Declaring Paras as heir to the throne of Nepal, King
Gyanendra has made big news when newsrooms in Nepal remain closed for Dashain
celebrations. A perfect gift any father would give his son, but a shrewd
instance of the control of information and public opinion in this case.
by Dharma Adhikari
For King Gyanendra, sooner is better than later. Five months
after the bloody massacre of the a royal family, the new King declared yesterday
his controversial son Paras the Crown Prince and the heir to the Throne of
the Himalayan Kingdom.
The King’s announcement comes at a time when the citizens of
Nepal are celebrating a week-long Dashain festival, a time when all newspapers
halt their publication. The King had earlier said that he would not rush to
announce heir to the throne but would do so at an appropriate time. For the
King, Danshain, a celebration of good over evil, seems to be that appropriate
time.
At least, during this time, citizens have little time for
political actions, if not issues. Paras is implicated in several hit and run
incidents over the years and the public may not be ready yet to forget the past
and discard frustration over the royal announcement. Public protests and
demonstrations are likely to follow once the greatest Nepali festival is over
by Oct end.
The calculated timing of the announcement has, however, done
little to effect the flow of news in the international media. Newspapers and
news portals have picked up wire service dispatches, with the new Crown
Prince’s portrait in official robes. The reports carry details about the gruesome
royal massacre as background, with little, if any, information about the
various facets of the Prince’s life. The narrow, one-dimensional take of Paras
is focused on his alleged criminal past, mostly involving hit and run
incidents.
In journalistic terms, what is missing is the complete
profile of the Prince, who is poised to become the King of Nepal some day.
Now that Paras has been declared the heir apparent, his
personal history may look for many as irrelevant or secondary. Moreover, given
the increasing consensus among the elite circles and power quarters, on the
need to preserve monarchy for the unity of an ethnically diverse nation, Paras’
past may soon be superseded by his symbolic stature. Aside from this, the
fleeting nature of Nepali public opinion, the revered status of Hindu monarchy,
the legitimacy of the tradition of patriarchic succession, strong allegiance to
constitutional monarchy from political parties of all shades and colors, except
for the ambivalent Maoists, and the external political developments are all in
favor of Prince Paras.
However bitter this might sound to anti-monarchists or
Maoists, there is also not much room left for the supporters of the royal
institution or the Narayan Hiti to rejoice at the moment.
It is not unnatural for any father to forgive his wayward
son, and to provide him a Dashain gift fit for a prince. The fact that King
Gyanendra declared his son as the future King is also not surprising; sooner or
later he would, any way. The issue is not much about yesterday, but about
tomorrow. The issue is what lies ahead, how the institution of monarchy will
improve upon the past, and how the Durbar, the political parties, civil
society, citizens, and above all the media will play their role for a common
cause.
The enhanced symbolic status of the Prince may further work
to project his past, grubby acts as childish, or rather adolescent
misdemeanors. But there is no guarantee that declaring him heir will make a
mature, disciplined, and responsible person of him. The issue is to advance
hope and eliminate gloom, remedy the blunders and plant rectitude. And Dashain,
coincidently or deliberately, is a perfect opportunity for such a resolve.
Secretive Palace, Morbid Democracy, & Idle Journalism
Within three months of assuming the throne, King Gyanendra
had given half a dozen media interviews, and appeared in several photo ops. A
rare move in Nepal’s monarchial tradition. Many analysts have touted his
managerial skills, and it seemed that his courtship of media was part of his
management style, though initially it might have appeared as an image building
effort. That, however, did not extend to other members of the family. The
public knows very little about the future King, but too much about a part of
Paras. Also, very little is known about the India-born Crown Princess Himani,
and princess Prerna.
Who is responsible for this? The palace for not releasing
their complete resumè? Making the news when the newsrooms are closed? The media
for not making the scoop? For not planting a deep-throat at the palace or
establishing a regular palace beat? The public for not demanding to know, early
on. Or for swinging where their whims take them? If the media, as watchdogs,
were responsible enough, the June tragedy would have hardly happened without a
clue. The whole controversy about the Kantipur op-ed, now seems comical to many
hardworking journalists not only because the government withdrew the case, but
also because the armchair opinion article by Babu Ram worked as if it were some
hard-won investigative enterprise from the newspaper’s own staff.
Feeding emotions, not reasoned details has added morbidity
to the already ailing democracy. The Maoists have received more nuanced
coverage for some time now than many other important, regular headlines. Other
problems such as the Bhutanese Refugees, the never subsiding Nepal-India
tensions, or water issues have been followed up regularly, and sometimes
thoroughly. The structural dynamics of and interactions between political and
democratic institutions have been gravely neglected.
The media, one of those democratic institutions, have not
been able to mediate things in a balance. Just complaining about people’s right
to know and feeding on officialese does not fulfill their watchdog role. The
late King Birendra might have appeared reclusive since the restoration of
democracy in 1990, but that does not prove that he desired to withdraw from the
public view, or was determined to keep journalists at bay, rather it shows how
little the media cared to approach the palace for coverage. News does not walk
up to journalists to beg to be covered.
Similarly, the media saw no reason to regularly provide
updates and follow-ups on Crown Prince Dipendra. And when things happened the
way they did, the media, no less than the public, found itself in disbelief. A
democratic media, and not a lazy one at that, would have managed to provide a
clue a week ago on the possible royal announcement of the future King of Nepal.
If the palace is to be reformed as much as it is to be made
secure, it must, of course, devise a mechanism for smooth and unhindered flow
of information, such as by instituting a professional spokesperson for the
palace. Democracy or constitutional monarchy cannot function well if
transparency is dishonored. Pathetic it may sound, even the correspondents of
the reputed international wire services, some of them based in Kathmandu and
emulated by the local press, have not been able to deliver much. There is very
little in their reports that indicate the strength of their palace contacts.
One plain example: How old is Paras? Reuters reports he is
29, AP writes he is 30 and Kyodo says he is 28. Blame the wire correspondents
in the capital? Or the government’s information department, or the palace
secretariat? Who forced them to report
things before they could make sure they were reporting accurately. What is also
missing, in these reports is the new Crown Prince’s personal, educational,
marital, and professional background.
If the giant media houses cared, because they have better
resources, they would interview or report about not only King Gyanendra but
also Paras and Himani and Prerna. The lesson from the June massacre: The whole royal family should be in public
scrutiny, under constant media vigilance.
Citation: "The Palace and the Media: The Royal Dashain Gift," newslookmag.com,
Oct 26, 2001.
