At present, the arrest of YouTuber Roshan Pokharel has sparked a new debate in Nepali media and social networks. Pokharel, a resident of Phalgulnanda Rural Municipality in Panchthar, was taken into custody by the police on charges of broadcasting video content using indecent and offensive language against Prime Minister Balendra Shah and other political leaders. The District Police Office Panchthar has initiated an investigation into cybercrime, based on the content disseminated on his YouTube channel named ‘Haddish’ and other social media platforms. As he undergoes a detailed investigation with a 10-day remand from the District Court, this incident has brought the conflict between the legal limits of the state and the freedom of expression of citizens back to the surface.

Following the public revelation of this incident, particularly the youth generation and social activists have strongly protested the government's move. It is being commented that the tendency to imprison dissenters during the tenure of Prime Minister Balen Shah, who himself rose to prominence through rap music and sharp satire, is paradoxical. Gen–Z leaders Tanuja Pandey and Bhawana Raut have interpreted this as an attack on democracy, arguing that the society which supported Balen in questioning political leadership yesterday should seek the same justice for others today. They assert that restricting an individual's right to speak under any pretext goes against democratic values.

The wave created by the arrest incident has energized campaigns on social media such as 'Let me speak, government'. Critics believe that the repetition of government arguments made during the arrest of rapper V-Ten in the past indicates no change in our political and administrative thinking. The double standards in defining derogatory words and their legal interpretation have created suspicion among citizens. While on one hand, the administration remains silent on attacks against gender and minority communities, its activeness when the government is criticized raises questions about the impartiality of the law itself.

Although the conclusion of this case will be determined by the nature of the content and legal process, it has conveyed a serious message to society. In a democracy, the state should have the capacity to tolerate criticism and dissent, rather than prohibit it. Since legal action alone cannot suppress ideas, the main challenge now is to strike a balance between protecting citizens' fundamental rights and maintaining decency on social media. As the politics of prohibition ultimately only increases public outrage, prudent decisions and a liberal democratic culture appear to be the need of the hour. 

Citizen Awareness

Freedom of expression is the backbone of democracy, but it is the responsibility of every conscious citizen to respect the dignity and personal reputation of others when exercising it. Being responsible when expressing views on social media and for the state to address citizens' dissatisfactions democratically is the hallmark of a mature society.