Editorial [ The Kathmandu Post (Nepal)]

Maoists again

Maoist rebels, who have been waging a People’s War against the establishment, have threatened the supervisors and enumerators deputed by the Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) for the second phase of the 10th National Census. The second phase of the Census resumed the other day, a week after the Royal tragedy obstructed the planned Census. Unfortunately, many enumerators trained for conducting the census have already left their work incomplete due to Maoist threats. Apparently, the CBS won’t be able to gather the required data from the Maoist-controlled districts. Such inauthentic data will not only affect the overall development plans but will also exclude minorities and religions, besides the rate of population growth, from the Census 2001. Had the Koirala government done something to improve the situation, or taken measures to prevent such an untoward incident, the enumerators as well as supervisors would not have returned to district headquarters from the Maoist-affected Village Development Committees, where they were sent to collect the data.

Initially, the CBS had planned to begin the 10th National Census 2001 on June 8 after listing family names, and end the entire census by June 20. The CBS was expecting that it would cover all seventy five districts in less than two weeks. Unfortunately, that did not happen. The plan was hindered due to the untimely and tragic deaths of King Birendra and Queen Aishwarya. As a result, the CBS resumed the actual head count task last week only, that too in 40 districts including the Maoist-hit districts. And the remaining 35 districts will be under the Census from June 15. Obviously, the Census will not conclude on the 22nd of this month, despite the "Census Day" declared by the government. To complete the 10th Census, the CBS has deputed five thousand supervisors and twenty thousand enumerators who are secondary and primary school teachers. Of the total deputed enumerators and supervisors, twenty percent are women. Perhaps, that inclusion was done with a view to empowering women, as well as to ensuring a high rate of accuracy.

One of the challenges for the Census 2001 has come from none other than Maoist rebels, who have controlled western hilly districts. Maoists themselves have collected data and opposed the Census carried by the government. In the 1991 head count, the CBS had left out five percent of the total population, including the disabled. How scientific the new CBS "questionnaire" is yet to be known. But different ethnic communities have already criticised the CBS for deliberate under enumeration. This apart, women have raised disgruntled voices since the 10th Census has omitted women’s contribution to household income and their exposure to domestic violence. Due to many loopholes, it is no wonder the Census will be a disappointment. The Maoists have already disrupted the Census, and it appears that the authorities are merely exercising a constitutional provision.

Press freedom and unpopular views

By Akhilesh Upadhyay

When Eiffel Tower was built in 19th century, one Parisian outraged by the construction was Guy de Maupassant. The writer would go round the city complaining endlessly about how the Tower had disfigured Paris. Yet he went to Eiffel every single day and had lunch at the tower’s restaurant. Friends and indeed all of Paris soon began to wonder what was Maupassant up to – if he disliked Eiffel so much, why didn’t he just get away from the place?

Maupassant’s answer was simple. "I go there because being inside it is the only place in Paris where you don’t actually have to look at the Tower."

Edward Said, a noted intellectual, used the story some months ago in an article to describe how Israel was invisible to most Israelis. While the whole world was outraged over the bloodbath there, Israelis were incapable of seeing beyond their nose, he said.

I would like to borrow Said’s analogy to relate the current blindness of Nepal government. Since the June 1 Royal tragedy —the most recent parallel dates back to the 1918 killings in Czarist Russia—Kathmandu has turned into a global spectacle. Every single move of the government, and indeed the newly crowned King Gyanendra, is dissected by millions of people all over the world as they watch with a bated breath a real-life Shakespearean play in progress.

Here in New York, I have been getting calls and e-mails from all kinds of people—from classmates, teachers and journalists—who are eager to share their views on the tragedy. They are baffled by the turn of events. To most Americans, Nepal is still the Shangrila their uncles, fathers and friends went to; a much sought after Peace Corps destination; the exotic land inhabited by one of the world’s most hospitable and honest people.

That is changing. Ironically, it took the Royal bloodbath to effect the change. Now there is a new villain in a fast unfolding story: a confused government putting a clampdown on press freedom.

One common conundrum is: "Who’s in command in Kathmandu—the new King or the Prime Minister?" A classmate, who has been closely following the story I believe through The New York Times and The Washington Post, sent an e-mail to me two days after the carnage. "Gyanendra seems bad," she wrote. "But Paras seems scary."

Here are other questions I am confounded with every single day. Do you think the new King is as committed to democratic ideals as his brother? Does he seriously expect Nepalis—and people outside—to share such stories that it was all an accident? Is he a bully? If not, why the gross attempt to undermine the subjects’ intelligence?

