Oli resorts to ‘block’ weapon as criticism mounts
The controversy erupted after several journalists, political leaders and content creators claimed they were blocked from Oli’s official Facebook page for posting critical comments.
KATHMANDU: CPN-UML chair and former prime minister KP Sharma Oli, long known for his sharp rhetoric and public challenges to opponents, is facing criticism for a very different reason: blocking critics on social media.
The controversy erupted after several journalists, political leaders and content creators claimed they were blocked from Oli’s official Facebook page for posting critical comments.
The move has triggered a wider debate over freedom of expression and what critics describe as a growing “digital intolerance” among senior political leaders.
Journalist Bhanubhakta Acharya was among the first to raise the issue publicly.
He said he was blocked after commenting on the tragic incident of Bhadra 23, urging party leadership to take responsibility and issue an apology.
“Instead of a response, I was blocked,” Acharya wrote, adding that the decision appeared to be taken by party loyalists unable to tolerate criticism.
The issue has since snowballed. Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) leader Himesh Pant also confirmed that he was blocked from Oli’s page, posting wryly on social media: “Eventually, KP Oli blocked me too.”
Content creator Navaraj Pandey responded with sarcasm, linking the frequent criticism he faces from party supporters with Oli’s action. “They used to ask why I bark so much—looks like my barking reached KP ‘Ba’s ears,” he wrote.
Political commentator Keshav Koirala offered a sharper critique, accusing Oli of double standards. While the UML chair often champions democracy and free speech in public forums, Koirala said, his online behaviour tells a different story.
“A leader who invites public debate but cannot tolerate criticism from voters shows a strange contradiction,” he noted.
Secretariat: ‘A Matter of Personal Choice’
As criticism mounted, Oli’s secretariat sought to downplay the issue, arguing that managing a personal social media account—including deciding who to block or allow—falls under individual freedom.
However, critics argue that when a senior political leader uses an official platform followed by millions, the line between personal choice and public responsibility becomes blurred.
