{"id":24663,"date":"2026-09-07T07:48:06","date_gmt":"2026-09-07T02:03:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/eng.dragonmedia.com.np\/?p=24663"},"modified":"2026-09-07T07:50:20","modified_gmt":"2026-09-07T02:05:20","slug":"filming-4-rivers-6-ranges-in-mustang-under-a-different-name-and-storyline","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/eng.dragonmedia.com.np\/?p=24663","title":{"rendered":"Filming ‘4 Rivers 6 Ranges’ in Mustang Under a Different Name and Storyline<\/strong>"},"content":{"rendered":"

Dragon Media Correspondent<\/strong><\/p>\n

The filming of “4 Rivers 6 Ranges Chushi Gangdruk” in Nepal’s Mustang district has transcended the realm of ordinary cinematic production. Director Shenpen Khimsar himself has stated in a public interview that, anticipating difficulties in obtaining permission in Nepal with the film’s actual subject matter, he prepared a fictitious screenplay titled “The Himalayan Robin Hood” and submitted it to Nepali authorities. Based on that approval, he proceeded to film the actual “4 Rivers 6 Ranges.” He has described this process as an operation conducted in a clandestine manner.<\/p>\n

If this admission holds true, the fundamental question is no longer merely whether Nepal granted filming permission. The far more serious question is whether the film approved by the Nepali government and the film actually shot in Nepal are one and the same. In legal terms, this discrepancy alone has the potential to fundamentally alter the entire nature of the case.<\/p>\n

Nepal’s Film (Production, Exhibition, and Distribution) Act, 2026 prohibits the production, distribution, or exhibition of narrative films without a license. Under its regulations, when applying for production permission, applicants must disclose the film’s actual title, synopsis, purpose, director, cast, filming locations, and other details. The Film Development Board’s current procedures for foreign film production similarly require the submission of the screenplay, details of the foreign crew, and a specific filming schedule and locations within Nepal.<\/p>\n

The implication is direct. If permission was obtained for “The Himalayan Robin Hood” and its narrative, but “4 Rivers 6 Ranges Chushi Gangdruk” was shot on location, the issue does not rest solely on whether permission existed or not. An investigation must determine whether the actual film fell within the scope of that license. Government approval granted for one project cannot be presumed to automatically transfer to another politically, historically, and narratively distinct project.<\/p>\n

At this juncture, the production party faces one of two difficult legal questions. If “4 Rivers 6 Ranges” was not the approved project, then the film was made without authorization. If it is claimed that the same permission covered the actual film, then an explanation is required as to why the title, synopsis, and purpose submitted for approval differed from the actual film.<\/p>\n

Nepali law empowers the Chief District Officer to take action in cases of film production, exhibition, or distribution without permission. The current text of the Act provides for fines, license revocation, and confiscation of the film and equipment used when production or exhibition occurs without authorization. However, the maximum fine of five thousand rupees stipulated in the Act appears grossly inadequate and outdated in the context of today’s international film industry economics. This case has highlighted the urgent need to modernize Nepal’s film-related legislation.<\/p>\n

An even more significant legal aspect lies in the conditions attached to film production licenses. Under the Film Regulations, the license template issued to foreign producers requires that a copy of the film shot in Nepal be submitted to the ministry, and that prior approval from the relevant Nepali embassy, consulate general, or consulate be obtained before the film’s first public screening abroad.<\/p>\n

This provision raises another grave question in the “4 Rivers 6 Ranges” case. If the production party used Nepali permission to shoot the film, has a copy of the actual film shot in Nepal been submitted to the relevant ministry? Was the required approval from Nepali diplomatic missions obtained before the film’s first public screening in India or elsewhere? The answers to these questions remain undisclosed to the public.<\/p>\n

Can Nepal Ban the Screening?<\/h3>\n

The legal answer is clear: Nepal can ban the screening within its territory. However, this requires due legal process.<\/p>\n

The Film Censorship Board has the authority to deny public exhibition permission if a film is found to adversely affect Nepal’s security, public order, relations with friendly nations, public interest, or other legally protected matters. If necessary, it may grant exhibition permission only after requiring edits to scenes or dialogue. Even if a film has previously passed censorship, the government can order its screening stopped or only allowed with modifications if it deems the content adverse. The government has already issued directives barring the screening of ‘propaganda’ films targeting friendly nations.<\/p>\n

However, legal provisions also require that the concerned party be given a reasonable opportunity to present its position. In other words, Nepal possesses the authority, but any ban must be grounded in legal justification and procedure, not issued as a political decree.<\/p>\n

