Nepal: Critique Intolerable To PM Koirala

Understandably, Nepalese Prime Minister Sushil Koirala obviously did not want anything against his Indian counterpart Narendra Modi on the Nepalese media particularly in the State-owned media. So, Mr. Koirala muted the State media. Although he had several other options to keep his Indian counterpart not to be critiqued but he took the shameful option for stopping the telecasting of ‘tito satya’ that contained some caricatures of PM Modi. Preventing the broadcast of ‘tito satya’ was a political dodge. The world media had superbly praised PM Modi for doing something concrete for India but brutally condemned him for doing nothing for saving the Muslims from the onslaughts of Hindus in Gujarat when he was a chief minister. A group of people protested against PM Modi while he spoke to the Indian community at the Time Square in New York, USA in the last week of September 2014. PM Modi had been in the Nepalese and international media during the last several months.

Nepalese fans of ‘tito satya’ had waited for every week to watch an episode so did on Thursday evening, December 4, 2014. Suddenly, Nepal Television (NTV) had something different than telecasting the ‘tito satya’. Fans were upset. They did not know what exactly happened to NTV. It even did not bother to seriously explain to its audience why it did not telecast the episode so interesting and entertaining to the people. The State media was absolutely not accountable to the people. It was only accountable to the prime minister.

PM Koirala did his part to prevent NTV from airing the very episode of ‘tito satya’ on Thursday, December 4, 2014 because he wanted to save PM Modi from getting caricatured in this episode. This episode was entirely dedicated to PM Modi’s visit to Nepal, what he wanted to do for Nepalese people, how the Nepalese officials wanted to extract commissions from the projects PM Modi offered to the common folks in Nepal and so on.

PM Koirala’s agents in the NTV must have informed the prime minister about the content of the episode before being telecasted. They also must have hinted at the possible embarrassment to PM Modi if it were to put on TV. Surely, PM Koirala did not want to watch how the comedians mocked PM Modi on the NTV. However, PM Modi might like it but PM Koirala did not understand it. PM Modi was the prime minister of the largest democracy in India. He was raised in the democratic environment. He made his political career starting from the grassroots level.

However, PM Koirala was born under the unimaginably tyrannical regime of the Rana-Shah rulers in Nepal in 1930s when speaking against the officials was crime punishable by several years of jail term when owning a radio was crime. People were afraid of talking against the regime even within the four walls of their homes. They believed that even the house walls had ears. People were muted to the extent possible at that time.

PM Koirala as other Nepalese fought against the Rana regime for democracy and the people’s rights to live honorably. The Rana regime collapsed and Nepal became democratic country in 1951. Then, he also fought against the Shah rulers that killed democracy in 1960, and reinstated democracy in 1990. He knew that during the thirty years of the Shah rule Nepalese could not speak out. However, Mr. Koirala had regrettably demonstrated the relic of the Rana-Shah regime that common folks should not talk against the rulers. That relic alone worked in his mind and he spontaneously stopped the broadcasting of the ‘tito satya’ on Thursday, December 4, 2014.

That episode also would have exposed how the officials wanted to make money out of any projects implemented in Nepal. That might be another reason for PM Koirala being intolerant of the particular episode of ‘tito satya’. Taking commission was an open secret; everybody knew it in Nepal. However, PM Koirala pretended to be a cleanest person in the corrupt administration. He might be clean but how clean he had been again everybody knew from his latest actions on not sufficiently distributing the donations he received for the victims of the floods and landslide occurred during the last monsoon. He had been keeping the money in his fund. He might use it for keeping his political cadres happy.

Most of the common folks did not want to miss any episode of ‘tito satya’. Nepalese waited for it every week. It was a once-a-week telecast. It had been informative, interesting and entertaining to the Nepalese audience. It also provided the information on how the government had been functioning. So, it had been popular among the common folks. Nepalese eagerly waited for Thursday evening every week to watch the episode.

PM Koirala might have thought that he saved his government from the embarrassment of mocking PM Modi. However, he failed to think in terms of how he had infringed on the freedom of expression, and denied the common folks the rights to watch the comedy show. PM Koirala could not save himself from violating the fundamental rights of the people. Poor PM Koirala knowingly or unknowingly had to live with impunity. Human courts might not bring him to justice for violating the fundamental human rights but the divine court might be.

