In May, I was a part of a Nepali delegation participating in the Canberra Fellowship Program, organized by Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT). Our six-member team consists of an election commissioner, think-tank representatives, a civic-tech executive, and academics. The program’s theme was ‘cybersecurity, misinformation and hybrid threats’, which was closely aligned with my recent areas of interests.
The fellowship offered an opportunity to connect with DFAT and Department of Home Affairs officials, top-notch academic and research institutions including the University of Sydney, University of Monash, University Melbourne, the Lowy Institute, The Asialink; and cyber security firms like CyberCX and Data61— digital arm of the Commonwealth Science Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO); and fact-checkers and dive deep into some timely and critical discussions—ranging from the rising risks of cybersecurity, mis/disinformation and hybrid warfare as well South Asian geopolitics, especially Nepal’s ties with China and India. An additional highlight was visiting Australia National University (ANU)—where I had an opportunity to present my paper on the framing of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) in Nepali media landscape. My study found that Nepali media depicted an overall affirmative and pro-BRI sentiment, with the economic frame dominating their coverage.
Here, I would briefly highlight what we observe and exchange with Australian counterparts, whether Nepal stands on cybersecurity, information disorder and hybrid warfare; and what lesson could we absorb from Australia’s efforts on these critical fronts.
Cyber security and Nepal’s cyber resilience
Cyber security has become a critical national security issue, driven by threats from both adversarial nation states as well as not state-actors, which include incidents like cyber extortion, ransomware, data theft, phishing, espionage etc. Our team got an opportunity to learn about efforts by firms like CyberCX, which helps Australia’s public and private entities and their partners to counter cyber threats. It’s interesting to know that out of more than 300 cyber-attack cases it responds annually, about 5 percent of them emanate from adversarial states— mostly Russia-centric nexus, targeting its critical infrastructures for espionage and prepositioning disruption.
Nepal’s cyber vulnerabilities have often been exposed in multiple ways. Yet, limited tools and cyber infrastructures are at our disposal to counter cyber threats. Issues like Voice Over Internet Protocol (VoIP) call bypass, website hacks and shut downs, cyber extortions and phishing are common issues. Alarming, many young Nepali men and women are reportedly being trafficked to cyber-slavery camps in Myanmar for extortion. Foreign racketeers are involved in such cyber-extortion campaigns but Nepali law enforcement is facing a hard time in rescuing the victims and bringing the culprits into justice.
Nepal is ill-equipped to tackle sophisticated threats such as cyber espionage, data theft orchestrated by nation-states, or organized ransomware schemes. A notable example is the alleged 2010’s audio recording involving CPN (Maoist-Centre) leader, Krishna Bahadur Mahara, where he was purportedly heard demanding Rs 500 million from a Chinese individual to secure lawmakers’ votes to form a Maoist-led government. It is believed that this audio was intercepted by the Indian Embassy in Nepal and subsequently shared with various media outlets. While some media outlets reported on the incident, there was no significant investigation by either the media or Nepali authorities into how the Indian mission obtained this conversation. This incident exemplifies the extent of Nepal’s cyber vulnerabilities, particularly in securing the communications of politicians, bureaucrats, and government officials.
Controlling cyber conflict
We are fond of digital innovations, gadgets and the internet of things. For instance, we keep close-circuit television (CCTV) cameras at places for security purposes, but we often miss to pay heed to its susceptibilities for data theft. As such, Australia has designated many digital appliances and tools produced in certain designated countries, including CCTV camera, electric vehicles and AI tools, Dahau-connected doorbells, and drones as high-risk for cyber security. Its cyber security policy mandates businesses over AU$ 3 million or critical infrastructure entities to disclose any ransom payments.
Strengthening our cybersecurity framework is essential to safeguard national interests and ensure the integrity of our democratic processes.Nepal Police’s Cyber Bureau serves as the primary entity to handle cyber security issues. However, with limited resources and tools, its efforts have largely been restricted to addressing social media disputes, cyber extortion, and cases relating to ransomwares, often with mixed results. We need to prioritize awareness campaigns, build prepositioning infrastructures and robust mechanisms to address potential cyber attacks.
Combating Tide of Information Disorder
Misinformation and disinformation are not new phenomena. However, digital technologies have dramatically accelerated their spread in terms of speed, scale, and volume. Like cybersecurity, they now pose a significant threat to national security and democracy. Regardless of whether a country is developed or developing, technologically advanced or facing digital divides, authoritarian or democratic—the impact of mis/disinformation is felt across all aspects of life. A misinformation landscape survey in Nepal, conducted by the Center for Media Research–Nepal, in which I was part of the study team, found that individuals who rely primarily on social media for information, marginalized communities such as women, and vulnerable groups like teenagers and the elderly are disproportionately affected.
