The dispute between workers and management at the Kantipur Publications Pvt. Ltd. (KPPL) has taken a nasty turn, culminating in the damage to the printing press caused by the workers of the trade union (All Nepal Trade Union Federation) affiliated to the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist). The unionists have hindered the publication of Kantipur and The Kathmandu Post dailies for three days. The dispute has been hanging fire for quite some time. The union had created similar disturbances at other media houses in the recent past, including THT and

Annapurna Post. At Kamana Prakashan, it had put forward its demands and the management suspended publication of Nepal Samacharpatra for four days. Even if other conditions became favourable, the readers would not see the capital edition of the Post and Kantipur for a few more days. But, even the publication or distribution of the Biratnagar and Narayangarh editions of the two dailies was disrupted yesterday. According to Kantipur Television, the unionists stopped publication at Narayangarh, whereas at Biratnagar, they seized and burned the copies of the newspapers.

However, according to the unionists, they damaged the printing press after the management, reacting to the union’s disruption the day before, fired nine workers, including a union leader, and had some of them arrested. Questions can no doubt be raised about the dismissal, but the union’s response was disproportionate and wrong and, therefore, condemnable. Indeed, the act has come under fire from various quarters. A statement issued by KPPL chairman Hemraj Gyawali on Monday also said the unionists had threatened physical action. Intimidation is again wrong and is certainly not in the spirit of the rule of law. The disruption and violence goes against the Patan Appellate Court’s September 28 stay order directing the union to allow the smooth printing and distribution of the newspapers and not to cause any disturbances in the company’s premises.

While Dr Baburam Bhattarai, a senior Maoist leader, has described the dispute as one between workers and management, many others perceive the union action as being mainly politically motivated. Therefore, the CPN-Maoist itself would have to do more to remove this negative impression. But whether or to what extent this allegation stands can only be known fully when a sincere and serious dialogue takes place in a flexible and problem-solving mood, or when the dispute is arbitrated. There is also the question of how to find a balance between the people’s right to know and the workers’ right to strike. The unionists should also understand that damaging the company’s property is like burning their own boats. Speaking generally, neither management nor workers should make their dispute one of prestige; it should not be turned into a question of surrender or victory, but of mutual accommodation. This approach is necessary to ensure long-term industrial peace, all the more so in Nepal’s present situation. In Kantipur’s case, a solution should be found without disrupting publication.