Nepal: reporter stabbed to death
A group of around 15 unidentified people attacked and killed 24-year old radio and newspaper reporter Uma Singh, in her home in the southeastern district of Dhanusa on 11 Jan.
(more…)
Nepal: Violence against journalists escalates
Nepal has not had an easy recent history. The war between the Maoist Communist Party and government forces lasted ten years, from 1996 until 2006, when Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala and Maoist leader Prachanda signed a deal allowing the Maoists to take part in the Nepalese government. Though the war has ended, violence and intimidation against journalists has continued.
In the month of June, 16 Nepalese journalists and media organisations were attacked, 21 were threatened, and one journalist, Hridayaraj Gautam, was abducted. July was not much better: there were five incidents of violence during the first week alone.
On 3 July Krishna Dhungana, a correspondent for daily newspaper Naya Patrika was threatened by a source in a courtroom. On the same day Bibhusanraj Shakaya, a photojournalist, was attacked by cab drivers outside a petrol station for taking a photograph of a fight between drivers, the police and two editors of weekly publication Samyantra.
On 4 July, Ramhari Pandey of Naya Patrika was attacked by a group of unidentified people who beat him and looted his mobile phone and wallet; and Roshan Karki, a correspondent of Nepal One Television was threatened over the telephone following his reporting on the smuggling of red sandalwood.
On 5 July, Bhojraj Bassnet and Ambika Bhandari were attacked and threatened by two police officers, apparently because of their coverage of police personnel accepting bribes.
The Federation of Nepalese Journalists, which represents 5,000 members throughout the country, has condemned the attacks, saying ‘no one can force the journalists to write news as per their interest’.
Is there any hope of this freedom becoming a reality for Nepal’s reporters? Index asked journalist and blogger Dinesh Wagle how he sees the situation.
Index on Censorship: Has Nepal changed after the signing of the peace agreement in November 2006?
Dinesh Wagle: After the conflict was officially over with the signing of the peace agreement between the Maoist and the government, many of us had thought that the days of killings and torture were gone. Journalists were receiving threats and facing problems from both the Maoists and the royal government when the king took over in Feb 2005.
Even after the peace agreement the intimidation and harassment continued in new form. During the violence that erupted in southern Nepal (the plains) last year, many journalists with origins in the hill regions working in that area were physically attacked, and many were forced to leave.
IoC: Do you think violent attacks against journalists will continue in Nepal?
DW: I think [violent attacks against journalists] will continue in the years to come. Why? Well, no one is satisfied with an independent report and they will try to express their anger verbally before cooling down and sending a letter to the editor. I think those should be considered as professional hazards. Especially in a society like ours, where media culture is at a primitive stage. Here people do go to radio stations if a father scolds his son!
IoC: Do the attacks on journalists promote a generally negative feeling among the media community? Is there hope for the future of journalism in Nepal?
DW: On the positive side, our media is expanding rapidly and it’s becoming a professional and reliable career. Two television stations, news channels, have started their service – one’s going live in an inauguration program some 500 metres away from where I am at the moment. Many people are sceptical about their success as they don’t see a viable market for additional TV stations that’s already crowded by, hmm, five stations!
But then the job of worrying about the returns belongs to the investors, and as long as they are confident, we the journalists have nothing to complain about. The more media outlets, the more opportunities for reporters. The more competition among media houses, the better payment and facilities for us.
My point is: It’s far better for journalists today. But it could be even better if the Maoists behaved in a more democratic manner. May be they are still learning the democratic process – they were Maoist rebels until recently. So there is reason to be hopeful.