He also forgot to think that PM Modi might in fact benefit from the telecast of the show, as he would know how Nepalese comedians thought about him. Successful democratic politicians always became the subjects of mockery for the comedians, hard topics for journalists, and topics of discussions for the intellectuals in the democratic society. Only authoritarian rulers did not have to face such media critique.

PM Koirala declared a number of times publicly that he would defend democracy at any cost. He thought that he was a savior of democracy. Obviously, he had a different definition of democracy. He did not play by the rule of democracy that everybody knew. He did not save democracy muting the public media and denying the people rights to information. He ignored the fact that the freedom of expression and rights to information were the inseparable values and principles of democracy.

PM Modi had visited Nepal twice within a few months of becoming the prime minister of the largest democracy in May 2014. He had been the most popular foreign leader among the Nepalese. Even the most anti-Indian politicians could not say anything against him. His popularity had been so high that Nepalese protested against his calling off his visit to Janakpur scheduled for November 25, 2014. Nepalese waited impatiently for his arrival and for his speech. They wanted to know what PM Modi had to say to them. Sadly, PM Koirala tactfully denied PM Modi to visit Janakpur.

PM Modi spoke to the Indian community at the Time squares in New York when he visited USA to attend the UN General Assembly in the last week of September 2014. A group of people not happy with him protested against him for not saving the Muslims from the Hindus in a riot in Gujarat when he was the chief minister of that State. The US administration had condemned him for the inaction, and had denied him visa for the USA until he was elected by the overwhelming votes to the prime minister. However, the US administration did not stop the demonstrators from protesting against PM Modi in New York.

PM Koirala certainly knew Nepalese people had the rights to protest. He also knew that some people protested against PM Modi in New York but PM Koirala did not want to understand that protest and support for any public figures went side by side in the democracy. The US administration did not stop the people from protesting against PM Modi in New York because people had the rights to support and protest against any leaders in the democracy. The US administration could not violate any laws unlike PM Koirala did in Nepal.

PM Koirala also democratically elected prime minister but unfortunately he behaved as an authoritarian ruler not once several times. He must have thought that he could ignore the constitutional provision, as he was a prime minister. This was a typical mindset of the Rana-Shah rulers in the past. He did not realize that his action on not letting the telecast of the ‘tito satya’ had caused the violation of the constitutional rights of the Nepalese people.

He had other options for stopping the embarrassment to PM Modi or to his cabinet taking legal and administration actions against the comedians and the NTV, too if any materials in the episode went against the law. Thus, he could have played by the rule of law instead Mr. Koirala played by force causing the violation of the constitution by the democratically elected head of the government. Mr. Koirala needed to quit the office on the ground of political ethics if he had any.

He also must have believed that he could let his administration run on corruption. I would like to remind PM Koirala that his party had to remain illegal for 30 years; Nepalese in general had to lose democracy for 30 years. Democratically elected first Prime Minister BP Koirala and his colleague Ganeshman Singh had to stay in jail for seven years, and then had to be exiled in India for another seven years before coming back to Nepal. Many political leaders lost their lives, and many more had spent their precious time in jail. All these unfortunate things happened because of the corruption in the administration of the elected BP Koirala government in the late 1950s. Corruption had weakened the political party and the leaders, too. Political parties had been illegal from 1960 to 1990. The Shah rulers had monopolized the administration for that period.

Even after the reinstatement of democracy in 1990, the political leaders did not learn or did not like to learn that corruption was a kind of disease that would kill the political parties. The second democratically elected Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala after thirty years of suspension of democracy again indulged in corruption. His ministers openly demanded bribes. So, Girija could not complete his term of office twice even though he was elected by majority votes.

Letting his administration to be corrupt, PM Koirala had been actually poisoning his political party. Corruption was a very effective poison. It would make PM Koirala’s party sick soon if it had not already been sicken.

PM Koirala also violated the rule of law, too denying the comedians and the NTV to present their views skillfully and humorously to the people, and he denied the people’s rights to watch the most interesting and entertaining episode of the ‘tito satya.’

‘Tito satya’ was a satirical comedy. It literally meant ‘bitter truth’. PM Koirala could not tolerate the truth that went against his interest. So, it became bitter to him. He chose the option for throwing it into a trashcan rather than showing it to the common folks that would laugh at him. For him, it was better to violate the rule of law rather than becoming a laughingstock. However, PM Koirala became both a punching bag and a laughingstock.

