When people from Nepali origin were burnt alive in Mizoram, a North Eastern state of India, the Nepal government didn’t speak a single word against such a heinous crime. Many Nepalis are being murdered and looted by Indian criminal gangs, but there is no reaction from our government side.
Contradictory to that, in a simple report that appeared in a Nepali media that Real juice, a product of Dabur Nepal, an Indian joint-venture, was found not maintaining the prescribed standard and quality, the Indian Embassy issued a press release defending the Indian joint-venture industry.
The media had reported that an insect was found in the Real juice. In reaction to that, the Embassy issued a press release defending the Indian joint-venture company.
The Embassy press release read:
“The attention of the Embassy has been drawn to reports in certain print and television media against products manufactured by Indian Joint Ventures in Nepal. Past allegations of this nature have been found to be false after thorough investigation by Nepal Government agencies.
The Indian JVs have informed the Embassy that they have been approached by such media houses for release of advertisements and are being threatened with negative publicity if those requests are not met.
These Indian Joint Ventures make a substantial contribution to the Nepalese economy, employment, revenue to the Government and exports from Nepal. They maintain the highest standards of quality, which is proved by the fact that exports of their products are accepted across the globe. These companies are the pride of Nepal and a symbol of close relations between India and Nepal. The baseless adverse publicity against the products of such joint ventures will not only hit the Nepalese economy and exports but will also deter new foreign direct investments into Nepal.
We hope that concerned authorities will take suitable action against such unethical practices.”
Against such a press release issued by the Embassy, four media organizations – Nepal Media Society, Television Broadcasters Nepal, Broadcasting Association of Nepal, Community Radio Broadcasting Association, Nepal – have strongly reacted and denounced the press release stating that this has intervened the sovereign rights of the Nepali media.
Kailash Sirohiya, chairman, Nepal Media Society; R K Manandhar, chairman, Television Broadcasters Nepal; Bishnuhari Dhakal, chairman, Broadcasting Association of Nepal and Min Bahadur Shahi, chairman, Community Radio Broadcasting Association, Nepal have issued a joint statement condemning such a direct Indian intervention on the Nepali media.
They have questioned on the quality of the products manufactured by some Indian joint-ventures in Nepal. They have cautioned the Indian Embassy not to “overstep its boundary”.
They have also reminded the Embassy that the Nepali media operates under the laws of sovereign Nepal.
“The Nepali media is free to choose their content and have fully utilised this right. We caution the embassy to respect diplomatic norms and values of press freedom,” the statement read. The statement accused the embassy of libel. “To make sweeping comments on the Nepali media on the basis of news published about food products with corroboration from the investigation of Nepali government agencies is objectionable,” the statement said.
“On behalf of all the media outlets in Nepal, we deplore this objectionable interference of the embassy.” The joint statement has also cautioned the embassy from repeating similar “mistakes” and asked the embassy to issue an apology. The media organisations have also called on the government to issue a rebuttal immediately.
In the statement, the Indian Embassy had accused the Nepali media of engaging in “unethical practices.” The embassy claimed that media houses approached the Indian joint ventures for advertisement and resorted to negative publicity when their demands were not met.
Different media and human rights organizations, including Federation of Nepalis Journalists Kathmandu, Lalitpur and Bhaktapur Branches, UCPN-M and its media organization, Revolutionary Journalists Association, have condemned the Indian embassy statement and have expressed solidarity against such an intervention on the Nepali media.
Furthermore, the CA committee on Human Rights has asked the Foreign Ministry to seek clarification from the Indian Ambassador on the issue.
People’s Review’s case:
It is not surprising that the People’s Review weekly doesn’t receive advertisements from those Indian joint-ventures. That apart, the Indian Embassy officials directly order the businessmen/advertisers under the Indian Embassy influence to not provide advertisements to the People’s Review. According to Rajendra Aryal of the Trikon Advertisers, he was instructed to not give advertisement of the Salt Trading to the People’s Review.
Once, when one column news appeared in People’s Review about the shoplifting case at Bhatbhateni Super Market by the spouse of the then Indian ambassador Shiva Shankar Mukharjee, now the Indian high commissioner in the UK, the Indian Embassy had written a letter to the Foreign Ministry calling for the immediate closure of the Weekly (we had published the full text of the Indian Embassy letter to the Foreign Ministry at that time), which is impossible according to the existing laws. During that time, the then prime minister had instructed the Press Council to give maximum punishment to the People’s Review against the publication of such a report.
Advertisement scenario:
As Indians dominate 95 percent of her products in Nepali market, obviously, there is strong Indian domination in advertisements. Those Indian advertisements are directly controlled by the Indian Embassy. Previously the Kantipur group was enjoying Indian advertisements, however, since the media giant raised its voice against the MRP deal with India, the Indian advertisements were removed from the Publications.
Although getting advertisements is the right of the media, that doesn’t apply in Nepal. To recall, in India, each industry must invest certain amount of their revenue on advertisements or market promotion. This condition is bound by the local laws of India. Although Nepal is a huge consumer of those Indian products, those Indian companies are less interested in providing advertisements in Nepal. Considering such an ill intention of the Indians, Nepalis have to rethink in consuming Indian products.
