It’s May 3, 2024, and you’re reading Off the Record.
I’m Pranaya Rana and in this newsletter, we’ll stop, take a deep breath, and dive into one singular issue that defined the past week.
You can read Off the Record for free by visiting this link and subscribing to receive this newsletter in your inbox every Friday.ᅠAll posts are free but you can pledge a subscription if you like my work. Those in Nepal can use the QR code below:
Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening from Kathmandu. It’s been an interesting week and so, we have lots to talk about. But first, a big shout out to constant reader Jesselina Rana who shared this newsletter with her social circle and brought me over a dozen new subscribers. Thank you, Jesselina. I hope others will follow her excellent example. Just a simple share with your social and professional circles will help me a lot!
Now, on to more important matters.
Investment Summit concludes
The third Investment Summit concluded on Monday with all of Nepal’s major political parties pretty much begging the international community to invest in Nepal. There was much rhetoric flying around about how the investment climate would be made better, laws would be amended, bureaucratic red tape cut down, etc etc. But international investors aren’t going to be swayed by speeches from politicians. This isn’t an election; the parties are asking investors to put millions of dollars into Nepali infrastructure projects without any guarantee of efficient returns. Finance Minister Barsa Man Pun went even further with his self-congratulatory rhetoric, calling the summit a “resounding success”.
So what exactly did Nepal achieve with the Investment Summit? Over a dozen Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs) were reportedly signed, but none to explicitly bring in any investment. The Department of Industry inaugurated an online application for foreign investments, which reportedly brought in investments of Rs 9.13 billion for four different projects. Like the previous two Investment Summits, this one too appears to have brought in more promises than cash. The fact of the matter is that as long as Nepal’s political landscape is as unstable as it is now, as long as corruption reigns in the bureaucracy, as long as labyrinthine laws and outdated policies dictate where investment should go, little will be achieved with summits like these.
Internet goes kaput on National Information Technology Day
Throughout the week, anyone who made a telephone call was assaulted with an annoying jingle that proclaimed that we mark and celebrate National Information Technology Day, which fell on Thursday, May 2. Ironically, that very evening, internet services went down all across the country as a result of Indian telecom provider Airtel halting upstream services to Nepal due to non-payment of dues. How the internet works in Nepal is that Nepali Internet Service Providers (ISPs) purchase bandwidth from Indian ISPs and then provide that bandwidth to Nepali users. However, Nepali ISPs have been unable to pay Indian ISPs due to the government not allowing them access to foreign currency to pay the Indians. Nepali ISPs reportedly owe more than USD 30 million.
The government argues that Nepali ISPs owe them taxes on non-telecom components like cloud services and web hosting and royalties for using government-owned infrastructure. A few years ago, the parliamentary Public Accounts Committee decided that ISPs do not need to pay these taxes. However, the Office of the Auditor General rejected this and directed the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology to recover what was owed. The ISPs refused to pay saying they were already exempted once and that paying royalties on top of taxes amounts to double taxation. Amidst this back-and-forth between the private sector and the government, Indian ISPs have consistently threatened to cut off bandwidth as they haven’t been paid for over a year. In order to prevent service disruption, they had even asked Nepali ISPs to provide a bank guarantee but the Ministry of Communication refused even to allow bank guarantees as long as due taxes were not paid.
Thus, the disruption to internet services on Thursday evening. After five hours, the government reportedly promised the Indian ISPs that the dispute would be resolved, restarting internet services. This was just a warning by the Indian companies. If the government and the private sector does not iron out its differences then similar disruptions are going to happen again, and for much longer. The Nepali public is not going to take such disruptions lightly. Pretty much everything — entertainment, work, business, communication — takes place over the internet and any disturbance affects all walks of life.
It’s ironic that the disruptions happened on National Information Technology Day but also that it happened on the heels of the Investment Summit. If Nepal cannot even guarantee reliable internet, which has pretty much become an essential service, how can it attract any foreign investment? Like I said above, rhetoric is cheap in Nepal; politicians and government officials will promise anything. As the old adage goes, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
By-elections in Ilam and Bajhang
By-elections, which are special elections held to fill in seats vacated between general elections, were held in Ilam Constituency 2 and Bajhang Provincial Constituency A on Sunday, April 28. The death of CPN-UML stalwart and Chairman of the two Constituent Assemblies Subhas Nembang in September last year left Ilam’-2s federal parliamentary seat vacant while Sudurpaschim Provincial Assembly member and its Minister of Home Affairs and Law Prithvi Bahadur Singh died in a road accident in June last year. Their children contested both empty seats — in Ilam, Suhang Nembang, the son of Subhas Nembang, ran on a UML ticket while in Bajhang, Abhishek Singh, son of Prithvi Bahadur Singh, ran on a Nepali Congress ticket. Well, it turns out dynasties matter in certain places but not so much in others. Suhang won the Ilam seat handily while Abhishek Singh lost to Daman Bahadur Bhandari of the UML.
