A Voice For the Voiceless

MISSION

The Advocacy Project seeks to help community-based advocates produce, disseminate and use information, and so become more effective advocates for human rights and social justice

Bulletin #21: Nepal Media Update

The following is a translation of a statement made by Surya Thapa, editor of the pro-Maoist newspaper Budhabar, in the presence of Baman Prasad Neupane, Chief District Officer, Kathmandu. Mr. Thapa faces a fine of Rs ten thousand and/or a jail sentence of up to one year, according to the Printing and Publication Act 2046 B. S., if he is found guilty for publishing prohibited content.

Restrictions Deepen

Although military censors have long vanished from the offices of Nepal’s newspapers,  censorship remains and has become more insidious. The benchmarks for determining the “limits” are vaguely worded and are open to interpretation—by those charged with enforcing them.

The suspension of right to legal remedy—other than habeas corpus—and the silencing of dissenting opinion continue to overshadow the daily stress under which Nepali journalists function. The following translation of statements, made by an editor of a weekly newspaper at the District Administration Office, is an indication of the state of press freedoms in Nepal.

Question 1: Your name, age, profession and address?

Answer: My name is Surya Thapa, Age 30 years. I am editor of Budhabar weekly. I reside in Bangemarod, ward no 9, Pyuthan (district) and I am presently living in Kirtipur Municipality-4, Naya Bazaar.

Question 2: Why have you come to this office today?

Answer: I received a phone call from the Kathmandu District Police Office saying you had something to inquire, hence I am here.

Question 3: The contents of the main (first) page story headlined Nirankushta Biruddha Paanch Partyko Morcha Bandi (Five parties align against autocracy) in the paper called Budhabar which you edit seems aimed at maligning the Royal Proclamation made by His Majesty the King in accordance with the wishes of the country and the people, and hence don’t you think you have to be sent to the concerned investigative agency under clause 14 (Ka) of the Press and Publications Act 2048 (1991). State your clarifications, if you have any?

Answer: After the Royal Proclamation the newspapers in the country have been barred from the press freedom rights they enjoyed before. Budhabar is among those papers (that have been barred of their rights). After the royal proclamation of On February 1 at 7 pm security forces led by a colonel of the Rangers unit encircled (our offices and said) the orders are not to publish the paper, leave everything in whatever situation it is, and printing of the paper was disrupted even after the inside pages had already been printed.

At 9 pm a team led by Major Shakner Bhandari, in civilian dress, came and said the paper could be printed but determined the limits—the positive sides of the royal proclamation, (news) welcoming (the proclamation) and news on the illumination activities (to welcome the proclamation). We asked them if they had any orders or directives related to the instruction. We were not given anything like that. A situation was created where people working in the printing press could not stay there any longer.

Hence, the paper could not be published in accordance with the second order. Major Bhandari also confirmed that we could not write anything on the situation of leaders in detention and house arrest when we asked, and Budhabar weekly could not be printed the next day. This was the first time in 10 years that the paper, which had been publishing regularly, had discontinued an issue and we were saddened.

We became aware of the censorship after we had sent eight pages of the issue of February 9, 2005 (to press). Thereafter the team from the Army headquarters did not let us publish four pages that were ready (for printing) and it was possible to print only four pages with gaps (censored material) in different pages. The editorial slot was empty and they forced us to put a flag of Nepal in the space.

The issue of February 16 was screened by the team assigned by the army headquarters and four pages were printed after their approval. We have with us the signed print out of the approved pages given by the (censor) team. Till then we were aware of the censorship. The censor team from the army headquarters has not visited our office after that. We don’t know whey they had come and why they did not come again afterwards.

On the other hand, the civil administration has also not briefed us on related orders/ instructions. It is true that the main news entitled Nirankushta Biruddha Paanch Partyko Morcha Bandi was published in the issue of March 2. On March 1 in a telephone call from the District Administration Office you yourself conveyed the order saying don’t print anything negative or positive on the Maoists other than information given by the security agencies.

Because the security agencies have not given us any information, we have not published anything on the incident in Bardia (where 46 bodies were recovered after a battle). This is also true. As far as page one is concerned, information similar to the content of the story had already appeared in other papers.

After reading the newspapers, I was aware that in a meeting with editors of some Nepali dalies and on-line news portals at the Royal Palace, His Majesty had said the press can publish all information other than that which would assist/ support the terrorists.

We have not received clear instructions from the Ministry of Information and Communication, Department of Information, Press Council Nepal and the District Administration Office clearly directing what can be done, what cannot be or what can be printed and what cannot be. The news with the said headline reports the alliance building (effort) of five parties.

The Royal Proclamation of February 1 does not mention putting a ban on the parties and organizations which are in place in accordance with the Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal 1990. Therefore, we did not feel that the news item had any material that was banned for publication.

How could it seem to be aimed maligning the Royal Proclamation of February 1? I am surprised. When we can read in the papers that His Majesty’s proclamation has included phrases expressing full commitment to multiparty democracy? Article 12 (2 Ga) of the constitution of Nepal 1990 has not been included among those articles that have been suspended, which makes provisions for organizations/ associations, which also makes provisions for the existence of political parties.

