My response to Rob Penner’s rebuttal of my queries
I have already apologized for being uncivil initially with Mr Penner. But I still stand by my allegations on deriding Nepali media, smearing and preaching and I have showed that through my tweets.
(Recap: He had pinned a tweet ‘I just saw 2 editors apologize in a single day. #Nepal journalism is trending up!’ I found that derisive.
Just below that pinned tweet, he’d told a third English daily editor “This is how it’s done’ by tagging an editor’s apology. I feel that was preaching.
I used smear to mean ‘attack’ good name and reputation of someone’. WordWeb says I was correct to use despite Penner’s reservations)
Now let’s come to Penner’s demand for unpinning my pinned tweet. To whom it may concern. We find narrative of @HRW report on #Nepal biased. Voluntary defender @robpenner seems incapacitated. Any defense?
No one apart from Tejshree Thapa has come forward officially from HRW to refute my points and she has also said she’s done with defending it. Coming to Penner, he took weeks to get to the first point of my queries and we’re just into the second out of the seven points with the first point yet to be rebutted decisively.
Seeing how prompt and effective he has been in rebutting others, I think he being incapacitated still holds true, and will hold true until he decisively rebuts all my seven points.
Let’s come to the first point. I find the title biased and provocative. I believe one can’t give such a strong headline to a report investigating killing of civilians and security persons during violent protests. I still stand by that. I have pointed, in my list of queries, about not seeing HRW or any other HR organization, bringing a report titled ‘Like we are not American’ when black Americans have been killed, at peaceful times, by police on as trivial an issue as a routine traffic stop as in the case of Samuel DuBose on July 19 in Cincinnati. So, why such strong and provocative headline when Nepali police kills citizens during course of violent protests?
Penner tries to rebut that saying I claimed that the title has been unprecedented and cites examples about Macedonia and others, but not America. I have never said that the title was unprecedented. What I said was that HRW has used strong and provocative headline when Nepali police kills citizens during course of violent protests but doesn’t seem to use similar headline while reporting about killing of black Americans at peaceful times on trivial issues.
Penner has yet to apologize or retract his wrong accusations which said, and I quote ‘Dhakal essentially claimed the HRW Nepal title is a unicorn — so startling in its uniqueness that a second could not be found. (To be precise, it could not found by him.)’ even a week after I proved to him that I didn’t claim so.
Coming to the second point, I have to apologize that I wrongly said that Indian Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh’s claim has yet to be retracted and Indian Embassy in Kathmandu has issued a statement saying the comments attributed to him do not represent the government position.
I tried to check the Embassy’s website for that on the day I listed my queries but that somehow didn’t work and I mistakenly recalled the Indian Embassy response to even more ludicrous claims by another BJP MP Kirti Azad which I don’t want to discuss here. Singh had commented well over three months before I drafted the list, and my memory failed me and I accept I did not try harder to find out about response to the attributed comment.
I have already apologized for the mistake. But would I still have included the second point had I read/recalled the Embassy response on Minister Singh’s reported comment? The answer is yes unless India Today website were to retract the news report or apologize, which it has not done until now.
This time I have checked Rajnath Singh’s twitter handle @BJPRajnathSingh and that of the ministry @HMOIndia and surprisingly there is no rebuttal of that news report in either handle. I also checked the HMO India website but I did not find any statement issued on that despite the Indian Embassy in Nepal saying Minister Singh has denied making any such statement at the event in Maharajgunj, Uttar Pradesh.
The comment attributed to Minister Singh in that news report has yet to be decisively falsified. The present status is, Indian Embassy in Kathmandu says Minister Singh has denied saying so and the India Today website has yet to retract the piece or attach an apology with it.
I don’t know for sure if Singh did indeed say that or not. But having seen the kind of statements Indian Embassy in Nepal has been issuing, it is very hard for me to confidently go with it. (I had read long ago about someone calling diplomacy The patriotic art of lying for one’s country). And it is not some personal blog or cheap website but India Today which is on the other side!
Penner in his latest rebuttal says, and I quote Suppose, hypothetically, that Minister Singh claimed Madhesis are Indians. Would that somehow require Human Rights Watch to mention it in its report, in order to avoid accusations of a “biased narrative”? In that case, Singh would be just one of many people with an opinion on this issue. How many people would HRW have to quote, to avoid criticism from Prem Dhakal?
He then goes on to again hypothesize that I would have cited another person’s comment and so on. Penner may not believe me but I would not have included the second point if India Today had withdrawn the piece by the day I listed the seven points for HRW and him to answer.
I agree with Penner that Singh would be just one of many people with an opinion on this issue. But if he did indeed say that, which I do not know, that will be opinion of the Indian Union Home Minister and a former BJP President and not any ordinary person with his own opinion.
I, however, completely agree with Penner that it would have been impossible to include all of the opinions in the report. Let me clarify my position on this issue. My reservation is more with why Prashant Jha’s work has been cited to build a narrative to prove that Madhesis are not treated like Nepalis. I had pointed at omission of the comment attributed to Singh only to cite inconsistency of HRW to build what I believe is a biased narrative. I once again quote the HRW report
Some parts of Nepali society regard Madhesis as “Indian” due to their community’s close cultural and linguistic ties with India and their frequent intermarriage with communities in neighboring regions across the border, and some have questioned Madhesis’ loyalty to the Nepali state.
Now, I want to ask HRW and Penner why Jha, just one of many people with an opinion on this issue as Penner may also agree, was cited to build the narrative in the HRW report. Has HRW concluded that Jha’s claim is true or does it believe Jha is the final authority about facts in Nepal?
Penner later adds, and I again quote But the strongest reason for HRW omitting Singh’s comment is simply: it isn’t true.
I again agree with Penner that the comment attributed to Singh is not true. I have already made it clear that I don’t regard Madhesis as Indians. Now, if Singh’s comment was omitted for not being true doesn’t inclusion of Jha’s claim that some parts of Nepali society regard Madhesis as “Indian” make that claim true? I hope HRW has done enough research on Nepali society before deciding to use Jha’s claim as true, and will publish the findings soon.
Penner’s statement that Singh’s comment was omitted for not being true implying that the included things are true again takes me back to the title of the report. I believe HRW report has done a thorough study before deciding about the headline and included the quote ‘Like We are not Nepali’ (again one/some of the many opinions, I have to remind) in the title only after being convinced that the victims were not treated like Nepali.
I hope, HRW will explain how it reached the conclusion.