PM Koirala refused to recognize that the truth remained truth. No matter how PM Koirala wanted to hide the truth under his nice carpet but it would automatically come out and expose him to the common folks. PM Koirala wanted to be clean but he might not be clean at all. He actually possibly had been one of the so many corrupt Nepalese politicians.

PM Modi was serious about helping Nepal to prosperity. He pushed his administration for enforcing the agreements previous Indian governments had reached with the Nepalese government and his own government, too. He had jumpstarted enforcing the agreement on the hydropower that had remained dormant for about two decades. He also moved fast in reaching the agreement on building hydropower plants in Nepal. He has been pushing his administration to enforce the agreements reached with the Government of Nepal and to meet the commitments he made to the Nepalese people.

PM Modi was not the PM Koirala. PM Modi was a man of principle and dignity. He was a gifted person. He sacrificed his life for his beliefs. PM Modi came out of more than one billion Indian people to be the prime minister. He cleared off the topmost leader of his party to reach the highest party position. PM Modi resolved any problem that stood in his way to the office of prime minister but PM Koirala obstructed his own way to success by putting hurdles of corruption and not following the rule of law. PM Koirala had stood even in the way of PM Modi visiting Janakpur and two other religious places a devout Hindu such as PM Modi wanted to visit in Nepal when PM Modi was in Nepal during the SAARC summit. PM Koirala also might be the hurdle in implementing the agreements India reached with Nepal that we would know very soon.

Nepal could achieve many things if PM Koirala were to work in the spirit of his Indian counterpart. Nepal could do many things with India when the Indian prime minister was so favorable to Nepal. PM Koirala could ask PM Modi for annulling the hidden letter that became part of the Nepal-India Treat of 1950 that had made the provision for the Nepalese government needed to consult the Indian government for importing arms to Nepal, and for the Nepalese prime minister required reporting to the Indian prime minister about the foreign visit.

PM Koirala did not feel ashamed of declaring only three cell phones as his assets second time while in office. He recently declared three cell phones as his assets to the public according to the Nepalese media. He needed to say how he had been living only on three cell phones. He also needed to make public the party or the persons that had been supporting him for his livelihood. He also needed to tell the people what he had done with his monthly remuneration whether he had donated it to some charity organizations or saved it for the rainy days or he really did not collect it. The salary of the prime minister comes in hundreds of thousands of Nepalese rupees.

Certainly, he could not live on three cell phones unless he had the people that would provide him with whatever he needed on the phone calls made by the three cell phones. Declaring he had only three cell phones nothing else, PM Koirala had made him a laughingstock, and probably he made it clear that he had been using illegitimate means for his livelihood in an attempt to demonstrate that he did not make money. In fact, he might be corrupting those three cell phones for everything he needed. Surely, three cell phones could display the clean picture of PM Koirala but Nepalese people would hardly believed it rather they would laugh at him for stating such an illogical thing in the world of logic.

In order to hide almost everything known about PM Modi and Nepalese officials making money out of the development projects ‘tito satya’ was to make public, PM Koirala had exposed himself to the world that he had been not much different from his corrupt colleagues in the cabinet and the party. The statement of “he had only three cell phones” could be another good episode of ‘tito satya’ but PM Koirala would use his veto over screening it on the TV even though the Interim Constitution of Nepal of 2007 had no such provision. PM Koirala had been gradually emerging as an authoritarian leader rather than a democratic leader. His two-thirds majority in the parliament had made him a strong leader; however, he had almost no capacity to lead the country democratically. Nepal had been unfortunate for having such sharp-witted unscrupulous political leaders. Nepalese people had been even more unfortunate to get ruled by such leaders.

PM Koirala must have lost his sanity in muting the comedians and denying the audience to watch the ‘tito satya’ consequently making difficult to pursue the democratic norms, values and principles thus undercutting the democratic system itself in Nepal. If Mr. Koirala had put him in the shoes of comedians and then he would know how he violated the freedom of expression, and how hard he had hit the minds of the comedians; again if he had put him in the shoes of the audience he would feel how they were hurt by not having to watch the episode of the ‘tito satya’, and if he had put him in the shoes of human rights defenders Mr. Koirala would know how frustrating had been his action on muting the media. Mr. Koirala had been a strong man in dealing with the common folks but a very weak person in dealing with his colleagues and other political leaders.

ENDS

© Scoop Media