Editorial [ The Kathmandu Post (Nepal)]

Dubious motive

In arresting Kantipur daily editor Yubaraj Ghimire, the much tainted Koirala government has spewed its wrath on press freedom. What is even more surprising is the arrest of the Kantipur Publications managing director and director also. This has left enough room for suspicion that it is a calculated move on the part of the government, emanating from deep animosity towards Kantipur Publications, given its mission of exposing prevalent political and social anomalies. The Nepali Congress, which never tires of equating itself with democracy, should now examine its own democratic conscience. Undoubtedly, freedom of expression is not above the Constitution. It is governed by certain guidelines and restrictions. And whether the detainees are guilty or not will now be decided by a court of law. The circumstances of the arrests, however, suggest that vindictiveness has gotten the upper hand. Though the government preaches constitutional rights and freedom of expression, it is actually seething with rage and hostility towards private media committed to unmasking corruption and unscrupulous activities against the interests of the people. Such a state of affairs is truly unbecoming of a dispensation whose only claim to be better than the old Panchayat regime now remains its democratic credentials. A democracy cannot function properly except in the glare of adverse publicity. Those who cannot withstand such constant exposure should take up some other calling. Those who cannot stand the heat should exit the kitchen.

In view of the way the government has taken Kantipur to task for perceived failing, take a look at the way the government itself has foundered and failed in keeping the public informed in the wake of the royal shootings. The government, particularly the Home and Information and Communications Ministries, not only showed itself incompetent or irresponsible, but also unduly deferential to foreign media. If this were not so, why were they so prompt and forthcoming in sharing information with foreign television channels? While keeping the entire nation under an information blackout, they were vigorously feeding Indian and western media with unconfirmed reports and sensitive quotes. But they never deemed it necessary, during the initial stages of the tragedy, to release authentic information to the Nepalese public. In the absence of official statements, anti-social elements began working the rumour mills. For several days, the capital and various parts of the country fell prey to misinformation, leading to chaos and confusion. Baseless rumours, ranging from poisoned water and milk to kidnapping and detention of important personalities and deaths and suicide of VVIPs added to the confusion. Miscreants infiltrated mourning processions, and tried to provoke the rest of the public and instigate violence. As things spun out of control, curfews had to be clamped for three consecutive days, in which several people were killed and several others injured. In all this, lack of information proved to be the main evil. At a time when the public was hungry for information surrounding the Royal tragedy, there was hardly a trickle from the Ministry concerned. However, this is not the first time the government has resorted to hide and seek in the wake of an unpleasant incident - be it the Hrithik Roshan episode or the Indian plane hijacking. Ironically, Nepalese had to rely heavily on foreign media, that often carried half-baked and unsubstantiated reports. Such being its own credibility and reputation, the Koirala regime is not in much of a position to take a position on the limitations of the press. Concern and compassion shown by local and international journalists and human rights activists over the editor’s arrest are indeed remarkable, and hopefully, they will pursue the matter with the same gusto.

Hypocrite’s rites for space

By Puran P Bista

Some time in 1997, I was questioned by Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala about a badge I wore commemorating the Silver Jubilee of King Birendra Bir Bikram Shah Dev’s reign, says Sher Bahadur Deuba, grinning at the way Koirala made light of the role played by the late King Birendra. He might not have been aware of how he made fun of the late monarch among party activists time and again.

There was a sack of the badges laying about in Parliament. So, we parliamentarians wanted to show some respect for His Majesty. And it was a spontaneous gesture too. I took a badge out of the sack and pinned it onto the right breast pocket of my coat. When we came out of Parliament, Girija Prasad Koirala asked what it was, ignoring its significance, Deuba adds. This apart, he was very much aware of the Silver Jubilee of His Majesty’s reign. I am sure he did not wear the badge himself, Deuba further adds.

Once Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala said he did not shave his head when his father died, nor did he do so when his mother died. But the other day, he had a head shave, that too on the tenth day of His Majesty’s demise. One can surmise how well he has followed our traditions. Why did he not shave on the very first day instead of after ten days of His Majesty’s death if he intended to show respect? The reasons are very simple. Firstly, three persons — the editor, managing director and director of a leading national daily — are at Hanumandhoka and Koirala wants to show "closeness" towards King Gyanendra and protect himself from corruption charges. Secondly, he wants to stick to his chair despite his involvement in several corruption cases.

What Prime Minister Koirala was doing before the government officially confirmed the deaths of King Birendra and Queen Aishwarya is still not known. And he has not made any comment on that. Koirala came to know of the Royal carnage at about midnight only. He whisked away to the army hospital at half past twelve. When he saw the dead royalty, he felt that it was like the Hindi film Sholay. There are many questions about how Koirala respected the late monarch and his stand taken after the Royal carnage. What is obvious is that he needs protection just to remain in power. And everyone is aware of this even if Koirala does not say so. But time will certainly tell how long Girija Prasad Koirala remains in power.

