Ram's Cafe

Whenever I read news articles and columns, I cannot help wondering where the writer/columnist is coming from. I have become an expert at spotting their biases towards one way or the other. However, some columnists really make it easy - you don't really need to read between the lines to see where they are coming from. A case in point: Dhruba Adhikary from Nepal.

After reading just one of his articles by accident, which seemed to have not only an anti-India stance, but also an anti-Maoist and a pro-Hindu, pro-elite flavour, I decided to do some quick research. First, parts of that article which got my attention, "India caught in a ring of fire" - in Asia Times:

Right at the start, there is this introduction, about an article in India Today, a leading magazine, about instability in the neighboring countries of India.

a leading Indian publication, India Today, led its May 28 edition with a cover report headlined "Neighbors on fire". Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal are four countries covered by the magazine.

This was immediately followed by:

Although they are very much part of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), the publication has conspicuously left out three countries: Afghanistan, Bhutan and Maldives. Perhaps New Delhi thinks these three can't afford to antagonize the rulers of India.

I thought, "What the ....!" - he is mixing up India Today, which is a popular magazine, with the rulers of India?! It would be childish, if it weren't so mischievous.

The mischief becomes more evident from these other passages:

Does India, the world's largest democracy, stand to gain from such a scenario? ...Anyhow, when its immediate neighborhood is on fire, what should be India's reaction? ...New Delhi, of course, could take some pleasure if it were discreetly assisting those responsible for setting the fires in the neighborhood.

He goes on to talk about India's actions in the neighborhood:

These include the wars with Pakistan, the clash with China, support to the movement to "liberate" Bangladesh, the annexation of Sikkim, and the landing of Indian troops in Sri Lanka to protect the Tamil population. And, in a more recent case, pitting Maoists, democratic parties and the monarchy against one other - thereby destabilizing Nepal.

OK, I am not a mindless, nationalistic moron who claims that everything that one's country has done has always been based on moral principles. But to say that India landed its troops in Sri Lanka "to protect the Tamil population" makes one seriously wonder whether this writer is also a total ignoramus, apart from being mischievous (you don't need too much knowledge to create mischief, anyways). "to protect the Tamil population" - from who? Indian troops, when they were in Sri Lanka, were fighting the LTTE, moron - that is, they were fighting Tamil guerrillas!

The article goes on and on - I actually read the whole thing - and it even tries to bring in the US and China into this, while seeming to lament their apparent cohesive approach along with India!

OK, it was time to do my little bit of research, solely with the help of Google. This is what I found in one of the blogs:
Dhruba Adhikary: Your Typical Pahadi Liar
The gist of this blog (please take a moment to read it) is summarized, IMO, by these lines:

And Dhruba Adhikary's article reads outright Goebbelian, Stalinist. This is not journalism. This is propaganda hack work.
Dhruba Adhikary, Yubaraj Ghimire and Tilak Pokharel are some of the top names in Nepali journalism. The media houses they have been speaking through are some of the top global names. That is what makes this whole thing scary. This is too mainstream. This should be happening on the fringes, if at all.

In another article, by Dhruba Adhikary, "Maoists face up to political reality", also in Asia Times, I found this:

"It is still debatable whether Parliament had the mandate to declare Nepal a secular state," Devendra Raj Panday told the Kathmandu Post newspaper.

Hmm, now, why would he be against Nepal becoming a secular state? The following lines should give an indication:

Panday's view broadly represents opinions of those who are keen to see Nepal as a republic, but are in favor retaining the country's Hindu identity. They cite a 2001 census indicating that more than 80% of the population follow the Hindu religion.

And there was this:

One other issue that the controversial declaration included relates to the government's proposal to liberalize citizenship laws, thereby opening the door for millions of Indian migrants to qualify for Nepali citizenship. It is a belief that Koirala agreed to back the proposition to drop Nepal's Hindu identity on the suggestion of a powerful Western lobby, and listed the subject of liberalized citizenship laws at the behest of India. Two of India's most populous states, Bihar and Uttar Pradhesh, share a porous border with Nepal.

OK, I don't live in Nepal, nor anywhere near the Indo-Nepal border - but I would have to change my general world view a great deal to imagine millions of Indian migrants clamoring for Nepali citizenship! I wonder if an analogy of millions of American migrants opting for Mexican citizenship would be out of place here. I am not being supercilious - but, honestly, this was the first time I have ever heard anyone mention this. I mean, come on, there are apparently anywhere up to 10 million illegal migrants from Bangladesh in India, I'm sure there are lots of Nepalis too - earning their livelihood in India...and there are Tibetan refugees, Sri Lankan refugees in India...Heck, you'll even find lots of people of Chinese origin in Calcutta and some other parts of India...but, Indian migrants trying to get Nepali citizenship? I would have to find someone to talk about this!

So, that's what prompted me to write this piece - these guys are writing in newspapers like Asia Times, the New York Times, etc. - publications which most people read with a certain amount of trust. Shouldn't they be doing a bit of homework - even when Nepal is not really a hot region or hot topic for many of their readers?

The same blogger I quoted above, also has this other entry:
Pahadi Bias Colors Global Media

Sure, there are some who might support the views of people such as Dhruba Adhikary - as seen from these letters to the magazine: Letters1 Letters2
But it's pretty clear where these letter writers are coming from, as well. I suspect that it is the uneasiness and inability of upper-caste Hindus to deal with the changing times and to embrace concepts such as secularism and equality that is behind a lot of problems in Nepal (and India, too).

Having been raised in a Hindu family myself, I feel it is time for caste Hindus to do a lot of soul searching and see the fallacy of the whole caste system - which is nothing but another form of tribalism, IMO. People of rational thought and with genuine humanism in India, Nepal and South Asia in general, should find a way to pull the region out of its negativity and help realize the true potential of the region's peoples.

For the record, I don't really care much for the communists!