KATHMANDU: No individual or group is allowed to insult caste, religion, sex, gender, or other identities through hateful expressions (Hate Speech). Such expressions are considered a violation of human rights.
Under Nepal’s constitution and laws, hate speech is regarded as a criminal act. While the constitution guarantees freedom of thought and expression, it prohibits the promotion of hate or violence as outlined in Article 2(a).
However, society spreads hatred in various forms, including spoken words, scattered statements, written texts, images, and other forms of communication that promote sharpness, bitterness, and distress.
With the rise of social media, such hateful speech is becoming increasingly widespread.
The government has stated that necessary legislation should be enacted to address this issue, in accordance with Article 2(a) of the Constitution.
According to the constitution, it is the responsibility of the legislative body to pass such laws.
However, the legislature is responsible for creating laws based on current legislative needs. Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, former Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda,’ and CPN-UML leader Raghuji Pant have all been involved in discussions regarding such matters.
Prime Minister Oli made statements labeled as ‘Hate Speech’ through his speeches and articles at a recent program in Kathmandu.
Oli, along with the leaders of the ruling party, has emphasized that the constitution will be a foundational element of the struggle for the Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal.
Regardless of the situation, the words spoken by Prime Minister Oli—whether in poetry or in speeches—are often critiqued for mocking literature and its integrity.
Oli is in search of a poem, saying, “Searching for a pickpocket” while targeting former King Gyanendra Shah.
Similarly, Maoist Chairman Prachanda, like Prime Minister Oli, has also made ‘Hate Speech’ by targeting former King Gyanendra Shah.
He labeled former King Gyanendra as a ‘murderer’ and a ‘statue thief’.
A few days ago, UML leader Agni Kharel met with Prachanda and suggested that he refrain from using such words. In response, Prachanda admitted that he spoke in haste without considering the consequences.
However, he has not changed his stance. Prachanda said, “I spoke impulsively.”
UML MP Raghuji Pant has also been accused of using hate speech, targeting the laws of the RPP. He criticized the same ascetic Shahi, saying, “You didn’t follow the proper expression of the style.”
“I argue with you to read history,,” UML MP Pant continued, addressing the RPP MP.
What do intellectuals say?
The expressions of Nepal’s leaders have often highlighted the lack of pluralism in the country. Leaders tend to argue from their own perspectives, dismissing others’ viewpoints, which can lead to feelings of hatred, according to Dr. Dipesh Ghimire.
“The expressions given by leaders cause a lot of trouble. Their view of leadership is often flawed, and they disregard the arguments of others,” Ghimire said. “When one humiliates another, they fulfill their political agenda.”
There are several reasons for this, Ghimire explains. “One reason is that our leaders are focused on a large system, which dominates our society. Another important issue is the shortcomings in our education system. And finally, the lack of a pluralistic view has prevented meaningful progress.”
Social observer Ghimire argues that the leaders in Nepal often engage in ‘hate speech,’ which may not reflect the ultimate truth or understanding of the situation.
“The biggest problem lies with the leaders,” he says. “What I have learned is the final truth I understand, but what I have learned is not necessarily the final truth. When such expressions are made, it’s as if the speaker believes they have become the ultimate authority, and this is truly alarming.”
The practice of dismissing different perspectives—whether based on people, religions, cultures, or ideologies—has not benefited Nepal or its citizens.
Ghimire points out that embracing diverse views and ideologies should not be prohibited, but it presents challenges that can be better addressed through understanding and dialogue.
Leaders often insist that their understanding is the only truth, ignoring the perspectives of others, Ghimire explains.
“The most frightening thing is the belief that one’s own understanding is the only valid one, and that no other opinion matters. This mindset is prevalent among leaders today.”
Social observers note that hate speech, in particular, does not reduce violence, murder, or terror. Instead, it only exacerbates fear and divisions.
Psychological studies suggest that hate speech creates obstacles, fostering an environment of aggression rather than resolution.
Poetry became a disgrace to the genre: Pathak
Meanwhile, Khabarhub questioned the poem of Prime Minister Oli, to Yug Pathak, the author of “Urgen Ko Ghoda.” “How do you feel about the Prime Minister? What do you think about rule-makers like MaBiBi Shah, Chandani Shah, G. Shah, and Bhupal Man Singh Karki in terms of a writer’s perspective?”
Pathak’s response to his words:
“It is common to refer to many things as poems. Poetry is a specific form of literature, and it requires two things: beauty and structure. Just like in legislation, it demands both form and substance.
The essence of a poem lies in its ability to express beauty and evoke consciousness. Beauty can be found in hard work, or even in something as simple as a holding board. It’s about how we perceive beauty in our minds.
There is another form of poetry, one that highlights virtues and values. However, one thing remains consistent across all forms: poetry has a unique quality that sets it apart. Creativity plays a major role, as poems convey deeper thoughts and emotions.
All languages, including English and French, have their own rules for creating poetry. These rules are steeped in tradition, with strict guidelines, much like how laws function. If these rules are followed, the result can be called poetry.
However, if someone claims something as poetry but it lacks the essential elements, it is not truly poetry. Even when it includes criticism or sarcasm, it must still adhere to a special structure. Even in satire, there is tenderness, and this tenderness is an important characteristic of a poem.
So, what if it doesn’t follow these conventions? Why not call it poetry? If it doesn’t meet the criteria, then it can’t be called poetry. A poem that lacks these qualities is an insult to the art form. It disrupts the traditions, undermines the essence, and brings down the respect poetry deserves.”
Comment