Comment
 

back to issue

The Indian media – time to introspect

BOLD headlines announced King Gyanendra's coup in Nepal. While describing the events of 1 February, news reports could do little to hide the collective astonishment at the royal move in India. However, had only the media paid just a little more attention to its war- ravaged neighbour in the past two years, the king's action might not have seemed a move out of the blue. Indeed, sustained media reportage could well have contributed to a radically different discourse within India on the political imbroglio in Nepal.

On 4 October 2002, King Gyanendra dismissed the government of Sher Bahadur Deuba, the elected prime minister, and assumed executive powers. Since then, the king ruled Nepal through his appointees till he formally took over. This period saw an intensification of the ongoing civil war between the government and the Maoists, widespread human rights violations by the Royal Nepal Army (RNA), an agitation by political parties against the king, a constitution in limbo and doomsday predictions of Nepal becoming a failed state.

Additionally, the role of the Indian state, preponderant in normal times, increased manifold. It reportedly gave more than Rs 300 crore worth of military aid to the RNA with the purpose of combating the Maoist ‘threat'. In this backdrop, the role of the Indian media, with its ability to influence public opinion as well as policy-making, assumed added importance. The frequency and nature of reports in the media on Nepal, the editorial stance of various newspapers and analytical articles published, all collectively contributed to the thinking on Nepal in India.

A survey conducted to understand the role of the Indian media during this critical period threw up some interesting results.* The research focused on the coverage of Nepal by five leading publications – The Times of India , The Indian Express , The Hindu , Outlook and Frontline between October 2002 and December 2004. Overall, while major developments in Nepali politics were reported, the media rarely went beyond official statements and issues of immediate concern to South Block.

The Indian media's primary focus in this period was, expectedly, on the Maoist movement – the confrontations between the RNA and Maoists and the political statements of the rebels. The possible strategic implications of the rise of the Maoists for India and their links with other left-wing groups received sustained media attention. However, it was rare to come across analytical pieces and editorials seeking to explain the movement and its various dimensions. The demise of revolutionary communism and the end of history has been repeatedly declared in the post Cold War era. The Indian media, in this context, should have sought to comprehend the reasons for the startling growth of a powerful Maoist rebellion in its immediate neighbourhood, with emphasis on widespread poverty, discrimination and a state structure that thrives on exclusivity. Such an effort could have helped understand and tackle the root causes and objective conditions which have led to left-wing extremism in India.

While in the immediate aftermath of his takeover in 2002 criticism of Gyanendra was muted, there was a discernible shift in editorial stance with the king's unwillingness to compromise with parties and inability to resolve the Maoist problem. The Hindu, for instance, struck a cautious note and advised political parties to ‘get their act together to face the dual challenge – one from the Maoists and the other from a monarchy that might not have shed its interventionist urges' (8 October 2002). In 2004, however, the same newspaper urged the parties to ‘defeat the autocratic monarch's designs.'

Organizations like the Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have commented on the human rights situation in Nepal. However, similar reports in the Indian media are sorely missing. Even the fact that Nepal has the highest number of cases of disappeared people and that international human rights law is being thwarted in the neighbourhood does not seem to have stirred the media. One newspaper (The Indian Express, March 2004) while warning against human rights violations by a repressive regime, went on to support the Nepal government and asked the international community to understand the context in which the conflict was taking place.

Reports interrogating the role of India vis-à-vis the political stakeholders in Nepal have been few and far between. A critical media should have gone beyond merely reporting the official Indian position of ‘supporting the twin pillars of constitutional monarchy and multiparty democracy.' Analysts in fact have argued that since 2002 both pillars have been absent. The monarch assumed an extra-constitutional role and multiparty party democracy, in the absence of a parliament, remained incomplete. The weaknesses of this policy have been amplified with the king's recent action. Media reports and commentaries did not examine and question the logic of such a policy in the altered political landscape in Nepal.

Additionally, there have been no reports in the Indian media on the precise nature of Indian military aid to Nepal, far less an analysis of its implications. Military aid has been suspended now after the king's actions. However, activists in Nepal have argued for over two years that arming the RNA is no solution – a perspective the Indian media ignored. Aid is believed to have strengthened those who advocate a purely military solution, undermined alternative modes of conflict resolution, further militarized society, besides increasing human rights violations. The Hindu, in an editorial did caution the Government of India to be restrained in providing aid while Tehelka , a weekly (not covered as a part of this study), questioned military aid as it was strengthening anti-democratic forces and further escalating the conflict. However, the majority of reports and op-ed pieces have not sought to understand the Indian role and its consequences.

There are very few reports that delve into domestic political processes in Nepal. While many believe that this is the task of the Nepali press, the fact that all dimensions of the conflict affect India makes it important for the Indian media to go beyond the conventional brief. For instance, there have been no reports on the relationship between the king and the RNA, an aspect crucial to understanding the nature of the present coup. Nor have there been reports from inside the Maoist territory. The fact that Maoists control a large part of Nepal's countryside does not seem to have provoked the Indian media to even try and make a breakthrough by reporting from areas under their control. The balance of forces between the Maoists and the RNA in the hinterland has also gone unreported.

