Before starting the conversation on Saturday morning, Congress central member Meinendra Rizal tried to use the table fan. But it didn't work because there was no electricity. Unexpectedly, he said - Why do you even need electricity? It is not allowed to use social media. After the government decided to close social networks that have not been listed in Nepal since Thursday, many people like Rizal have been affected directly and indirectly, and have expressed their reactions unintentionally.

A major avenue through which freedom of expression is exercised has been blocked. From doing business to working people, using social media platforms has affected them. Krishna Acharya of Kantipur and Kishore Dahal conversation with Congress leader Rizal focusing on this decision of the government:

You just tried to turn on the fan and it didn't work. And he said - Why do you even need electricity? It is not allowed to use social media. Do you think that social media is closed or is it just a symbolic reaction?

I'm not happy that social media has been shut down. Due to my theoretical orientation, I believe that such things should not be done. There are some reasons for the development of such recognition. During my student days I got to associate with BP Koirala. He used to say - 'Freedom is the kind of freedom that breaks the boundaries of prudence. I am in favor of that level of freedom.' BP left the philosophical subject for us. His words about freedom are a guiding principle for me.

I lived in America for nine years. By the time he went there, democracy had not been restored in Nepal. So I went there with the feeling that there is work to be done to restore democracy in Nepal. Not long after that, I watched on television the student protests in Tiananmen Square, China, the youths standing in front of the tanks. The power to stand in front of a tank is given by the discourse of democracy. The form of

discourse may change. First there was the state media. Gradually, some independent media came. Private media also entered. Later came television. This journey has established that the medium does not matter when it comes to social media. It is not important from which source the news, information, misinformation comes. Rather, what matters is where it leads. These days, social media has also brought challenges before us. But it will be overcome.

The printing press changed the world. The first Gutenberg press, which had the purpose of printing the Bible and preaching Christianity, also carried the battle of the renaissance with the church. Therefore, rather than the medium through which the information or false information comes, how far the 'coupling mechanism' leads is more important. That's why the government of Nepal has said today that it will stop the bigger work than it can do. It is like saying that the palm touches the sun. 

I read that people started downloading Virtual Private Networks (VPNs). I also remembered that I downloaded a VPN when I went to China. That is, the trend of downloading VPN has increased in Nepal as well. There is also a notification that when downloading a VPN, you may lose personal details and bank account funds, so be careful.

Therefore, it is not appropriate to stop citizens from one way and push them to another way. If that is what they are trying to do, Nepal does not have the administrative capacity to go the way that China has been controlling. My point is that turning off social media is like hitting the sun with your palm. It is not appropriate to do this. 

However, social media platforms should be regulated by the state. How to manage it? Even if it is not registered anywhere? I don't mean to run

without registration. It is not that they want to do business in Nepal as they like. I am also aware of the pitfalls and difficulties faced by social media. Just two months ago I read 'Fairless People' by Sarah Wynn Williams. From that I found out – how is Facebook being used as a business whose only purpose is to make money? How much money is earned? What is the condition of 'corporate governance' in there?

has another context. In Myanmar, a religious guru preaches on Facebook to defame the Muslim Rohingya. Facebook makes that happen. Then a big event happens. I mean, I know how Facebook has done business and made profits using algorithms.

There is no evidence that the government has shut down social media for similar reasons. The government should have gone towards establishing discipline in business. It should have been made transparent. The trend of omniscient preaching everywhere has spread to the upper echelons of power, but it doesn't happen that way. Instead, there was a place to talk about business and other issues with social network platform operators who understood the challenges of social media and were knowledgeable about the subject. Without thinking about it, I see that I intend to shut the mouth of the person who abuses me.

The government has been insulted a lot, how many abuses are you going to hear? You may have your own opinion about abuse. The argument of the government is also correct. But the way to stop it is not to turn off social media. It is not possible to stop the new way of communicating, communicating with each other and developing relationships and working. It seems that the intention of the government is that why should they abuse Fazul, instead of closing the means of it, their rule will continue. That is also wrong.

I don't think that the leadership of the government has the same opinion as the Congress on all these issues. Congress is a party that has advanced the liberal democratic ideas of BP Koirala. On the other hand, our chairman Sher Bahadur Deuba has enjoyed company with BP. BP also has a role in advancing his political career. The government cannot make any decision in the case that Speaker Deuba says no. But even in such a situation, when there is a decision like shutting down social media, I think that the opinion held by the leader who helped BP to advance his career and the opinion held by the leader of the government should not be the same. I am saddened by this.

With a limit and respect, the President and the Nepali Congress should separate from the way of closing social media. Rather than criticism, I would like to remind the government that it should not be allowed to continue down this path. Someone has written - How can the Chairman of Nepali Congress, who prevented Balen Shah from being arrested, help the cause of shutting down social media? His conscience cannot walk this way.

What analysis and attitude do you think the government has decided to shut down social media?

The way taken by the current government is to attack the 'messenger' rather than addressing the frustration of the people or understanding the 'message' of the people. Social media has everything, good or bad. There is a debate about this in the media. We can learn from experiences around the world.

