1. These comments both represent and construct the dominant ideologies of English, e.g. the need to use “correct” English. This is particularly portrayed as important in high stake contexts such as the UN meeting. And, unfortunately, ability to speak “good” English in Nepali is equated with intelligence, smartness, generousness, etc. As many people point out, people did not care the content. Paradoxically, though, the people who advocate for “correct” English do not practice their own beliefs, as seen in their comments that contain “errors”.
2. Most comments come from people who are living abroad, either as immigrant workers in the Arabian countries or in the West. This is mainly the result of the mobility and displacement of these people due to the Maoist insurgency from 1996 to 2006. Thousands of people (most innocent civilians) lost their lives in the insurgency, many more displaced, and many still missing. Nepali people had hoped for an economic and social transformation after the Maoists gain power in the government. But the Maoist rulers turned equally, if not more, corrupt, and turned people’s expectations of good government upside down. Chapagain, the speaker being shamed here, is taken by many as a high profile representative of the Maoist party, the government, the killer, and the murder of many (note, she also lost her husband in the war, killed by the state army). To me, this is the identity that becomes more salient here, and the ‘woman’ identity is secondary.
3. Sociolinguist Erving Goffman uses the notions of the “author” (the composer of the message), the “animator” (the conveyer of the message in writing or in speech), and the “principal” (the one whose message is conveyed). Like many commenters, I seriously doubt Chapagain actually drafted the talk or voiced her opinion. This is not unique to her. In recent years, there are documented evidence that the prime minister Deuba (male) read talks that was meant for other events. Online social media in Nepal are very antagonistic toward political leaders, whether they are male or female, educated or uneducated, rural or urban. Chapagain lacking in language (and other) competence portrays her as a ‘typical’ political figure in the context of Nepal.
4. Now a hypothetical question- had there been a man in Chapagain’s place, would he have received the same comments? Yes and no. Yes, because Nepali people have unbelievably high craze for English in recent years, and they unfortunately continue to equate English for intelligence and smartness. For example, the prime minister Deuba was shamed in online media for not being able to speak appropriately/politely with appropriate English in a recent interaction at Columbia University. See the video and the comments here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxP_GdHfguA. Here are some comments:

Uff…. Is this man representing my country???
ts such a disgraceful completely, & totally unconscionable, shame on you 💩prime minister 💩 DEUBA jiii 💩…. you should have ask for translator or prepared your english before you attend. 😵😵 Thank you so much for insulting our Country. Shame on all those nepalese citizens who suceed to see him as leader of Nepal.

And, my second response is ‘no’ because, gender-specific comments are targeted for women only. Shaming words such as “bitch”, “must be in the kitchen” are used to further marginalize Nepali women, reproducing the century-long patriarchal ideologies of the divisions of space in terms of gender. It is unfortunate that Chapagain is shamed on the basis of her gender identity, but Deuba is not on the same ground.

However, it should be understood that hurting words have huge negative influence on people who either say or hear them. Especially when a woman is treated with discouraging comments from the outside world, crowned as a “shame”. Those who make the comments could not imagine how serious the problem is. Neglecting this responsible woman who perfectly did her job and addressed a fabulous speech about fighting AIDS in front of the world, online commenters chose to criticize her English language skills and destroy her. It seems that the most frequently mentioned words, gender equality and equal language learning opportunity, are simply words for slogans. These comments, I guess, reflect that ignorance and arrogance construct the biggest barrier of social equality.

I agree with both your comments Katherine and Elly. An important issue has been dismissed, the shamers are focused on an aspect that is superficial in comparison to the topic presented by the minister. Any room for debate or acknowledgement of what the minister has spoken of has been shut down. Furthermore it is disappointing that the shamers are using ‘sexist’ put downs to place further shame on the minister. The minister certainly has been treated disrespectfully by the people posting such comments.