Submit your Article

 There is plenty of room to doubt the intent behind the proposed media regulations. A recently-tabled media bill in the federal par­liament proposes harsh fines, of up to Rs 1 million, if a media outlet is deemed to have damaged someone’s reputation. Another bill criminalizes publi­cation or broadcasting of any material seen as under­mining national sovereignty, with the offender facing 10-15 years of jail and Rs 10 million in fines. Another proposal is for the government to be able to hire and fire media regulators at will.

The government has come up with many justifica­tions for the new measures. It believes Nepali media has become unruly; that there is little verification of information before publication; that yellow journal­ism is rife; and that media houses are unduly profiting from the labor of journalists who are not getting even minimum wages. Another gripe is that the media is being influenced by foreign interests. Again, these may all be valid concerns. But the track record of the two-third Oli government suggests the real goal is to stifle all criticism of his government, which has visibly failed on many fronts.

If the intent was right, why isn’t the new press over­sight mechanism being made an autonomous body that can independently assess rule violations? How can its officials function independently when they know that only by constantly keeping the higher-ups happy can they retain their job? Likewise, how will there be any kind of investigative reporting when the journalist knows he or she may be jailed for years on end for it? And isn’t a court of law rather than a handpicked body the right institution to determine a breach of a loaded concept like national sovereignty?

If the government was serious about solving genuine issues facing the Nepali media, it would have proposed new legislations only after extensive consultations with stakeholders: journalists, media houses, intellectuals, lawyers. Forcing restrictive laws on the media on the sly is no way to go about it. At a time when the strong communist government has near complete monop­oly on the executive, the legislative, and some would say even the judiciary, its efforts at taming the ‘fourth organ’ of the state is troubling to say the least. Flawed as Nepali media is, it has performed a vital job of keep­ing people informed and fostering the progressive changes the country has witnessed in recent times. It would be dangerous to go down the slippery slope of restricting the media.

 Former Prime Minister and Coordinator of Naya Shakti Nepal Baburam Bhattarai was recently canvassing the country’s length and breadth. What he saw and heard during this extended tour must have depressed him. Basically, he espied no prospect of a revival of his beleaguered party, which has just a single seat in the federal lower house. Many see Bhattarai as an opportunist who waged a bloody insurgency that took the lives of around 17,000 Nepalis. But as soon as it served his purpose, he ditched the ideology. Others think of him as cold and calculated, and someone missing the common touch.

In the former Maoist party, Bhattarai’s reputation was as an intellectual capable of coming up with the best of ideas and yet someone incapable of building an organization. His tendency to project an intellectual air does not sit well with common folks; many like his ideas but they struggle to trust him. This sad realization must have hit home on his recent cross-country trek. Hence his decision to merge his party with the Upen­dra Yadav-led Federal Socialist Forum Nepal.

Bhattarai realizes Yadav is the front and center of the new party and he will be playing second fiddle. The new socialist outfit, by fusing the energies of eth­nic hill leaders and identity-conscious Madhesi ones, hopes to start a new trend in Madhes-Pahad unity. A wonderful idea, but also an unrealistic one. Big parties like the (former) CPN-UML and the Nepali Congress have always had strong organizations in both Pahad and Madhes. If these forces could not unite the coun­try, there is little hope that the new socialist party with some extremely polarizing politicians in its ranks will fare any better. But Yadav has nothing to lose.

He already has a rock-solid base in Madhes; the new party’s ability to make inroads into the hills would be a bonus. In contrast, Naya Shakti’s hold on both Madhes and Pahad is tenuous. It was a spent force. Bhattarai has never been short of ambition and yet he finds him­self in a political wilderness. The new socialist outfit is an unlikely vehicle with which to revive his political career. In a sign of things to come, his erstwhile Naya Shakti colleagues are furious at the new merger that happened without their knowledge, and one which has made them ‘junior members’ in the new party. The road ahead is long and arduous for BRB.  