In the digital age, nothing is more valuable than human attention. The entire digital ecosystem—including tech companies, mobile devices, and social media platforms—is competing for public attention. This has contributed to a global average of nearly seven hours of daily mobile screen time. As attention becomes increasingly precious, so does information manipulation— often for monetary, political, or other strategic purposes. Recent studies show that ordinary people are highly susceptible to manipulated content, which can trigger repulsive effects of information disorder—especially during critical moments such as public health emergencies, natural disasters, and political or geopolitical crises. Nepal has experienced such 'infodemics' during several key events, including the 2015 earthquake, India’s undeclared border blockade, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the most recent elections.
Information disorder not only shapes public opinion but also poses a profound threat to democracy. Information manipulation has emerged as one of the most critical challenges to democratic governance. Democracy relies on well-informed citizens empowered to make well-informed political decisions, especially when selecting their representatives. However, mis and disinformation undermines this foundation, leading to misinformed citizens and distorted election outcomes.
Information disorder has promoted political polarization and political extremism, threatening fundamentals of democracy and democratic values. Likewise, it has also impacted Nepal’s development efforts and securing investments and funds for infrastructure developments owing to misguided narratives. Both leftists and liberals as well as new and established political parties have exploited such tactics, embedding mis/disinformation with the pre-existing biases and narratives to make it effective and serve other motives. As such, our society is moving towards political polarity, and fanaticism. We could see such incidents while endorsing the United States’ Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) grant, while the risk of similar cases is likely to repeat in the case of our cooperation under the Belt and Road Initiatives with China.
Rise of artificial intelligence (AI) has worsened the case of manipulation for public attention as deepfake videos are being circulated during elections and emergency situations. AI itself is not a big problem, but it often becomes scapegoat when people with wrong intent misuse its potential. During our discussion, we explored Australian experiences of AI potentials to combat mis/disinformation threats. Dr. Joanne Gray, Prof. of Digital Culture at the University of Sydney, shed light on its limitations in addressing disinformation: While AI may support flagging or debunking mis/disinformation, it cannot perform holistic interventions.
Australia has braced its national security framework by prioritizing cybersecurity, hybrid threats, and information disorder as critical challenges to democratic integrity. It has developed comprehensive cyber defense policies and mis/disinformation tackling policies, uniting a diverse coalition of stakeholders—including private entities, political parties, media institutions, cyber security firms, fact-checking organizations, ElectoralCommission, public agencies like the Department of Home Affairs. Notably, even DFAT, primarily responsible for Australia’s diplomatic and trade relations, has established dedicated teams to work with national and international partners to counter these threats. This collaborative approach enhances threat awareness, drives preventive measures, and enables swift intervention when needed.
Nepal has yet to fully recognize information disorder as a threat to democracy. Political parties, interest groups, and even intellectuals often exploit mis/disinformation to advance their agendas or undermine opponents. While Nepali news media deserve recognition for much of their investigative reportings, their credibility is undermined when fact-checkers must correct established outlets, revealing a troubling contamination within our information ecosystem.
Hybrid warfare tactics
Modern warfare mixes classic military power as well sneaky cyberattacks, information manipulation, economic tools like sanctions, and psychological tactics to outsmart enemies and adversaries. These are cost-effective, deniable, and hard-to-attribute strategies to serve strategic objectives. During our tour, we were told about how great powers favor tactics like media manipulation, psychological, political, and legal warfare to expand their influences. Such tactics are being employed in conflicts between Russia and Ukraine; Israel and Iran, and many other proxy-war fronts across the world.
Of late, Nepal has faced a wave of cyber intrusions, including government websites and attacks on the banking system, sentiment warfare especially by Indian-media depiction about Nepal’s engagement with China. Countermeasures include media literacy, fact-checking and debunking, and robust journalism. Nepal’s strategic position demands proactive measures to address these multifaceted threats effectively. However, we have yet to realize it is a new war front, which can only be effectively confronted if we take it very seriously and maintain a well concerted effort, taking everyone on board.
Conclusion
The strength of cyber defenses hinges on the expertise and vigilance of those who uphold them. In Nepal, cyber security challenges lie at both users’ level as well as institutional defense systems. One key challenge to address cyber security, mis/disinformation, and hybrid threats is having limited cyber defense institutions, lack of well-trained experts and well-coordinated response mechanisms. We often take such issues in a myopic way from policy formulation to its implementation. This apart, our cyber defense approach seems punitive rather than preventive, and that’s why recent policy formulation efforts, including the Information Technology Act, bills relating to the Media Council Act, and the Social Media Act became controversial. As such, a core challenge in addressing cybersecurity lies not just in the technical dimension, but in the lack of holistic understanding. A narrow or particularistic view—rather than a broader, interdisciplinary perspective—limits the effectiveness of policy and practice in this space. Since many countries are facing the same or similar challenges, we shouldn’t hesitate to learn from others’ best practices and collaborate with them, especially with neighbors and partners.
(The author is an assistant professor of journalism and mass communication, with research and teaching focus on communication research, technology, information ecosystem and democracy)