Attention had largely been on Ilam since it was a federal seat and thus more consequential than Sudurpaschim’s Provincial Assembly seat. Koshi Province, where Ilam is located, has also been a hotbed of identity-based protests over it’s name. Protestors have argued that the name should reflect the identity of the province’s ethnic majority population, primarily Kirats. Two members of the protest movement — Milan Limbu and Dekendra Singh Limbu — also contested the election, the former as a Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) candidate and the latter as an independent. There was also a candidate from the more radical Mongol National Organization which advocates for a ‘mongolian’ racial identity as opposed to ethnicity, even though Koshi Province’s various Kirat ethnic groups — Rai, Limbu, Yakkha, Dhimal, Sunuwar, Thami, Jirel — are not believed to be descended from Mongolians.
Ilam had also been a battleground for conservatives with the Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP) mounting a large campaign. The RPP, which advocates bringing back the Hindu monarchy and a Hindu state, is currently led by Rajendra Lingden, who is from Jhapa, also in Koshi Province.
But voters rejected all forms of identity and religion-based politics. Dekendra Limbu came in third with 11,457 votes, Milan Limbu came in fourth with 5,050 votes, and Mani Bahadur Limbu of the Mongol National Organization received just 816 votes. Laxmi Gurung of the RPP did even worse, with just 404 votes. Voters rejected identity and voted along traditional party lines, elevating Suhang Nembang to the federal parliament while the Congress’ Dambar Bahadur Khadka came in second. Suhang’s win was pretty much a foregone conclusion given how popular his father was in Ilam. Subhas Nembang had never lost an election in his constituency.
This by-election might not have any major effects on the political equation at the federal or provincial level but it allows parties a chance to gauge public sentiment. The UML and the Nepali Congress appear as strong as ever with the Maoists still lagging. But it is the newly resurgent RPP and the anti-incumbent RSP that both need to reorient themselves. Both parties had hoped for a win or at least a significant number of votes but both were roundly rejected. The RSP, which has plans to trounce the traditional parties in the next elections, needs to do some soul-searching and change tracks if it doesn’t want its previous wins to be a fluke. Perhaps party chair Rabi Lamichhane’s numerous controversies are finally sowing doubt among the electorate.
Chaudhary Group fined, Managing Director cries foul
On Friday, April 26, officials from Kathmandu Metropolitan City’s Market Monitoring Committee slapped Chaudhary Group with a Rs 200,000 fine after finding packets of its popular Wai Wai instant noodles to be substandard. The acid value of a sample of instant noodle packs was reportedly 13.934 mg when it should have been around 1mg. Officials say that the oil used to precook the noodles was likely reused, leading to the high acid value. The tested batch of noodles was also recalled from the market.
Now, Rs 200,000 is spare change for Chaudhary Group, owned and operated by billionaire Binod Chaudhary but Nirvana Chaudhary, son of Binod and managing director of Chaudhary Group Nepal, took umbrage even at this pittance of a fine. He went on a Twitter rant, posting about how Wai Wai was being targeted with propaganda efforts after the company decided to go into an IPO. Chaudhary junior is known for having very thin skin, despite being the son of a billionaire. If he is so confident in his Wai Wai, he could’ve countered KMC’s allegations with laboratory tests of his own showing the actual acid value. But no, he decided that he would fight imaginary propaganda instead.
Back in 2018, Chaudhary Foundation, the philanthropic arm of Chaudhary Group, received a substantial grant of USD 788,192 from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation for Baliyo Nepal, a project aimed at fighting malnutrition in Nepal. The project ran into controversy after it came to light that Baliyo Nepal would be ‘fortifying’ Chaudhary Group’s own products, including noodles, juices, and snack foods. Nutritionist Dr Aruna Uprety resigned as an advisor to Baliyo Nepal after learning this. In 2022, Chaudhary Foundation received another USD 798,011 to “accelerate women's economic empowerment and assess and strengthen maternal health system in Nepal.” It’s billionaires giving money to other billionaires. So it goes.