A notable feature of the reportage on Nepal in the publications reviewed is the obsessive focus on formal institutions and neglect of either the civil society or the state of peoples' rights. Activist organizations, in a situation where the democratic space was under attack both by the far left and the ultra right, had launched peace movements and sought to highlight the impact of the conflict on people. Only a few reports, particularly in The Hindu and Frontline, tried to gauge the reaction of such bodies and the local press. The absence of stories which report and understand the conflict by foregrounding people rather than state entities at the centre is glaring.

August 2004 represented a remarkable period of reporting in the Indian media. The Maoists had threatened certain Indian economic interests as well as other private sector enterprises and imposed a blockade on goods coming into Kathmandu valley. The reports in the Indian media reached a crescendo during this month. One newspaper (The Indian Express) reported the blockade for six consecutive days on the front page under the headline, ‘A Siege Next Door'. Other reports alluded to the possibility of India ‘bread bombing' supplies to Kathmandu in view of shortages and spiralling prices. The local press and analysts in Nepal, however, criticised such reports, terming them ‘inaccurate' and ‘exaggerated' and accused the Indian media of failing to understand the context in terms of the war tactics of Maoists.

Several factors have collectively contributed to a situation where Nepal, despite being a close neighbour, in the midst of politically volatile times, has received inadequate coverage in the Indian media. A basic prerequisite for good journalism is the presence of an adequate knowledge base on the issue to be covered. Reportage on Nepal, particularly when correspondents are not reporting from the spot, requires specialised knowledge on Nepal in Indian research institutes, think tanks and universities, which journalists can use. Praytoush Onta, a media scholar has argued that Nepali studies in Indian universities are under-financed and poorly managed. ( Himal South Asia , January 2002). The absence of quality academic work in India on Nepal in recent years might have limited the understanding of the present situation.

The Indian media in recent years has witnessed increasing competition among newspapers, leading to space constraints in publications and adding to their unwillingness to invest in in-depth news reports. On occasion even important domestic developments and issues go unreported in the Indian mainstream media. The coverage on Nepal must be analysed in this context.

It is clear that the Indian media has reported the major events and developments in Nepal. Editorial stands of some newspapers have consistently urged the parties to be wary of an autocratic monarch, an advice that the king's move has vindicated. However, the limitations, particularly in qualitative terms, have contributed to an inadequate understanding of Nepal. The media, by reporting the intricacies of the political situation in Nepal, the roots and the impact of the conflict and by critically examining the Indian government's stand, could have helped create a new framework to comprehend the times Nepal is going through. Sustained coverage could have also helped our media to anticipate and in fact warn the Indian people of an impending coup. With democracy in Nepal in peril, it is time for our ‘free press' to introspect about its coverage of other South Asian countries and rethink its own ‘neighbourhood policy'.

Prashant Jha

* The survey was conducted for the Nepal South Asia Centre (NESAC), Kathmandu in December 2004.

When the state kills

Policeman: ‘We kill them.'

Royal Nepalese Army soldier: ‘No, we take them to jail.'

Policeman: ‘Yes, we take them to jail and then we kill them.'

(Royal Nepalese Army and police personnel in conversation with Human Rights Watch researchers on the treatment of detained Maoists, September 2004.)

IN Nepal, people are arrested by the state without reason, without cause, with no recourse to justice, with no one outside knowing what may happen to the arrested person. When human rights monitors record instances of a girl being arrested by plainclothes security personnel, kept incommunicado in illegal detention, tortured and raped, they document only a part of what is happening, only what is legally cognizable. They do not record that the family is a dalit, or that the family has been displaced, or that this ‘case' is actually a set of cases. What we face are gross crimes against humanity. Children are raped. Entire families are psychologically affected. There is no law in Nepal that can guarantee any justice. The courts and delivery of justice are rendered ciphers. Legal redress is available in only a fraction of the recorded cases. There is no protection for anyone – the victim, the lawyers, the family or the village. The ‘cases' just keep on piling up. Individual cases are sent for consideration to the generals, the king and his men. Stray reporters from the foreign media pick up an aspect of a ‘case' and write stories on it.1

Nothing is done to the security forces when they keep a human rights activist in a lorry for seven days, blindfolded throughout the ordeal. When a writ of habeas corpus is filed, the courts order a release. The person is released and rearrested. Then he disappears. 2 All that can be expected is an urgent appeal by Amnesty International or some other agency. The level of tolerance has gone up with villagers reduced to talking about what was done to ‘innocents' (i.e. those who are not Maoists), about what is or is not an incident (disappearance and extrajudicial killing are incidents, but torture in custody is not).

The security forces executed a senior district leader of a party that was part of the coalition government before the 1 February coup. The party could not do anything about the matter. Figures and trends are repeated like mantras : 11,000 dead, the most recorded cases of disappearance in the world, hundreds of rapes, thousands of extrajudicial killings, unauthorized arming of citizens to fight insurgency (village defence force), torture and illegal arrests. Vocal human rights activists, journalists and other defenders of democracy have been systematically hounded and intimidated. The National Human Rights Commission has been made purely nominal.

