State of media: There is no doubt that the Nepalese media has recorded a big progress in two decades of open democratic functioning. Freedom of press and expression was guaranteed in the 1990 constitution. Greater and greater investment was attracted towards this industry. Institutionalization took place in many publishing houses. Broadsheet newspapers started coming out in Nepalese as well as in English languages. More and more televisions stations began to operate. Hundreds of FM radio stations were established covering almost every part of the country. A new generation of young journalists emerged enjoying higher pay scale, better facilities, and greater professional zeal. In this sense, the media figured as one of the ostensible achievements of the democratic set-up in Nepal.

Media during conflict: When the armed conflict started in Nepal in 1996, the media was caught at the crossfire of the Maoist rebels and the government forces. Both the hostile sides tried to open yet another war of words in the media world. That led to greater pressure on the media from both parties of the conflict. In course of raging fighting in Nepal, the rebels gained advantage over the government especially in international publicity. To counter the growing media influence, the armed force started its public relations with regular press briefings. The war in the media continued along with the bloody fighting on the ground with visible favor to the rebellious side.

The media persons however shared the suffering in equal proportion from both sides of conflict. The rebels enforced what they called physical extermination of reporters and editors who were alleged to have acted as spies on them. The government forces, on the other hand, persecuted many journalists for working under cover for the rebels. Many horrifying stories of the media persons at the hands of the hostile forces made rounds.

Inside story of the media suffering: Nepal appeared before the world as one of the worst states to mistreat the media, which created a big uproar on suppression of the journalists in Nepal. On the first sight, the picture looked true. But deep down there was something different. When we look back we find that the media persons were also to be blamed for their sufferings. 

The problem in the state vs. the media relationship arose mainly due to misuse of power on both sides. The media has a great power to influence the public opinion. The political parties, therefore, publish their mouthpiece newspapers but get them registered as independent papers. That complicates the matter. All the political parties launch and support one or more newspapers to ventilate their views on national affairs. But they do not publish them as party papers. Instead they present them as independent, which is not independent at all. That complicates the situation giving birth numerous problems.

This phenomenon was especially true with the weekly papers dominated by attractive but provocative headlines. It also applied to the newspapers that belonged to the Maoist party. Several media monitoring reports made by Media Services International have established the political bias and affiliation of different weekly publications with different political parties.

In most of these cases, the editorial staff was identified more as party workers than independent journalists. That provided the hostile authorities enough room to take coercive actions against the journalists. Thus one wrong thing on the part of the press led to another wrong thing on the part of the state. To act as the party workers under the garb of an independent journalist was as much wrong as the punitive action on the part of the state against them.  This naturally led to innumerable human rights abuses that abound in Nepal especially during the period of conflict.

Basis of press freedom: The question of a free media and a responsible media is a subject of constant debate in Nepal. Such debates are actually helpful in making the media healthy. Nepal being a democratically governed country the issue of a free and independent media is naturally a bone of contention. That however should not deter us from taking the issue by its horns and try to arrive at a clear and correct conclusion.

In this context, the question arises as to on what basis the analysis of press freedom should be made. The government, during the conflict, often claimed that press freedom should be related to accepted norms of Nepalese society and constitutional guarantees. In other words, it tried, on this ground, to regulate the press on issues like violence, terrorism and security. On the other hand, the insurgents tried to exercise press freedom to the best of their benefits. The insurgents, like other political parties and groups, got newspapers duly registered with the government to promote and propagate their views. Both the warring parties might have a point in logic. But that does not fit in with the true concept of a free press.

It is necessary to set the criteria for the analysis of the charges and countercharges of media rights violations from an independent point of view. The media has certain recognized characteristics in an open and democratic society, on the basis of which we can analyze the status of the press freedom in Nepal and arrive at a fair and sensible conclusion. In this context, we have to take some basic features of the fourth estate like objectivity, independence, impartiality, balance, and neutrality into account for fair judgment.

Human rights over press rights: Unfortunately the debate over the media rights and responsibility did not focus on these basic considerations. The public attention centered, during the conflict era, mainly on the government and insurgent actions against the media persons. The content of the media did not draw public attention in the controversy. Instead, the national and, to some extent, global concern was expressed on the maltreatment of the media persons. In that sense, the whole debate on free press was misplaced.

The right thing to debate would be to raise a question as to what wrong had been written or broadcast for the prosecution of the journalists. But instead, our attention was diverted to issues of persecution of the media persons who were physically harmed.  It was actually the human rights abuses, which should have been raised instead of violation of media rights.

There is no doubt that most of the press under surveillance and state harassment, during that time, had leftist leanings. The materials they published were never formally or legally questioned nor publicly denied. It was on the suspicion of the alleged clandestine links or relationship between the journalists attached to these newspapers and the insurgents that invited coercive actions from the security forces. It was, thus, clear that it was not the reading materials published in their newspapers that were prosecuted. Instead it was their personal status vis-à-vis the insurgency that was seen as the cause of persecution.  Thus it was a clear matter of human rights violation rather than the violation of press freedom.

