Agitation and role of editors

If one goes by what Mr. Prachanda's henchmen have done in Kantipur Publications, we can see there is a very thin line segregating Suresh Raj with Prachanda. The only difference between Suresh Raj and Prachanda's goons lies in the sides they are operating at. Suresh Raj and his entire goons of KU, on behalf of KU management, have unleashed unprecedented repression on a decent movement which only wanted to have a recognition for teachers', staffs' and students' bodies. They have neither broken Suresh Raj and Sitaram's Prados, nor they have ever tried to set the whole KU administrative building on fire. As befitting self-respecting teachers, they held peaceful protests, relay strikes, and press-conferences. Never they tried to barge into class room and pull out bootlicking teachers.

Juxtapose this with what is happening in Kantipur. Some workers demand rights to organization and they immediately get it. The Kantipur management reportedly even accepts the trade union there in the format put up by the Maoists. Recognition of the organization in Kantipur has been so speedy that it should have put Suresh Raj to shame. With due approval and recognition of the trade union, the workers aligned with the Maoists should have pressed their demands with the management and tried to get their demands addressed in peaceful manner. But, these are not to be as the whole drama of creating trade union and agitation was carried out with a certain ulterior motive.

The agitation in Kathmandu University and The Kantipur were similar in that the employees were demanding rights to organization. Except this all other things are different. In KU, teachers, students and employees are yet to be duly recognised as chief stake-holders. Students pay the tuition fee, teachers and other staffs work for a friendly environment to provide education. Role of managers were no where to be seen in this process of learning and teaching. But, still likes of Suresh Raj, Sitaram and Bhadra Man have managed to stick to the chair and vitiate the peaceful environment. When all the stake-holders jointly refuted their hegemony, they did what only politicians do. Calling dreaded goons, inviting corrupt sibling, mobilising tainted brothers and soliciting help of tainted politiicians were resorted to by Suresh Raj and his entire crooks.

On the other hand, in Kantipur, no sooner than some employees took shelter under Maoist umbrella, the trade union was recognised and the management even got ready for talks. But, under direction of political leadership, the Maoists employees did not care for sorting out their problems. It appears now that the problems were created in Kantipur to wage political propaganda of the Maoists and to silence the critics. Kantipur has so far not fired any worker nor they have ever tried to harass an innocent staff to commit suicide. Despite co-operation of the Management, contrary to regressive measures adopted in KU, the Maoists did what is unthinkable.

For the Maoists, the most important issue, as exactly with Suresh Raj, is crushing the voice of resent, dissent and disagreement. Both Suresh Raj and the Maoists have selectively targeted their chief nemesis and tried to present the situation as friendly to them as possible. Suresh Raj is never friendly with teachers because he thinks that all the teachers are bonded labours. Even the bootlickers who have managed to get plum positions must acknowledge this fact. And for the Maoists, the workers are mere stooges to set the dissenter in trap and take action on false charges. If the Maoists were real sincere about the rights of the employees;

1) Why they are silent on the official harassment triggered death of a KU employee?

2) Why the Maoists have not been able to take action against Suresh Raj regime for expelling one of the employees in KU who has openly aligned with Maoist affiliated trade organization?

The Maoists' handling of KU movement and spearheading stage-managed movement in Kantipur lends credence to the fact that they are working overtime in the Kantipur to stop criticisms against Prachand and the Maoists' brand of politics. If Kantipur were to be as friendly to the Maoists as Suresh Raj is, then there would have never been any movement in the Kantipur. Suresh Raj has provided scholarships to the sons and daughters of the Maoist leaders and there are unverified reports that Suresh Raj had also made friendly donation to the Maoists. Kantipur obviously is not in position to do these things and the only thing it could have provided to the Maoists are positive coverage. But, this is very difficult for the Kantipur to do because it would jeopardize its credibility.

Prateek Pradhan and other editors of the Kantipur must know that harbouring despotic mindset is not useful. When late Buddhi Bahadur Biswakarma died, at that time, the Kantipur should have censured Suresh Raj and published that news report. But, unbecoming of its bold stance, the Kantipur was manipulated and they did not cover an innocent dalit's death in KU. And these editors must have known how cunning deans of KU are. They openly bargain for providing admission in KU in exchange of publishing some low grade write-ups. The editors in Kantipur, henceforth, must be further clear that they are for probity and honesty in the society. The despotic mindsets, be it of Suresh Raj or be it of the Maoists, have no place in 21st century. They should continually keep on exposing nepotism, corruption and bankruptcy of values and ethics both in the Maoists and the corrupt regime of Suresh Raj in KU. Only this way, ruthless despots can be silenced and shown the door.