Is Human Rights Watch’s Nepal Report Title Biased? — Rebutting Prem Dhakal

6 min readJan 3, 2016

[Recap: In Part A, I clarified to Prem Dhakal my (non-existent) role with Human Rights Watch. I showed that his public language (e.g. Robert is a smearing hell-bent crusader, he’s deriding all Nepali media, he’s fearful and may lack balls, etc.) is hypocritical, in that it creates the kind of “biased narrative” that he attributes to HRW. He then partially apologized to me publicly.]

Prem Dhakal is concerned about the Human Rights Watch report “Like We Are Not Nepali”: Protest and Police Crackdown in the Terai Region of Nepal.

Dhakal sent dozens of tweets challenging me to respond to his critique. This taunting tweet is still pinned three weeks later, two weeks after HRW and I responded to him:

As I explained two weeks ago, it is not my job to defend HRW’s reputation. Nevertheless, I will fact-check Dhakal, since I have not seen others doing it.

Is HRW’s Nepal title unprecedented?

Prem Dhakal is under the impression that the Nepal report’s title is uniquely “strong and provocative” compared to other countries:

I’ve not seen HRW or any other HR organization, bringing a report titled ‘Like we are not American’ … So, why such strong and provocative headline … ?

In other words, Dhakal argues that an absence of similar titles in other reports is evidence that Human Rights Watch was biased in its Nepal report.

Survey Says: No

Unfortunately for his argument, Dhakal’s survey of report titles was less than comprehensive. I found a similar title within minutes of searching. Comparing it to the Nepal title is revealing:

“Like We Are Not Nepali”:
Protest and Police Crackdown in the Terai Region of Nepal
“As Though We Are Not Human Beings”:
Police Brutality against Migrants and Asylum Seekers in Macedonia

These titles are like semi-identical twins separated at birth. The structural congruence is remarkable. But which of the two titles is more “strong and provocative”? The winner is clear: the Macedonia title is more provocative than Nepal’s. After all, to be “not human” is even worse than to be “not Nepali.”

Unicorns in the Universe

Dhakal’s argument succumbs to the Achilles heel of claiming something does not exist: a single counter-example will refute it. For example, if I claim I possess the only unicorn, a second unicorn anywhere else in the universe will disprove me. 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.)

Update: I read too much into Dhakal’s statement and have apologized for my misinterpretation at the end of this article. His argument is much less ambitious than I thought; it’s strictly limited to America for some reason.

But we have now seen two “strong and provocative” unicorns in the Human Rights Watch universe of report titles. Can we find other dramatic titles to accompany them?

Other Reports By Human Rights Watch

These dramatic examples from other countries demonstrate that HRW’s title writing was not nefariously manipulated especially for Nepal.

HRW often uses quotes from victims

But Prem Dhakal should have known this already. Even if his own research could not find the titles above, the Human Rights Watch editor gave Dhakal a direct explanation:

However, Dhakal did not update his article to acknowledge her response.

Who said so?

Dhakal questions the origin of the phrase “Like We Are Not Nepali”:

Has HRW concluded that Madhesis are not treated like Nepalis? Has the state said so? Does the constitution say so?

The answer to these questions is: No.
“Who said so” is understood when reading the quote in context:

They fired teargas shells, scared the children. Everyone here is very scared, scared of the police. The women and children don’t want to go out of the house. We are being treated inhumanely, like second-class citizens. Like we are not Nepalis, like we’re criminals or terrorists.
–A witness of police violence in Mahottari district, September 2015

The quoted speaker is a witness of police violence. HRW is not making this claim — hence the quotation marks. Human Rights Watch often uses “a direct quote from victims,” as editor Thapa explained above.

Not Literally

Thapa also stipulates the title is “not a finding in itself.” For example, another HRW title is “There is No Time Left.” Does this mean HRW is claiming there is literally no time left? Of course not. This is hyperbole employed by a local witness for dramatic effect. These titles with quotes are not intended to literally represent absolute truth.

Quote Quota

Dhakal is free to complain that HRW’s title did not include quotes from both police and civilians. However, it would seem impractical for the editor to include two quotes. The title would become long, awkward and confusing with two conflicting quotes (who is saying which quote?). So if one has to choose a quote from just one side, which way should one tilt?

In all fairness, police killed four times more civilians than vice versa: 36 civilians killed versus 9 police killed (August and September 2015). And police were armed with bullets; civilians were not. In general, police abuse of state power is more egregious than civilian violence. Therefore, siding with civilian victims in this particular title is easy to justify.

When did police start killing?

One final factual point to clarify — Dhakal appears to suggest that police started killing civilians in Terai after police were killed in Kailali on August 25:

But the Madhesis have been killed in places burning in protest, and the security persons have turned atrocious after the Kailali incident where security persons were brutally killed

However, at least five civilians were killed by police by August 25:

Civilians killed by police before Kailali

Aug. 10 — Tika Ram Gautam
Aug. 10 — Yam Bahadur BC
Aug. 18 — Rajendra Kumar Raut (Rajiv)
Aug. 23 — Hari Bahadur Kunwar
Aug. 25 — Raj Kishor Thakur

(Not a comprehensive list — I have omitted ambiguous protest-related deaths where, for example, civilians died by stampede or drowning while running from police firing.)

Next Moves

Unfortunately, holes in Prem Dhakal’s research led him to construct a flimsy critique of Human Rights Watch’s title. With his point #1 in shambles, Dhakal may need to re-evaluate the strength of his remaining points.
Dhakal’s pinned tweet is obsolete, as I informed him weeks ago. He may want to replace it with something current — something that gives a more accurate impression of the status of the debate. For example, HRW and I have responded weeks ago and are not “incapacitated” as his pinned tweet suggests.
Dhakal may find ideas for fresh tweets by applying his previous sentiments (below) to what will certainly be a new-found appreciation for unicorns.

Remember, the real problem is that over 50 Nepalis were killed, and families are still waiting for justice. Dozens of protesters who killed police have already been arrested. But police have not charged the officers who killed civilians. Nepal’s own human rights agencies NHRC and THRD Alliance agree that police used excessive force and were not acting in self-defense when they shot children and other civilians.

Update: Prem Dhakal responds to this article

Prem Dhakal stands by his arguments. The lengthy thread starts from these comments:

Update 2: Dhakal was only talking about American report titles by HRW

Dhakal wrote a further response:

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.

My interpretation of Dhakal’s argument was that he mentioned HRW’s American report titles as an example of a larger pattern among other countries. But Dhakal has clarified that he was talking only about America. So I admit I read too much into his statement, and I apologize.

The reason I interpreted Dhakal more broadly was that otherwise, his argument is incredibly weak when he limits it to America. Since Human Rights Watch has reported on 90 countries, singling out America and comparing to Nepal is not going to prove bias. I am amazed Dhakal still stands behind such a weak premise, and fixates on America as if other countries are not relevant to this discussion.

My other articles

Follow me at https://twitter.com/robpenner