Nepal: lifting the lid off timidity
[vc_row equal_height=”yes” el_class=”text_white” css=”.vc_custom_1474815446506{margin-top: 30px !important;margin-right: 0px !important;margin-bottom: 30px !important;margin-left: 0px !important;background-color: #455560 !important;}”][vc_column width=”1/2″ css=”.vc_custom_1478505578743{padding-top: 60px !important;padding-bottom: 60px !important;background: #455560 url(https://www.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/magazine-banner2.png?id=80745) !important;background-position: center !important;background-repeat: no-repeat !important;background-size: cover !important;}”][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/2″ css=”.vc_custom_1474721694680{margin-top: 0px !important;margin-bottom: 0px !important;padding-top: 0px !important;padding-bottom: 0px !important;}”][vc_custom_heading text=”SUBSCRIBE TO
INDEX ON CENSORSHIP MAGAZINE” font_container=”tag:h2|font_size:24|text_align:left” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_column_text 0=””]Every subscription helps Index’s work around the world
SUBSCRIBE[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
Gen Z voices “muffled and contained, if not outright censored”
Each generation has its resentments and irritations with the previous one. The baby boomers rebelled against post-war austerity, and their fury fuelled the student revolutions that swept the world in 1968. In some senses, they were the lucky ones. In the UK, free higher education and cheap housing made the boomers rich and comfortable. My own peers, Generation X, sneered at their smug complacency as we were hit by recession, the Poll Tax and Thatcherism. But some also benefitted from the unleashing of the free market, or rather the housing market. The millennials that followed were the first digital natives. They were hopeful and idealistic, but they were also the first generation to be saddled with crippling student debt.
These generations had little in common, but one thing they rarely felt, in the West at least, was silenced.
At the launch event for our Gen Z edition of Index on Censorship at the University of Essex recently it was striking how many ways the panellists felt their voices had been muffled and contained, if not outright censored. The speakers at the event (Has Gen Z Been Silenced On and Off Campus) could not have been more diverse, but they each felt restrictions on their free expression keenly. Sariah Lake, head of editorial at Essex Student Union’s Rebel Media said while she recognised that in some parts of the world, young people’s voices were being genuinely censored, for her the key issue was the influence of social media. “We are losing focus, we are getting distracted, we are just going to repost things,” she said. “Overcoming distraction, connecting with the real world, connecting with originality is what we can do to maintain freedom of speech.”
Adil Zawahir, an Indian lawyer working on a master’s degree in human rights law, said the situation was different for overseas students. “In the West, and the UK in particular, the curtailment of speech is not due to a fear of repression, it is more because of the fear of social ostracization and the anxiety you may feel after you’ve spoken out.” He added that international students have a double problem. “We share the social anxiety, but in addition to that, every time we think about speaking out, in the back of our minds is our status in this country. It is a temporary status. We are always subject to what the government decides for us.”
For Yelyzabeta Buriak, a journalism student from Ukraine who has written about her experience for the latest edition of Index, her situation as a refugee from a war zone brought with it extra concerns and restrictions. She said she avoided discussing the topic of Ukraine altogether for the first year in this country. “I’ve been carrying a feeling of guilt: for being safe here while my parents and friends are still in Ukraine in a very dangerous area,” she said. “You have this feeling of guilt, and you are always careful with words. You think ten times before saying something.” Sometimes, according to Buriak, the biggest silences are not caused by the law or university policy. “Sometimes it is self-censorship, sometimes it is fear, guilt and online judgement and sometimes its is paperwork and systems.”
An important reminder of the wider international context was provided by Merick Niyongabo, President of the Politics Society at Essex, who celebrated the Gen Z revolutions in Nepal, Bulgaria and Kenya but also pointed to the internet shutdowns being used across the world to silence dissent. “It’s important we raise the voices of those who are not being heard, the voices of those in Iran and Russia, who are going through repression, but not able to publish what they are writing or express their views because of censorship.”
A launch event for the Index on Censorship Gen Z issue was also held at Liverpool John Moores University, where the students mainly discussed a campaign to make LJMU a “Pro-Choice Campus”. A report of the event can be found on the Mersey News Live website, which is run by students at the university.
The event at University of Essex was to launch the Winter 2025 issue of Index on Censorship, Gen Z is revolting: Why the world’s youth will not be silenced, published on 18 December 2025.