Off the Record 043: The Paul Shah incident
Issue 043 • 04 March 2022
It’s March 4, 2022, and you’re reading Off the Record, the weekly newsletter from The Record. We are an independent, ad-free, digital news publication out of Kathmandu, Nepal.
I’m Pranaya Rana, editor of The Record, and in this newsletter, we’ll stop, take a deep breath, and dive into one singular issue that defined the past week.
You can read Off the Record for free by visiting this link or subscribe on our website to receive this newsletter in your inbox every Friday.
Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening from spring-time Kathmandu. The weather has turned and it is a decidedly pleasant time to be in the Valley. But while we enjoy the sun and the newfound warmth in the air, the world around us continues to burn. The conflict in Ukraine has not subsided; it only appears to have gotten more fierce with Russia bombing cities and Ukrainians putting up a spirited resistance.
Naturally, news the world over is occupied with the Russo-Ukrainian conflict. This is the first time since the Cold War ended in 1990 with the collapse of the Soviet Union that the world has come so close to a world war. So of course, there is overwhelming interest in developments. But during the course of all the reporting on Ukraine, the deep-seated prejudices of the western media have come to the fore. Numerous reporters and media personalities have reacted with shock and surprise that war could happen to a “civilized” nation like Ukraine. At the same time, some really venal and vile comments have been made about how Ukraine is not the Middle East and how Ukrainians are blond and blue-eyed and middle-class, as if to say that poor countries, countries in the Middle East, and non-white people are deserving of war and conflict.
There’s a comprehensive article on Al Jazeera but also see below for a compilation of all the racist garbage that western officials and journalists are spewing:
It is quite distressing to hear such opinions, especially since we in Nepal are standing with Ukraine and are staunchly opposing Vladimir Putin’s aggression. It makes one think if the West will ever empathize with us in the Global South in the same way that it is doing with Ukraine. Instead of empathy, we tend to get pity — oh, those poor people, condemned to an endless cycle of conflict and poverty. And let’s not forget that there are numerous other conflicts going on around the world right now. Yemen, especially, continues to be ravaged beyond belief in a proxy war between the United States and Saudi Arabia on one side and Iran on the other, with thousands of civilians, women, and children murdered by drone and missile strikes.
On Wednesday, Nepal also voted in favor of a UN General Assembly resolution demanding that Russia “immediately, completely and unconditionally withdraw all of its military forces from the territory of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders.” The vote was significant as this was one of those rare instances when Nepal broke with India, which, along with China, abstained. In South Asia, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Pakistan too abstained while Afghanistan, the Maldives, and Bhutan voted in favor. When it comes to global affairs, Nepal tends generally to vote alongside India but this time, it has taken a more assertive stance, with Nepal’s permanent representative to the UN Amrit Rai stating that Nepal opposes any “threat or use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of any sovereign country.”
Speaking to The Kathmandu Post, Constantino Xavier, an Indian geopolitical analyst, pointed out that the states that are voted in favor are small and at “the crossroads of clashing spheres of influence” and “are exposed to external interference” so it is in their interest to oppose any incursion into a smaller nation by a regional or great power. In this instance at least, it is heartening to see Nepal vote according to its national interest.
But speaking of conflict, the Millenium Challenge Corporation’s Nepal Compact was finally, finally passed by Parliament. Hooray? Not really. Maybe I should’ve led this newsletter with the ratification of the MCC but I believe a potential world war is slightly more important than Nepal’s vacillation on a grant that it had asked for itself. By now, I have MCC fatigue and I will be glad if I never have to write about it ever again. But alas, that day is not today.
The ruling coalition of the Nepali Congress, UCPN (Maoist Center), and CPN (Unified Socialist) decided on Sunday to vote in favor of the Nepal Compact, albeit with an “interpretative declaration”. The compact was duly passed on Monday, despite vociferous opposition from Bhim Rawal of the UML. The 12-point interpretative declaration basically reiterates everything that the MCC has said in response to Nepal’s incessant questions. The MCC has repeatedly clarified that the Nepal Compact is not above Nepal’s constitution, that it does not have a military component, that all intellectual property will belong to Nepal, that the Office of the Auditor-General has the authority to audit MCC Nepal’s accounts, and that the compact can be terminated by either side with 30 days notice. All of this is in the interpretative declaration, as it is in the response given to Nepal’s Finance Ministry by the MCC months ago.
This whole song-and-dance about an interpretative declaration is a farce. There is nothing new in the declaration that hasn’t been said before. All it does is allow some politicians to vote in favor of the Nepal Compact despite riling up the public about how it would undermine Nepal’s sovereignty and lead to American boots on Nepali soil. Pushpa Kamal Dahal was always going to vote in favor; he just needed to extract as much domestic mileage from it as possible.
Surprisingly, all is quiet since the compact was passed. No more rallies or demonstrations. No clashes with the police and no Tiktok videos of protestors proclaiming that they would rather take a bullet from the Nepal Police than from an American soldier. The Americans have duly ‘acknowledged’ the passage of the MCC Nepal Compact, taking pains to assert that the “decision to ratify the Nepal Compact has always rested with the Government of Nepal as a sovereign democratic nation.” The Chinese too have ‘noted’ the ratification and the interpretative declaration but pointedly went on to say this:
China has stressed on multiple occasions that international development cooperation should follow the principle of mutual respect and equal treatment with full respect for the sovereignty of the country concerned and the will of the people. No country should interfere in other country’s internal affairs, attach political strings, or engage in coercive diplomacy, still less undermine other country’s sovereignty and interests out of one’s self-interests.
As Nepal’s friendly neighbor and development partner, China will as always support the Nepalese people in independently finding a path to development.
