How do social media bans by governments affect civil liberties and political stability? Illustrate with reference to recent events in Nepal and Bangladesh.

Q. How do social media bans by governments affect civil liberties and political stability? (15 marks, 250-350 words)

Social media bans are State-ordered blocks on digital platforms, defended as public-order measures. The UN human rights office holds that such shutdowns strike first at freedom of expression and access to information, and impose heavy economic costs [1]. Nepal (2025) and Bangladesh (2024) show they usually corrode liberties and destabilise the order they claim to protect.

Effect on civil liberties - Speech and assembly: blanket bans are disproportionate by design, disabling lawful speech alongside the targeted content, and are rarely the least restrictive means available [1]. - Information blackout: Bangladesh's nationwide broadband and mobile internet shutdown from 18 July 2024 crippled news coverage and shielded a violent crackdown from scrutiny [5]. - Right to know and remedy: Nepal's ban on 26 platforms (September 2025) removed the main channel through which young citizens voiced grievances on corruption and unemployment [2].

Effect on political stability - Trigger, not tranquiliser: Nepal's ban converted diffuse anger into a mass "Gen Z" uprising; security forces used unnecessary and disproportionate force, killing scores of mostly young protesters [2]. - Regime collapse: the Oli government fell within two days; the Karki commission's 1,000-page report later recommended criminal investigation of the former PM, Home Minister and police chief [3]. - Economic and institutional damage: Nepal suffered around Rs 84 billion in physical damage and thousands of job losses, with Parliament and the Supreme Court torched [4]. - Delegitimisation: in Bangladesh, the shutdown accompanied systematic violations that ended Sheikh Hasina's government [5].

Both cases confirm that suppressing digital voice removes the safety valve of democratic dissent and converts reformable discontent into regime-threatening rupture. The sustainable path lies in narrowly tailored, judicially reviewable and time-bound restrictions rather than blanket bans, coupled with grievance redressal on corruption and jobs, and independent accountability for protest deaths — as Nepal's judicial commission has attempted. Protecting digital freedom, consistent with the ICCPR's guarantee of free expression, is thus a condition of political stability, not its rival.

(~320 words)

Sources: 1. A/HRC/50/55: Internet shutdowns — trends, causes, legal implications and impacts on human rights, OHCHR (2022) — shutdowns' primary impact on expression, information and economic life 2. Nepal: Call for prompt, transparent investigation into killings of protesters, OHCHR (September 2025) — social media ban as protest trigger; disproportionate use of force 3. Nepal PM Sushila Karki receives 1,000-page report on September 8–9 Gen Z protests, News On Air (March 2026) — commission report and accountability recommendations 4. 100 days later, September Gen Z revolt receives mixed reviews, The Kathmandu Post (18 December 2025) — Rs 84.45 billion damage, job losses, institutions destroyed 5. OHCHR Fact-Finding Report: Human Rights Violations and Abuses related to the Protests of July and August 2024 in Bangladesh — 18 July internet shutdown and systematic violations