Equally disturbing are other questions. Why is the Prime Minister refusing to take charge? Why a wall of silence around an event that has the potential to change Nepal’s history?

At a non-profit organization where I am interning during the current summer break, colleagues stop at my desk to get an update on the situation in Kathmandu. At a nearby beech last Saturday, I found holidaymakers listening to me as I was locked in with two friends and their wives in an argument. They said Captain Rajiv Rana’s eye-witness account that Crown Prince Deependra was behind the carnage, leaves too many questions unanswered. "Why didn’t he entertain questions at a press conference?" one of them said.

It is an extraordinary moment of poignancy. But it’s the clampdown on press freedom that disturbs me most. For a number of reasons. l editorial discussions over the years, allow me to share this: we have steadfastly stuck to reporting events the People’s War in our news pages and given Maoist leaders a say in our opinion pages, dismissing suggestions that we have fanned the insurgency.

If it were not for this liberal treatment of Maoists by Nepal’s private sector media, the insurgents would have long turned into downright butchers. By denying Maoists humanity, as successive governments wanted the media to, and muzzling their ideas, we transform Maoists into desperados who would have nothing but violence to resort to.

Newspapers have reined in the rebels by offering them opportunity for legitimacy. Over the years, this belief has been reinforced by my interactions with human rights activists who have not only followed the People’s War closely but have the benefit of keeping track of other insurgencies in different parts of the world.

Democracy’s litmus test is how well our societies give space to unpopular and even stupid views so that these views can be weighed for their worth in the marketplace of ideas, argues Ashutosh Tiwari, a keen commentator, (see www.GBNC.org) in his lucid defense of Kantipur to print Maoist ideologue Baburam Bhattarai’s article.

I hope the Nepal government versus Kantipur will turn out to be a landmark court battle in press freedom, sparking a thought-provoking public debate. In the process, I sincerely hope our shortsighted rulers will develop some fresh perspectives in the workings of a democracy and develop vision that extends beyond their nose.

(The author, former Chief Reporter of The Kathmandu Post and Kantipur, is currently a student at New York University. The opinions expressed in the article are personal)

Call for sanity

By Laxmi Sharma

Kathmandu valley used to be tranquil, full of hospitable people and, to some extent, cleaner than now. But where has it vanished? Where is the peace of Kathmandu, which we were so proud of? Are we responsible for these swaps? Who is to be blamed? About two decades back, we were like safe deposit boxes in Kathmandu, free from harm. Valley was surrounded with peace, hospitality and greenery. We could freely roam around the city even at night. Robbery, crime, Nepal Bandh were unheard of or alien concepts for Kathmanduities.

But things have totally changed now. We do not feel safe even during daytime even in the heart of the city. We are scared to go for early morning walks, petrified to take a cab after 7:00 p.m. and unenthusiastic to enter into unfamiliar alley. It seems security or safety has gone miles and miles away. Is it in hibernation? We are hankering now for our million dollar worth "peace". We Nepalese have been world renowned for our humility. Who has taken away our solace and why? Our fledgling democracy is moving ahead slowly, and we are at a very crucial moment, given the reigning uncertainty and insecurity. Some nations are trying to expropriate our invaluable gem. We should win our battle for the protection of sovereignty through love and affection, not by belligerence.

We should show our unity at this crucial moment and create a congenial environment for the new generation. We cannot deny that in the last five or six years, many education institutions were established, but what is their use if they run only for half of the year. We need political stability in the country, and for this, we should all live in harmony and support each other. Human souls are like two sides of a coin: the good and the evil. The two sides live side by side and almost balance one another. Rather than searching for demerits in any political appointee, why don’t we concentrate on their merits? Perfection does not exist in this universe. But we can strive for it. Our fight should be for the development of our nation as a whole and not for our selfish interests. United we stand, divided we fall is a oft-repeated proverb. But why are we clutching our desires and running in different directions. Let us fight this battle united.

Give us back our sanity. We do not want to compromise our priceless peace for anything. This is, in fact, a plea of every true Nepali.

Institution of unity in diversity

By Nagendra Chhetri

After the shocking tragedy that nearly shook the very foundation of Nepalese national integrity, Nepal once again stands on at the crucial crossroads. How beloved and popular were the late King Birendra and Queen Aishwarya, and other senior royalties was demonstrated by a series of processions carried out across the country and mourning prayers and tributes offered to them. The whole nation is mourning and taking time to come to terms with the realities of creation, of birth and death. This is the time when Nepalese people have to gather their courage and seek for a sense of belonging, unity, team work and commitments to objectives. At this juncture, when the nation is at the crossroads, what is the national directive that can give us a sense of belonging? The national directive is the commitment that the newly crowned His Majesty King Gyanendra Bir Bikram Shah Dev has made in His first inaugural address to the nation.

