Terrorism and media: Lessons to learn
By Rahul Thapa

Nepal was and remains in the news for the past few weeks. News channels and newspapers in Asia in general were abuzz with the coverage of incidents happening in Nepal. While the media in Nepal --both electronic as well as the print-- covered last week's happenings extensively, Indian media brigade too landed in Nepal in view of the seven-party alliance's rally last Friday.

The partisan media in Nepal only reported on the government’s steps to foil the seven-party alliance's bid to hold a rally in Kathmandu but chose not to report on the possibility of the Maoists trying to infiltrate into the capital to cause terror amongst the people.

The night time curfew was seen by the Nepalese media only as what they termed repression, believing that the residents of Kathmandu were safe. It is an irony that the media chose to forget the violent attacks at Thankot and Dadhikot police posts just two weeks ago, which terrorized people in and around Kathmandu. The question before the Nepalese media is, “Do they consider the opposition any less responsible and accountable to the people than the government?” and the other question the media should answer is, “How does the state confront utter defiance and confrontational politics by the opposition when it has been calling for dialogue and reconciliation?”

The media at large criticised the government's steps; especially the imposition of curfew last Friday and the arrest of political leaders. It termed these steps as steps against democracy. Indian media was equally critical of the measures taken by the administration to foil the alliance's rally.

The Indian media too was very critical of the present-day government in their reports. Nepali citizens were glued to their television sets and watching Indian news channel networks with interest for the reports emanating from Kathmandu.

Though canvassing and raising voices for democracy is not a wrong thing by neighbouring countries, it seems that the Indian media overreacted in some instances. Though I am not against raising a voice for meaningful and accountable democracy and it’s functioning, one can argue that the Indian media were not sensitive that their partisan and opiniated reports might have created a destabilizing effect on the already volatile situation in their northern neighborhood.

A prominent Hindi news channel aired an exclusive interview with the Maoists chief Prachanda. The report showed Prachanda giving a call for the ouster of the King as well as the government. The report also showed visuals of Maoists in military training. Now what happened? Within days, the Maoists reached and attacked the police post in Thankot at the outskirts of Kathmandu killing 11 policemen and terrorizing the neighborhood and its residents.

Now the question, which arises, is “What purpose did the news channel serve by showing such an exclusive interview of a militant outfit leader?” Indian media persons must not have forgotten the period of extreme militancy its citizens faced during the eighties.

Indian journalists must not have forgotten and be aware that “Saint" Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale was the creation of the Indian media in the eighties. He was given undue publicity as a “Saint” first and later as a dedicated religious leader. That publicity made Bhindranwale such a powerful personality that he started dictating terms through sermons issued by him. He created terror in the Indian state of Punjab and later it was the same Indian media that started calling him a terrorist. By raising a demand for a separate state of "Khalistan", Bindranwale was successful in raising an "armed force" to fight against the government and in the process became an unquestionable leader of "Khalistan". Bhindranwale became too powerful as the Punjab government and the whole police turned helpless. With great difficulty and hard work of years put together on the part of the Indian Army and police force, Bhindranwale was cornered and killed inside the “Golden Temple” at Amritsar and his whole brigade was wiped out. However, till then hundreds of innocent people, including policemen and army personnel, were brutally killed by the man the Indian media made a hero in the 1980s.

Take another instance of LTTE Chief of Sri Lanka, Vellu Pillai Prabharakaran. Firstly, the LTTE was allowed to run its camps in the southern state of Tamil Nadu with the knowledge of the Indian government. The outfit cadres took arms training in Indian soil and became so powerful that they raised an armed struggle against the government of Sri Lanka. Later, the Government of India took the decision to send its forces to fight against the LTTE after declaring the LTTE as a terrorist outfit. The Indian government declared the LTTE Chief as a terrorist leader. And who paid what price under what circumstances? Rajiv Gandhi was killed by the LTTE cadre who was once trained in the Indian soil.

This shows that insurgency of terror and violence are is not going to solve any problem of any country whether it be the infant and fledging democracy of Nepal or the world’s largest democracy like India.

Despite holding talks with some militant outfits in Jammu and Kashmir and Indian states in the northeast, India is still fighting terrorism in those states. Different terrorist outfits are active in India under different names. Somewhere they are known as Marxist-Leninists and somewhere they are referred to as Naxalites. But the reality is that the Indian people are facing terror under different names whose sole aim is to terrorize the people and the state.

