One cannot be half-free, or half-democratic. The media can never be semi-independent. As the fourth pillar of democracy, the free press is an inalienable part of this country's pluralistic landscape and political future.
The irony, of course, is that dictators and demagogues through history have also understood this. Lenin, Mao and Pol Pot all used the free media to propel themselves into power, and then promptly turned their sights on that very free press that helped them get to office.
The disciples of Karl Marx don't seem to have heeded his high regard for an independent media. Marx had said: "A controlled press is a sign of dictatorship, democracy needs the credibility, its logic and integrity of the media."
Communist leaders throughout history who regarded Marx as their guru, however, saw a free press as an enemy of the revolution and an ally of the bourgeoisie. On 25 October 1917, the day Lenin overthrew the interim coalition, he closed down the independent newspaper, the Ruskaya Volya and confiscated its printing plant. Two days later, a further 20 newspapers that were accused of being "undisciplined" were shut down, and the order bore Lenin's signature.
Here in Nepal, the Maoists left the media alone during the war years. In fact, they benefited from the media's objectivity. It was tactically important to allow the papers to report freely on the excesses of the security forces and to struggle against crackdowns on the media by the royal regime.
True to historical precedence, the Maoist attacks on the media have followed their election to power. This should not surprise anyone, they are just doing what their mentors Lenin, Stalin and Mao? did.?Lenin made workers the vanguard of his attack on the press just as our comrades use the excuse of militant labour to muzzle the media.
Nepal's Maoists have adopted a two-track policy: to pay lip service to the free press while their cadre use violence, threats and intimidation against journalists. The party is riddled with its own contradictions. But the buck must stop somewhere, and the top leadership has to take responsibility over the action of its violence-prone cadre. It can no longer churn out one excuse after another. There is a clear motive that links the Maoist party with most of the attacks on the media, and the burden of proof to refute involvement lies with the Maoists.