By Omay Aimen
In a region where borders are contested not just by maps but also by narratives, the voice of ordinary citizens often becomes the sharpest form of resistance. This has been demonstrated vividly in Nepal, where citizens have risen with remarkable clarity against the intrusive designs of Indian media outlets, particularly the Modi-aligned channels commonly labelled as Godi Media. Instead of succumbing to manufactured narratives, the Nepali people have exposed and outrightly rejected the disinformation campaign aimed at undermining their sovereignty. This collective pushback has not only challenged the credibility of Indian media but has also revealed how expansionist ambitions, disguised as journalistic coverage, are decisively losing ground. What unfolded on the streets of Kathmandu and other cities was not just a rejection of propaganda but a popular verdict on truth versus distortion, sovereignty versus interference, and people’s will versus media manipulation.
The roots of this confrontation lie in the persistent attempts of Indian media to impose the so-called Akhand Bharat agenda, framing Nepal within a broader narrative of subordination. Over the years, such propaganda has intensified, particularly with the rise of Hindutva politics in India that seeks to reshape South Asia’s map to serve its ideological fantasies. By branding Nepal’s internal youth-led movements as foreign-driven or destabilizing, Indian media tried to delegitimize genuine voices calling for accountability within their own political system. Yet the people of Nepal did not fall into this trap. Instead of accepting India’s hegemonic lens, they declared their independence of thought and rejected every attempt to rewrite their reality through propaganda. This rejection is not isolated; it is deeply rooted in Nepal’s history of resisting domination—be it colonial pressures, territorial encroachments, or economic manipulation. The present moment simply confirms that the people remain steadfast in defending their right to define their own destiny.
As the campaign of lies unfolded, the anger of ordinary Nepalis became increasingly vocal. Demonstrators confronted Indian journalists directly, exposing their complicity in advancing Modi’s political project rather than reporting truth. Citizens challenged them bluntly, stating that India should first address its internal injustices, poverty, inequality, and rising intolerance before attempting to lecture others. This candid rejection illustrates that propaganda loses all influence when people recognize its intent and respond with collective defiance. For the Nepali population, Indian media has become synonymous with blind servility to Modi’s government. The credibility of these outlets has already collapsed within India’s own borders due to their alignment with power, but the fact that this disrepute has now crossed into neighbouring countries represents a new low for India’s media diplomacy. What was once perceived as soft influence has transformed into hard rejection, leaving behind a trail of damaged relations.
Beyond the protests, the larger implication lies in the erosion of India’s narrative-building power in its immediate neighbourhood. For decades, Indian media has attempted to play the role of opinion shaper in South Asia, framing issues to suit New Delhi’s political and strategic interests. However, the boycott by the Nepali public signals that this strategy is failing. In the age of digital platforms, where alternative voices can travel faster than state-controlled narratives, propaganda no longer goes unchallenged. The Nepali example demonstrates that sovereignty in the information sphere is as vital as sovereignty on borders. The act of resisting disinformation is itself an assertion of national dignity. In this context, Nepal’s rejection of Godi Media’s lies represents not just a media boycott but a symbolic act of reclaiming narrative independence. It shows that smaller states are no longer willing to tolerate attempts at ideological colonization, no matter how aggressively wrapped in the language of journalism.
