Correct Factor Wrong Deduction: Misguided Journalism

By Kundan Singh Khatri

Psychologists believe that every biased viewpoint is first and foremost a reflection of some form of insecurity inherent in the character of the person or organization expressing it. Such deep rooted shortcomings often cloud one's judgment and objectivity. They sometimes lead to situations where, to quote a Nepalese metaphor, one spots a tick on another's body, but misses the buffalo on one's own back. Isabel Hilton's article (Isabel Hilton, Friday July 20, 2007, The Guardian ) regarding the visit of Nepal's Army Chief to the UK portrays that trait in abundance.

Her misleading observations are obviously based on very limited knowledge of the real situation in Nepal. It is a classic case of correct factor wrong deduction. Her portrayal of a Nepal Army filled with only caste bound officers, for instance, is about four decades out of date. Indeed the only army that practices racial bias in the recruitment of Nepalese Gurkhas is the British Army. The national army of Nepal is open to all. In fact, some of the more militarily inclined minority tribes are actually overrepresented in terms of the population ratio. Similarly, India, which has more Nepalese in uniform than Nepal herself, retains segregated infantry regiments, but openly accepts any Nepali in other parts of the army. Indeed, it is not improbable that the overall British perception of Nepal is prejudiced by an overrepresentation of the minority viewpoint.

Similarly, her simplistic interpretation of the Nepalese conflict as "Gyanendra's savage war" fails to acknowledge the fact that the Maoists were using innocent civilians as human shields, assassinating teachers and journalists and generally conducting a very effective ideological cleansing of the rural countryside a good seven years before Gyanendra, in hindsight quite inappropriately, took over the reins of power in a chaotic Nepal.

That the Maoists are, by their own account, still fundamentally fighting to establish a totalitarian communist regime vis a vis a competitive liberal multi-party democracy, appears to be totally lost on Ms. Hilton. Her inability or perhaps unwillingness to differentiate between the policy-driven, and in the case of the activities of their Young Communist League - ongoing, atrocities committed by the Maoists and the criminal violations committed by individual soldiers, who are duly investigated and punished, makes her analysis vulnerable to exploitation by Maoist manipulators.

Her efforts to play on the sentiments of readers by eloquently narrating the tragic Maina Sunuwar story would have had real analytical value if it had only been balanced against a similarly searching report about some of the thousands of Maoist human rights violators who have been awarded blanket amnesty as part of a political deal that naively hopes for peace at all costs. Sadly, misguided, and perhaps even willfully biased reporting like that, at the least, endangers the delicate peace and reconciliation process. At worst, it actually assists the Maoists in disguising their real and deadly intent.

In the interest of averting the catastrophic tragedy of a Maoist takeover of Nepal, perhaps it is time for the UK and others in the international community to admit that their previous zeal of focusing HR allegations and related pressure on the government forces was in part a natural extension of their wish to "tame" the King. While perhaps too distasteful and incompatible with Labour's image of the UK to admit publicly, it is very much within the realms of what nation states do to further their interests. It was never really meant to support the Maoists game plan per se.

The fate of the monarchy will be decided after the successful conduct of CA election so the utility of bashing the institutions or the King that were previously used as targets to weaken his position is gone. It is time to move on and focus on the real threat at hand. The lack of perception of casual observers like Isabel is doing untold damage to the cause of sustainable liberal democracy in Nepal and furthering the Maoist cause.

The Nepalese Army, warts and all, stood firm against the ideological extremists who chose to overthrow the various governments of the day through force of arms. Despite the pitiful state of the economy and untimely disengagement by traditional allies like the UK, the Nepalese Army did prove unequivocally to the Maoists that they were never going to achieve their aim through fighting and helped force them onto the negotiating table. Today, as any democratic Nepalese politician admits in private, and as some like Foreign Minister Mahat assert publicly, the vastly more aware and responsible Nepalese Army remains the only hurdle against a forceful takeover by the Maoists.

However one rates its past credentials, today, the Nepalese Army is the last line of defense of democracy in Nepal. If it were not for the existence of a still intact army that PM Koirala can still mobilize at a moments notice, there would be no reason whatsoever for the Maoists to even pretend to want to try their hand at true democracy. In the final analysis, that is not really very different from how the British Army evolved and contributed in Northern Ireland.

As one Nepali language weekly put it, "Propaganda is a fine tool to use on select target audiences in the pursuit of well thought out objectives. Where it becomes fatally counter productive is when the practitioners and unwitting agents get so deep into the game that they start believing in their own bluff."

Tags: Tags: Opinions, , Media

_ _

Is your favorite bookmark site missing? Ask for it.

NEWS

WIRES

OTHER

TECHNOLOGY

NEWSPAPERS

Correct Factor Wrong Deduction: Misguided Journalism