By airing Prachanda’s interview what sort of a service the Indian media may have done to the people of Nepal is under a serious question mark. Terrorists are terrorists. They are a menace. It would be better if media professional and media channels in India spoke to those whose families were killed in three powerful bomb blasts in Delhi right on the eve of Tihar festival in October last year.

Journalists in Nepal should ask their Indian counterparts what the bereaved families want of the people responsible for those bomb blasts. They will certainly not find a single person who could have any sympathy for those responsible for the blast irrespective of their cause and fight.

Media in India is considered the most important tool for fighting corruption and other menace in the society. Being the fourth estate of a successful and the largest democracy, media and media persons in India have served their country and people. However, by airing Prachanda’s interview, the question before us is: what is the value and significance for the Indian media to promote him?


During the recent Indian Congress convention held in the southern state of Andhra Pradesh, the State government took some security steps. The State authorities imposed prohibitory orders (under Section 144) and banned the assembly of more than five persons in Hyderabad as well as in the adjoining city of Secunderabad. Reports in the Indian Media mentioned that more than 15,000 security personnel were deployed to thwart any design of terrorist's outfits.

While prohibitory orders imposed by the Kathmandu administration and the curfew restrictions last Friday by the government were termed by the Nepalis and Indian media as harsh steps against forces fighting for democracy, the prohibitory orders imposed in the twin towns in Southern Indian state were not termed as harsh or draconian. There was not a single word in the opposition of imposition of prohibitory orders on Indian television networks and newspaper reports.

It is the duty of the authorities and the governments to take appropriate steps to maintain peace and avoid any untoward incidents.

Nepal is a friendly neighbouring sovereign state. Terrorism in both Nepal and India has taken a huge toll of innocent lives. If Nepal is affected by the terrorism, it will have a direct impact on India resulting into cross-border terrorism. It will be confronted with the challenge to fight a bigger battle than the one in Sri Lanka to protect its social, cultural and political fabric from terrorism spill over. Instead of giving publicity to Maoist leaders who promote violence, we should speak out against any terror aimed against us. Irrespective of our nationality, we should work for uprooting such terrorist elements whether they are active in Nepal or India, whether they have their nests in Afghanistan or Pakistan.

A freelance writer, Thapa is based in New Delhi. Please send your comments to feedback@mos.com.np or rahult007@hotmail.com

LONDON: India's Information and Broadcasting Minister Priya Ranjan Dasmunsi has said that private FM radio stations in the country will not be allowed to broadcast news and current affairs programmes for another two to three years.

A fresh look at the issue would be taken after observing the content being broadcast by these stations till that time, Dasmunsi told the BBC Hindi service.

"Let us first wait and see what content would be offered by these stations for the next two to three years and then we would think about the next step.

"We are presently not allowing news and current affairs programmes on private FM radio stations, as it is better to delay it so that no wrong information goes on air rather than trying to control the damage afterwards, which won't be easy," he told listeners from across the globe.

"Let us look at the issue carefully. Television reaches the educated class of the country and extends to those who are not literate in rural areas by way of community TV. The rural people are more interested in entertainment programmes on TV and the interest in news programmes is less.

"However, the fact with radio is that the news broadcast on it is considered the last word and has unmatched credibility. Therefore it is our duty to see that the news being broadcast on radio is correct and does not provoke any section of the society. Our challenge is greater than that of any other country.

"We cannot compare ourselves with any other country in the world, as first of all we have to keep our country united. Nowhere in the world so many language and dialect channels are there. The US, Britain, France none of them have so many languages and channels," the minister said.

Asked if it was logical to hold back news and current affairs from private FM stations when people already had access to so many international radio stations, the minister said: "Yes, people listen to multiple radio broadcasts but it is the All India Radio that they depend on for authentic information.

"Look at the recent example of Gujarat riots, it was only after the AIR said peace was returning to the state, people were really relieved. So, it is an issue of content. It is not possible to liberalise news and current affairs immediately after having allowed private FM stations," he said.

Asked how would the content on private FM stations be monitored, Dasmunsi said: "The government would evolve a content monitoring mechanism for private FM stations and this would not be done by the government but instead would be handed over to the players themselves and government would step in if only there was a violation of the mechanism, therefore we would like to proceed slowly."
From Times of India,24th January ,2006.

Did you know that largest democracy in the world did not allow private FM to broadcast news??
Well I did not know for sure.
But I do know many things many things in this part of the world.
Stiil learning...............

Thanks Laura for putting up those two articles. These shows the double standards of the power players.

It is indeed regrettable to see commoners being played around to satisfy some players.