We did not create a different world. We cannot become a totalitarian state. We will become a democratic country. It will proceed from the basic principles of the constitution. Therefore, the message of the people, regardless of the medium, will broaden our democracy. Of course there are challenges. But in order to face the challenge, not to destroy the medium itself, but to adopt the democratic method. A lot of

ing new technologies have come up. Artificial Intelligence (AI) has arrived. That too has its challenges. Don't use that too? do not How to use it. The government is also saying that. There can be no 'cherry picking' here. Theoretically, it cannot be said that I will choose these platforms of new technology and I will not take them. Practically not likely. That is why the government has said that the 'virtual walls' that have been erected, can be broken 'virtually' by anyone. Media like social media should not be closed.

You say that congressmen are ideologically different from others when it comes to advocating individual liberties. But you compromise on things like shutting down social media. Is there harmony between theory and practice?

UML and Congress have different views on this issue. It already is. The way the party was built, the party carries the same principles. It also makes a difference in perspective. Let me illustrate this from an experience. In the year 2072, we were on the way to make the constitution. By boycotting it, there was basically a loud movement in Madhesh.

I was the Minister of Communications in the government at that time. At that time, a delegation of top UML leaders came to the Prime Minister. They said, 'FM radios in Madhesh are broadcasting programs inciting violence by taking the name of a person of mountain origin. It had to be stopped. So FMs had to be stopped immediately. Some of the online ones had to be closed.'

I told them - 'Can't be closed.' There was a lot of discussion. Then, while reaching a conclusion, I said - "It has been registered in the Press Council, and it has come under the Ministry of Communication." I won't shut her up. If it is not registered, it is the work of the Ministry of Home Affairs. I direct the Telecom Authority not to approach the Minister of Communications for this matter.

If the Home Ministry sends it directly to the Telecommunication Authority, it will 'check' whether it is registered with the Press Council, if it is registered, nothing can be done, if it is not, then one online has been closed. A Maoist leader called. Later checked, it was registered with the Press Council. Said to open immediately. opened up I was bullied online. I think it was closed because of abuse. It was not closed because of that. However, it opened immediately.

was previously a study group to 'regulate' online media. Within a few months of my becoming the Minister of Communications, the report was submitted to me. I didn't even get to read that report. It seemed like a must see. A journalist whom I respect and know came and said - 'Don't look at that. It has nothing to do with it. Because it is very controlling. It has tried to control the online media. It has been proposed in the model of a dictatorial country. I didn't even consider the need to open and read that report until I was the Minister of Communications. Because that was against my belief.

When I was the Minister of Communications, I would have liked to use a baton. But if I used a baton when I was the Minister of Communications, I would have to be hit with it the day I came out. That awareness must have come from being able to associate with BP as a student. It must be because his principles and philosophy deeply influenced him.

I also get angry if I am insulted. But rule should not be used when angry. That is the reason why social media should be kept open. Don't like the ideas presented. But we cannot strengthen the foundation of democracy by punishing the means of expression of those ideas. Business should be handled in a professional manner. Taxes payable must be paid. If you have to register, do it. But other excuses should not be used to stop people from expressing their freedom of expression and opinion. That would be wrong.

How did the party Congress, ideologically inspired by BP, which advocates liberal democracy, become the essence of the decision to close the social network, which is considered synonymous with the freedom of expression of individuals?

There is an easy answer to how we got here. In the constitution we made, we put the issue of creating an inclusive political body. I had also moved to create a mixed electoral system. Due to such an election system, it is not possible for one party to easily get a majority in the parliament. Therefore, there is a debate that the electoral system should be reformed. For that, amending the constitution is one of the main topics. This issue should be resolved before the next election. As

alone cannot win elections, parties have become businessmen. They are trying to figure out how to make the election results in their favor by using whom. It has become a belief that no matter who you fight elections with, no matter who you form a government with, no matter who you leave, even if you break up the party halfway. We have created such a culture. That is, we are in a business culture. One issue comes to the fore when deciding such a culture. The issue of how far the power alliance will stand or not stand in a situation where it is at the bottom is also connected. The standard of practical politics has made it easy to make business decisions by forgetting the dignity of the Nepali Congress.

Let's say it clearly, in June 2083, did you have to accept the decision to shut down social media on the condition that power would come easily to the hands of Sher Bahadur Deuba?

I don't use such language. It is not difficult for us to get power these days. If the Speaker really wants to become the Prime Minister, there are already parties that will support him. There is no obligation to hold on to the current alliance just to get to power. In the ruling coalition, the Prime Minister has to face more challenges than our Chairman within the party. As long as the challenge persists, I don't think there is an easy way for the Prime Minister to leave us. So not only power. But power is not only for a few days. We need a power that will last till 2084. Rather than whether it will be replaced in time or not, the issue that this power should last until 2084 must have come somewhere in our business mentality as the main standard.

What is the power to protect by shutting down social networks?

I have a question that I will ask my chairman in a humble and dignified language - what is left of the virtue of power that needs to be preserved? People need power to do their work. It means that the political party takes power and does the work of the people. But if the power is to be preserved at any price and condition, then the work that one wants to do after reaching the power will not be accomplished.

