NATIONAL 4 - (Spotlight Weekly)

Foreign Participation In Media Ventures

By Dhruba H. Adhikary

Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in media has been an issue of intensive public discussion in Nepal for some time. The debate assumed wider dimensions in recent weeks, compelling the concerned minister, Jaiprakash Gupta, to set up a committee for examining the public complaint about it . But by appointing a joint secretary in his own Ministry of Information and Communications to head the panel, the minister himself put in doubt the credibility of the committee entrusted with the task of conducting an impartial study. Sensing controversy, Harihar Birahi , who heads the Press Council Nepal as a government nominee, resigned from the panel immediately after it was announced. In other words, public interest in panel's upcoming report is on the decline. After all , the minister had placed the proverbial cart before the horse !

If he was sincere, Minister Gupta could have quietly used the panel's probe period to do some re-thinking , eventually preparing himself to accept the report even if recommendations therein concluded that Nepal's constitution and ancillary legislations did not permit FDI in newspapers. And , accordingly, he could have withdrawn the licence previously issued to the Himalaya Times, a Nepali language daily, permitting it to launch an English daily with FDI. But that was not to be.

Instead of taking corrective measures to disprove questions about his patriotic credentials, the minister chose to defy public resentment ultimately pushing himself in a rather tight spot. Gupta's speech at the Press Chautari forum (December 21) made it categorically clear that he is averse to opinions expressed against FDI in the sector he is in-charge of . His remarks castigating the Press Council for having dared to challenge him are too strong to be glossed over. Gupta likened the Council's declared disfavour of FDI in media as peremptory orders of the Jung Bahadur era. He proved beyond doubts that he is a functionary with closed mind and open mouth . Gupta's views amounted to a bid to pre-empt the report the committee is expected to submit to him within days.

The council, although an agency receiving government funds for its budget , is an autonomous body of media representatives. It also takes benefit from the presence of two members of parliament. Currently, Homnath Dahal from the House of Representatives and Radheshyam Adhikari from the National Assembly are representing the parliament in the Council. Dahal's reputation as a pioneer journalist of post-1950 Nepal and Adhikari's esteem as an acknowledged lawyer are there for everyone to see. Interestingly, both of them belong to the same Nepali Congress, the party where Gupta also retains membership.

Minister Gupta' s outburst against those who are opposed to FDI in the print media coincided with publication of a full-page advertisement in an Indian magazine, with an undertaking to change Nepal's media landscape. Through this commercial announcement printed in the OUTLOOK newsweekly of December 31 , the Asia-Pacific Communication Associates (APCA) claims that it is an " Indian media giant " and also concedes that it has already set " foot in Nepal." Its declared objective is to " redefine its (Nepal's) media industry." Something sufficient to inflict insult upon Nepali media community by telling them that Nepalis are not capable of even defining their own media industry.

Both the ministerial remarks and advertisement quoted above clearly and categorically disprove claims that there was no Indian connection whatsoever in the English newspaper venture. Those who were initially led to believe that the Himalayan effort was an innocuous project should now remove illusions from their minds. The APCA announcement leaves no doubts that the launching of an English daily is a part of broader scheme to change Nepal's media landscape. What political move will follow once that objective is achieved is anybody's guess.

Anyhow, such an overt initiative from " Indian media giant " would not have begun without a concomitant promise from Nepali authorities. And the authorities (or authority as the case may be) might have given a nod on the ground that existing laws governing the press did not specifically prevent FDI in print media. But is it justifiable ? Definitely not.

The information minister should have studied such a business proposal ---especially submitted by outsiders---in the context of our constitution, and sought legal advice from competent state agencies. But Mr Gupta, who is also the spokesman for the cabinet, did not apparently bother to read the relevant provisions enshrined in the constitution---the fundamental law of the land. Interestingly, he also chose to ignore the controversy his Indian counterpart, Sushma Swaraj , faced exactly a year ago for having opened the subject of possible FDI in Indian print media for a public debate. She hurriedly retracted her statement, adding : " The concerns of 1955 are still valid." The Indian government in 1955 had taken a decision to bar foreign participation in print media. Leading luminaries of Indian media took (and continue to take) pragmatic view that allowing foreign investments in print media would open a way for mercenaries to acquire a voice in the Indian politics.

Is there any harm in learning from the experiences of others ? Minister Gupta should come forward with a convincing explanation. And he is not expected to be carried away by all kinds of flimsy contentions like this one which asks why can't Nepal be first by beating India on FDI in print media ?

Minister Gupta may pretend that he was unaware of the developments across our southern border. But nobody would accept if he were to plead that he did not have time to read his own country's constitution before he read APCA proposal. Nor can the minister convincingly argue that running a newspaper or a media network is not different from opening a grocery or operating factories producing soap, toothpaste or slippers. The media, often referred to as the fourth estate, cannot be expected to work under identical conditions.

Publication of a newspaper, needless to emphasize, is an extension of a constitutional right accorded only to "citizens." Freedom of opinion and expression (article 12), press and publication right (article 13) and right to information (article 16) are some of the constitutional rights granted to the "citizens" of Nepal, not to the persons who may have been residing in Nepal for other purposes. As is true in other countries, tourists, diplomats, expatriate workers are among the people who are not entitled to such constitutional rights. Besides, persons who may have fraudulently obtained Nepali citizenship stand to lose these rights once their fraud is detected and proved by competent authorities.

Men and women employed by the Himalaya Times have been supporting its " joint venture " for obvious reasons. Their criticism, therefore , of other daily newspapers is easily understandable. From their point of view, the ongoing campaign against the latest English daily is essentially focused on advertising revenue for which the competition is stiff. They have also accused rival publishers / editors under the umbrella of Nepal Media Society of making bid to snatch away customers' right to choose. However, even if some of these contentions are taken on their face value they are clearly inadequate to justify FDI entry in print media , particularly when such an entry is being made through a back-door. How can a man entering a house using back-door or window left inadvertently ajar successfully plead that he was not an intruder ? Conversely, if the house-keeper chooses to accept such a ready-made plea then one may have to listen to questions regarding the integrity of the care-taker himself.

One does not need to be a member of Nepal Media Society to call spade a spade. I am not, for instance, associated with any organisation of this nature.

(Adhikary, a member of Nepal Press Institute , is a freelance journalist contributing to a number of foreign publications.)