The other day, Deuba spoke spontaneously with some visitors who had come to meet him with different purposes. It was on the tenth day’s mourning for His Majesty the Late Birendra’s death. He said, "I was even grilled at the party meeting on why I should have commented on the arrest of Kantipur editor Yubaraj Ghimire, managing director Kailash Sirohiya and director Binod Raj Gyawali."

There are differences between Koirala and Deuba on several issues. At no cost, Koirala wants to hand power over to Deuba. There are reasons to believe that Koirala has treated the Nepali Congress party as his personal property and he thinks that members of the Koirala family are its natural inheritors. Apparently, Koirala would neither have ousted Bhattarai from Prime Ministership, nor would Sushil Koirala have been appointed by Koirala as the party’s general secretary for the second time, had he believed in pluralistic values.

Deuba agreed that Koirala ordered the arrest of the Kantipur three on "personal feud" rather than what the Koirala government has been claiming. Kantipur has been exposing Koirala’s true picture. The latter was looking for an opportunity to take revenge against the publication. He felt this was the right time to do so, Deuba says. One of the visitors further added that it was Shiv Raj Joshi, a Koirala coterie appointed after Jay Prakash Prasad Gupta resigned from the post of the minister of tourism and communication, who sent the "letter of order" to Home Minister Ram Chandra Poudel, and then to District Administration Office. And we all know what Ram Chandra Poudel does whenever Koirala orders. Unpredictably, he becomes the right man of a wrong leader. Like Deputy Prime Minister Poudel, there are other leaders who advise and give protection to Koirala, ignoring Dhamija scams and the Lauda Air deal.

Foreign Minister Chakra Prasad Bastola is one of them. He spoke in favour of Koirala’s arrest of Yubaraj Ghimire, Kailash Sirohiya and Binod Raj Gyawali. Bastola refused to speak to Nepali media but gave an interview to foreign media justifying why the government arrested them. Bastola projected himself as if he had better knowledge of the freedom of the press than Minister Shiv Raj Joshi. Bastola argued that Kantipur published what the government did not want. But how the Koirala coterie has defined "sedition" is yet to be known.

Why should the Foreign Minister speak on issues related to the Ministry of Information and Communication? Did he have the right to say so in lieu of Minister Shiv Raj Joshi? Or was it the Foreign Minister who ordered the arrest? Does Bastola know that he was one of those who hijacked a RNAC plane from Biratnagar and was involved in anti-monarchical activities along with his former wife’s maternal uncle, Girija Prasad Koirala, during the 70s and 80s? Until 1990, the Patna High Court had a case pending against Chakra Prasad Bastola. As a result, he had to clear the case before he took up an ambassadorial post in New Delhi.

Every layman knows that the country is passing through a critical period in its history. The Koirala coterie cannot lay claim to that nor can they blame the media for the unfortunate incident of June 1, 2001. But all have not forgotten Koirala’s deal with the Lauda Air company. His claim that "Tanakpur treaty is not a treaty" is still fresh in our minds. The Citizenship Bill which was rejected by the National Assembly but pushed through by the Koirala government is also still alive. Similarly, everyone is aware of Koirala’s involvement in several corruption cases, besides the Maoist problem.

Craze for foreign media

By Hitesh Karki

Friday and the days that followed, it was once again the media (unfortunately the foreign ones) which were in the centre stage. The one to make a comprehensive coverage happened to be the one that had carried out similar coverage earlier on Nepal. Like any ordinary mortal citizen, I too was irritated and even infuriated by the government’s role involving the events that took place on June 1.

As days passed by rumours floated on the same news channel, which left no stones unturned to portray Nepal to suit its convenience. Irked by its inconsistent newscast of the events that took place at the palace, many Nepalese who still hadn’t overcome the grief, demanded the banning of that particular news channel. And to join them were our venerated politicians. What followed then was the banning (and lifting the ban on the channel) almost at regular intervals.

Meanwhile, the special telecast by the name "Nepal crisis" continued to hit headlines. With no official statement from the government owned agencies. I, too, had no option but to rely on whatever they said, true or false. Soon the very same politicians began to appear on that very channel. Well, freedom of speech, I have no complaints talking with them or even giving interview to them. But what hurt me most can be summarized by a popular Nepali saying "rubbing salt on a wound". I was aghast to see them not speaking in our own mother tongue.

Fine, they must have been questioned by the correspondent in their mother tongue, but didn't that compel them to answer back in the same language? How could they have forgotten the fact that their interview was not being telecast within the confines of the borders of our nation but as far as the remote corners of the western hemisphere?

Ironically, while in the same interview where they were talking about the sovereignty and what not about our nation, barring one or two, they all just seemed to have forgotten how they were making a mockery of themselves and in turn the citizens of Nepal. Couldn’t they have answered back in our own mother tongue? How could they have not realized the fact that by not doing so they were sending a message across the globe that we too share the same language as theirs? Or is it that they felt that they were equally or even more comfortable in doing so. It’s altogether a different story that they have acquired immunity to mockery over the decade!

