Media Monitoring April 2026

by | May 12, 2026 | Sin categoría

Researcher: Smriti Ranabhat

Editor: Nuva Rai

Ongoing Issues of Sukumbasi Settlement   

Sukhumbasis in Nepal have long been advocating for a dignified way of life as the Constitution of Nepal guarantees the rights to housing and social justice for all. However, with more than 1.2 million landless people living without secure shelter, we see a gap between lived reality and constitutional promise. 

Sukumbasi is a Nepali term that literally translates into “one who dwells with nothing”. The term refers to individuals who lack a valid land ownership certificate (Land Purja), private land for cultivation, and reliable livelihood opportunities (Karki, 2002).

Nepalese law formally recognizes “Landless Sukumbasi” in particular under Land Act, 1964, defining them in Section 52(B) Explanation Kha(A), as individuals or whose family members do not have ownership over land within the state of Nepal and are unable to acquire land through his/her own or their family’s income, sources or efforts.

In the absence of effective and accessible rehabilitation and housing policies, many landless families have settled on public land, riverbanks, forest areas, and other vulnerable locations lacking basic services. The recent government is carrying out forced evictions of landless squatters without a clear rehabilitation and reintegration plan for the affected people. In this context, our monthly media monitoring observed the issues concerning forced eviction of Sukumbasi and the intersection of digital rights of marginalised communities as follows:

Marginalised Communities Under Surveillance

The recent activities of the government point toward increasing state monitoring and surveillance of citizens. For instance, Nepal Police installed 360-degree CCTV cameras in the Thapathali Sukumbasi settlement during preparations for eviction. Most media coverage echoed  authorities’ perspective on the use of cameras for public safety  failing to address how these tools are often used/perceived as intimidation and surveillance tactics. Without clear laws governing data access or storage, surveillance risks being an unregulated extension of power rather than public safety. It also raises concerns regarding privacy, consent, data protection, and the potential misuse of collected footage of already marginalized communities. Surveillance measures introduced in the name of security are gradually becoming normalised without sufficient public debate from an intersectional digital rights perspective which risks privacy being a luxury for those who can afford rather than a fundamental human right. 

 Restrictions on Reporting in Squatter Holding Centres

Following the forced eviction of Sukumbasi in Kathmandu, journalists were restricted by the Police from recording inside the shelters and were forced to delete footage they had already captured. Journalist Daya Dudraj shared his experiences that he faced harassment and was forced to delete footage while covering the forced eviction of landless squatters. This is a direct attack against the fourth pillar of democracy- the press, and the freedom of the press to report on events independently and without interference.

These restrictions came at a time when many displaced residents themselves wanted their struggles to be seen and heard. This restriction is a calculated attempt to hide the reality of the situation to control the narrative around the Sukumbasi forced eviction which creates a transparency gap.  By filtering what citizens see and hear, the government prevents the public from holding them accountable, effectively turning a human rights issue into a controlled PR exercise. It raises questions about transparency, press freedom, democratic accountability and the digital rights of marginalised communities in Nepal.

Freedom of Expression under Attack

Recent events in Nepal show a rise in a pattern where individuals who criticise, question, or challenge authority face legal pressure and institutional restrictions. The former governments in Nepal had repeatedly used vague laws, administrative power, and public institutions to silence dissent. The present new government is also beginning to repeat many of the same practices it once opposed. For example, YouTuber Roshan Pokharel was arrested under cybercrime laws for allegedly abusive and critical videos against Prime Minister Balen Shah. This has sparked debates over freedom of expression and the misuse of digital laws to suppress online criticism by those who are in power. Though he was later released following public backlash, the incident left questions about how quickly authorities act against dissenting voices online. Similarly, Sajan Bista was arrested for threatening social media content targeting top political leaders. It is ironic that the authority, which came to power by criticising the government and speaking freely, is now being accused of limiting criticism after coming to power. This shows a repeated pattern in Nepal where leaders who support free speech while outside power become more intolerant of criticism once they are in power.

Additionally, questions about offensive speech, hate speech, and accountability have been raised in various ways. Members of the sexual and gender minorities community filed a complaint against Prime Minister Balen Shah over old rap battle content containing misogynistic and derogatory language. The complaint has extended accountability toward political leaders and public figures for discriminatory expressions in popular culture that have long been normalised. Nevertheless, complaints involving authority figures do not always receive the same priority as complaints against ordinary citizens. Given that the issue involves the Prime Minister, there is still room for acknowledgement and accountability for past actions that may have harmed certain communities. Yet, such forms of symbolic or moral accountability are not clearly evident. As we move forward, a question arises: Is it still possible to expect ethical accountability beyond legal frameworks?