Therefore, I don’t think the published news has attracted Clause 14 (ka) of the Press and Publications Act and that I should be sent to the concerned investigative agency (for the violation). The news was printed in the understanding after His Majesty’s most recent conversation (with journalists) suggesting that everything else other than that which would support the terrorists could be published.

Question 4: You said that you have not been given directives and information by security forces on not printing positive (and) negative news. But despite the notice issued by His Majesty’s government, Ministry of Information and Communications on February 2 which bans printing even interviews, opinion against the spirit and sensitivities of the Royal Proclamation, which was publicized in the Nepal Rajpatra (Nepal Gazette) and different government and non-government communication media, it is unnatural for you to say there no directive was received from the security agencies. In doing so, was your intention to go against and malign the spirit and sensitivity of the Royal Proclamation? Clarify?

Answer: You cannot say it was my personal intention and belief to malign the Royal proclamation. As a citizen I have my personal beliefs and position on the Royal Proclamation. There is no relationship between that (my beliefs) and the news item mentioned. The press release was issued by five main political parties of Nepal on February 26 and the names of those signing the statement has been included as a box item in the same news as proof.

I don’t have information that the said parties have been banned. Again the five parties are not groups that have close relationship or contacts with the Maoists who have been declared terrorists by the state. I have been able to take up the profession of journalism in the democracy, human rights and open society established after the historical people’s movement of 1990 done by the same parties.

It is not true that by publishing a statement by the same parties that stand on the side on openness, cab be construed to be my intention. Regarding the question on the notice of February 2, the information published after His Majesty’s meeting with 10 journalists, said news other than that would support/ assist the Maoists could be printed.

After the views of the chairman of the present council of ministers His Majesty King Gyanendra were published, which came after the government notice, we understood that the five parties had a separate place (in the political space) and were not with the terrorists. That is the basis for printing that news.

Question 5: You must be aware of the suspension of Article 13 (1) of the Constitution of Nepal 1990. The said news item in your paper violates the ban on publishing news against the spirit and sensitivities of the Royal Proclamation of His Majesty the King issued through the notice of His Majesty’s Government dated February 2, 2005 so why should action not be taken against you? Clarify your position.

Answer: The said news item does not violate the most recent directives of the present chairman of the council of ministers His Majesty King Gyanendra. I have already clarified that the said news related with the parties was based on those directives/views (of the king). I have not made any personal comment on the spirit and sensitivities of the Royal Proclamation.

What has been printed concerns the five parties. If you want to take action if may be fair and justified to take action against the parties, and the signatories issuing the type of statement. The source of the news is the statement; I have only used information coming from the source. Therefore taking action against me would be both injustice and discriminatory.

The directives issued by His Majesty through the daily newspapers (after the interview) came after the notice of the ministry published in the Nepal Gazette. In accordance with that (the directive of the king) and orders issued by you the CDO we have not printed any news/comments on the Maoists who have been declared terrorists by the state. This is how I have been abiding by the Constitution of Nepal 1990.

Question 6: Do you have anything more to say?

Answer: no

I have written the questions and answers in my own handwriting and is true.

[Signed]

Surya Thapa, 4 March 2005 day six (Friday)

Additional Statement

Question 1: The story in Budhabar weekly, on March 2, 2005 with the headline Nirankushta Biruddha Paanch Partyko Morcha Bandi (Five parties align against autocracy) attempts to malign the Royal Proclamation and is against the notice of the Ministry of Information and Communication dated February 2, 2005, clarify your explanation position/view and intention?

Answer: I have not made personal comments against the Royal Proclamation of February 1, 2005. That the news goes against the proclamation or maligns it is what you the CDO have interpreted/concluded. Our intention is not to defy or go against the Royal Proclamation and the notice of the Ministry of Information and Communication.

Because this paper has been publishing under the laws of the land from October 23, 1995 after being registered at the District Administration Office Kathmandu, and has remained as one of the Category Kha (A) newspaper since. Therefore we are aware that the paper should not go against the legal regime and notices/orders.

After His Majesty’s directives to ten journalists (made) after the February 1 Royal Proclamation and the February 2 notice, we felt that the situation had loosened up a little and that we could publicize the public decisions on the activities of the legal political parties. But that was our misunderstanding.

Now we are aware that the situation remains unchanged or is as it was before. In a situation of the declaration of the state of emergency, the assumption of the chairmanship of the council of ministers by His Majesty and the suspension of many constitutional articles, we would like to assure you that we would be sensitive to the constitutional and legal provisions in the coming days.

Question 2: How was your additional statement made?

Answer: In response to question 1 I have written the statement in my own handwriting. The statement is true. I am willing to face the consequences in accordance with the law (if otherwise).

[Signed]

Surya Thapa, 7 March, 2005, Day 2 (Monday)

INSN is the International Nepal Solidarity Network, which has activists in over a dozen countries around the world who are working to bring democracy to Nepal. Visit their website for regular updates related to the Nepal crisis.