KATHMANDU, September 6, 2026 : A report broadcast by South Korean news channel YTN on September 4 has drawn attention in Nepal after presenting a strongly critical account of Prime Minister Balendra Shah and the government’s handling of the catastrophic Bhote Koshi - Trishuli floods.

The YTN segment, published as an “Anchor Report,” opened by declaring that “public opinion among Nepalese people is rapidly deteriorating” and said the six-month-old government was facing a major test. It went on to criticise Nepal’s disaster warning system, its handling of foreign rescue assistance, temporary burials of unidentified victims and even the prime minister’s wearing of sunglasses.

A review by Nepal Akhbar of the YTN report, Reuters coverage and official Nepal government statements finds that some of the underlying events mentioned by YTN are real. However, several important claims are either overstated, insufficiently supported or presented without essential context.

Did Nepal reject “all foreign help”?

One of the strongest statements in the YTN report says that the Nepal government “initially rejected all foreign assistance” before later seeking help from only a few countries.

That wording does not accurately reflect what Reuters reported at the time.

On August 28, Reuters reported that Nepal had told foreign governments it did not require foreign search-and-rescue teams “for now,” because Nepali security agencies were conducting the operations themselves. Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lok Bahadur Chhetri told Reuters that Nepal’s own agencies were carrying out search and rescue and that additional foreign teams were not required at that particular stage.

That is significantly different from rejecting all international assistance.

The same Reuters report said South Korea had already pledged US$1 million in humanitarian assistance through international organisations, while Seoul had sent a response team to Nepal in connection with missing South Korean nationals.

Nepal’s position subsequently changed as the scale and specialised nature of the rescue operation became clearer. By August 30, Nepal’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said tunnel-rescue experts from India, China and the Republic of Korea had been mobilised in coordination with the Nepali Army. The government said it was seeking international assistance where specialised expertise and equipment were necessary.

On September 1, Reuters reported that South Korea was sending a 44-member emergency relief team following a request from Nepal for assistance with search-and-rescue operations.

International rescue cooperation continued afterward. Nepal’s Foreign Ministry confirmed that Indian, Chinese and South Korean tunnel-rescue teams were working alongside Nepali forces, while equipment, drones and other materials received from foreign partners were being used in ongoing operations.

Therefore, the claim that Nepal simply “rejected all foreign help” is an overgeneralisation. A more accurate description is that Nepal initially declined additional foreign search-and-rescue teams, saying domestic resources were sufficient at that stage, before requesting and accepting specialised foreign assistance as operational needs developed.

Was Nepalese public opinion “rapidly deteriorating”?

YTN’s headline and opening statement present rapidly worsening public opinion as an established national fact. However, the published report does not provide a nationwide opinion poll, approval-rating survey, sample size, polling organisation or other quantitative evidence demonstrating such a rapid national shift.

The report instead refers to criticism surrounding disaster preparedness, flood warnings, international rescue teams, burial procedures and the prime minister’s personal appearance.

Those issues may legitimately be debated and reported. But criticism from sections of the public, social media or commentators is not automatically equivalent to verified evidence that Nepalese public opinion as a whole is rapidly deteriorating.

Without polling or other representative evidence, YTN’s broad characterisation should therefore be understood as an assessment or editorial framing rather than a demonstrated statistical fact.

Temporary burials did occur - but important context matters

YTN also criticised the government’s decision to bury unidentified flood victims, suggesting that the process was aggravating public sentiment because Nepal’s Hindu traditions generally favour cremation.

The burials themselves are real and were independently documented by Reuters.

Reuters reported from Chitwan that unidentified bodies recovered after spending days in floodwater were decomposing rapidly and overwhelming available mortuary facilities. Authorities said temporary burial became necessary because of public-health concerns and the condition of the remains.

Crucially, Reuters also reported that authorities were photographing and documenting the bodies, collecting DNA samples, marking individual graves and recording precise burial locations so remains could later be identified and exhumed if families were found.

