| Username |
Post |
| noname |
Posted
on 18-Jan-03 05:46 PM
The U-turn of Kantipur
Couple of years back, a talk program was organized in Kathmandu under the theme of 'BIGAT 10 BARSAKA HAMRA UPALABDHIHARU'. The organizers had conceived this because of déjà vu among the intellectuals reciting failure of democracy. One major issue emphasized, inter alia, in that program was the growing number of independent publications like Kantipur. Kantipur and likes were the symbol of what democracy only can give to the public.
An Indian group, Goyanka Group who own Indian Express, launched the publication. The need for a daily paper was felt in such a degree that nobody protested Indian financing. Now HR Gyawali, a well-placed ex-bureaucrat who had served in many financially attractive places during his service period including but not limited to posts as DIRECTOR OF BHANSAR BHIVAG, owns the publication house. Nobody complained it. Such was the need. Young breed of professional journalists – most of them trained in post-democracy period, without preconceptions made Kantipur publication an institution that would not suffer from leaving or joining of few hands. Nobody questioned when Yogesh Upadhyaya had to leave. A professional journalist trained and nurtured among the world class KHAGGU journalist of India and the World, Yuvaraj Ghimire, joined Kantipur and later The Kathmandu Post, and everybody applauded. The background of management was never brought into question.
They could sway the public view to such an amount that Kisunji once remarked that Kantipur too was behind downfall of his government. Lately, their stance on the royal palace movement was questioned by many quarters. They were too carried away by the forward-looking approach. But, it was considered that sentiment of the journalists, not the management, had worked to voice in such a way. They had exposed the account of Wagle and spearheaded the movement to support the move started by AKHTIYAR. They even did not spare JP Gupta who is considered to have favored Kantipur to let them operate TV channel instead of Space Times Online who was on bid from long.
But now once AKHTIYAR questioned their management, the Kantipur Publication has taken a U-turn. They are behind SN Upadhyaya and resurfacing the once buried issue. (When GP Koirala formed the commission to investigate irregularities in Mahakali Project, Kantipur has ridiculed it as a malice attempt to defame Upadhyaya). When a commission suggested that investment in all media by one 'house' should not be entertained, they have started ridiculing their members too as this does not favor the management.
This U-turn is noteworthy. What once was considered as a welcoming fruit of the DEMOCRACY may turn against the DEMOCRACY itself.
|
| khaja biscuit |
Posted
on 18-Jan-03 06:56 PM
You can take the editor Yubaraj Ghimire out of his village in Lamjung. But you can never take his village out of him. Lesson? Despite his wordly exposure, Ghimire evinces a thoroughly narrow mindset: as long as you praise him with platitudes, he's your friend, beaming and bantering. But as soon as you question him or disagree with him, he turns petty, nasty and brutish, and starts holding grudges against you for the longest time. He is notorious for surrounding himself with his loyal Hanumans at Kantipur who then excel at dividing the staff into factions. Kantipur's U-turn is merely an inevitable extension of Ghimire's supposed world-classiness.
|
| The Grocer's Wife |
Posted
on 18-Jan-03 07:53 PM
Noname, that was an accurate summary of the past and the present of Kantipur, except for that bit where you say Ghimire's arrival received a universal applause. No it did not. Most people just didn't know who this guy was or what he was made of.
Yubaraj Ghimire remains as enigmatic today as he arrived at Kantipur. Nobody seems to "know" him, and his secretive world. People had heard of his work in India, his supposed connections to the bigwigs of BJP, his brief stint at the BBC Nepali Sewa, and given him the benefit of the doubt that he must be "good"; but people who'd seen good that good luck and sly manners had played a major part in promoting his mediocre career always had their doubts. Since his arrival, Kantipur has increased its circulation, but lost a lot of respect. And the recent series of U-turns you write about has been ugly.
He fell in my eyes on Asoj 19 when I read his editorial. That day, and since, he has shown his true colors -- a weakness for opportunism, and a complete lack of principled stances, including a considered democratic instinct. One more U-turn on his part here: he is realizing this now, and is less supportive of Maahila Gyan dai and his project. Asoj 19 is a date as precious as Poush 2. History will judge who stood in the right side. Very few people with courage and foresight did, and Yubaraj, a lucky newspaper editor on whom had been thrust a lot of responsibility, wasn't one of them.
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 19-Jan-03 12:31 AM
Kantipur's U-Turn has very much shocked me too.
Is it because of Mr Ghimire? Mr Gyawali? Mr Sirohiya? I don't know. But bringing Mahakali issue again and again against SN Upadhyay is opportunism given the fact that this same issue was once ridiculed by Kantipur as a mere exercise to defame CIAA head by tainted officers like Mr Chalise.
Well, again, there are so many unclear things in Nepal. Especially rightnow.
|
| rat-a-tat |
Posted
on 19-Jan-03 12:14 PM
I would like to express my few reservations over some of the comments made:
1. "They (Kantipur) are behind SN Upadhyaya and resurfacing the once buried issue."