The Royal Nepal Army (RNA) can get away with this. It is very much a king's force. First brought out of the barracks to combat the Maoists in November 2001, it agreed to ‘join' the battle only after the Maoists were labelled ‘terrorists', the Terrorist and Disruptive (Prevention and Punishment) Ordinance introduced and a state of emergency announced. By October 2002, there was no parliament, no elections at any level, and a government run by a series of royal ordinances. The judiciary was under attack and marginalized. The police and the armed police force was placed under the RNA in May 2003. It was made clear that charges of violations against the army would be investigated only by a human rights cell within the army. As a result, the RNA has been committing crimes against people, secure that it is itself both the investigating and adjudicating authority.

Nineteen persons were extrajudicially executed by the RNA in Doramba during the last phase of ceasefire. The issue created an international stir. The main culprit, Captain Ram Mani Pokharel, was courtmartialled. The judgement described the case as ‘a stray case of the boys occasionally making mistakes.' Who gave the orders is not known. Nor are any other details.

Nevertheless, information leaked out. The victims have evidence that the atrocity was carried out by the government forces. They allege that their relatives were either killed in front of them, or taken away while in custody. A witness (relative) of a person murdered by the state deposed: 3

‘Shortly after they left, we heard two gunshots from across the field, and wanted to go, but other soldiers were still in the house and they did not let us. They had their flashlights and guns pointed at us. The soldiers [… ] then came back and took a wooden bed from our house… Next morning we went to the field and found the bed covers that he (relative's name) took with him, all covered in blood.'

None of these cases have reached the courts. It is clear that the RNA rewards the violators by promoting them and giving them more ‘challenging' briefs. The psychological scars of both the victims and the perpetrators will remain for the reconciliation and rehabilitation phase which today seems unimaginably distant.

Despite human rights organisations lamenting the appalling state of affairs, Nepal continues to be generously supplied with aid, including military aid and training. In March 2004, the UN High Commission for Human Rights, Geneva, passed strictures on the state of affairs. Nepal is a signatory to an impressive line-up of international instruments. None of this has had any impact.

February 1 represents a logical next step in the move towards a full takeover of state power, creating the perfect breeding ground for state violations against citizens. Army captains crow about ‘owning Nepal' for the next three years. The army is in control of the streets of Kathmandu. It controls the media. Troublesome officials of the National Human Rights Commission are under valley arrest. All this is in the name of fighting terror. From this date on terror has assumed a new dimension. Independent investigation is no longer possible. Soon there will not even be any record of how many people were raped, killed, or taken into army barracks and disappeared.

Worrying things are happening which are not being reported. In the war against ‘terror', the Royal Nepal Army has been drawing on unauthorised armed groups. Village defence forces (a revival of the US strategy during the Vietnam war) were created as early as 2001 as a counterinsurgency measure. The village defence force is armed by the state. It constitutes the criminal elements of society. In Kapilvastu, between 17 and 20 February, 24 civilians were killed in the counter action against the Maoists sympathizers by this civil defence force, hundreds were injured, and 632 houses brunt. There are reports of rapes too. Independent verification has been difficult.

On 10 March, Reporters Sans Frontiers (RSF) condemned the abduction of J.B. Pun Magar, a reporter, by the Maoists when he went to investigate Kapilvastu. On 12 March 2005, RSF issued another statement welcoming his release, indicating that he was abducted by a ‘self-defence' civilian group and not the Maoists. No further details have so far been provided by any of the correspondents who conveyed both bits of information to RSF, nor has the RSF furnished any clue about the ‘real' identity of the abductors.

The list of democratic rights activists arrested since 1 February now exceeds 300. In the same period the state has killed 174 people in counterinsurgency operations claiming, of course, that they were all Maoists. The Maoists have reportedly killed 50 people in one month as ‘informers'. The figure cannot be confirmed. It is, however, likely that the bulk of those killed were unarmed. The militarisation of society, already alarming, has visibly increased since 1 February. The king justifies his takeover as a move towards peace. Peace there will be in Nepal, only it will be the chilling silence of a mass grave.

Bela Malik and Pradeep S. Wagle

Footnotes:

1. Some villages are bases of recruitment for the Maoists. These villages are particularly affected by ‘counter-insurgency'. Each house has witnessed at least one enforced disappearance, a rape, or an extra-judicial killing. Torture by the security forces is common during search operations.

2. Excerpt from an Amnesty International appeal: ‘On 10 March, Lok Prasad Panta, President of Nagarik Samaj – Surkhet, a community group in the district of Surkhet in mid-western Nepal, was re-arrested by security forces in the town of Birendranagar, in Surkhet, immediately after being released from detention. His whereabouts are unknown and there are fears for his safety.' (source: www.insn.org)

3. Human Rights Watch, Clear Culpability: ‘Disappearances' by Security Forces in Nepal , released on 1 March 2005.

 

top