It is high time the government became responsible in addressing the constitutionally guaranteed right of freedom of expression. The Maoist claims are false
KATHMANDU, APRIL 2
A few days back, I stumbled upon a talk show on the YouTube channel of a national television. The two-member panel included a middle-level leader of the ruling Maoist party and a staunch royalist. The content of the show was mostly stale as the participant duo were trying to prove their points in favour of their political ideologies. Throughout the whole show, the only point that raised my interest was the claim on freedom of expression in Nepal.
The Maoist leader was animatedly boasting that the prevalent freedom of expression in Nepal was possible only due to the decade-long Maoist movement.
Ironically, immediately after the show, the news bulletin on the same channel reported on the police officers' scuffle to arrest the protestors at a programme attended by the Prime Minister in New Baneshwor. Within a few seconds, the footages of the scuffle where the police officers were forcibly gagging the protestors got circulated throughout the world.
These two mutually exclusive incidents made me retrospectively explore the statement of the Maoist leader. One of the 40-point demand that the United People's Front had put forward to then Prime Minister Deuba in 1996 also addressed the issue of freedom of expression. The demand conveyed that the right to expression and freedom of press and publication should be guaranteed, and the government mass media should be completely autonomous.
However, at that time, the reinstated multiparty democracy was crawling on track, and the constitution of 1990 was prevalent in the country. Article 12 of that constitution had clearly guaranteed the freedom of opinion and expression.
Hence, scores of private print and audio-visual media were established during that time, and one could openly criticise the wrongdoings of the government.
As governments sometimes tend to be authoritative, there were, however, some examples of the government suppressing the voices of the people, but the freedom of expression was largely in practice during that time. Hence, the petition of the UPF seemed only a publicity stunt to justify the Maoist agitation.
The Maoist insurgency displayed a gory example of restriction of expression in the country. Many people lost either their lives or were brutally incapacitated only for speaking against the unlawful deeds of the movement. The internal circular of the party to keep mum against the leadership was omnipresent in the media. There were events where even the high-level leaders were assassinated or kept in captivity for criticising the deeds of the supreme leader and their headquarters.
The supreme leader was idolized, and his statements were publicized as driving principles of the Maoist movement.
These examples clearly reveal that the ideology of the Maoist party was to introduce a controlled freedom of expression, and had they triumphed, the model of freedom of expression in Nepal would have been totally different. The glimpses of that model were recently seen in Baneshwor. That incident has catered a bad impression in the global arena.
The right to freedom of opinion and expression was established under Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), under the same broad terms as Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It declares that everyone has the right to hold their own opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information of all kinds through any media and regardless of frontiers. Moreover, the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) conveys that freedom of opinion and freedom of expression are indispensable conditions for the full development of a person, and they constitute the foundation stone for every free and democratic society. Sticking to these guidelines, all the democratic and welfare nations have constitutionally guaranteed the right to freedom of opinion and expression.
Right to freedom of expression is not only to be verbally boasted or jotted down in the constitution but is the fundamental right of the citizens. People should be unconditionally allowed to express their views. Moreover, in a civilised society, one should be allowed to speak up, and if the concerns of the individual are justifiable, they should be aptly addressed.
Not allowing the people to speak against the Prime Minister and other executive heads reflects the autocratic nature of a nation.
This is against the essence of the ICCPR and UNHRC covenants.
It is high time the government became responsible in addressing the constitutionally guaranteed right of freedom of expression. The ruling coalition, and especially the Maoist fraction, should be sensitive on this issue. The leaders of the Maoist party are falsely claiming that the freedom of expression was guaranteed due to their movement.
Now, they should wholeheartedly embrace this achievement and respect the constitutional right of the people to freely express their opinions.
Else, the imperceptible slogans against the Prime Minister during the cricket match in Kirtipur or the protest against the head of government as it was witnessed in Baneshwor will unfortunately be regular sights in the country.
Freedom of expression is not a favour but a fundamental right of the citizens guaranteed by international conventions. Hence, it should be unconditionally implemented in Nepal. Recently, the Geneva-based Human Rights body had downgraded our National Human Rights Commission due to its incompetency in handling sophisticated human rights issues. If the right to freedom of expression is suppressed in Nepal, the reputation of human rights will plummet further, and the veneration of the people towards the current political leadership will diminish, thereby subverting the stature of constitutional democracy in Nepal.
Dr Joshi is senior scientist and neurobiologist at Martin-Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Germany
A version of this article appears in the print on April 3, 2023, of The Himalayan Times.
