I have always been perplexed by Bharat Dutta Koirala.

Let me NOT be misunderstood.
I like him as a person.

Three years ago, he won one of Asia's Nobel Prizes -- The 2002 Ramon Magsaysay Award for Journalism, Literature and Creative Communication Arts.

His Magsaysay citation read, in part, "When a democratic revolution overtook Nepal in 1990, Koirala played an important role in the transition to greater press freedom."

OK.

Mind you, that role came only four years after his leaving as the Chief of Gorkhapatra, where practiced "a heavy dose of self-censorship".

His citation further reads: "As Koirala says of community radio stations, they are "helping create a free, independent, and pluralistic media and promoting public debate in our democracy."

-http://www.rmaf.org.ph/Awardees/Citation/CitationKoiralaBha.htm


Against this backdrop, the question is this: Now that press freedoms are gone in Nepal and now that community radio stations are under censorship, can stalwarts such as Koirala afford to stay quiet and do nothing?

Just asking.

oohi
ashu

Riten,

I have NO hidden agenda as such.
As I said, I like Bharat Dai as a person.

Through his prize-winning actions (well-documented in his Magsaysay citation) that have brought much pride to us Nepalis, Bharat Dai has become a PUBLIC figure in Nepal.

As such, let's be clear, he is NO longer a mere private citizen like you and me --
insulated as we should be from public scrutiny.

Hence, it's fair to RESPECTFULLY ask him questions in any PUBLIC forum without getting personal.

[If you find this sort of behaviour/reasoning unacceptable/inexcusable and see this as a sign of disrespect to a well-liked public figure, then I am sorry to have offended your sensibilities.]

But have faith, like I do, that Bharat Dai's reputation must be strong enough to withstand a couple of harmless questions. After all, as a journalist Bharat Dai is NOT exactly new to the world where difficult questions are asked and answered.

You say that I have failed to do my due diligence.
OK.

Then, let's hear what he has done to LEAD his fellow-professionals in these uncertain times, so that we - the younger folks from all walks of life -- can draw inspiration. God knows we, the young, desperately need heroes in Nepal so that we can dream of a better, happier Nepal!

My concern -- as a private citizen and as a well-wisher of Bharat dai -- is this:

While Nepali journalists, especially those working in towns and villages outside of Kathmandu get killed, imprisioned and harrassed, while community radio stations are being shut down, while village newspapers are being shut down and while there is a blanket censorship of all kinds, it's HEART-BREAKING to see internationally-respected heavyweights such as Bharat Dai apparently keeping quiet and just being an
agreeably nice gentleman that he is.

Of course, I'd be delighted to be proven wrong.

[And, I think, I can say these things because I am NOT a journalist, but merely, like most people on Sajha, an NGI (non-governmental individual).]

Tetti ho.

oohi
ashu

Of course, Ashu, I am sure you don't have any hidden agenda (and I am saying that without sarcasm). I was just elbowing you on that.

However, it does seem somewhat disloyal... maybe that is too strong a word, uhmmm, discourteous to someone you claim to like personally, someone you refer to as "dai", don't you think so?

You know very well, Bharat Dutta Koirala, man in his 60's with his own plate full would be very very very unlikely to visit online blogs, much less Sajha. So, why challenge his reputation in a place where you know he will not venture. I understand you write columns for Nepali Times, why not raise that question there? That, I am sure, Koirala-ji will read and, if he deems necessary, will respond to your allegations.

Unmoderated wikis such as this, with disguised bloggers, is hardly a place to discuss the good name of someone you say you admire. What say you?

Riten,

I think it's quite all right to like somebody personally while DISAGREEING with and even QUESTIONING (some) of their ideas, actions/inactions and behaviours -- in public.

And vice versa.

I am NOT one of those Nepalis who believes that once you dislike somebody, then,
you HAVE TO dislike EVERYTHING about that person in the name of achieving some
sort of weird Maoist-like consistency across the board, regardless of verifiable
counter-evidence.

Such a view is too rigid, impractical, too reptilian, childish and not at all reflective of COMPLEX aspects of human nature.

Hence, my puzzle about BDK.

He has become internationally famous and won awards for advancing PRECISELY the things that are -- oddly enough-- under serious attack in present Nepal, resulting in deaths, jail terms and harrassment of his younger peers.

Yet he (apparently) remains quiet.

My one-word question (the tone of which can well be interpreted as being disloyal, discourteous and everything else in between and about which, frankly, I don't care)
is: Why?

Sure, his desire to remain above the fray with a patina of patrician nobility is understandable on one level, of course. But to some of his admirers, such a
stance can also be an act of sheer moral cop-out even a failure of his public duty,
GIVEN his stature.