It is crucial to note that proving permission was circumvented in Nepal does not automatically result in a ban on the film’s screening. Violations related to filming are subject to separate proceedings. A decision to halt public exhibition requires an examination of the film’s content and the statutory grounds concerning security, public order, and relations with friendly nations. However, if deception in the permission process is confirmed, it would naturally render the committee’s overall assessment substantially more serious.<\/p>\n

Can Nepal Ban the Screening in India?<\/h3>\n

The straightforward legal answer is no. Nepal’s Film Act applies within Nepal’s jurisdiction. The decision of whether a film screens in Indian cinemas falls under Indian law and the jurisdiction of its regulatory bodies. India’s Central Board of Film Certification has already issued a UA 13+ certificate for the Hindi version of “4 Rivers 6 Ranges Chushi Gangdruk” on April 29, 2026.<\/p>\n

While Nepal cannot impose a direct ban within India, if violations of Nepal’s filming permission, diplomatic mission approval, or other legal conditions are substantiated, it can inform the Indian government through diplomatic channels, seek clarification from the production party, and pursue action against concerned individuals or entities within its own jurisdiction.<\/p>\n

The Hollywood Reporter India has published claims citing a source close to the production that the film has already been banned in Nepal. However, no clear public decision confirming such a ban has yet been issued by the Government of Nepal, the Central Film Censorship Board, or the Film Development Board. Therefore, presenting the claim that “Nepal has banned the film” as a fact without official government confirmation would be premature.<\/p>\n

The Sensitivity of Mustang<\/h3>\n

Another factor compounding the gravity of this case is the geography of Mustang. The film’s director has publicly stated that choosing Mustang as a filming location was linked to the region’s history of Tibetan resistance. He has also openly connected the film to the contemporary geopolitical context between India and China.<\/p>\n

Upper Mustang remains a restricted area for foreign nationals, requiring special permission from the Department of Immigration for entry. If filming did indeed take place in such restricted zones, a film permit alone would not suffice. Records must be examined to determine whether foreign cast and technical crew obtained the necessary immigration and area-specific clearances.<\/p>\n

Similarly, filming within protected areas requires a separate permission process that mandates disclosure of the subject’s name and synopsis, filming locations, participants, and duration. This further complicates the director’s claim that the actual story was concealed, as it raises the question of whether the same false information was used across multiple approval processes.<\/p>\n

The Question Tied to the One-China Commitment<\/h3>\n

As recently as June this year, the Nepali government reaffirmed its commitment to the One-China principle during foreign ministerial-level talks with China, clearly stating that Nepali territory would not be used for any activities contrary to China’s interests. In previous Nepal-China joint statements, Nepal has also recognized matters concerning the Tibet Autonomous Region as China’s internal affairs and pledged not to allow separatist activities against China on Nepali soil.<\/p>\n

Therefore, the most sensitive question for the state is not agreement or disagreement with the film’s ideology. The question is whether a contradiction has been created between Nepal’s declared policy and its own administrative practice. If the production party had informed the state of the actual narrative, the basis for granting permission must be clarified. If the narrative was concealed, an investigation into why the state was deceived is imperative.<\/p>\n

If this issue is reduced to a debate about banning films under Chinese pressure or attacking freedom of expression, the real problem becomes obscured. The core problem is whether a foreign film production party can deliberately circumvent Nepal’s government permitting system. When the director himself admits to obtaining permission by presenting a different screenplay, the government cannot afford to ignore it.<\/p>\n

What Must Be Done Now?<\/h3>\n

The Nepali government must first consolidate records from the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, the Film Development Board, the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Department of Immigration, local administrations, and relevant protected area authorities to conduct a fact-finding exercise. It must publicly clarify which film was approved, what narrative was submitted, where actual filming occurred, which foreign team participated, and which government agency granted which approvals.<\/p>\n

If no permission existed, action must be taken against unauthorized production. If permission existed but for a different film, a decision must be made regarding the misuse of that permit. If it is proven that government approval was obtained by concealing the actual details, separate investigations may be warranted not only under film law but also under other applicable laws. However, any such criminal conclusions must only be drawn after examining evidence and the actual documents used.<\/p>\n

In this case, Nepal does not lack legal authority. Its weakness lies in the will to exercise that authority, coordination of records, and the modernization of its laws.<\/p>\n

The sharpest question ultimately turns back not on the filmmaker, but on the Government of Nepal itself.<\/p>\n

If a foreign director openly admits to having concealed the actual film, presented a different screenplay, and shot a film in Nepal’s sensitive northern border region, and the state remains silent, the problem becomes far larger than a single film.<\/p>\n

In that scenario, the question will no longer be whether “4 Rivers 6 Ranges” will be screened in Nepal.<\/p>\n

The question will be: what is the true value of Nepal’s permit?<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t <\/div><\/div>\n\t\t