The new monarch at this time of shock and tragedy has solemnly pledged to strictly adhere to the exemplary footsteps of His late brother, one of the most popular kings. His late Majesty’s uncompromising and unflinching faith in the constitutional monarchy, parliamentary system of government and the system of multi-party democracy (Loktantra) are going to be the governing principles of the new King in discharging his new responsibilities. This has widely been applauded as the wisest beginning in the midst of political turmoil. What Nepalese political leaders, academics, bureaucrats and business agencies need to do is to stop hurting, blaming each other and instead should start caring, sharing, and sacrificing. Finding faults of those who do not belong to the same ideology should be discouraged. We have to get back to can-do attitude. We have to keep trying and take risks of failure in order to solve this country’s multiple problems. The challenging problem is the consolidation of democratic institutions at this moment. We can never move forward if cynics and critics condemn everything blindly.

What is most fearful is the terror of error and terror of ignorance. To uphold accountability, one must not only give lip service to his master but must also visualize the next move and read the public mood. Responsible leadership should understand the impact of instant information on masses and must be able to handle the situation in favour of larger national interest and long-term policy. Understanding the utmost importance, both audio and visual is a governing principle for great leaders. Jet travel, satellites, mini-cameras and videos, e-mail and internet allow live and round-the-clock coverage and have removed the old print media filter in between the reporters and the general audience. Good news is no more news for today’s news hungry media, but bad news which can generate human curiosity and mobilize the mass is indeed good news. This particular tendency of the mass, or the weaker side of the whole phenomena is shrewdly and cunningly exploited by the foreign media and other elements to create trouble in the country. Because a popular, strong and stable monarchy with parliamentary government working and delivering goods to the people is not in their interest. This is the core issue in which all Nepalese must be aware of and carefully take measures to thwart these clandestine plans.

At every stage of history, there comes a time in the life of a nation state when crucial decision with far reaching consequences has to be made. Not always this kind of decision is planned and thought in advance. Situation forces this, and consequently, unexpected and unanticipated environment is formed for an unwilling but a must decision. Some unfortunate events at times are inevitable. Circumstances act as a catalyst and the nation looks for leadership for major decision. Presently, multiple crises, almost in all sectors of national life, is casting doubts over the abilities of modern political leadership to manage it to the satisfaction of the people. People are in a state of confusion because of unhealthy rumours, twisted and fabricated information and pre-conceived ideas.

In a pluralistic social order, the Chief Justice of any country is the most neutral, highly regarded and the top most legal authority. He holds the most respected position and his judgement receives the unchallenged support and unquestioned acceptance from national and international community. Now, he heads the legal fact finding committee formed to investigate the June 1, 2001 Royal tragedy. Helping him in the team is the Speaker of the House of Representatives, a national institution, a true representative body of the whole Nepalese people. Although the leader of the main opposition party has withdrawn for reason best known to himself, the committee has been given the widest possible power by His Majesty, so that it can find and bring out the actual facts and figures of the tragedy to the Nepalese people. The committee could not have been any better, brought to task for a delicate and sensitive issue. Although Friday’s tragedy has badly damaged the central pillar of Nepalese stability, and those who do not see Nepal as a politically stable and economically prosperous country may create uncertainty that may have a serious implication for the national integrity. Therefore, the Nepalese should not falter from their firm and unchallenged belief in the cohesive ability of our monarchy.

His Majesty King Gyanendra is a widely travelled, highly exposed and well-read man and has wealth of experience in many state related affairs. He is quite aware that Nepalese national feeling should not be hurt which trusts that monarchy is the only meeting point in Nepal and uniquely positioned to act during national crises. He knows the delicate role played by the monarchy which is the only point of unity in diversity. Nepalese believe that monarchy in Nepal is a moving force, a forward looking institution and a blend of strength of Nepalese national integrity. Nepalese national destiny has placed King Gyanendra where he is today and has, although reluctantly, taken the burden of institutional leadership, a leadership which acts as a troubleshooter during a crisis and a mediator during controversies. Monarchy is a force that provides national stability and protects democratic institutions in the country. Each society needs a unifying and cohesive factor and monarchy, in the context of our culture, tradition and modern realities, facilitates this. This is the only central pillar of Nepalese national integrity and nationalism. At this hour, all Nepalese should stand together and join hands to consolidate our democratic norms and values and strengthen our national unity under the leadership of our monarchy. Even the media should have patience to wait for the final result of the official investigative committee and should assist it to find and bring out the truth to the people.