Whatever the power is used for, the tool has become a ghost. Power is to be used for the common people. But if you can't use it, what is the point of maintaining power or staying in power? Finally, why is the government needed? Why do we need democracy? The question arises. That's where we go wrong. I request Chairman Deuba, who has spent 60 years in politics, to think seriously about his conscience. Where does this road lead us?

Decisions taken by a political party over time can be delayed for decades. At this time, how many people are aware that Congress will be tarnished by allowing the most powerful means of expressing individual freedom to be closed?

I am not in parliament. Therefore, there is no obligation to accept the whip of the party. Greed, including becoming a minister, has become a distant subject for me. In this process, I am looking at several topics. Some subjects are not understandable. I am the person who stood strong in the Parliament even though we were treated in a small way yesterday. The greatest beauty of democracy is that the people in power change. Therefore, the work you do when you are in power should not be shocking even when you are out of power. Also, no one should be able to punish himself by making it a weapon. We were not serious about that.

Congress has international recognition as an advocate of civil liberties. But as soon as the social network was closed, the international media broadcasted the content in a way that the civil liberties were taken away. Are we now moving towards a controlled society? Is this position acceptable to the Congress? I have two feelings about

worldwide message. There is also a sense that a bad message has gone. There is another meaning. How to say that, today's world is a bit different. World politics has become business. Because elected dictators are in power everywhere. Nepal also seems to be a new member of that club. There is a belief that after winning the election, whatever we do is possible even under the leadership of the countries that we can't name easily.

Elections have to be won, but after winning, they can use the power in any way, and there are elected dictators all over the world who say that they will talk about the people because they have won. We are just about to join that club. Therefore, a kind of society will not be surprised to have a new member of that club. But the Nepali Congress is associated with people who have liberal democratic views in the international world, the kind of international movements we are connected with, the question may arise in their minds - how can the Nepali Congress we know do this? In that regard, we think that we have suffered a great loss.

During the Prime Minister's visit to China, China's statement has been made public that Nepal has supported the Global Security Initiative (GSI) launched by China. While it has been criticized for being against our constitution and foreign policy. Nepal has also refused. Yet China has not reformed. What do all these convoluted situations mean?

My opinion is simple - we can't do it right in GSI. At first, when the statement came from China, I was very scared. Later, the Prime Minister replied, but he has responded with lip service. This topic is not a topic to be answered by mouth. Seriously, this is our position. If the Prime Minister says that we have not signed the GSI, there is no discussion, why not reassure the people? 

Parliament does not need to be reassured? I don't understand the style of arguing that 'where did it go right?' That style is sometimes associated with broad democratic freedom and values. Why is the government not accountable to Parliament? Being accountable to the Parliament means being accountable to the people.

After the topic of supporting GSI comes up in a country's statement, we should say that this is our belief rather than whether we have supported it or not. A government built on such a foundation will have relations with India and China and relations with the rest of the world based on such basic principles, and if it is accepted, there can be no question of supporting GSI. The Prime Minister did not take such a path. It also seems that there is a problem with the way our governance is conducted and the way decisions are made. It is also a proof that such style and decision are incompatible with democratic values.

We have not sent a 'Protest Note'. Therefore, the claim in China's statement will be established. What will be the effect?

We seem to be walking in a kind of contradiction in the conduct of foreign policy. As such, there is a tendency not to fight face to face with India and to stay in private and gather as much support as possible to get India. That cooperation is important for power. Second, public opinion in Kathmandu and urban areas about relations with India is also in the psychology of a 'small nation'.

Whereas, we have a multifaceted relationship with India. But there are fierce nationalists here. There is a tendency to use patriotism for power, I am a nationalist, you are not. It is our 'coupling mechanism' to show that this person is standing with India for public image but to 'compromise' with India in private.

Our relationship with China has not become so close. Our differences with China have not reached the public. On the contrary, we have always been good with China, we have done good to China, China has always done good to us, I am trying to be close to China, but there is also a tendency to try to convince others that I have not gotten too close to China. This kind of 'coupling mechanism' has started coming in our foreign policy.

That's not fair. Relations with India cannot be at the cost of any other country. We also have a long relationship with China. We have to 'articulate' this by talking openly. Therefore, rather than whether we have done the right thing in the GSI or not, there should be a debate on whether our foreign policy is in a place where we can do it right in the GSI, whether there is a national consensus on that or not. I thought that the Prime Minister should have caught the mode of the debate in that way. did not catch That is sad.

The Prime Minister expressed his objection to the Chinese President about the agreement between China and India to trade Nepali land through Lipulek. Didn't you do that well?

Kalapani, Lipulek and Limpiyadhura are the lands of Nepal. It should be owned by Nepal. We have not been in use for more than 60 years since the time of Panchayat. Bring it to our use or establish ownership. The issue of establishing ownership is primary. It is not enough that I have stood up to establish my own ownership in the country, just saying this and doing that. Whether we can establish our ownership or not, the wisdom of today's leadership is tested on what to do about it.