Nepali Times has achieved the holy grail of brand loyalty, judging from my own experience as a reader and subscriber since the first issues. Aside from a few published editorial letters, I have nothing whatsoever to do with publication, yet with each issue, through my continued familiarity with the Nepali Times contributors, I too feel as if I am a member of the paper and do not fail to take serious note of the advertisers. Similarly, when I hear a BBC report filed from Florida or Haiti or India by Daniel Lak, I immediately think, "Ah, Daniel, haamro manche!" Daniel Lak is as significant a part of Nepali Times as the editors' and readers' contributions or even those overseas Nepali scholar contributors, who may have spent less time in Nepal in the last five to 10 years than Lak. Or how about the frequent pieces by Joseph Stiglitz, etc? The idea (in letter by Mahendra Moktan in #232) that a regular Nepali Times contributor must reside in Nepal or be ethnic Nepali may be racist or even chauvinist but it certainly is absurd!
Lozang Trinlae,
Namche Bajar
. Daniel Lak's lamentation in 'Looking at Nepal from New Delhi' (#231) is tragically hilarious. His article is just another example of how disgraceful he can be when he writes on Nepal issues. But it gives solace to note that India, which has been naked in its posture, needs foreigners to defend its designs on Nepal. Well, this policy may fool many white sympathisers and lovers of Nepal but not those India-exploited Nepalis who have lived with issues like the Bhutani refugees in Jhapa, the Mahakali Paradox, Koshi, Gandaki and Karnali, the Kalapani and the India-fed Maoists to take just a few examples. Nepalis who have become second-class citizens in their own country due to Indian hegemonic and expansionist designs do not need Daniel Lak to tell them whether they should take India as a friend or foe. All he needs is to stop looking at Nepal from the Indian window and remind himself that his knowledge about India-Nepal relations is too feeble. India is a political unit that has
assumed a monstrous character Nepal will always have to confront in order to live peacefully within its international borders.
Dibya B Gurung,
New York
. The letter titled 'RNA' (#232) deserves serious attention. As a reader and concerned Nepali, I have reservations regarding your decision to publish a letter authored by samudaya.org. Aside from the mention of Sadip Bahadur Shah's name, the letter lacks any direct relation to Shah's piece. Although samudaya.org raises several relevant issues, the treatment of Shah's article as a platform to launch an attack on the RNA, severely weakens what otherwise has the potential to be a powerful critique. The claim that terms such as 'democracy' and 'liberalism' are being cheapened by the likes of Shah is a bold statement. First, samudaya.org should realise that ubiquitous definitions do not exist for either democracy or liberalism. Both phenomena are measured in relative terms, using arbitrary scales. Case-in-point, samudaya's definition of these terms appear a lot more radically left-wing than what the majority of Nepali society is prepared to accept. And, regardless of whether or not I truly subscribe to this claim, I am able to propose it, using samudaya's rigid logic-'my way or the high way'. It is rather patronising that samudaya.org should first cry foul play at Shah's supposedly dogmatic tone, then impose its own definitions on the rest of us. These tactics are old, hypocritical. I am also disappointed that samudaya.org wrote under a website pseudonym. After all, I expect that an individual by the name of Shah exists but can a face be attached to samudaya? Why the need for secrecy? Shah has published his own opinions using his own name, complete with photograph and title. Yet, in attempting to undermine Shah's opinions, samudaya has chosen to hide behind a website. Why?
Furthermore, a disclaimer on samudaya.org site states that 'while samudaya.org advocates freedom of speech and multiple perspectives on an issue, it does not necessarily agree with or support all views expressed on this site'. It is ironic that samudaya.org should choose to violate the very tenet of its own website: was the letter sent to the Nepali Times endorsed by all who subscribe to samudaya.org?
Till date, I considered the Nepali Times a model publication. Not only had the quality of information published consistently been of the highest standard but contributors to the Nepali Times could be identified either by name, known organisational affiliation or both. In the midst of an emerging media industry (where the distinction between tabloids and professional journalism is often grey), what promoted the publication of this letter? Is this an indication that the Nepali Times will now publish letters sent in by any individual using a website instead of a name? Will letters from 'www.cnn.com' be allowed next? This is clearly not a precedent a professional publication should establish.
Pradumna Bikram Thapa,
JHU School of Advanced International Studies
