Unwarranted interference

The Kathmandu district administration, most certainly at the prodding of the Koirala government, has done the press in Nepal a great disservice by calling in the publisher of a Nepali daily and questioning him regarding the outbreak of protest demonstrations that took place in the capital last week. The government was no doubt appeasing India, which has launched unfounded allegations against the Nepalese press with reference to the last week’s protests. Our ambassador in New Delhi, was more than prompt in blaming the media as were others. Yet almost all media in the country have reported responsibly about the whole affairs. They have faithfully informed their readers and listeners about the events that took place in the country and why they took place. At no point has any of the responsible Nepalese media ever mentioned that the concerned Indian actor actually made the anti-Nepal remarks attributed to him. What they have done is report the events that took place. If reporting news of events and incidents that happened is wrong in the eyes of the government elected by the people, it only shows that the government has little faith in the concept of the freedom of the press. Clearly the government wants to pay lip service to this concept but in reality it does just the opposite.

This is not the only time that such a thing has happened. The government has had no qualms about detaining journalists on false charges, preventing newspapers from reaching their destinations and conducting "search" of newspaper offices, to mention only a few democratic aberrations committed by our democratic government. Yet the Information and Communications Minister who promptly banned Indian movies featuring Hrithik Roshan without even bothering to find out facts goes scot-free. Perhaps, his banning of the films and the DPM Poudel’s later boast that the government "has already banned Roshan films" was more responsible for the people’s fury than all the reporting in the Nepalese media put together.

The government surely has no basis for "summoning" the publisher of the newspaper, and much less in paroling him to appear before the Chief District Officer’s office next week. The Koirala government may be appeasing India by doing this is infringing upon the fundamental rights of a Nepali and a newspaper publisher whose primary duty is to inform the readers of the developments taking place in the country. If the government has anything other than those relating to newspaper, it should proceed accordingly. If there are criminal charges against the publisher regarding his associations and not mere allegations like the Hrithik Roshan allegations it must proceed according to law and prosecute the person concerned. But this government cannot do for it seems it cannot even concoct such evidence. What the government’s gesture shows is nothing but a policy of appeasement towards India which, thanks to its less than average intelligence service, has indulged in wild allegations against many Nepalese without any substance. The government perceived by many to be unduly pliant to New Delhi will do well to realise that a free and vibrant press is the best safeguard against any conspiracy, against democracy but, above all, a faithful watchdog against any foreign interference in Nepal’s affairs.

Need for pragmatic nationalism

By Bidhan Acharya

Being sandwiched between two large nations is probably the most explaining reason for sensitive nationalism in Nepal. Historically, though Nepal was never under foreign-rule, there was always a fear of invasion from outside. The English rulers in the south threatened, and Tibetan-Chinese rulers were looking at Nepal with the point of view of power balance. Nepal, indeed was not invaded technically by the northern and southern neighbours, a kind of legacy of maintaining a balance for both of these powers has left Nepal prevented from its own several independent policy alternatives. Diplomats have called this as one of the strength of Nepalese policies, but whatever bound has it produced is not within the paraphernalia of strength. A binary coexistence of thoughts in the government files and people’s minds have contradiction between each other. The official balance of relationships is not often translated into the brotherly interactions with the people and institutions across these boundaries. And, the trouble Nepalese people have experienced in terms of supplies, blockade, or restrictions in movements accumulate and get piled up; and whenever the opportunity of burst for a boil is there created by politicians that accumulation gets a way-out and situation becomes worst.

Recent agitation was one of the sensations of such sentimental nationality that devastated the life and properties of our own nation. The accused has no concern with all these developments in Nepal. An actor’s so called statement could not be the pillar of foreign policy of either countries. What governs the interrelationships between two countries is completely different from these street-acts. Political parties and leaders letting fire on agitation and ethnic type of conflict should be made responsible and dragged into courtyards. Maybe some sorts of punishments like prohibition in candidature in national and local level elections should be implemented for such sort-sighted and in-exemplary act-lovers.

Crucial situations come and go with terrible consequences. A father losing a pre-teen daughter for no reasons has no reason for granting pardon for the government, too. Policemen always in riots are found in Nepal to be shooting at buildings and windows instead of targeting the troublemakers. Had the police trained its force with adequate knowledge on handling weapons, no irrelevant causalities would have been in prevalence. Every walk of socio-political life is full of incompleteness. The administration and the police personnel with irrational behaviour should also be interrogated and punished. How long can we go with such anarchism in thoughts and behaviour?

Is our nationalism so weak that it bursts out against its own people? Who are they responsible to for looting and vandalism? Are they nationalists? We must be aware of our national existence and integrity of Nepali people. We should also prevent our nation from derogative and unfaithful comments that question our identity. But, if we waste our energy to diminish our own identity in national and international sphere, it is the way to nowhere.