A correction on elephants to Qatar
Last week, I wrote about how Nepal was giving two elephants to Qatar as a gift and how it was the first time that Nepal was providing elephants when in the past it had only provided rhinos. I was wrong, as my sharp-eyed reader General Sam Cowan kindly corrected me. Elephants were part of Nepal’s first complimentary quinquennial mission to the Ch’ing Emperor Ch’ien Lung in 1789, according to Dr Vijay Kumar Manandhar’s book, Cultural and Political Aspects of Nepal-China Relations. However, the elephants had to return to Nepal from Kuti due to logistical difficulties. Elephants were then included in the subsequent tribute mission to China in 1792. Raunab Singh Khatri and Aneka Rajbhandari also illustrate how the two elephants were received in Lhasa in their excellent article, When elephants from Nepal went to China.
Apologies for the oversight and thank you to General Sam for the correction. Let me take this opportunity to replug General Sam’s excellent book of essays, Maharajas, Emperors, Viceroys, Borders: Nepal's relations north and south, which is available in all physical and online bookstores in Nepal and on Amazon worldwide. I hear copies are fast running out so go grab one while they last.
If you see errors, typos, or any other kinds of mistakes, please do not hesitate to reach out to me. I am only human.
That’s all for the week’s wrap-up. Now, on to the deep dive!
The deep dive: The Sidha Kura saga, explained
Last Friday, April 26, a video titled ‘The Dark File Part 1’ was uploaded to a channel belonging to the digital media outlet Sidha Kura. The video, hosted by Sidha Kura publisher Yuvraj Kandel, was a supposed ‘expose’ of a high-profile meeting among sitting Supreme Court Justice Ananda Mohan Bhattarai, lawyers Kishor Bista and Hari Upreti, journalist Surendra Kafle, Annapurna Media Network chairman Rameshwor Thapa, Kantipur Media Group chairman Kailash Sirohiya, and an informant from the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA), who allegedly audiotaped the entire meeting. Numerous voices reportedly belonging to the attendees are heard on the recording discussing large amounts of money to get the Supreme Court to dismiss hundreds of corruption cases. The video presents the alleged audio alongside emphatic commentary from host Kandel.
The reaction from those implicated in the audio recording was immediate. Justice Ananda Mohan Bhattarai issued a statement proclaiming his innocence and calling his 43 years in the legal field an “open book”. Sirohiya and Thapa, as members of the media, both sought redress from the Press Council, which oversees the media in Nepal. Both called the audio ‘fake news’ and argued that the material had been deliberately disseminated to assassinate their character. Professional bodies, including the Nepal Bar Association, Nepal Media Society, and Judges’ Society Nepal, all condemned the ‘news’ and called on the concerned authorities to take action. The Press Council, later the same day, duly directed Sidha Kura to take down the offending material, calling it a violation of the journalistic code of conduct.
Sidha Kura, however, did not comply. On Saturday, it released another episode in ‘The Dark File’ series and issued an editorial arguing that it would not be complying with the Press Council’s orders citing freedom of the press. On Sunday, the Supreme Court lodged a suo moto contempt of court case arguing that the ‘news’ had made baseless accusations against a sitting Supreme Court justice and thus attacked the judiciary’s integrity. A suo moto (Latin for ‘on its own motion’) petition is one that the court initiates on its own without the need for a petitioner.
The next day, on Monday, the Supreme Court held a hearing and concluded that there was enough cause for the suo moto petition to be heard and ordered the editor and publisher of Sidha Kura to present their arguments on Thursday as to why they should not be booked for contempt of court. It ordered that Sidha Kura take down all published material relating to the case and not produce any more related content until a final verdict was issued, and directed the Nepal Police to investigate the audio recording and proceed with criminal charges, if any. Perhaps knowing which way the wind was blowing Sidha Kura took down all related material from its website and YouTube channel just hours before the Supreme Court decision. I will not be linking to the video for reasons which should become clear as we proceed.
Are you still with me?
The context behind all of this is important, as are its implications. Allow me to elaborate.
Sidha Kura was once the pet project of Rabi Lamichhane, the current Home Minister and chairman of the Rastriya Swatantra Party. Before turning politician, Lamichhane was a ‘journalist’ who hosted a very popular television show called Sidha Kura Janata Sanga (Straight Talk with the People). He conducted ‘sting’ operations where he ambushed low-level government employees and bureaucrats in the act of taking bribes and berated them on camera. The show initially ran on the television network News24 before moving to Galaxy 4K, the company established by one GB Rai with Lamichhane as managing director. If you’ve been following the news, you know that Rai is currently on the run, accused of defrauding numerous banking cooperatives of millions of rupees to prop up Galaxy 4K. Lamichhane himself has been implicated in the embezzlement, primarily accused by Kantipur daily through a series of front-page reports. Once Lamichhane left television to join politics, a different host took over Sidha Kura and eventually, it branched out into its own media portal.
