Infowar, Leo Rose and Nepal

--Sanjaya Serchan, Kathmandu

That Nepal has to cope with the challenges of globalisation is obvious. The hijacking of the Indian Airlines plane has highlighted some of Nepal's inadequacies in this regard. In an age when advanced societies use all the means at their disposal to mould, nay to create even, perception, infowar has become a reality. Nepal's record in this sphere in the past has been rather spotty. The Bhutanese refugees are a case in point. While this tangle continues and Nepal's side of the story does not always get an adequate hearing, Bhutan still seems to enjoy the image of a postcard-perfect Shangri-La. (Time).

An attempt is made here to focus, not on the infowar recently launched on Nepal, but on a battle that occurred some time ago. This concerns an article published almost an year ago in the Asian Survey-Volume xxxix, No.1, January/February 1999. The writer of the article titled 'Nepal and Bhutan in 1998: Two Himalayan Kingdoms' was Leo Rose. The journal introduces Leo E. Rose as not only Professor Emeritus of political science, University of California, Berkley but also Editor Emeritus of Asian Survey. Nepalese will of course remember Prof. Rose as some one who has written extensively on Nepal, and since the 1960s.

Yet despite the impressive credentials, Prof. Rose's article has few glaring errors. The faction that split under L.B.Chand from the Rastriya Prajatantra Party is called the New National Democratic Party. As for the split in the Communist Party of Nepal-UML, the article says that it occurred after the NC, under G.P.Koirala, appeared positioned to form a new coalition government and M. M. Adhikari, the leader of the UML, indicated his willingness to join such a coalition. This, the article maintains, led a dissident UML faction, headed by Bam Dev Gautam, to denounce Adhikari as "too conservative" and to organise a "revolutionary " party called the Marxist-Leninist-ML. The assumption of such a casual relationship between the two events is preposterous, as the UML had split before Koirala appeared in a position to form a new coalition government.

The article, reviewing events that occurred in Nepal in 1998,also mentions the Maiost issue. The article, however says that the "people's war" movement was launched in 1996 by several "Maoist" organisations .as far as one knows there is only one party, viz. Nepal Communist Party (Maoist), involved in the "people's war".. If by

Organisations the article means the fraternal organisations of the party, namely the students, farmer, labourers, etc., that is another matter. The article further writes, quoting the pro-Maoist weekly Janadesh that the two main leaders, Pushpa Kamal Dahal and Dr.Baburam Acharya (sic), both voice their support of the broad strategy to "encircle cities with liberated villages," but they rarely co-operate to achieve this objective. Well they are co-operating now-that  is what the "people's war" is all about and with some effect.

The article makes another faux pas when it says that the unusually severe food shortages in 1998, particularly in the northern districts of Humla and Jumla , led the government to introduce a 20-year Agricultural Perspective Plan (APP) to achieve self-sufficiency in food production .In fact, the APP had been in the making for the previous few years ,and  its delay in implementations was precisely due to the political instability which finds mention in the article.

Apart from factual errors, the article also makes some controversial claims and value judgements. After talking about India, the article writes about Nepal's relations with two major neighbours, China and Bangladesh is a neighbour of Nepal, but whether it is a "major neighbour" is debatable. Nepal's major neighbours, most seem to agree, are the ones bordering it, that is, India and China. Leaving aside this terminological quibble, more controversial however, is the claim that Nepal virtually ignored the Kalapani issue from 1961 to 1997. It would perhaps be more appropriate to say that the issue came in the public domain only in 1997.

The article also has something to say about the Bhutanese refugees .The dispute over the refugees, the article maintains, is likely to go on at nauseaume, but with noserious impact on either government, at least as long as several Inited Nations' international organizations bear most of the costs for the refugee camps. Elaborating further, the article says that although both sides expressed concern over the failure to resolve this issue, it would appear that despite their occasional strong language in reference to each other, this is no longer of any major importance to either government.

The article also deals with the Karnali project vis-à-vis the multinational ENRON. Talking of the vitally important Karnali (sic) development project in Nepal, the article mentions that another potentially serious despite between Nepal India and the American NGO Corporation ENRON emerged over the issue. The article, however, concludes that, by late 1998, some progress had been made in resolving their differences, and India, Nepal and ENRON seemed near an agreement that would serve the interests of all their (sic) participants. All this not only distorts the facts, but Karnali remains a controversial project and its "vital importance" can be debated.

The article also hints at Prof. Rose's sense of humour when it says that, after strong objections from business, labour organisations and much of the public, the implementation of the Value Added Tax (VAT) was delayed to a more propitious period, perhaps in the 22nd century. Prof. Rose might be happy to know that Nepal implemented VAT in the 20th century, fully 200 years before he envisaged!

As the article, for whatever reason, has lumped Nepal with Bhutan, it might be appropriate to go over, very briefly, on what it says about the latter. The article on the whole appears more sympathetic towards Bhutan than Nepal. It talks of Bhutan's excellent relations with India; the major changes underway in the country, which raise prospect of a substantially liberalised political, social and economic system; and of globalisation coming to Bhutan, on terms most Bhutanese will find very attractive. Though the article says that the year 1998 was busy and innovative for both Bhutan and Nepal, it finds more positive political and economic trends in most respects in Bhutan well……

The above article has raised two basic issues that resonate in the present context. One foreigners and the foreign media can be ignorant about many things related to Nepal. This might involve such seemingly minor details as when an Indian newspaper The Asian Age incorrectly called the film Caravan as Himalaya to more serious blunders as the publication, in an American magazine Life of some soldier's photograph as the King of Nepal. Ignorance might not be a crime, but still has the potential to cause extensive damage.

The second issue, as mentioned in the beginning, has to do with Nepal's capability and readiness to hold its own on the global stage. This implies two things: knowing what is being said and written about the country and putting forward its own point of view effectively. In this age of democracy and liberalization this calls for the government to work with the private sector. The recent infowar has amply shown how the "private and independent" media can work for national interest, unhindered by diplomatic niceties. The government-private sector combination can 'play ball' in the international arena and put forward, if not the truth, then Nepal's version of the truth.

| Headline | Editoral | 5 Question | 2nd Impression | Dateline | Letter | International | Past |