Consistent calls for ‘Bandh’ and ‘Hartal’ diminishes the productive capacity of a country. Nepal has more customary holidays than other countries and if you add such closings the count of unproductive days goes up. This author has observed an effective ‘Hartal’ in Dacca, Bangladesh. They have a system of half and partial ‘Hartal’. Those were more effective than the full-day ‘Bandh’. In half ‘Bandh’ market and transportation until 12.59 are completely closed and at 1.00 o’clock everything is normal as usual. Similarly, partial ‘Hartal’ of two hours was manifoldly effective than others. They ban transportation from 4.00 to 6.00 pm. You can make it of three hours from 3.00 to 6.00 pm in winter. People going back home from their workplaces are affected and the waiting torture for restoration of transportation is effective. I would like to recommend all political parties to conduct such half and partial ‘Bandh’ and ‘Hartal’, if they have to, instead of a full-day cessation. If you are able to hold ministers and secretaries even for one hour late in his/her office there is a higher chance of hearing your voice. Otherwise, you call for a ‘Bandh’ and they will remain in their homes with some comfort.

Or, they will be escorted by armed vans. You cannot check the whole city. If you conduct such partial ‘Bandhs’, you can concentrate your force on some major offices. For these ‘Bandh’ days, a new system has been developed so that the personnel can go in any time to any of the associated offices and sign their presence and come back home. That makes no difference in their lives. Conduct half and partial ‘Bandh’ and ‘Hartal’ instead of a full day blockade.

The Roshan trauma should receive an end. Ministerial level comments and unethical acts against fellow-citizens is a shameful event indeed. From time to time, we face questions of our integrity either related to our national existence by a superior British based media organisation, or the question of conferring hijacker status on a Nepalese national, or a question of the location of the birthplace of Lord Buddha, or where the Mt Everest is situated. These are some examples, which we wince about. There is one bitter thing we must realise. Though Mr Roshan has, however, denied all allegations; but even if someone does dislike us, so what? We also have rights to dislike others. One should understand that, but the serial dislikes are not the solutions to a dispute.

And, by and large, this is not a sufficient condition to burn the streets and hearts as well. In the world, many people do not like many others. We can do our best to make ourselves better accepted by others. That’s all.

Isn’t it the same thing as someone calling my mother ugly and I vandalising my own mother? Political parties holding the student forces are urged to behave calmly. It is the high time to consolidate our nationality by making our nation harmonious and stronger. If you want to fight, fight against the sorrows and troubles of the people. Fight against corruption and price fixation of parliamentarians. Develop a system in the country, but please do not destroy the system and be guided by only sentimental nationalism, instead of realism and pragmatism.

Monkey forever

By Tilak Kandangwa Limbu

Ask a Palestinian about the deadlock in peace process and they will promptly point an accusing finger at Israel. Pakistan blames India for the Kashmir dispute while India blames Pakistan for terrorism. The government and the opposition of any country are constantly finding flaw and undermining each other. Ask the chairman of NC about intra-party squabble and he points his finger at Sher Bahadur or ask Sher, he says it is Girija. Maoists and the government are continuously on a belly dancing spree over the heads of the people. At any household, husband and wife are continuously quarrelling over trifle matters. How hard you may try; one cannot find an acceptable solution, because everyone is ready to define matters at his/her own convenience. Everyone is selfish to a lesser or greater extent.

There has been a great deal of study on human behaviour. Volumes have been written and said. Social scientists are continuously racking their heads to develop theories by studying human behaviour in groups as well as at individual level. No acceptable theory has been developed or is likely to be developed in future on human behaviour. After all, there are six billion people with six billion heads pointing at six billion direction. Its study is something like pondering over the evolution of the universe, whether it started with a big bang or a small one. Human behaviour and motives are simply unpredictable.

However, there is one common trait we have in our blood, since the evolution of humankind. That is, human beings are born selfish. Whether we act collectively in the interest of country or individually, human beings are ready to pull the carpet off any one’s foot if the motive works for his convenience. Ask Bill Clinton why he did not visit Nepal when he visited Bangladesh. It is because the Mt Everest is not taller than the economics of Bangladeshi Gas fields. Ask Ajharuddin why he got involved in the rigging racket, it is because he wanted to go for a shopping spree with his wife.

Ask Girija why he is holding two berths in his party; it is because one berth is not enough for a sound sleep. Khum Bahadur changed camps because the previous one was too narrow to the charging of hefty rents under the pretext of increased kerosene price. Watch Tulsi Ghimire’s Darpan Chhanyya to know how two fast friends become selfish rivals for a girl.

Therefore being selfish is inherent quality of human beings. Or is it not? I think yes because I have not come across any mortals going the other way round (Now, don’t argue you are different. You definitely have some selfish reservations). So why blame the world? Why Girija? Why Prachanda? Everyone are descended of the same selfish monkey family.

Yes! Darwin rightly advocated that our lineage goes back to apes and monkeys. This fact has been scientifically deduced, so in the end you are a monkey either way.

