Freak-versioned (un?)biased report by an unbiased newspaper(???): http://www.gorkhapatra.org.np/pageloader.php?file=2005/08/01/topstories/main8 Malicious statements distort Nepal's image By A Staff Reporter KATHMANDU, July 31: The concern for Nepal, rightly or wrongly, by the global media and big countries has caused more distress to this country than ease its plights. Reports and statements that are one-sided, biased, based on hearsay, erroneous and even malicious have distorted the real situation of Nepal and misled the outside world. The global community must be given an accurate account and a truthful picture of Nepal if it is make an honest opinion about this country. The recent statement of Senator Patrick Leahy in the United States Senate on July 28, and published in full by a Kathmandu-based newspaper, has recounted Nepal?s tale that is far from reality and half truth at the most. He started his statement saying ?Nepal is facing a ruthless Maoist insurgency (which is true) and a political crisis instigated by King Gyanendra which together threaten to turn Nepal into a failed state (which is completely false). The political crises that the country is reeling now was not brought by His Majesty the King but the political parties in the last 12 years. The senator, however, failed to see the particulars and the circumstances that led the country to the present situation. It is useless here to describe the political imbroglio both in the parliament and the street, the horse-trading in the making and breaking of the governments, the party governments?Eincapacity and inability to better the political and economic situations of the country. One can flip back to any newspaper of those days to see the state of our politics. It would be na?Ee to think that Senator Leahy, who keeps an elaborate knowledge of this country, is not unaware about the situation of those 12 years. Senator Leahy also knows that the international community and the donor countries had talked about Nepal sliding towards becoming a failed state long before February 1. The Senator seems to have misread the situation when he said that the King, with the backing of the security forces dissolved the multi-party government. Everybody is well aware that it was Sher Bahadur Deuba, the then prime minister, had recommended for the dissolution of the parliament and it were the other political parties which had orchestrated the downfall of the government. It is known to all that the political parties because of their differences and the ?rush?Eto become prime minister could not strike a consensus on forming a government when the King gave them a chance. The pleadings for ?peace now?Erather than for democracy, was there for everyone to see when the King visited the nook and corner, including the areas infested by the Maoists. Like all Americans, Senator Leahy is so much concerned about the human rights violations in Nepal. This is welcomed by all who believe in the rule of law and democracy. There is no denying that there have been violations of human rights by the security forces and the Royal Nepalese Army had investigated into the charges and jailed, fined, demoted security personnel for violating human rights. But the Senator has failed to include even a single line on the human rights violations by the Maoists and their continuing murder, looting and abduction of the party workers and even school children and innocent apolitical people. He thinks that it was worthy to mention the journalists who were detained for a few hours for encroaching the restricted area announced under the law, but completely forgot those journalists who were slit and hacked to death in broad daylight in front of their family members and others. Is it an oversight of him not to mention the security forces heli-lifting the injured Maoists for medical treatment and giving them beds in the hospital alongside the army personnel? The Senator has been misinformed when he said that he was concerned about the security forces summarily executing the prisoners. How could the Senator draw this conclusion just because the National Human Rights Commission did not find any prisoners in the detention centres? Everyone is aware of the several hundred names that were released by the government disclosing their whereabouts? One is forced to think that the senator could be badly misinformed about the real situation of Nepal. The Senator?s pre-conceived notion about Nepal could be gauged when he sounded very unhappy at the US Embassy in Kathmandu for taking a ?nuanced?Eapproach of ?giving consideration and validity to the views and action of His Majesty the King and the political parties?E He might have wanted that the US Embassy in Kathmandu to blindly toe his line of ?Nepal bashing?E It is hard to believe how the Senator could have doubted the National Human Rights Commission saying it had been getting better access to places of detention. What makes the Senator?s views a little hard to digest is when he said that press freedom has been totally curbed. One example is enough. If it were true, the Senator?s statement would not have been published in a newspaper in Nepal or the publisher would have been ?handcuffed?Ethe next day. The Senator has gone a long way in defending Deuba saying the former prime minister was jailed for corruption by an extrajudicial anti-corruption committee. This observation does not hold any rationale as the RCCC was formed under a provision of the constitution, which is still functional. At least the Senator does not seem to deny that Deuba was involved in the corruption. What is dismaying is that the Senator appears to have found no fault in the political parties for their misdeeds, infighting and wrangling that led the country to this state. He was not surprised when political parties here were involved in all kinds of transgression. It is so easy to sermonize from the safety of political stability and economic prosperity. How wrong is the Senator to suggest the political solution for the restoration of the parliament, which the political parties themselves had demised, or the formation of an constituent assembly, which is the main demand of the Maoists? How could a Senator of the greatest democracy of the world, omit the most viable option of election, which the King has been repeatedly pledging to hold in three years? How could he disregard the government?s announcement to hold the election of the municipalities in about nine months to start the political process of letting the people?s representatives take over in a gradual manner? Does it mean calling the political parties to reject the people?s right to chose their representatives? When the US Senator endorses the solution to an end to hostilities and inclusive national dialogue towards a negotiated solution to the underlying causes of conflict, he is serious about seeing an end to the ongoing conflict in the country, which is appreciable. The concerns for this country showed by the Vermont Senator must be taken in a positive light. But his recommendation to the US Senate to curb aid, military and economic, could do more harm than good to this beleaguered country, which is fighting for its survival. It will be the people and even the political parties who will be suffering if friends like the US fail to understand the real situation. By stopping aid, the US and other countries will be helping the Maoists, who are hell-bent on destabilizing the country, than the people, who want peace at the foremost.