State of emergency: A state of emergency naturally throws press freedom like all other freedoms guaranteed by the constitution in disarray. The review of this period (2001) showed that the government tried to make it look as liberal and lenient as far as the press freedom was concerned. That proved a misnomer. The number of coercive actions and torture stories stood witness to the lack of foresight and experience on the part of the government. Had it stuck to the control of the freedom of press and expression without mincing its words, the government could have justified itself in greater fairness than it tried to do without necessary control mechanism. It was better to call a spade a spade in such situation. The government was faced with internal guerrilla war and it had every reason to impose restrictions on individual freedoms. The press would have cooperated in that spirit without much fuss. But, instead, it assumed liberal posture that it could not maintain. That exposed itself to widespread global criticism and condemnation of suppressing the press.

The measure the government undertook to restrain the press from free reporting was too weak and too vague. There was no clear line of demarcation between what could be published and what not under the state of emergency. The directives issued by the government on news reporting were too subjective and vulnerable to be followed in their true spirit. For example, it was difficult to distinguish what amounted to encouraging the insurgents and discouraging the security forces. A story in the pro-Maoist newspaper could invite the ire of the government whereas a similar story in the independent newspapers could be easily digested by the authorities as harmless. The government directives were thus imbued with bias and discrimination.

Cases during conflict: A number of journalists were killed in the conflict situation in Nepal. An examination of background situation indicated that it was difficult to establish any case that could be cited for victimization of the media person for purely journalistic writing. When the journalists got mixed up with other kinds of activities for true or false reasons they were made targets for physical extermination. The extermination of the people in cold blood or without proper trial in the judicial courts was a clear case of human rights violation. In that sense, there is no doubt about the human rights to life being blatantly violated. But, in other sense, it is difficult to make out if it was also a case of press freedom violation aimed at suppressing the freedom of press and expression.

The death of a famous young editor of two newspapers, for instance, under mysterious circumstances was by far the most prominent case in Nepal. He was reported killed while under custody of the security forces. On May 20, 2002 he had been taken into custody but the government neither admitted it nor denied it. He was known as the chief editor of a daily, Janadisha and a weekly, Janadesh considered very close to the Maoist camp. As a political leftist activist, he was in jail for seven years (1979-86). He was behind bars for 22 months in 2000-2001. The Maoists admitted he was an active member of the party. In this background, there was no doubt that his execution was an act of human rights violation. But whether it was tantamount to an attack on and suppression of the freedom of press is an open question.

All those journalists who had fallen victims to the security forces had been alleged to have close affiliation with the insurgent outfit. One of such victims was reporting from Sindhupalchok for different newspapers published from Kathmandu. He had also worked as a representative of the government-owned news agency. However, the army men shot him down on April 29, 2002. The local government was reported to have blacklisted him as belonging to the Maoist cadre that was attributed to the killing.

Another victim was from Jhapa. Besides teaching at a local college, he was working as a correspondent of Janadisha and Janadesh, pro-Maoist daily and weekly. The army apprehended him on July 23, 2002 and evidently killed him in cold blood. On the following day, his body was handed over to his family. It was reported that his family had warned him not to get associated with the rebel camp. However he was not afraid of it as the report pointed out. There were several other instances of this nature.

The insurgents, on their part, did not spare the journalists from physical extinction on the main charge that the reporters acted as intelligence agents for the government forces.

There was a journalist publishing the first newspaper in Karnali Zone.  He also worked as the head master in a local school in Kalikot district. It was said that the Maoists asked him to make his newspaper their mouthpiece, which he refused. The rebels later charged him of helping the army in its operation in the Kalikot airport where two dozens of rebel workers were killed. He was kidnapped by the insurgents on June 1, 2002 and killed. His dead body was traced out after several months.

Similarly another journalist became a victim of the rebels despite being a close associate with them. He worked as a reporter for the Kathmandu-based pro-Maoist papers. But he was suspected by his rebel colleagues of being an implant of the government forces. On December 11, 2002 he was taken to a riverside from his house in Morang district and shot dead on the charge that his information led to arrest of several of his colleagues in the insurgent camp. Another journalist with police-service background of Sindhupalchok was reported killed by the Maoists in one of the most dastardly manner.

Conclusion: The experiences of media during the armed conflict in Nepal have testified that the media was sandwiched between the conflicting parties. It could not play a proper role because some parts of the media were far from independent. The partisan role they played unfairly dominated the whole media world. Therefore it is felt highly necessary that the media remain free and independent from the conflicting parties to play its proper role. A free, credible and unbiased media not only mitigates the conflict but also goes a long way in resolving it.

Paper submitted to Seminar on "Building Bridges for Peace in Nepal" organized by Centre for Economic and Technical Studies (CETS) in cooperation with Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES)

Comments (1)

I am a student of journalism. From this news i can know many things. so thank for senior journalist sir then so so thank for this online newspaper

Commented by Ashok Poudel - October 22, 2009 @ 6:45 AM

Post Your Comment

* Name
* E-Mail
*
* Security code
* Comment