[In
coming few months, Nepal has a tough choice to make: whether secularization
to evangelize or 'sanatanization' to
become again a 'Hindu country' - before
bringing on a constitution to the irate countrymen by January 22, 2015. India regularly sends
both her spiritual and political leaders to Kathmandu or it seems the Kathmandu
elite invite them actually. Those visiting leaders then meet the Kathmandu
press and tell being worried about
seeing Nepal declared secular without seeking mandate whatever from the
people. In Nepal today, over 80 % people
are Hindus but had 46 % unemployment in 2008 and now in these past six years, we have no idea whether any thing
significant has been done to lower this figure down. Yesterday, as Kathmandu
media report, a BJP leader Bijaya Jolly also expressed “his dismay that no
mandate was sought from the people while declaring Nepal a secular state or
erasing its Hindu identity.” So nowadays in
a multinational Nepal, all people are demanding their ethnic, linguistic, cultural or religious identities which obviously is quite natural.
But it’s not going to get any easier for Nepal to offer identities as demanded to all in
the country. - The Blogger]
By Kathmandu Post Reporter
 |
| BJP leader Bijaya Jolly |
At a time when some sections
expect the pro-Hindu BJP government in India
to push for the revival of monarchy in Nepal
and its reversal to a Hindu state, the BJP leader assured that his party will
make no such attempts.
Speaking at an interaction
organised by Reporter's Club before leaving for New Delhi
on Friday, Jolly said, "I must say Nepal 's
monarchy had been considerably weakened after the royal massacre of 2001. I was
here when the second Jana Andolan was at its peak. At that time, people wanted
a complete change in Nepal ,
and I see a continuation of this spirit today. I don't think monarchy will make
a comeback in Nepal ."
Jolly, however, expressed his
dismay that no mandate was sought from the people while declaring Nepal
a secular state or erasing its Hindu identity.
He did not prescribe what kind of
federalism will be appropriate for Nepal .
"Any decision taken by the Nepali people and the political parties in this
regard will be respected and adhered to. We don't want to suggest any model."
Asked about Thursday's incident
when he was hit by a water bottle during a clash between dissenting cadres at
the ongoing general convention of the CPN -UML,
for which he came to Nepal ,
Jolly said it was an "accident" and the incident had not made him sad.
Jolly remarked that the barring
of cadres from the convention being held in a small area could have disgruntled
them. "The attack on me was in no way planned. The water bottle hurled by
agitating cadres hit me accidentally."
He said Indian Prime Minister
Narendra Modi wishes to visit Nepal
"soon". "We only want to see Nepal
prosper and develop. India
is ever ready to extend its support," said Jolly.
Unveiling the agenda of Modi's
visit, Jolly hinted at Indian support for the construction of a 600 megawatt
hydropower project in Nepal
and increasing Indian scholarships for Nepali students to 5,000 from the
existing 3,000.
"Modi's visit will be both
cultural and political," said Jolly, adding that India
was ready to extend all kinds of support for industrialisation in Nepal .
[The contempt of court versus freedom of expression debate comes at a time when the government has registered a controversial bill on contempt in Parliament. Clause 4 of the bill states, without defining several terms, that “publishing falsified documents regarding subjudice cases or materials that may influence a verdict or erode people"s trust in the judiciary or create confusion about the activities of the court shall be regarded as contempt of court ”.]
By Pranab Khanal
They argue that the issues of
contempt of court could be raised if there is a clear obstruction to justice
and that critiquing the conduct of individual judges should not be construed as
an integral debate in a democracy.
'The recent action of the apex
court hints at an attempt to muzzle the media,' says Advocate Semanta Dahal, without
commenting on specific actions of the court to underscore his point.
Critics point out the absence of
specific laws regarding contempt of court as a major hindrance. “We don"t
have specific laws and it’s up to an individual judge to decide what
constitutes contempt,” says senior journalist Dhruba Hari Adhikari. He demands
that all forms of debate be open at this time of constitution-making.
“It would be better for the court
to restrain itself. Otherwise it may appear as though the court is trying to
flare up the matter,” added Adhikari.
Asked whether the judiciary was
trying to overreach its jurisdiction vis-à-vis the media, both Adhikari and
Dahal remained non-committal. In fact, Dahal maintained that it would not be
appropriate to comment on the matter as the final verdict on the matter sub
judice in court is yet to come.
The contempt of court versus
freedom of expression debate comes at a time when the government has registered
a controversial bill on contempt in Parliament. Clause 4 of the bill states, without
defining several terms, that “publishing falsified documents regarding sub
judice cases or materials that may influence a verdict or erode people"s
trust in the judiciary or create confusion about the activities of the court
shall be regarded as contempt of court ”.
Lawmakers across the political
spectrum have questioned the bill and threatened to shoot it down for
attempting to gag the media and commentators.
Along with lawmakers, media
bodies such as the International Federation of Journalists and Federation of
Nepali Journalists have expressed serious concerns over the bill, saying that
some of its provisions are aimed at limiting press freedom and freedom of
expression. FNJ General Secretary Ujir Magar maintains that the journalists"
umbrella organisation is against such limits on freedom of expression.
“How can you have a bill that
bars even questioning the conduct of a judge?” asked Magar.
