That fateful evening, Shah and Rubel Chaudhary, along with their families and friends, came across in the dining hall of Tiger Tops – a jungle safari resort in Chitwan. Both have contradictory versions of their meeting or the type of conversations they had. Anyway, there must have been some exchanges of accusations of personal and political nature against each other before Shah fired a shot in the air (although both sides were merrymaking together before the incident took place – a fact both want to keep secret). Nobody was hurt in the incident.
Chaudhary is the son-in-law of Deputy Prime Minister Sujata Koirala, a politician who possesses plenty of state-power, muscle-power, money and political legacy, but very little moral and intellectual standards. A foreign national, widely suspected to be involved in unfair or illegal business practices on the strength of his nuptial ties, Chaudhary at first seemed very determined to fan the flames against Shah but later on, when he realized that the move could backlash, he tried to downplay the incident.
Obviously, this time Shah’s victims (or antagonists?) were not commoners or underdogs like they were in the past; on the contrary, they were extremely powerful people. This time he was not the future king of the country either; the heir to the overthrown throne was now an ordinary citizen. He didn’t seem to have taken these facts into account before he pulled the trigger that night. But that is how the royals are; they hardly take notice of changed times and situations, and the inability leads to their downfall.
The forces that joined hands to overthrow monarchy some four-and-a-half years back don’t see eye to eye now (in fact, they are more inimical to each other than either of them are toward the ousted monarchy). Maoists, who fiercely battled against monarchy, among others, for more than a decade, ironically defended Shah. Leader and spokesperson of the Unified Maoists Narayan Kaji Shrestha hinted that outside forces (read India) had used Chaudhary to provoke the ‘nationalist sentiments of patriotic Nepali people’ (read royals), thus indirectly justifying Shah’s ‘reaction’ to the ‘provocation’. Conversely, party Vice-Chairman Baburam Bhattarai severely condemned Shah a couple of days after Shrestha made the remarks. The contradiction is also a manifestation of the internal power struggle that is going on within the party as it is sharply divided on the question of ‘who should be declared the principal enemy – (remnants of) monarchy or India?’ Now that the much bigger and powerful anti-India lobbies separately led by Pushpa Kamal Dahal and Mohan Baidya have prevailed over the ‘India-neutral’ faction led by Bhattarai, its reflections could be seen on this issue as well.
Maoists are not the only one to politicize the incident for their partisan or factional gains. While the central committee of the CPN-UML officially thanked the government for the action taken against Shah, Nepali Congress (NC) President Sushil Koirala and their Parliamentary Party Leader Ram Chandra Poudel publicly demanded action against Shah, apparently at Sujata’s behest. Former Home Minister Krishna Prasad Sitaula, a man mysteriously too powerful within NC circles, has been very active in furthering the case behind closed doors.
Similarly, the media too blew the whole incident out of proportion. A leading daily, having a history of propagandizing against different political forces – from monarchy to Maoists to one or other faction within NC to large business houses – at different times, to serve its business and political interests, presented Shah as a wicked villain and Chaudhary as a poor, innocent victim at first. Only when it learned that its one-sided approach has been counter-productive, it started to publicize the wrongs of Chaudhary as well. The presentation and role of political weeklies and sensationalist TV channels have been even worse. But thanks to the maturity and free thinking of the people, the propaganda has had little impact.
While several criminals convicted of murder and many more having arrest warrants for various criminal offenses are on the loose, the uncharacteristic zeal and promptness as was shown in the case against Shah is hypocritical, if not illegal.
In an attempt to influence justice, Shah’s opponents, that includes a section of the press, pressurized that Shah be prosecuted for attempted murder – an offense that demands harsher punishment. But the prosecutors, after consultations with Home Minister Bhim Rawal filed the case under the ‘Public Offense Act’. They did so mainly for two reasons: One, the public anger was swinging toward Chaudhary as he and his benefactor Sujata have no better image among the populace than Shah has. Two, the facts that the bullet was not aimed at anyone but fired in the air (as publicly admitted by Chaudhary himself) and also that their meeting was casual and not a pre-arranged one would not merit the charge of an attempted murder, especially a pre-planned one. Meanwhile, Shah has been released on bail after remaining in police custody for three days.
People, polarized on two extremes, have been arguing irrationally. Antagonists of Shah accuse that the prosecutors have been lenient toward him because of his position. But aren’t they themselves over-politicizing a small crime of personal nature because of the same position? Equality before law means both – neither leniency nor witch-hunting on grounds of position or political affiliation of the accused. On the other extreme, many of Sujata’s opponents opine that Chaudhary should have been summoned to Chitwan (the place of crime) for investigation and that visiting him in his residence in Kathmandu for the same was an undue privilege. It was not – Chaudhary is a victim in this case and not the perpetrator of any criminal misdeed (in other case or cases, if any, he may be an accused, which is a different issue). Therefore the state cannot harass him.
In fact, the whole law and order machinery of the otherwise lawless state that Nepal has become has in this case demonstrated a level of unbelievable efficiency and swiftness, making the whole affair look fishy. For example, while an investigation by a senior police officer was ordered soon after the incident, even before it started, a separate complaint was filed by a junior ranking policeman – without having received any complaint from the victim – on the basis of which Shah was arrested. While several criminals convicted of murder and many more having arrest warrants for various criminal offenses are not only on the loose but also are being publicly decorated by their patrons, which include the Maoists (for instance Kali Bahadur Kham and Sujit BK), to which the state has for years turned a blind eye because of their political power, the uncharacteristic zeal and promptness as was shown in the case against Shah is hypocritical, if not illegal.
jeevan1952@hotmail.com
Related story
Human-Tiger Coexistence Amidst Rising Tiger Population
-1200x560-1779450784.webp)
