arrested for “spreading hate content.” Rama Basnet, a 31-year-old content creator, was taken into custody for “disturbing ethnic and communal feelings by airing baseless and misleading content.” On her TikTok page, Basnet often criticized the ruling establishment, particularly the UML party and Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli. In one particular video, Basnet calls UML supporters “उखाने को गु खाने,” literally shit-eaters of the proverb master. Oli is particularly fond of quoting aphorisms and proverbs in his speeches.
Basnet, like Pathak, was charged under the Electronic Transactions Act, but unlike Pathak, she is just a TikToker with no access to high-profile lawyers to challenge her detention firmly in court. She is also being investigated by the Nepal Police itself, not based on a complaint filed by a third party. The state itself is the plaintiff in this instance.
How Nepal investigates and prosecutes cases
Before we get into the implications of these three cases, let’s take a detour into Nepal’s criminal proceedings. In Nepal, it is established practice to immediately take the accused into police custody and hold them while the investigation proceeds. The police are legally permitted to hold someone for 24 hours based solely on suspicion. After 24 hours, the accused must be presented before a judge, who can then extend custody for up to 25 days, either all at once or in staggered stages, according to Section 14.6 of the Nepal Criminal Procedure Code.
Once the police file a formal case against the accused, the court can then decide to provide bail until the case is heard in court. In this instance, too, the judiciary often sides with the authorities. Rabi Lamichhane, a former Home Minister and leader of the Rastriya Swatantra Party, has been in jail for nearly half a year now, despite not being convicted of any of the charges against him. In May, the Supreme Court decided, based on the evidence collected so far, that Lamichhane would remain in police custody until the final hearing on his case, which could take years.
While this process was established over the years to prevent the accused from absconding, destroying evidence, and threatening witnesses, it has often been misused by authorities and political parties to suppress dissent, silence critics, and punish opponents. Any complaint, no matter how baseless, can result in a stint in jail, even for just a few days while the police “investigate.” This is something that can — and has — been abused to threaten Nepalis with arbitrary detention. After all, no one wants to spend one day, let alone months or years, in jail without being convicted of a crime.
What does this indicate about the state?
All three cases outlined above involve state officials or organizations threatening the right to free expression. In the first case, SEBON Chair Shrestha is a public official, and reporting or commentary on his alleged dealings by duly registered media houses should be protected under freedom of the press. It was based on this interpretation that the Kathmandu District Court eventually overturned the interim order to take down the reporting. The third case should also be just as clear. Rama Basnet is a private citizen criticizing the activities of the government and publicly elected officials. The words she used might not have been suitable for polite company, but there is no law against foul language.
The second case is somewhat more complicated, as it involves a private citizen. Despite his father being a five-time prime minister and his mother the current foreign minister, Jaiveer Deuba is not a public figure, and the media should tread much more carefully here. That said, Jaiveer is not just any powerless citizen. He has the support of some of the most powerful people in the country, including the entire Nepali Congress apparatus. Foreign Minister Arzu Deuba has publicly backed her son’s case, saying that attacks were being made on her family and that she would not stand for it.
It appears that the state and its functionaries are once again attempting to crack down on criticism. These kinds of attacks on the media and private citizens generally tend to appear whenever KP Sharma Oli comes to power. Oli and the UML have a much lower tolerance for dissent than other parties, such as the Nepali Congress or the Maoists. However, that does not mean these latter two parties are open to criticism. Last year, Madam Deuba filed numerous complaints against the media houses that had reported on her alleged ties to the Bhutanese refugee scandal. More recently, Maoist cadres in Nuwakot attacked a young man who interrupted chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal’s speech to ask him questions.
The state continues to weaponize laws, particularly the Electronic Transactions Act (ETA), to file frivolous lawsuits and suppress criticism. Section 47 of the ETA states that anyone using digital media to publish material that contravenes “public morality or decent behavior,” spreads “hate or jealousy against anyone,” or jeopardizes “the harmonious relations subsisting among the peoples of various castes, tribes and communities” is liable for punishment. In the absence of a more targeted law, this vague wording has led to widespread misuse of the ETA by the authorities. In the Jaiveer Deuba case, a defamation or libel complaint could’ve been lodged against Pathak. Instead, the ETA was employed as it provides more leeway for the authorities to make their case.
