KATHMANDU: Ashika Tamang, a name that has recently become familiar to many, now stands at the center of public debate following her controversial arrest by the Nepal Police.

Known for her fearless activism and determined approach to social reforms, Tamang’s detention has sparked serious questions about civil liberties, freedom of speech, and the treatment of activists in Nepal.

Ashika has been a vocal figure on issues often overlooked by authorities.

She has confronted vendors selling goods at prices far above the Maximum Retail Price (MRP), protested against public indecency under the Bagmati Bridge, challenged illegal restrictions on public spaces, and monitored questionable activities at the airport. Many have seen her as a guardian of public integrity and responsibility.

It is true that her blunt and sometimes confrontational style, including the use of harsh language, has divided public opinion.

When we honor those who gave their lives for the right to speak freely, it’s time to ask ourselves: are we turning a new generation of truth-tellers into martyrs once again?

While her intentions seem bona fide, her choice of words has unsettled some. Yet many believe her actions, despite the tone, have served the public good.

Around two weeks ago, Ashika Tamang was arrested at Swayambhu on charges of ‘Indecent Behavior,’ according to the police.

After an investigation, she was released on a ten thousand rupee bail by the District Administrative Office, Kathmandu, but was soon re-arrested in Bhaktapur, this time in handcuffs.

The image of her handcuffed sparked widespread outrage among human rights advocates and the general public.

This re-arrest has raised questions about the use of handcuffs, which many believe was unnecessary.

Section 21 of the Prisons Act, 2079, states that handcuffs should only be used in exceptional cases.

Was Ashika’s situation truly one of those exceptions? Or was this a heavy-handed move by law enforcement to silence her voice?

Ashika’s arrest and treatment bring up serious concerns. Are Nepali citizens being denied the fundamental right to free speech, as guaranteed by Article 17 of the Constitution?

This right allows citizens to speak freely and express opinions without fear of punishment.

Furthermore, Article 48 of the Constitution emphasizes the duty of citizens to protect the nation’s integrity.

Was Ashika not fulfilling this civic responsibility by challenging corruption and social wrongs? If so, why was she met with such harsh treatment?

Ashika’s arrest raises a critical question: is activism in Nepal being criminalized? Are those who speak out against societal and government issues at risk of prosecution?

The government and police must reflect on these implications. This case has already sparked discussions about the reforms needed within the justice system and how the police should handle activists.

Nepal, a country that takes pride in democratic values, risks tarnishing its image when incidents like this occur.

Trust in the system is weakened when citizens witness the suppression of voices that seek to bring positive change.

The Ashika Tamang case is not just about one individual. It is a test of Nepal’s commitment to democracy and human rights.

How the authorities choose to handle this situation will set a precedent for the treatment of future activists.

Activists play an essential role in pushing for a better society. Suppressing their efforts discourages others from standing up for what is right.

After all, we Nepali citizens are the watchdogs, and we have the right to speak out about wrongs.

Nepal stands at a crossroads. Will it protect the freedoms guaranteed by its constitution, or will it continue down a path where dissent is punished?

When we honor those who gave their lives for the right to speak freely, it’s time to ask ourselves: are we turning a new generation of truth-tellers into martyrs once again?

The people of Nepal are watching closely, and they deserve answers.