Nepal’s Foreign Ministry gave a similar explanation, saying temporary burials were being conducted for unrecognisable or severely decomposed remains under established protocols, with DNA samples preserved so families could later identify and perform appropriate rituals.

Therefore, reporting merely that Nepal was “hurriedly carrying out mass burials” without adequately explaining the identification safeguards and severe public-health situation risks giving viewers an incomplete impression of why the decision was taken.

Questions over initial foreign-team access were real

It would also be inaccurate to claim that there were no difficulties involving foreign rescuers.

Reuters reported that the initial attempts of a South Korean rapid-response team to reach the disaster area were delayed by flight restrictions imposed by the Nepali military. After approval was granted, aerial search missions began on August 29.

Reuters had also reported on August 28 that Nepal was not yet accepting additional foreign search-and-rescue teams, despite offers from several countries.

Those decisions can legitimately be questioned, especially given the number of foreign nationals affected. But they should be described accurately as restrictions and an initial decision not to deploy foreign SAR teams — not as a blanket rejection of every form of international assistance.

The sunglasses commentary

The YTN report also devoted substantial attention to Prime Minister Shah’s wearing of sunglasses, saying that because he was already facing criticism over not visiting disaster areas frequently enough, wearing sunglasses would inevitably make him appear worse to the public.

That statement is clearly more interpretive than factual. The report does not provide polling or other representative evidence showing how much, if at all, the prime minister’s eyewear has affected his nationwide approval.

Personal presentation can be a legitimate subject of political commentary, but treating it as evidence of deteriorating national support without supporting data moves the report away from straightforward factual reporting.

What verified evidence shows

Reuters’ reporting since the disaster shows that Nepal’s response has faced extraordinary difficulties and that legitimate questions can be asked about preparedness, warnings, access and the speed of rescue operations.

At the same time, the verified record also shows an enormous domestic and international rescue operation. Reuters reported that thousands of Nepali security personnel were deployed and that specialised international teams were participating in efforts to reach people trapped at damaged hydropower projects.

On September 4, rescuers pulled two workers alive from the Upper Trishuli 3A hydropower tunnel nine days after the disaster, underscoring both the extreme difficulty of the operation and the continuing rescue effort.

Nepal Akhbar Fact-Check Verdict

However, two major elements require qualification.

YTN’s statement that Nepal “initially rejected all foreign assistance” is misleading because verified Reuters reporting shows that Nepal initially declined additional foreign search-and-rescue teams, while humanitarian assistance and diplomatic coordination were occurring, and Nepal subsequently requested specialised international rescue assistance.

Similarly, YTN’s sweeping assertion that “Nepalese public opinion is rapidly deteriorating” is not supported in the report by a national poll or other representative public-opinion data.

A more balanced report would distinguish between documented criticism of the government’s disaster response and a scientifically demonstrated nationwide decline in public support.

Responsible journalism requires scrutiny of the Nepal government’s decisions during a disaster of this magnitude. But that scrutiny should also be based on precise language, verifiable evidence and sufficient context — particularly when international media are describing an entire country’s public sentiment.

Primary sources referenced

• Reuters — Nepal declines foreign rescue help; South Korea says it is negotiating (Aug. 28, 2026)

• Reuters — South Korea to send disaster relief team to Nepal (Sept. 1, 2026)

• Reuters — Nepal begins mass burials of unidentified flood victims (Aug. 30, 2026)

• Reuters — How search operations are progressing in Nepal after deadly flash flood (Sept. 2, 2026)

• Reuters — Two people pulled alive from Nepal hydropower tunnel (Sept. 4, 2026)

• Nepal Ministry of Foreign Affairs — Press briefing on Bhote Koshi flood

• YTN — Report being fact-checked (Sept. 4, 2026)

Editorial note: This fact-check separates verifiable events from interpretive or unsupported framing. It does not argue that Nepal’s disaster response should be exempt from criticism; it assesses whether the specific claims and wording used in the cited report are adequately supported by available evidence.