After all, if people like him do not appear to be wielding their enormously respectable influence for better outcomes for all in Nepal, then, how can we, the bhuray-bharays members of the Nepali public, expect any iota of donor-funded civil society groups to
do anything in Nepal?

That is my "krandan", rising out of my likeness for him.

Sure, following your advice, next time I meet him in Kathmandu, I'll ask him these questions in a respectful yet quietly firm manner.

But again, since he is a PUBLIC figure, I think I am justfied in talking about his public actions and inactions in this forum, without worrying about whether he visits Sajha
or not. If he does, so much the better.

oohi
ashu

Don't get me wrong, Ashu, I agree with the crux of your argument. The question you have raised is a valid one. And also, I do believe friends can disagree on various matters and still remain friends.

The bone I am picking with you is the choice of your delivery of your dissatisfaction in regards to Koirala.

I believe you made a bad decision by questioning Koirala's reputation in a forum such as this, knowing that he will most likely not see (or cannot see) your comments and therefore will not be defending himself.

In light of that, what I am recommending is that since you are a fortnightly columnist for the paper published by Koirala's friends/relatives, the Dixits, why not use that platform to raise the very exact concern you have. There, we can expect the two way discussion, rather than "falana falana ta yesto uusto" here at Sajha.

Aabo, kura jatti lambayo utti lambincha. Mero kura Ashu le bujhyo bhanney asha rakhdai yo batkabya ma yahi tungyauchu. Namaste!

Kwasa ashu... yeah I almost forgot you write colmns in magazine..... You know this sajha is not a serious forum.... but ethics.. check your own Ethics.... here we talk all shit.. we swear like a Sher.

Riten wrote:

"The bone I am picking with you is the choice of your delivery of your dissatisfaction in regards to Koirala."

Riten, let us agree to disagree.

I happen to believe that Sajha.com (along with blogs generally) is a LEGITIMATE
avenue to talk about PUBLIC personalities such as BDK -- about their alleged
PUBLIC successes and their alleged PUBLIC failures.

After all, if we can talk about a public political personality such as Girija Koirala
here without ever worrying about whether he visits Sajha, why can't we talk about
public journalists such as BDK too?

I accept your suggestion to talk to BDK directly next time I am in Kathmandu.
I am not sure about writing about him in a piece for a business column (though I may write about him in some OTHER way).
I do not agree that this forum is not an appropriate venue to talk about him.

Tetti ho kura.
Thanks


oohi
ashu

Just an addition:

Having followed academic bloggers (usually economists, legal theorists and food enthusiasts) for several years now, I am convinced that it's quite possible to
SPREAD information by:

a) posting stuff on Sajha (minimal barrier to entry)
b) writing for a newspaper (higher barrier ti entry)
c) publishing stuff in a peer-reviewed journal (highest barrier to entry)

In each case, the audience is different, and that's fine.

In the lastest issue of National Interest, Peter Drucker writes:

****************
The World Economy of Information

Information as a concept and a distinct category is an invention of the 18th century--of the newspaper in England and the encyclopedia in France. Within a century, information became global with the development of the modern postal system in the 1830s, followed almost immediately by the electric telegraph and the first computer language, the Morse Code. But unlike the newspaper and the encyclopedia, neither the postal service nor the telegraph made information public. On the contrary, they made it "privileged communication." "Public information" by contrast--newspapers, radio, television--ran one way only, from the publisher to the recipient. The editor rather than the reader decided what was "fit to print."

The Internet, in sharp contrast, makes information both universal and multi-directional rather than keeping it private or one-way. Everyone with a telephone and a personal computer has direct access to every other human being with a phone and a PC. It gives everyone practically limitless access to information. And it gives everyone the ability to create information at minimal cost, that is, to create his own website and become a "publisher."

In the long run, the most important implication is probably the impact of information on mentality and awareness. It creates new affinities and new communities.

********

Nepalese editor-in-chief explains state of the country's press

http://www.editorsweblog.org/2005/03/nepalese_editor.html

The Editors Weblog would like to thank Narayan Wagle, editor of Nepal's largest newspaper, the Kantipur National Daily, for writing to us with a detailed explanation of the state of his country's media and current situation. Mr. Wagle will be joining the World Editors Forum as a keynote speaker at WEF's 12th annual conference in Seoul, South Korea. Please see our former posting on Nepal's bloggers, of which Mr. Wagle is one, and read his letter below:

The media practitioners and media houses have been terrorized and those who
responded to the call of their profession have been victimized and continue
to be intimidated by various means, including detentions, takeover of news
houses, closer of news and current affairs programs, imposition of
censorship, withdrawal of advertisements and subsidies, unprecedented
retrenchment of journalists, and distortion of information, denial of
professional responsibilities, forced migration or circumvention of movement
and imposition of communication quarantine. Although there seems to be some
'relaxation', as the time passes, but this is not due to some retraction or
review, but because of the incapacity of the coercive institutions and
resistance of the media community that continues to resist the draconian
measures. What is even worse is that media are being coerced into coalescing
in self-censorship we really don't understand what to and not publish or
broadcast. The irony of the situation is that all doors to seek remedy and
justice have been closed.

