Media & Truce Giving Peace A Chance

Narayan Upadhyay

THE truce agreed by the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoists) and His Majesty’s Government has no doubt been made to herald a peaceful settlement of the nation’s most pressing problem of the past seven years that mowed down as many as seven thousand precious Nepali lives.

Role

Media, with its immense power to hold sway over the common masses because of its unique quality to inform and help people formulate opinions on the issues of all hues, including that of the Maoist problems, can be an important entity towards restoring a negotiated peace once and for all. It can give peace a chance in the nation.

Because it can well help find a fruitful solution to the problem through its incisive and thoughtful account of the problem that has unfortunately been a thorny issue in the well being of the Nepalese society.

Since the ultimate objective of the media is to seek the larger good for a society, it must help both the conflicting sides in hammering out solutions for a lasting peace so that the nation should not have to tolerate the mindless and senseless violence anymore.

It must be cautious enough not to create any commotion that may go against the spirit behind the announcement of the cease-fire. Therefore, what is imperative for Media is that it must aspire for an honest judgment to end all the difficulties created by the Maoists issue that has been putting the nation at ransom for whole seven years.

The media in Nepal is largely free and can present news and views on any issues in whatever manners they like to. It, however, still galls the heart to see that the independence brought by the Popular Movement of 1991 has not been used objectively to the fullest by many of our news media. Lack of objectivity, accuracy and impartial presentation of an event or difficult issues have marred the Nepalese news media.

Possessing the power to make or break any situation, the Nepalese media, which mushroomed to an unprecedented number after 1991, has been alleged for taking sides and writing stories to sensitize with an eye on their circulation graph. The news media have come under the criticism when it published photographs of the Maoists’ violence against and murders of common citizens and security forces, and also printing or showing gnawing bodies of rebels killed by the security forces.
Rather than pacifying the minds, the publication of news items that have negative shades create angers in the sides involved in the conflict. These actions are likely to pave the way for more anger, violence and fights in future.

One of the example how media can help mar a situation was witnessed during last year, when the Sher Bahadur Deuba led government was holding dialogue with the Maoist rebels. It was alleged that during the dialogue, the media and some of the government representatives in the dialogue table went overboard to comment on the then peace-dialogue. The media went a step further in its no-hold-barred publications of all those negative comments aimed at enticing and enraging both sides attending the then peace talks.

The leaders of other political parties, who did not like the way Deuba government was functioning, spoke against the meeting in a manner worthy only of a lay man to mar the then peace talk. The organisers of the dialogue were unable to keep the journalists away from the meeting venues. Representatives from the government side were more than happy to give every detail of the happening inside the meeting room to the media persons. And media persons, with their acumen for angles to the news pieces, partially played villain to the peace process then.

Moreover, as in the words of one of the Deuba’s party functionaries- Pradeep Giri, Deuba government was guilty of not doing proper home-works before the dialogues and had taken the dialogue for granted. The government then also failed to sit across the table with the Maoists for many rounds of meeting before coming to the final conclusion. All of these led to the rebels breaking away from the dialogue and started launching more fierce attacks on the security forces and common citizens, prompting Deuba to declare the State of Emergency in the nation.

Many believe that dialogues between two conflicting parties on a very highly sensitive issue must be done in camera, away from the glare of media. It is because both sides, and one of the parties holding the dialogue may be very susceptible of what is printed or aired in the news media, while the dialogue to restore peace and order is still on and no sides have reached to a conclusion. Even after the peace accord is done, a sensitive news item can mar the situation in the nation, prompting the most volatile side to re-launch their movement that may again put the whole society at jeopardy.

The dialogue holders, must not, divulge unnecessary details when they are still in the process of holding talks and are far from coming to a final conclusion.

This seems to be the case when the Sri Lankan government and the rebel LTTE held successful peace settlement dialogue after announcing an effective cease-fire. Reports said that before coming to an agreement for the cease-fire, both sides sat across the table for many times, without giving a hint of the meeting to the omnipresent journalists. Norway, a neutral mediator later helped both sides to chalk out a peace settlement. Many still believe that if the Media people were invited to cover the story on the ongoing talk, the peace would not be heralded as soon as it happened in LTTE-Lanka government case.

Risk

Unbiased journalists are extinct creatures in Nepal. They have the habit of taking sides in the time when situation becomes more volatile and turbulent. The Nepali journalists prove more dangerous when they are out to hunt for issue, which is highly fragile in nature. In some cases, journalists even do not care what effects their news/views or commentaries or analysis would have on the issue for which peaceful settlement the whole nation anxiously waits for.

Other Story

• Anxiety: Modern Disorder