Sitting back in the comfort of their couches in their living rooms they must have summoned their entire family members, including the cooks, the guards, the sweepers, their friends on their mobiles, asking them to see them being interviewed by a foreign media. Celebrating a moment of glory!

I was right. It took no more than twelve hours to confirm my doubts when I overheard one of the influential party activists praising their revered leader’s particular interview at Hari dai’s place, the new stand from where I collect my regular newspapers. He had come to know that his leader had been interviewed by that channel through a phone call, although not by the leader himself but his secretary.

On the national crisis

By Bijaya Lal Shrestha

The brutal massacre on 1 June 2001 in the Royal Palace came as a thunderbolt. The people smacked of a foul play in their total dependence on the foreign media for any credible information on the massacre and in their state of anger and frustration they pelted stones on the Prime Minister and shouted anti-PM slogans during the funeral of the royalties. Consequently, the crowning ceremony had to be held without the usual joys and cheers of the subjects who uphold the monarchy in their highest esteem. Likewise, the Royal funeral of the late King Dipendra looked like a family affair in marked contrast with His late Majesty Birendra’s funeral just two days before amidst ocean of the grieving people accompanying their dear King throughout the end. The first marked the grief and sorrow and the second, anger and protests.

All appeals and attempts to calm down explaining the constitutionality and lawful actions of the government failed to receive any patient hearing from the people. Consequently, with no options left, the government had to resort to curfew to contain further damages and destructions that usually follow the mob action.

The aftermath of mayhem is a peculiar situation involving the people, the political parties and the King and one marked by crisis of confidence. Also this is a situation where international intrigue is widely suspected. Any wrong move by any of the actors may invite only disaster in such a volatile situation. This situation thus thrust upon the country necessitates all groups and individuals to accordingly adjust with the new situation and play their respective roles to build confidence among the protagonists. Like any game of cards which the player, with his give cards, wins it, with his intellect and meticulous calculation and in coordination with his partner, the situation now is a test of tact, capability and credibility of the politicians of all sizes and shapes. The spontaneity of the people - a rare phenomenon following the mayhem now needs to be judiciously and appropriately channelled if desirable consequences are to be expected. The onus of responsibility now lies squarely on the political parties and the King to restore confidence.

If the parties realize that this is a national crisis which may have far reaching consequences, they now have to rise above parochial party politics for the larger interest of the country. The NC and the left force are the traditional foes; they still are. But now in this hour of national crisis, they should, on the contrary, compromise and work out a possible unity of action as they did in 2046 to preserve what was gained. But it remains to be seen how far the present Prime Minister could ensure cooperation of political parties who in one voice had demanded his resignation in view of his involvement in the Lauda Air deal. If this stands in the way of the national unity and if he proves as arrogant as before, this will be only unfortunate for the country. For it may have its impact on the reaction of the people on the report of the Investigation Committee. The Nepali Congress, in its role as the party in power, had the added responsibility to ensure creation of a situation of reconciliation, not confrontation, by all possible means. This is better left for the parties themselves, but I should add that no sacrifice is greater when democracy, national sovereignty and integrity are at stake.

In the midst of chaos and confusion it is only heartening to hear the Royal proclamation, immediately upon accession to the throne of the new King that assures continuation of constitutional monarchy and multi-party democratic exercise as practised by his august brother, His late Majesty Birendra, in guiding the Nepali people towards a prosperous future. This appeared to have eased a bit the situation of mistrust and misgivings.

A decision in all fairness by His Majesty on issues like this and also on all other national issues like containment of corruption etc will definitely help to enhance His image among the people just like his august brother could manage after the 2046. If the past is any guide, there were instances of misinterpretation of the Constitution to suit the interest of the party and its people. And whenever His late Majesty wanted to invoke the constitutional provision of Article 88(5) to ensure supremacy of the Constitution, there were protests and provocation at home and abroad. I find it only relevant to reproduce some lines reading as "The King has referred the innocuous bill to amend the Citizenship Act, 1963, to the Supreme Court for advice. All that the government wanted was to streamline procedures to issue the certificate of citizenship at district level. But the king has stalled it on the ground that he wanted to know whether the bill violated the constitution." Again "Take another instance. This is about nominations to the Upper House. Members were chosen from the panel of 15 names, which the Prime Minister would submit. The King does not take into account the Prime Minister’s panel any more. He nominates whom he wants." (New Delhi’s finger in Nepal’s pie by Kuldip Nayar, The Kathmandu Post, 23 April, 2001). These quotations do not help promote understanding between the party and the Crown. If any one after the mass uprising of 2046 could manage to win the hearts of the people, it was none other than His late Majesty Birendra because of His determination to uphold the Constitution in line with Article 27(3). So, in consideration of the Royal tradition, the Nepali people have every reason to be confident of His Majesty King Gyanendra’s able guidance to the nation.

To conclude, I would like to extend my hearty greetings to His Majesty for His accession to the throne and tender my best wishes for His success in his august responsibility.