Human beings may have discarded their tail long before, but practically human being was and will remain monkey till the sun sets westwards.

Messy and tragic but educative

By M R Josse

The fire storm that recently swept through Kathmandu and elsewhere over the abusive comments against Nepal and the Nepalese people allegedly made by Indian actor Hritik Roshan in a TV interview on 14 December 2000 has, mercifully, calmed down.

Questions galore: Tragically, it claimed at least five innocent lives, including two children aged 11 and 12 respectively, for which the Nepali Congress government is fully accountable. Will the Home Minister (and Deputy Prime Minister), Ram Chandra Poudel, resign as the UML continues to demand?

If the past is any guide, the short answer is "probably not". Many other questions have, however, been raised for most of which there are no quick or easy answers.

The very first is the riddle of the alleged Roshan remarks. Although it created such havoc in Nepal, thus far, no one has been able to produce a video tape of the reportedly offensive interview of the Bollyhood actor.

In the face of repeated denials by the concerned actor that he has not made any remarks about Nepal in any interview and Indian media reports linking it with mafia groups in Bombay out to get even with Hritik and his father, who has reportedly refused to bow to their extortion threats, it is quite possible that it was a carefully concocted affair.

Still, one wonders why, if the Bombay mafiosi were indeed behind the move to make the Indian film industry drop the Roshans like a hot potato — as the Times of India put it — why Nepal of all places was chosen as the venue for their nefarious conspiracy.

Surely, commonsense suggests that a location in India, in Bombay itself or in Bangalore, would have been far more natural and convenient a target for such a purpose — unless, of course, the faceless conspirators wished to kill two birds with one stone.

If so, what could the second "bird" possibly be? Could it be Nepal-India ties? While there is no definitive answer to that query, it is surely instructive that BJP party president, Bangaru Laxman, stated publicly in Bhubaneswar that "certain forces are definitely behind it" adding that Pakistani intelligence agencies were also among the chief suspects (TKP, 30 December 2000).

Although Laxman’s accusations are as predictable as rain during the monsoon, perhaps one should search in the opposite pole for an answer to the mystery of the purpose of the alleged remarks.

Don’t forget that, in the reporting of its terrible aftermath, what was highlighted was that the demonstrators’ targets were Indians and Indian business establishments.

Red herring: Here, two points are particularly noteworthy. The first, as rightly noted in this daily’s editorial the other day, is that demonstrators vandalised stores and business ventures randomly, quite irrespective of whether owned by ethnic Nepalese, Nepalese of Indian origin or Indians.

The second is that Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee expressed "serious concern over the outbreak of violence directed especially at Indians and establishments owned by them in Nepal."

Not unnaturally, therefore, one fallout from la affaire Hritik Roshan is the resurrection of the nightmare of Indian intervention, ostensibly to protect the security of Indians in Nepal. Why, pray, would Pakistan want that to happen?

While on the subject of Vajpayee’s concern, what is also noteworthy is the reported comment of Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala in a conversation with his Indian counterpart.

As per a New Delhi datelined AFP story, Koirala explained to Vajpayee that "these incidents appear to be a part of a conspiracy aimed at harming the traditionally close bonds of friendship between the two neighbours" — precisely the opinion expressed by the Indian Embassy in a press release after having faced the wrath of student demonstrators.

Thus one is constrained to ask, as indeed this newspaper did, why was Koirala not equally quick to pick up the phone and express concern to Vajpayee when, not too long ago, "Nepalese were slaughtered in Northeast India"

What must also be questioned is why the government ordered all cinema theatres not to exhibit movies with Hritik starring in them until an apology was issued — without first checking the veracity of reports/rumours of the alleged hurtful remarks.

Was that due to sheer panic on its part, particularly in the context of the by-then building up no-confidence tornado within the ruling party?

Although the events being written about here are tragic and messy, a number of political realities have emerged from them with great clarity. One is related to what the Hindu newspaper in India called the "utter fragility" of Indo-Nepal relations.

Given the widespread perception at the popular level that India bosses over Nepal in a variety of ways, it was hardly surprising that people readily believed that an Indian actor could have stated that he hated Nepal and the Nepalese people.

After all, most remembered that, several decades ago, Dharmendra and Nanda had made similarly disparaging remarks against the Nepalese people; also, that Madhuri Dixit had even pronounced that Nepal was an Indian province.

Violence: That Nepali nationalism is alive and well was amply underscored though, regrettably, that message came together with avoidable violence. But, if it was most unfortunate that demonstrators indulged in unruly behaviour far more irresponsible was the reaction of Poudel’s trigger-happy policemen.

If the detonator of the protests was the alleged Roshan comments, fuel was then generously provided by the anger and frustration of the people, particularly its unemployed youth, against an uncaring, incompetent government perceived as also being corrupt.

Possibly, the protesters were backed by Maoists keen to embarrass a government considered by its leadership as Indo-centric.