Increasing concern is being expressed over the state of press freedom in the country in two ways. One is the censorship on the mass media imposed under the emergency orders and the other is the homework the government is reportedly doing to amend the press laws. Despite commitments to multiparty democracy, constitutional monarchy and media freedom made by government leaders, there is a feeling among legal experts, journalists, human rights activists and others that the government’s approach and actions do not go well with these pledges. Former Supreme Court justice Laxman Prasad Aryal, speaking at a function in the capital on Sunday, alleged that the state of emergency was aimed more at ‘curbing the freedom of expression’ than ‘controlling terrorism.’ Aryal, one of the drafters of the 1990 Constitution, stated that the right to information had been incorporated in the Constitution as a fundamental right to ensure that no other laws could reduce the free flow of information.

During the emergency, naturally, there are certain restrictions on civil liberties. The emergency orders have specified suspended and non-suspended fundamental rights. But unfortunately, the citizens’ non-suspended rights too have come under a cloud. Besides, at a time when a large section of the public and international donors are raising doubts about the rationale for the emergency, suspension of fundamental rights, restrictions on the activities of the political parties, and detention of people, the reported preparations for legal amendments are unlikely to help the government’s image much. Under the present circumstances, the government’s steps would be misread irrespective of its intentions.

In view of the fact that international pressure is building up for the restoration of the democratic freedoms and aid cut has started, the government should not take any hasty actions that may risk international goodwill, so crucial to Nepal. Cabinet members have said that the country’s diplomatic machinery has failed to convince the international community that the February 1 step was aimed against ‘terrrorism,’ not against ‘demoracy.’ While the government realises the importance of international support, few at home and abroad seem to believe that any amendment that may be made in the present situation will broaden and strengthen the existing freedoms, including press freedom. A clarification on the issue would therefore be well-advised. Donor countries and most of the domestic audience are yet to agree with the view that curbs on media freedom are necessary to fight the Maoists. The Cabinet should also consider whether these curbs will alienate those whose help is vital for achieving its stated goals.