The latest forecast of the Central Bureau of Statistics that the national economy will grow by 6.81 percent this fiscal is encouraging. The above-six percent growth, for the third year in a row, has never been attained in over two decades. This kind of sustainable (and increasing) growth is partly the outcome of political stability. The ending of load-shedding has also boosted our industries and businesses. As tourism picks up after the low of the 2015 earthquake and the subsequent blockade, hotels and restaurants are doing a roaring business. Good rainfall has ensured plentiful harvests.

Thus 6.81 percent growth is something to celebrate, any way you look at it. It has, for instance, contribut­ed to an increase in the annual income of a Nepali by around Rs 14,000 in a year. The proportion of those living under the poverty line is steadily declining. So far so good. But it would be an incomplete assessment of the Nepali economy if we don’t dig deeper into these numbers. A big reason for the high GDP growth is the boom in construction, which is fueled by loans from banks and financial institutions. Such loans also boost vehicle ownership. Economists warn that the econ­omy is overheating because of such unproductive spending, and a crash might be imminent. The good numbers do not reveal the whole picture.

The only way to achieve long-term economic pros­perity is to ensure more, and timely, investment in the productive sector: rather than erect credit-supported private apartments, build good roads and airports. Instead of spending most of our foreign reserves on imports, channel more into improving the local busi­ness climate. The state should also invest in quality education and healthcare for all Nepalis. But the oppo­site is happening. Over the past few years, the spending in productive sectors has been half the level of spend­ing in unproductive activities.

While the federal government seems committed to handing out various kinds of benefits and subsidies to the old and the needy, it has made little progress in mass-scale job-creation. Most of our youth in rural areas continue to go abroad in search of well-paying jobs. Yet much of the hard-earned money they send to Nepal is quickly repatriated to pay for our burgeon­ing imports. A growth of 6.81 percent means there is enough money sloshing around for all kinds of produc­tive investments. Too bad the communist government is busy gloating about its high numbers than in laying down the right economic fundamentals.

The April 21 attacks in Sri Lanka, which has killed at least 359 people as of this writing, was a brutal reminder, if we needed any, that terrorism knows no bounds. The Islamic State has claimed responsibility. Unconfirmed reports suggest the suicide attacks targeting the Christian community and foreign tourists in Sri Lanka were in ‘retaliation’ for the March 15 killings of 50 Muslims in Christchurch, New Zealand. Whatever the case, there can now be little doubt that religious terrorism has become a global menace—and no country can claim to be immune from it.

Why did the Islamic State choose Sri Lanka—a rela­tively poor country that is not involved in any anti-Mus­lim mission anywhere in the world—to target Chris­tians, who make up under 8 percent of the Lankan population? Most likely because of its weak security. The small island state could not forestall the suicide bombings even though Indian intelligence agencies had given them ample prior warnings. Perhaps the Sri Lankan authorities felt that in the post-LTTE era they had nothing to fear from terrorists of any kind.

Nepal’s own security status is fragile, what with the open border and various semi-political armed groups operating in the country. An act of international terror­ism here is not inconceivable.

During the third SAARC Summit in Kathmandu in 1987, member states had signed the ‘Regional Conven­tion on Suppression of Terrorism’. Yet there has been little progress in advancing such cooperation, as was made clear by the Lankan bombings. With the SAARC now in a coma, there is little hope of progress. This is dangerous. In this interconnected world, no single country can control the scourge of terrorism on its own, as terror groups use increasingly sophisticat­ed ways to maximize death and destruction. Great­er regional cooperation on terrorism has therefore become mandatory. (Perhaps the BIMSTEC provides a better way forward.) Nepal must also strengthen its anti-terror resolve. The 2016 National Security Policy had listed ‘prevention and control of terrorism’ as one of Nepal’s strategic objectives. The public deserves to know if there has been any progress on this front.

There are other risks of taking terrorism lightly. On the pretext of controlling anti-terror activities, big powers may try to muscle their way in. Terror groups may also foment unrest by trying to divide the recently declared secular state along religious lines. April 21 was a wake-up call. It’s a terrible tragedy that so many of our fellow South Asians had to die for it.