Rama Basnet’s case in particular is an instance of the Nepali state not knowing what to do with social media. Unlike media houses or publications, which can be regulated through dedicated agencies such as the Press Council, the Ministry of Communications, and the Department of Information and Broadcasting, there are no similar means of control over social media. Many social media sites, such as Facebook, YouTube, and X, are beyond the reach of the Nepal government. Only TikTok has registered itself in Nepal, and that was only after a nearly one-year-long ban. So, the authorities go after individual users using the vague wording of the ETA to rein them in. This is why the planned social media bill has been so controversial. Read more below:
What does this mean for the media?
While the public at large appears to support Nepal Khabar, Bizmandu, and Rama Basnet, opinions are more divided when it comes to Pathak. The media fraternity has called the arrest warrant a blatant attack on freedom of the press and free speech, but others believe that Pathak, despite being a seasoned journalist, spread baseless rumors with no supporting evidence. Thus, it was only natural for the accused to try to protect themselves and their reputation with a legal challenge. Over 30 editors from Nepal’s major media houses signed a letter condemning the warrant, but even this letter was widely mocked and derided on social media, with many pointing out that these editors only invoked free speech when it involved one of their own. Although the Federation of Nepali Journalists issued statements regarding the Nepal Khabar and Bizmandu case, no similar statements have been issued regarding Rama Basnet.
Basnet is an ordinary private citizen, while Nepal Khabar and Bizmandu are media organizations, and Dil Bhushan Pathak is a journalist. But, according to Foreign Minister Arzu Deuba, Pathak’s YouTube channel was not registered as a media organization either. If Pathak’s commentary on YouTube falls under freedom of the press and triggers condemnation from a gaggle of editors, does Rama Basnet, who also commented similarly on TikTok, not deserve similar support? Among all these defendants, Basnet is the most vulnerable, as she lacks access to the kinds of lawyers and media rights watchdogs that Nepal Khabar or Dil Bhushan Pathak possess.
There is a widespread perception among the Nepali public that Nepal’s media is corrupt and cabalistic. Rabi Lamichhane’s usage of the term ‘१२ भाई’ (12 brothers) to refer to the all-male leadership of 12 of Nepal’s most prominent media houses has caught on among the public. It is now employed liberally as an insult. It isn’t good optics for a 30 or so editors to sign on to a petition condemning an arrest warrant for a former editor while ignoring every other attack on freedom of expression. This only reinforces the impression that only powerful media houses and their editors have the right to express their opinions. The rest of us should shut up and take what’s coming.
Dil Bhushan Pathak and Rama Basnet both expressed their opinions, which is their right. Neither of them should be prosecuted or go to jail for stating what they believe. However, Basnet is not a journalist; Pathak is. He knows better than to spread baseless allegations that have already been disputed by the parties involved. It is not journalism to accuse people, no matter who they are, without evidence. The burden of proof lies on the one making the accusations. Jaiveer Deuba does not need to provide proof that he doesn’t own the Hilton; it is incumbent on Pathak to prove that he does.
While these instances are examples of the state’s overreach, they are also moments where the mainstream media, particularly established journalists and editors, can reflect on their practices and improve. The days when things were true just because Kantipur published a front-page report or Setopati wrote a 6,000-word ‘analysis’ are long gone. The public is much more suspicious, much more critical. “Senior” editors and journalists can continue to live in their ivory towers and dismiss all criticism as the unworthy ramblings of an uneducated populace, or they can admit that they, too, make mistakes and do journalism that is actually worthy of state suppression.
That’s all for this week. I will be back next Friday, in your inbox, for the next edition of Kalam Weekly.
If you enjoyed today’s newsletter, please consider sharing it with others who might enjoy weekly updates from Nepal or consider becoming a paid subscriber.
Thanks for reading Kalam Weekly! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.