Kantipur and Lamichhane have been at loggerheads for a while now. It all began with Kantipur running with multiple stories on Lamichhane’s controversial citizenship certificate, which led to him being stripped by the Supreme Court of his Home Minister post. Lamichhane then went on a rant against the media, especially singling out Kantipur, its chairman Sirohiya, and his son managing director Sambhav Sirohiya. Lamichhane eventually returned as Home Minister in the current administration but Kantipur seems to have taken his digs at its executive leadership very personally. The paper has dragged Lamichhane into his former boss GB Rai’s cooperative scam and has run nearly a dozen front-page articles about his culpability.
Now let’s talk about the audio itself. In the audio, you can hear someone introduce everyone present. The speaker takes pains to identify everyone by full name, including their affiliated organizations, already suspicious. Kailash Sirohiya and Rameshwor Thapa are mentioned by name but they do not speak a single word, not even returning the namaste offered to them. Furthermore, there is a lot of background noise in the audio, including that of children playing. The audio is purported to have been recorded on the seventh floor of Annapurna Media Network’s offices in Tinkune. Why would children be playing on the seventh floor of a media house’s offices and if the argument is that children were playing outside, how can they be captured on audio seven floors up? The audio itself is suspect and will most likely turn out to have been faked.
The current debate in the media, however, is not about whether the audio is doctored; it is about whether the Supreme Court should’ve ordered that the accusatory material be taken down. Those who support the Court’s decision argue that the content was clearly meant to mislead the public as there are numerous issues with the audio that any rigorous journalist or media house would’ve addressed before going public. Sidha Kura has ignored basic journalistic rigor, not even affording those accused a right of reply. Since accusations have been made against a sitting member of the highest court in the land, such accusations must be unimpeachable as any misinformation can lead to an erosion of public trust in the judiciary. After all, it is often not enough for justice to be done; it must also be seen to have been done.
Those who disagree with the Court, on the other hand, argue that the judiciary should not have ordered a media house to take down any material without a conclusive report from an investigating agency. Furthermore, they are concerned about the court preventing Sidha Kura from publishing any related follow-ups. Such prohibitive orders, given without first hearing arguments from Sidha Kura’s representatives, could set a precedent that impacts freedom of the press. In the future, any allegations against powerful public figures, even if true and subject to the most rigorous journalistic standards, could be summarily taken down by judicial fiat.
This debate is important. With the rise of AI and deep fakes, the media landscape of the near future will likely be littered with similar cases. It is now exceedingly easy to use AI to fake audio and video. Anyone can be made to say anything and the resulting audio-video can often be eerily convincing. These kinds of content spread so rapidly through social media and messaging apps like WhatsApp that fact-checkers are unable to keep up. By the time the offending material has been debunked, it will have reached thousands of people who might not even see the fact-check. Confronted with the potential for such widespread damage, it is natural for the court to err on the side of caution. But then again, such summary orders could potentially be misused. Legitimate investigations into corruption or abuse of authority could be suppressed through the cynical use of the judiciary.
There is a fine line here that the judiciary needs to tread. There are thousands of digital media outlets in Nepal and most of them are blatantly partisan in favor of some political party, business interest, or foreign country. These outlets can and will use freedom of the press as a shield to propagate disinformation. Freedom of the press or free speech is never absolute, contrary to what libertarians might have you believe. Freedom of the press does not excuse sloppy journalism. But there are also examples from the world over — and Nepal itself — where the judiciary has been weaponized to suppress valid criticism and exposure of wrongdoing. The Supreme Court should take pains to prevent itself from being utilized by unscrupulous actors with the wherewithal to fight long cases in court which fledging media houses cannot do.
It is a critical juncture that we are at here. Misinformation and fake news are rising and innovative ways to combat these threats need to be found. Fact-checking alone will not prevent the spread of these kinds of material and neither will judicial or legal action. The media industry itself must be incentivized — by donors, aid agencies, and the government — to perform its role as the fourth pillar of society accurately and reliably. We cannot afford to sacrifice one personal freedom (the right to judicial redress) for another (freedom of the press).
That’s all for this week. I will be back next Friday, in your emails, for the next edition of Off the Record.
If you enjoyed today’s newsletter, please consider sharing it with others who might enjoy weekly updates from Nepal or consider becoming a paid subscriber.
Thanks for reading Off the Record! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
Off the Record is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Thanks as always for clearly laying out the context of this issue. Your argument pushes me further toward the opinion that the report was probably faked. That said, I don't think the Supreme Court should have made a decision without a representative of the website present or unless it could show that irreparable harm would be caused by leaving the report online for another minute. But that raises the question: is the SC the correct venue for this hearing as one of its own justices is involved?