Most important and decisive is the intention of the Maoists, which we do not know yet

Jan Sharma, Senior Journalist, Nepal

Jan Sharma is an accepted authority in Nepal's journalism sector. His three decades plus engagement in this sector has made him a perfect journalist. He has worked for National News Agency, the RSS, for decades and decades followed by his short stint at The Independent Weekly in the early 1990s.

He was also associated with the Nepal Office of the World Bank in mid 90s. And finally he joined The Himalayan Times Daily and served there for two years or so.

Currently, Mr. Sharma is a freelance journalist and contributes his thought provoking articles to various national weeklies and dailies.

Last week we approached this modest but yet highly qualified journalist for an exclusive interview. Below the results: chief editor. 

TGQ1:  As a senior journalist how do you take the allegations that Nepali Media has more often than not contributed to the escalation of conflict in the society? Instead, how the media should have acted in order to minimize the present state of clash that exits in the society in one form or the other?  Your opinions please!

Mr.Sharma: Media is ultimately the reflection of the society. You can't expect it to be different than the society. The Nepali media has made rapid strides since late King Birendra began the process of political reforms, however limited, following the historic national referendum in 1980. The momentum picked up following the restoration of multi-party parliamentary democracy in 1990. If the media in Nepal until 1980 to a large extent was under the state control, the media control since the 1990 change shifted to the political parties. Even the state-owned media has been prevented from a professional growth because it effectively remains under the control of the political parties in power. In the later part of 1990s, a number of media houses have been launched by business and trading houses as well as firangis or foreigners. There have also been reports of Indian investment in the media. At this stage we have no evidence to prove whether they are Indian business money or Indian government money. I'm told it is run by the son of a retired Indian military attaché. With this in mind, what kind of role we are talking about for the media? The media in Nepal is changing rapidly but it is not yet independent and free. Unless it is independent and free, it can hardly contribute to the peace and stability in the society.

TGQ2: How you Mr. Sharma see the development of professionalism in Nepal's media sector prior to and after the 1990 change? We are being criticized that we provide partisan views and confuse the readers through our biased reporting. Do you subscribe to this view or reject it out rightly? Your comments please.

Mr.Sharma: I have partly answered your first part of the question. On the partisan views and the confusion, what could I say? For my own information, I read most newspapers for the developments I am interested in but have to make a few telephone calls before I am confident that what I read was indeed correct. I am not denying that media has made rapid strides. I am questioning the quality and content of information. News continues to be mixed with editorial comments, and many editorial writings are reproduction of news stories. We have not been professional yet. I have come across
written statements that are quoted in three different wordings in three different newspapers! We must make more efforts at professionalism.

TGQ3: Talk of foreign investment in Nepali media has become a national debate. Should we allow such investments or keep it at a distance for some more years? What has been your personal experience as you are the one who have had a brief stint at such a media enterprise that is said to be running through foreign funding? Your remarks please!

Mr.Sharma: Debate? I don't remember that has taken place. What we saw with the launch of The Himalayan Times was a fight among rival media houses for their share of the shrinking advertising revenue. As a result, there was only an ugly fight. They were all guided by vested economic interest. No one seemed to care about larger issues. I think there are basically two broad issues involved. First, of course, is economic. Is foreign investment in media in Nepal legal? You bribe the officials in Singh Durbar and you can get the answer you want. If it is illegal, it is illegal. No one knows where the investment is coming from. The second issue of editorial freedom is more important. Where is guarantee that Nepali editors - whether of Indian descent or whatever - have the editorial freedom? Should Nepal allow newspapers where editors are paid handsomely to keep their mouth shut so that Indian promoters take key editorial decisions? I worked for state media in 1970s and 1980s but never heard promoters saying they will "fix" the editor. Should Nepal allow media house next to the Singh Durbar with its opaque boardroom - overlooking sensitive military facilities - echoing with slogans of 'akhandabharat'?

TGQ4: As a renowned political analyst how you take Girija saying that he will fight until regression is corrected completely. The UML however, maintains that the regression is partially corrected. P.M. Deuba has an entirely different views who says that there is no regression at all. Could you clear the dilemma created by three different political interpretations to regression. To which theory you find yourself closer? And why?

Mr.Sharma : I don't believe in any of the theories. A growing number of people are looking forward to King Gyanendra to take initiative mainly because the political parties continue to pick up fight on trivial issues. The main theme of my book, Democracy Without Roots, is that monarchy in Nepal is poised to play a much more active role than has been allowed in the 1990 Constitution because of the failure of the political leaders to meet the expectations of the ordinary people. The King has also an obligation to consolidate the democratic gains for the larger strategic interest of Nepal.

TGQ5: Maoists prefer mediation of the United Nations system in their talks with the government. The government says the issue being an internal one, homegrown measures could well be utilized to arrive at an amicable solution. What would be in the best interest of the nation? The UN good offices or our own measures? Please shed some light in this regard.

Mr.Sharma: These are procedural and peripheral matters. Most important and decisive is the intention of the Maoists, which we do not know yet. If the intentions are clear, the rest of the things will automatically fall in place. 

Headline | Opinion | Dateline | National |  Editorial | Letter | 2nd Impression | Views | International | Tête-à-tête with Amandine | Past