- I would like to cite an AKTIYAAR report (that came out later) that itself admitted or rather suspected that some hanky panky had undegone during the Mahakali Project when Upadhaya was then the Secretary at Ministry of Water Resources. Surprizingly, Upadhya was the Akhtiyaar Chief when the report was published. However, the investigation to the matter has not been initiated so far.
2."(When GP Koirala formed the commission to investigate irregularities in Mahakali Project, Kantipur has ridiculed it as a malice attempt to defame Upadhyaya)"
- If you recall, the timing of G P Koirala's forming of the so-called commission was not favourable. Girija was already muddled up in corruption scandals and it was evident he had made the move to divert public protests against him. It was not only Kantipur but almost all the other major private dailies that ridiculed Koirala's move then.
3. "When a commission suggested that investment in all media by one 'house' should not be entertained, they have started ridiculing their members too as this does not favor the management.."
- I don't think I have so far seen Kantipur ridiculing the members of the Commission. I would be happy if you could enlighten me on the accusations you have made.
4. "One more U-turn on his part here: he is realizing this now, and is less supportive of Maahila Gyan dai and his project. Asoj 19 is a date as precious as Poush 2. History will judge who stood in the right side. Very few people with courage and foresight did, and Yubaraj, a lucky newspaper editor on whom had been thrust a lot of responsibility, wasn't one of them."
- I don't think I wholeheartedly support Gyan dai's project either. It was unconstitutional all right... But then I have to admit it that "Gyan dai" was forced to resort to make the move and it was the best decision he could have made at that time. But this is my personal opinion. I really do hope "Gyan dai" would return the power back to the people soon in a manner so as the politicians don't rape it publicly again in the name of "shisu prajatantra".
|
| noname |
Posted
on 19-Jan-03 04:46 PM
Thanks all for the valuable input/observations.
GROW, I was not feeling comfortable with that move of KP to replace YU by YG (I had witnessed the move by 'group three' to oust their editor from THE INDEPENDENT in early 90's regarding some controversy about India) . I managed to talk with few and they were convinced that this is a 'forward looking' approach to take Kantipur Publicaiton to international standard (as YG was supposed to have that dimension!). I took that few as 'everybody'. The image of YG I myself had at that was far more better than I have now. 'Enigmatic'? Humm....
>>I don't think I have so far seen Kantipur ridiculing the members of the Commission
rat-a-rat, Kantipur Online Archive is not working for now. Thanks for the arguments.
I will return to this thread again.
|
| noname |
Posted
on 19-Jan-03 05:28 PM
"Necessity is the mother of invention"
I just noticed that nepalnews also holds KANTIPUR archvies too. Although they do not have unique address for Kantipur archives, they can be found collected under the heading of past issues.
rat-a-rat: I saw their 'ridiculing attitude' in the following line (Jan 11, 2003):
\ . sf]O/fnf / zdf{ k~rfotsfndf ;/sf/L ;~rf/ dfWodsf] pRr kbdf sfd ul/;s]sf x'g\ .
They are still working in high position in communication sector.
|
| rat-a-tat |
Posted
on 19-Jan-03 09:28 PM
sorry my ignorance or whatever, noname.
i still fail to see any ""ridiculing attitude" in the above statement you have mentioned. THE STATEMENT IS A FACT. And, any other media excluding or including Kantipur have the full right to mention it.
I have great respect for Koirala as a journalist but it is very true that both Koirala and Sharma did hold high positions in the government media during the Panchayat era. What's wrong in it? And further more, what's wrong in Kantipur mentioning it? Or any other media mentioning it?
Well, lemme cite one example: We all know that G P Koirala held PMship for most number of years. Or that King Gyanendra is the present King of Nepal. Once again THESE ARE FACTS. Do you think I am ridiculing them when I mention these "facts" in public?
|
| noname |
Posted
on 20-Jan-03 06:45 AM
Dear rat-a-tat
I observed that statement in that news piece out of context and an attempt to sideline the key issue. There is no question that THE STATEMENT IS A FACT. But facts in some context can be ridiculing and can be presented just to demoralize the person in question. LANGADO MANIS LAI 'LANGADO' BHANDA USLAI 'RIDICULE' GAREKO HUNDAINA RA? Please read following two coverage of the same person by KP:
http://www.nepalnews.com.np/contents/englishdaily/ktmpost/2002/jul/jul30/index.htm#3
http://www.nepalnews.com.np/contents/englishdaily/ktmpost/2002/sep/sep15/features1.htm
(Not to go through the ordeal of reading old articles just to make counter-arguments, I searched for a letters 'Pan' in those articles to no avail…! That 'Panchayat' issue emerges only when the committee suggests something against them.)
Not to drag this issue any further leading to a non-ending argument, I rest my case with following story from PAURANIK KAL:
YUDHISTHIR and BHIM were continuously arguing about one question: Whether the majority of the human being is 'good' or 'bad'? YUDHISTHIR was of the view that majority of them are 'good' and BHIM had just the opposite view. To solve this issue they approached KRISHNA and he asked YUDHISTHIR to traverse the world from one direction and fetch one 'bad' person to him. He asked BHIM to look for one 'good' person but starting from opposite direction. They both returned empty-handed.
KRISHNA pointed that individual interpretation of the same thing might be different.
|