Media in Crisis under the New Government

The newly formed government’s decision to provide public advertisements only to state-owned media has raised fears about press freedom, media independence, and the sustainability of private media outlets. In protest against the government’s decision, dozens of newspapers published front pages filled with question marks, which symbolised criticisms over the shrinking space for independent journalism. A writ petition was filed in the Supreme Court challenging the policy as unconstitutional and arguing that it violates press freedom. Critics say the move could economically weaken private media institutions that rely heavily on government advertisements for survival.

Big Populist Digital Ambitions on Weak Foundations

The government has shown strong ambition to strengthen digital governance and modernize public services. State institutions are focusing on digital tools to improve efficiency, transparency, and citizen access. Within this, the government has begun integrating sensitive personal records such as birth, marriage, and citizenship data into Nagarik App as a centralised digital platform. However, Nepal still lacks strong data protection laws and reliable cybersecurity systems, which makes the scenario sceptical about the security and confidentiality of public data.

Similarly, the government announced to upgrade more than 250 government websites within just 30 days. The authority is also rapidly digitizing complaint and follow-up systems. However, many digital platforms in Nepal continue to face technical glitches, poor interoperability, and weak public trust. Internet access and digital literacy also remain uneven, particularly outside urban areas. When offline alternatives and accessibility measures are not equally prioritized, digitization risks excluding the people it claims to help.

On paper, many of these digital initiatives appear promising. Though technology can improve governance and public service delivery, Nepal’s digital transformation is still on fragile foundations. Without strong safeguards, transparency, cybersecurity protections, and inclusive implementation, digitization risks reproducing existing inequalities in digital forms.

Technology-Facilitated Gender-Based Violence

Recent incidents in Nepal show that online platforms are increasingly becoming hostile spaces for women, especially those who speak publicly, engage in politics, activism and so on. Rape threats, cyberbullying, coordinated harassment campaigns, and victim-blaming are making digital violence against women increasingly widespread. For instance, Amisha Parajuli, who expressed support for former Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, faced rape and death threats along with abusive online attacks. Similarly, the woman who accused actor Sagar Lamsal of rape received severe online abuse and victim-blaming. These cases reflect a recurring pattern where women who express political opinions, report violence, or participate in public debate face personal attacks instead of meaningful engagement. Online abuse often includes misogynistic language, rape threats, character assassination, and coordinated trolling aimed at silencing women.

At the same time, 18 female Members of Parliament filed a complaint over rising cyberbullying against teenage girls, showing growing institutional recognition of the issue. They have stressed that authorities should investigate cyberbullying properly, protect victims, and take stronger steps against it.

AI in Nepali Media: Opportunity or Threat?

On 10 April, Kantipur Media’s CEO Shambhav Sirohiya asked all forms of content creators- writers, filmmakers, videographers, archivists, musicians, to provide them with 100,000 hours worth of training data so they can build a “multi-modal AI” for their media house. The enlisted goal is to “build the language layer for when Nepal talks to machines”. While this is a paid opportunity, we worry about required guardrails to prevent copyright infringements and are almost certain that the contributors to this training set will not be acknowledged as partners to the final model or included in a benefit-sharing agreement for the final product. Nepalese media are already quite overwhelmed by AI-generated articles and images, and we worry that a successful execution of this plan could lead to the substitution of human ingenuity in journalism with automated processes.

Most comments on the post question and criticize Shambhav’s call- a beacon of hope, perhaps? Optimizing our Media Houses with the use of AI is just what we needed [not].

RightsCon 2026 Cancellation: Geopolitics in Digital Rights Advocacy

The government of Zambia cancelled the RightsCon 2026 Summit scheduled to take place in Lusaka from May 5 to 8 at the last minute. This sudden cancellation of the RightsCon 2026 Summit has sparked discussions on how geopolitics is now influencing the global digital rights forum. RightsCon is one of the world’s leading forums on technology, human rights, AI, internet governance, and freedom of expression. According to organizers, the cancellation came after pressure from the People’s Republic of China regarding the participation of Taiwanese civil society groups and discussions around surveillance and digital rights. Though Zambian authorities cited security and policy concerns, many human rights organizations and participants observed the decision as a restriction on open dialogue and civic space.

This incident represents a growing global trend where digital governance is being shaped by political and diplomatic interests. International digital rights forums are facing growing external pressure and such pressure threatens both freedom of expression and the independence of digital rights spaces. At a time when Africa is emerging as an important voice in technology and digital governance, such intervention affects confidence in open and independent civic engagement. The economic, reputational, and collaborative loss from the cancellation also shows that political interference can make global efforts toward an inclusive and rights-based digital future futile.

 

References: