Bharat Chand
Investigative journalism primarily focuses on uncovering issues of public concern in a broad and tangible way. Since its establishment in 2018, the team of Herne Katha has been investigating numerous matters, ranging from unearthing the socio-cultural and traditional aspects of grassroots people to unveiling the success stories of those unnoticed by society and the state at large. The episode entitled Haraeka Barshaharu (The Lost Years), aired recently, has sparked a variety of opinions divided on the issue it presents.
As part of their regular investigative journalism, the Herne Katha team recently aired a documentary entitled Haraeka Barshaharu, in which a person named Prakash Tamang, alias Paka (a name given by his friends in the mountains), is showcased as the central figure. Prakash, who has no formal schooling, works as a sheepherder for a family living in the Chum Valley of Gorkha district. Accidentally drawn to this place from Jhapa district by bad luck, Prakash has spent more than thirty-five years in the valley, doing household chores and taking care of sheep. He has received no perks, salary, or bonuses for the work he was assigned. This reflects the reality of how people with no voice are forced to live under the shadows, deprived of education and all possible opportunities in life. Today, with the help of the Herne Katha team, we see a single person, Prakash, but there may be many like him waiting to be noticed by society and the state, so they can enjoy the rights guaranteed by the constitution and the Labor Act of 2074 B.S.
The Labor Act 2074, Chapter 3, Section 10 (1), defines five different types and categories of employment. Chapter 3, Section 11 (1), clearly states that “No employer shall employ any worker without entering into an employment contract.” Prakash’s employer has completely ignored this provision, denying him the minimum wage for the decades he spent as a sheepherder in the mountains. Although it is heard that Prakash’s employer has now promised to give him 10 lakh rupees as compensation, this is not enough. He is entitled to receive more than what has been pledged.
After the documentary aired, many praised the Herne Katha team for reuniting Prakash with his family. However, others accused the team of merely selling a pathetic story to make money. Critics argue that the income earned from the documentary should be shared with Prakash’s family, especially since his father has been ill for years. From my perspective, the debate over the income made from Prakash’s story reflects societal concerns that focus on the wrong issues. Scrolling through the comments on Haraeka Barshaharu, one finds a wide range of opinions from newspaper editors to the general public. Some editors, seemingly with the intention of discrediting the episode, claim the team capitalized on Prakash’s misery for profit. But do you think the story of Prakash should have remained untold? From my understanding, if the Herne Katha team feels inclined to donate money out of goodwill, that’s fine on the grounds of humanity, but it is not a requirement based on the investigative journalism they have done. The critics, in my opinion, may be jealous of the attention the team has gained by telling Prakash’s story.
I have seen plays directed by some of these media critics, showcasing how upper-class society has destroyed the cultures and traditions of indigenous groups and sidelined them in all societal matters. These plays were widely viewed and well-received. Now, I genuinely ask, as you criticize the Herne Katha team for not sharing income with Prakash, did you share the money earned from your play with the people it was centered around? Were the real individuals you depicted in your play benefited from the money you made? You also ran a lengthy story on indigenous people and the impact of climate change on their lifestyles, blaming upper-caste groups. You were praised and even awarded cash prizes for this write-up. Did you share half of your prize with the people featured in your story? Directors of movies and documentaries about people’s lifestyles are rarely heard of sharing profits with the subjects of their work. The Herne Katha team has done what media houses typically do, and it is the state’s responsibility to address the concerns of people like Prakash, from issuing citizenship certificates to providing permanent settlements.
Many people in Nepal prefer that issues of public concern remain unresolved, allowing them to write about the same topics repeatedly and criticize the government for inaction. The social media comments demanding the Herne Katha team share their earnings are simply an attempt to keep the story untold, regardless of how dire the situation of the people in the story may be. The episode, which has garnered millions of views, is an eye-opener, revealing that people prefer watching genuine, fact-based content rather than fragmented stories. Instead of being divided over what should have been done, this is a time for media professionals and others to focus on telling real and untold stories using any platform they have.
In the end, the Herne Katha team has not only aired stories of hardship, such as Baghko Bangara or Haraeka Barshaharu, but they have also highlighted success stories, like that of Joge Luhar’s son, who became a doctor on a full scholarship. Rather than criticizing the episode, it’s time to focus on more research-driven stories that bring attention to the fact that there are countless people like Prakash in need of serious help and support.
(Bharat Chand is an independent researcher with an aptitude for working on socio-economic, cultural, and various facets of life. He is also a teaching faculty at colleges in Kathmandu. He can be accessed through 9851173960)
