Kathmandu -On September 8, the government forcefully suppressed anti-government protests, resulting in 21 deaths.

Later that evening, the Cabinet convened to address the unrest and prevent wider civil resistance.

Former Communications Minister Prithvi Subba Gurung announced the formation of an investigation committee and stated there was no immediate need to respond to the protesters’ demands.

In the following days, ministers provided more details about the Cabinet meeting. Former Education Minister Raghuji Pant spoke about it in an interview with Nagarik Daily, while former Health Minister Pradeep Paudel described it in conversations with news outlets.

Both said Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli showed a letter from the social media platform X during the meeting.

One of the protesters’ demands was the removal of a government-imposed ban on social media platforms that hadn’t registered in Nepal.

The letter from X angered KP Oli, who disregarded colleagues’ views favoring a rollback of the ban.

The letter described Nepal as a country marked by widespread corruption, where personal influence outweighed the rule of law.

A senior official at the Ministry of Communications said, ‘Minister briefed the officer on the letter’s contents but didn’t read it myself.’

The officer mentioned that the letter briefed by the minister stated that registration in Nepal would necessitate a legal framework approved by Parliament. Additionally, the platform would not operate under a corrupt administrative system.

Several ministers publicly echoed this account, describing X’s direct labeling of Nepal as a corrupt country as insulting. Ministers from the CPN UML were particularly vocal in expressing this view.

Officials familiar with the matter say the letter did not emerge in isolation.

According to a senior government official at the Communications Ministry at the time, intermediaries became active almost immediately after the government announced plans to require social media registration.

From Singapore to the United States, individuals approached companies claiming they could smooth the process in exchange for favors.

The official pointed to the government’s handling of approvals for Starlink’s internet service as an example. Companies involved witnessed intense lobbying and informal deal making.

Similar patterns appeared around the social media ban, with non government actors attempting to treat the issue as a contract business. The official said these experiences may have shaped the tone of X’s response.

The practice of seeking shares, business opportunities, or influence over government decisions had become increasingly common, officials said. Representatives of Musk’s company were direct witnesses to such efforts.

Other technology companies took a different approach. They objected to Nepal’s regulatory framework but did so in measured, professional language. X, by contrast, directly accused the government of corruption.

Although the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology was responsible for the technical aspects of social media registration, officials said the issue received little substantive discussion within the ministry itself. Major deliberations and decisions were instead taken at the Cabinet level.

Under existing procedures, government officials could order the removal of social media posts deemed harmful or incorrect, with platforms required to comply. Social media companies rejected this framework, arguing that no law passed by Parliament authorized such powers.

Their position was that registration should follow the enactment of clear legislation and the creation of a strong regulatory mechanism. The government disagreed, insisting that registration could proceed on the basis of existing procedures.

When platforms failed to register by the deadline, authorities ordered them shut down.

In its correspondence responding to the government’s registration request, X reiterated its claim that Nepal suffered from corrupt governance. Former ministers said it was unacceptable for a private company to describe a sovereign government in such terms.