When I was summoned in the Distict Police Office, Kathmandu some days back
the police officers seemed totally ignorant of the existing laws.

The State of Emergency proclaimed on February 1, 2005, is not the first
suppression of the fundamental rights and the freedom of the Press ever
since the introduction of 1990 Constitution. It is, however, worse than the
previous emergency in both scope and intensity. This is symptomatic of the
failure of state, crisis of representative institutions and breakdown of
constitutional structures and rule of law. The three way conflict between
the Palace and democratic forces and the Maoists has become so complicated
that it cannot be resolved with the barrel of gun which may further
exacerbate the crisis beyond the capacity of the parties to the conflict.

The Declaration of the State of Emergency has suspended sub-clauses (a), (b)
and (c) of clause 2 of article 12, clause 1 of article 13, and articles 15,
16, 17, 22 and 23 (except the sub-clause on habeas corpus). This has led to
blanket suspension of fundamental rights of the people and most coercively
of the media practitioners resulting in the enforcement of a brutal
censorship on information, the media in particular. With the denial of right
to know and right to express, a young and free media has been chained to
infinite, yet undefined, censorship. The Royal Proclamation of February 1
has alienated most sections of civil society, especially the media that have
been subjected to worse intimidation and harassment.

The crisis may prolong, and even become irresolvable, and a negotiated
settlement of conflict, restoration of peace and multiparty democracy may
become impossible in a sharply divided polity. Between the two extremes and
amid crossfire, the people at large, including the journalists, may suffer
greater agonies they don't deserve. Role of the international community may
slightly mitigate the sufferings of the people, but it cannot substitute the
role of the Nepalese people to decide their own destiny.

1. The suspension of most of the fundamental rights that adversely affect
the life of the people, media practitioners in particular. Most notable are
the suspension of sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) of clause 2 of article 12,
clause 1 of article 13, and articles 15, 16, 17, 22 and 23.
2. The citizens' right to appeal and seek justice through legal means is in
jeopardy and the authority of the superior judiciary to provide justice and
interpret law compromised. Unfortunately, the superior courts have declined
to admit the petitions challenging the ultra vires of the proclamation of
emergency and suspension of fundamental rights.
3. Since February 1, the media have been placed under constant harassment
and are being forced to coalesce in to official "truth" and become an
instrument in the hands of officialdom denying the people their right to
information.
4. Dozens of journalists were arrested, many dailies and weeklies were
forced to shut down, FM Radio sector stopped from relaying any news and
current affairs programmes, private television networks barred from
telecasting the dissent, hundreds of journalists from outside Kathmandu
Valley forced to either stop their work or take asylum outside their place
of work or home towns, freedom of movement partially curtailed, economic
sustainability of the private sector media has become doubtful due to the
withdrawal of official advertisements and subsides, especially the weeklies,
hundreds of journalists rendered jobless and the future of media industry
and professionals has become bleak.
5. The sword of uncertainty is hanging on the media community and media
houses. Safety of journalists has become more critical, especially those
living and working outside the Kathmandu valley and zones of conflict.
6. The owners of private media organizations are being pressurized to
curtail the editorial freedom of the Editors who, in turn, are being forced
to circumscribe the professional freedom of the working journalists who are
bring threatened to loose their jobs or compromise their professional
independence.
7. The state-controlled media, on the other hand, is being patronized to
monopolise the market and sway the information sector with the
"officially-sanctioned truth".
8. Contrary to His Majesty King Gyanendra Bir Bikram Shah's contention that
"an independent Press serves as a medium for raising the level of democratic
consciousness; it plays a crucial role in the promotion of national
interest", a blanket censorship has been imposed by invoking sub-clause 1
of Clause 15 of Print and Publication Act and Broadcasting Act. As if not
enough, the conditions being imposed by the military authorities, District
Administration Offices and ministries of information, communication and home
are so much prohibitive that media industry can in no way function as a
vehicle of communication and information. The Print and Publication Act and
National Broadcasting Act are being misused to stifle those publications and
broadcasting houses that refuse to compromise their editorial independence.
The leverage of draconian laws, such as Terrorism and Disruptive Activities
Ordinance (TADO), is being used at random against journalists who, in most
cases, are being kept under detention at military barracks, police stations
or unknown places with no access to family or attorney. Whereabouts of
certain missing journalists are still not known to their families. Eight
journalists are still under detention.
9. The censorship committees, consisting of Chief District Officer and
representatives from Police and Army have further expanded the scope of
censorship. The authorities, not legally competent to regulate the media,
are interfering with the daily working of media without being accountable to
a legally competent authority. Given the ambiguity of the scope of
censorship, the officials at various tiers of civil and military
administration are making the life of working journalists miserable. The
orders are often verbal and, in most cases, violate all tenets of law.
Editors and journalists are summoned to the police stations or military
barracks where they are humiliated, pressurized and, in some cases,
tortured.

