By Deepak Joshi Pokhrel


A few years ago, a folk singer, Pashupati Sharma, released a protest song, "lootnasake loot kancha, Nepalmai cha chut" (literally translation: "Rob as much as you can, it is allowed only in Nepal"). The government swiftly took action and removed the song from YouTube, citing a breach of public decency.  This exemplifies the government’s increasing intolerance to criticism and dissenting voices. Despite the widespread criticism across the country, the government has been refusing to roll back its decision to remove the song.
The satirical song responded to the growing frustration among people as a result of poor governance. The protest song highlighted the increasingly high-voltage scams and corruption, pointing to a particular crisis which is taking shape. In the track, the singer challenged the narrative, highlighting the mass exodus of youth in search of better opportunities while politicians looted the country in the name of politics. A lawmaker, Amresh Kumar Singh, offered Rs 25,000 in prize money for the song, saying it depicted the prevailing context in the country in terms of corruption and high-voltage scams. He praised the song, saying the song quite suits our culture, which is mired in deception and fraud.
The incident, like the ban on Pashupati’s song, has become a common occurrence in Nepal. Just a few months ago, a social activist, Ashika Tamang, grabbed the media's attention for her efforts in protesting against social and political anomalies. In such an effort, she criticised and protested the decision by the Suryabinayak Municipality to collect taxes for those entering the Sanga Suspension Bridge. She allegedly seized receipts from the employee and burned them. The municipality filed a complaint, leading to an investigation by the police. The message of the government is very clear: if you speak out or criticise the government, you will face punishment.
The other incident that reflects the government's intolerance to criticism is the episode of a journalist, Dil Bhusan Pathak. On May 16, 2025, Pathak broadcast a video report on Hilton Hotel and Jayveer Deuba, son of Nepali Congress President Sher Bahadur Deuba, on his YouTube video channel – a tough talk with Dil Bhushan Pathak. The video titled “Reality of Hilton Hotel and Jayveer Connection” talked about the alleged financial link between Hotel Hilton Kathmandu and Jayveer Singh Deuba. In quick response, Deuba and his mother, Arzu Rana Deuba, the Foreign Minister, filed a complaint. The Kathmandu District Court issued an arrest warrant, though the Patan High Court bars police from arresting journalist Pathak without legal grounds.
 
If we assess the above-outlined cases, we will find that our government and politicians see anyone who speaks and exposes their financial embezzlement and weakness as their biggest enemy. We will also find that vocal critics of the government are either arrested or threatened with dire consequences, compelling them to succumb to their pressure. While we abolished the century-old regime, thinking there would be freedom of expression, the continued suppression of vocal critics of the government continues and thrives. 
These acts of suppression expose a large issue of the government’s intolerance of criticism and freedom of expression. This also reflects that anyone who dares to speak the hard truth, exposing the government, will be apprehended. It seems our government and politicians have forgotten that this is not how a democracy functions.    
When the government targets its rivals – be they journalists, activists or the opposition – for criticism, it shows that democracy is not thriving. Independent media and vibrant CSOs are the pillars of democracy. The media inform, empower and educate the masses, enabling them to interface with the government, demanding accountability and transparency on issues that matter to them. On the other hand, the vibrant CSOs act as a watchdog and often provide strategic guidance when deemed necessary.
In any functioning democracy, criticism is perceived as a tool to assess what really went wrong and how it can be corrected. Further, it helps to introspect on their weaknesses and take corrective measures. This helps to deepen democracy, improving the trust of the people in democratic institutions and principles. But this is not the case in our context. Vocal critics of the government are subject to intimidation and assaulted physically, giving the impression that might is right.  
After several democratic struggles, we were able to draft an inclusive constitution in 2025. The national document has clearly spelt out that every citizen has the right to freedom of expression. It also says that every citizen can enjoy their individual liberties. But what is very worrying is that even the constitutionally guaranteed rights are given short shrift by the government and politicians projecting themselves above the constitution of Nepal.
A government that fears criticism does not qualify as a true democracy. Instead, it portrays its autocratic tendencies. Our democracy will continue to grow if you accept the criticism and use it to improve. Rather than banning the song or arresting its vocal critics, the government should protect them. The media or CSOs do not act as an enemy, but they represent the people and play a vital role in holding those in power accountable.
We should refuse to remain silent when our constitutionally guaranteed rights are threatened and challenged by anyone – government or opposition. Not only journalists or CSOs; we as responsible citizens of the country should keep raising our voices against any unconstitutional and undemocratic move. The right to speak freely and challenge the authorities forms the bedrock of democracy. This is a simple truth that everyone needs to understand and adhere to.