(The writer can be reached at: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it )
Contradictory to that, in a simple report that appeared in a Nepali media that Real juice, a product of Dabur Nepal, an Indian joint-venture, was found not maintaining the prescribed standard and quality, the Indian Embassy issued a press release defending the Indian joint-venture industry.
The media had reported that an insect was found in the Real juice. In reaction to that, the Embassy issued a press release defending the Indian joint-venture company.
The Embassy press release read:
“The attention of the Embassy has been drawn to reports in certain print and television media against products manufactured by Indian Joint Ventures in Nepal. Past allegations of this nature have been found to be false after thorough investigation by Nepal Government agencies.
The Indian JVs have informed the Embassy that they have been approached by such media houses for release of advertisements and are being threatened with negative publicity if those requests are not met.
These Indian Joint Ventures make a substantial contribution to the Nepalese economy, employment, revenue to the Government and exports from Nepal. They maintain the highest standards of quality, which is proved by the fact that exports of their products are accepted across the globe. These companies are the pride of Nepal and a symbol of close relations between India and Nepal. The baseless adverse publicity against the products of such joint ventures will not only hit the Nepalese economy and exports but will also deter new foreign direct investments into Nepal.
We hope that concerned authorities will take suitable action against such unethical practices.”
Against such a press release issued by the Embassy, four media organizations – Nepal Media Society, Television Broadcasters Nepal, Broadcasting Association of Nepal, Community Radio Broadcasting Association, Nepal – have strongly reacted and denounced the press release stating that this has intervened the sovereign rights of the Nepali media.
Kailash Sirohiya, chairman, Nepal Media Society; R K Manandhar, chairman, Television Broadcasters Nepal; Bishnuhari Dhakal, chairman, Broadcasting Association of Nepal and Min Bahadur Shahi, chairman, Community Radio Broadcasting Association, Nepal have issued a joint statement condemning such a direct Indian intervention on the Nepali media.
They have questioned on the quality of the products manufactured by some Indian joint-ventures in Nepal. They have cautioned the Indian Embassy not to “overstep its boundary”.
They have also reminded the Embassy that the Nepali media operates under the laws of sovereign Nepal.
“The Nepali media is free to choose their content and have fully utilised this right. We caution the embassy to respect diplomatic norms and values of press freedom,” the statement read. The statement accused the embassy of libel. “To make sweeping comments on the Nepali media on the basis of news published about food products with corroboration from the investigation of Nepali government agencies is objectionable,” the statement said.
“On behalf of all the media outlets in Nepal, we deplore this objectionable interference of the embassy.” The joint statement has also cautioned the embassy from repeating similar “mistakes” and asked the embassy to issue an apology. The media organisations have also called on the government to issue a rebuttal immediately.
In the statement, the Indian Embassy had accused the Nepali media of engaging in “unethical practices.” The embassy claimed that media houses approached the Indian joint ventures for advertisement and resorted to negative publicity when their demands were not met.
Different media and human rights organizations, including Federation of Nepalis Journalists Kathmandu, Lalitpur and Bhaktapur Branches, UCPN-M and its media organization, Revolutionary Journalists Association, have condemned the Indian embassy statement and have expressed solidarity against such an intervention on the Nepali media.
Furthermore, the CA committee on Human Rights has asked the Foreign Ministry to seek clarification from the Indian Ambassador on the issue.
People’s Review’s case:
It is not surprising that the People’s Review weekly doesn’t receive advertisements from those Indian joint-ventures. That apart, the Indian Embassy officials directly order the businessmen/advertisers under the Indian Embassy influence to not provide advertisements to the People’s Review. According to Rajendra Aryal of the Trikon Advertisers, he was instructed to not give advertisement of the Salt Trading to the People’s Review.
Once, when one column news appeared in People’s Review about the shoplifting case at Bhatbhateni Super Market by the spouse of the then Indian ambassador Shiva Shankar Mukharjee, now the Indian high commissioner in the UK, the Indian Embassy had written a letter to the Foreign Ministry calling for the immediate closure of the Weekly (we had published the full text of the Indian Embassy letter to the Foreign Ministry at that time), which is impossible according to the existing laws. During that time, the then prime minister had instructed the Press Council to give maximum punishment to the People’s Review against the publication of such a report.
Advertisement scenario:
As Indians dominate 95 percent of her products in Nepali market, obviously, there is strong Indian domination in advertisements. Those Indian advertisements are directly controlled by the Indian Embassy. Previously the Kantipur group was enjoying Indian advertisements, however, since the media giant raised its voice against the MRP deal with India, the Indian advertisements were removed from the Publications.
Although getting advertisements is the right of the media, that doesn’t apply in Nepal. To recall, in India, each industry must invest certain amount of their revenue on advertisements or market promotion. This condition is bound by the local laws of India. Although Nepal is a huge consumer of those Indian products, those Indian companies are less interested in providing advertisements in Nepal. Considering such an ill intention of the Indians, Nepalis have to rethink in consuming Indian products.
(The writer can be reached at: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it )