Thanks.

Narayan Wagle
Editor
Kantipur National Daily Newspaper
Kathmandu

Ashu wrote: "Riten, let us agree to disagree."

Agreed, let's shake hands on that.

I have been following both Ashu and Riten (both of whose opinions, I respect tremendously) on this issue. Just a mild query to Ashu, "Ashu, are you going to direct Mr. Koirala's attention to this discussion in Sajha, since you know him well?" Wouldn't you agree that it would be appropriate for him to know (about it) since you raised the issue?

I believe BDK is in his sixties if not older. Addressing him as Dai makes me ask how closely Ashu knows him.

I remember meeting him at one of the Nepali actress's house (I hear she is residing in America for a decade now) in Pokhara in the 80s. He was an utterly simple, nice, and polished person and had impressed me immensely. I have never met him thereafter.
As Chip_of_the_OldBlock claims, he was not married to an American.

I am more with Ashu on this.

Not because I am particularly interested in BD Koirala, but because what Ashu has brought is a case in point for general lack of courage in Nepali intelligentsia to be frank and fearless. Demanding a sense of duty would be too torturous for Nepali intelligentsia. So let's not go there yet.

People blame politicos for failing the country. I blame the intelligentsia. Politicians are unreliable species by nature. It is the periodic whip from the people and constant vigilance from the intelligentsia that keeps them on the right path. If people are lungs of a democracy, intelligentsia is the heart.

I think Ashu has brought here a case in point to show that the heart is not beating in Nepal. It is silent. And folks, this silence is not the effect but the cause of failure of our nation.

Baral,

It's been quite a while since the 80s, don't you think?

May be you are still watching " The Breakfast Club" and listening to Duran Duran's " Hungry like a Wolf" and have that Billy Idol's " Dancing with Myself" hairstyle!

BDK was married to an Iranian lady. After she succumbed to cancer, Mr. Koirala remained a widower. But, now is married to an American woman.

Sitara,

When/if I meet him, I am certainly going to be open about these discussions that center on his PUBLIC persona -- assuming, of course, that he has not read these postings already.

At the start of any potentially difficult/awkward conversations, I suppose, one is better off sticking to transparency, openness, respect and with no hidden agenda of any sort, and let the guff-suff roll.

***
COTOB: Are you MJ?

oohi
ashu

COTOB's sarcasm well taken.

Could R Baral be Ravi of "Chameli" fame?

Ask me to comment on Born Yesterday, my mind triggers Judy Holliday.
The only Crawford I know from Hollywood is Broderick Crawford!!

RB, I see you're from the Golden Age of Cinema. You'd be familiar with Joan Crawford, too, I presume! Anyway, nice to see someone who appreciates Classic Cinema. I might have to check out "Born Yesterday" from Netflix and see why Judy was so deserving of that Oscar.

I'm more of a Film Noir kinda guy.....Bogart as Sam Spade in various flicks, Orson Welles's "A Touch of Evil" and Cagney as "The Public Enemy", etc.

I kinda with a cynical, hard-hearted, disillusioned male character who encountered a beautiful but promiscuous, amoral, double-dealing and seductive femme fatale. The film adaptations preferably from best-selling, hard-boiled, pulp novels and crime fiction by Raymond Chandler, James M. Cain, Dashiell Hammett, or Cornell Woolrich.

Excuse Moi! Oops, how we digress!

How about John Grisham?

Meant to say.......kinda empathize with a cynical, hard-hearted................(up above)

Grisham is to crime/thriller as Stephen King is to macabre/ horror.

I don't know how they churn out bestseller after bestseller!

I heard that King has since retired....the film adaptations of his Shawshank Redemption, Misery and The Shining were really memorable.