In a region increasingly sliding towards authoritarianism, the small Himalayan nation of Nepal has long stood out as an exception. Political debates in the country have remained largely open, with the powerful subject to public scrutiny. This openness has persisted despite Nepal’s struggles with poverty, monarchical suppression, and decades of insurgency, demonstrating that democratic expression need not be correlated with economic status.
However, the recent arrest of the owner of Nepal’s largest media conglomerate has sparked fears about the government’s dedication to free speech, raising concerns that Nepal might follow the path of its South Asian neighbors like Pakistan, Bangladesh, and India.
Kailash Sirohiya, the executive in question, was detained nearly two weeks ago in what is seen as a retaliatory move by Nepal’s powerful Home Minister, Rabi Lamichhane. Sirohiya’s Kantipur Media Group had published critical reports about Lamichhane, including allegations that he broke the law by serving in Parliament while holding U.S. citizenship. Lamichhane had resigned but returned to Parliament and the Ministry of Home Affairs after addressing his citizenship issue. Kantipur continued its scrutiny, later reporting accusations of embezzlement against him.
Sirohiya’s media group, which includes the widely circulated Nepali-language newspaper Kantipur and its English-language sister publication, The Kathmandu Post, as well as television and radio channels and magazines, was not alone in its criticism of Lamichhane but has the broadest reach.
The Home Office data released to the Guardian under a freedom of information request revealed 428 complaints about staff behavior and treatment of asylum seekers in the past year. Additionally, there were 463 complaints regarding the food provided, highlighting issues such as inedible meals and insufficient milk for children.
Yubaraj Ghimire, editor of a news website in Nepal, remarked, “The government has given a message: If you criticize the government, it muzzles you.” He emphasized that the nature of Sirohiya’s arrest suggested a deliberate targeting. A complaint was filed against Sirohiya alleging he had a citizenship number identical to someone else’s, leading to his arrest before any facts were established, unlike in previous cases where investigations preceded any detentions.
Amnesty International’s Secretary General, Agnès Callamard, criticized the decision to detain Sirohiya, stating that the charges did not necessitate custody. Visiting Kathmandu during a regional trip, Callamard underscored the excessive nature of the response.
Santosh Pariyar, a leader of Lamichhane’s Rastriya Swatantra Party, dismissed claims of retaliatory motives behind the arrest, calling it a “mere coincidence” and asserting that the conclusion about Sirohiya’s alleged citizenship violation was reached independently.
Nonetheless, the arrest has had a chilling effect, with many fearing a return to the oppressive days of the monarchy, which ended in 2008. During the monarchy, press censorship and jailing of journalists were common. Nepal’s new Constitution, which established a parliamentary democracy, ensured full press freedom, and a vibrant civil society has been vigilant in defending this right.
Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal, known as Prachanda, who once led the Maoist rebels that helped oust the monarchy, now leads the coalition government in which Lamichhane serves. Even some of Dahal’s former supporters have criticized his handling of Sirohiya’s arrest, with Baburam Bhattarai, a former Maoist leader and prime minister, expressing his dismay on social media.
As Nepal navigates these turbulent waters, the incident underscores the fragility of press freedom and democratic expression, highlighting the need for vigilance in protecting these essential rights.