Make of that what you will but in diplomatic parlance, ‘noted’ is a far cry from ‘welcomed’ or even ‘acknowledged’. India too had ‘noted’ the passage of the 2015 Constitution before going on to impose a blockade.
I for one hope that this will be the last time I have to write about the MCC Nepal Compact.
Let’s turn now to a deep dive on a singular issue that really should not have been an issue but somehow, it has snowballed into something far more sinister and deplorable — the accusations of statutory rape against the actor Paul Shah.
The deep dive: The Paul Shah incident
(Photo: Paul Shah’s Facebook)
Many readers of this newsletter might not know who this man is. This is Purna Bikram Shah, better known as Paul Shah, an actor who’s best known for his work in middling commercial Nepali films like Nai Na Bhannu La 4 and Bir Bikram. None of his films are particularly good, at least none of the ones I’ve seen and admittedly, I’ve only seen two — Bir Bikram 2 and Shatru Gate. Both those films were abysmal as was Shah’s acting. But in celebrity starved Nepal, every actor, however terrible, somehow manages to garner a significant following. Shah, as I’ve learned over the past week, is very popular among both young boys and girls.
Last week, on Sunday, Shah was taken into custody by the Tanahun District Police Office on rape charges. A 17-year-old singer — who has been named and shamed in the media despite legally being a minor and the media required to protect her identity — had accused Shah of rape on false promises of marriage. The singer alleged that she had been in a sexual relationship with Shah since she was 15 years old. Shah, at the time, was 30; he is currently 32.
Sadly but not surprisingly, social media and other ‘celebrities’ rushed to Shah’s defense. They claimed that the singer had been in a consensual relationship with Shah for two years and now that he had refused to marry her, she was crying rape. They alleged that there was no rape because she had consented to sex. Actor Pooja Sharma has been especially vocal in her support of Shah. Shah himself took to Facebook to defend himself, saying that he was the victim of a conspiracy to blackmail him. He posted audio clips where a number of voices can be heard discussing a plot to squeeze Shah out of a significant amount of money. Rallies with hundreds of people have been organized to support Shah.
But not all celebrities have risen to Shah’s defense. Rekha Thapa, actor extraordinaire, was the first high-profile celebrity to publicly denounce the treatment of Shah’s accuser and bring the focus back on what the real issue here is: statutory rape. “Girls under 20 are children and as children, they have the right to all kinds of legal protection and guardinship. The role of society is to protect them. The law does not care about moral questions such as who she was in love with or how many times she’s had sex,” she wrote.
Much has already been said about the Paul Shah case. There are hundreds of videos on YouTube now with clickbait headlines that purport to show different sides to the story. Think pieces have been published and social media has utterly and completely maligned the character of the singer who dared to accuse Shah of rape.
But at the end of the day, it really doesn’t — or shouldn’t — matter what the public or celebrities think. All that should matter is the law and this is what Nepal’s Criminal Code says:
219. Prohibition of committing rape: (1) No one shall commit rape. (2) Where a man has sexual intercourse with a woman without her consent or with a girl child below eighteen years of age even with her consent, the man shall be considered to commit rape on such woman or girl child.
Furthermore, the Act Relating to Children lists all of the instances in which any sexual activity with a child can be considered child sexual abuse. The list is exhaustive and includes, of course, sexual activity, stimulation, gratification, exploitation, and prostitution.
So the law really is black and white here. There’s really no room for nuance because Shah, a man in his 30s, had sexual relations with a teenager. Shah has not disputed that he had sex with the minor, all he’s said in his defense is that it is an attempt at blackmail. It might be blackmail, that’s possible, but even if it is, Shah is still guilty. The blackmail does not erase the rape and according to Nepali law, he raped his accuser because she is a minor and she is unable to give consent.
There are many on social media who say that anyone who understands what sex is, what marriage is, and how relationships work is old enough to give consent. Facebook is rife with comments saying that women will accuse men of rape the moment they are unhappy with the relationship or the man refuses to go along with the whims of the woman. They say that women have now “weaponized” rape.
But let’s take a look at what is happening to the singer. Her name and face have been plastered across the internet. There are hundreds of videos, posts, and comments on Facebook that call her all manner of names, assassinate her character, and accuse her of being a whore and a prostitute. They say that if she willingly got into a man’s bed, she gave up all right to cry rape. There are hundreds of people on the streets supporting Shah and demonizing her. Is this kind of stress and mental torture worth whatever money she might get? Would anyone willingly put themselves through this?
There might be women out there who would weaponize rape, that’s not an impossibility, but in a country like Nepal, the social costs of any such accusations are too high to even contemplate. Not to mention the fact that such cases tend to drag on in the courts, leaving any accuser tied to the case for years. They have to spend money, dedicate time, and all the while, deal with social stigma. Who in their right mind would make a false accusation when your life could effectively be destroyed?
But that’s a tangent and I shouldn’t have even indulged that line of thinking. The crux of the matter here is consent and who can and can’t give consent. A minor — i.e., anyone below the age of 18 — cannot give consent, and not just for sexual activities. Minors cannot consent to just about anything without the permission/presence of a guardian. So even if the minor herself propositioned Shah, he would still be guilty of rape.
We should also note here that this isn’t “statutory rape”. That term has been bandied about everywhere since this case first came up. Even most states in the US, where the term I believe originated, doesn’t use the term in its laws. Statutory rape implies a lesser kind of rape, where the only ‘problem’ per se is that the victim is below the statutory age of consent. The proper and more common term for an adult indulging in sexual activities with a minor is sexual assault, or as Nepali law puts it, rape. It is rape because a minor cannot give informed consent, just like a drunk person cannot give informed consent. Consent given without understanding the ramifications of the action is not consent at all.
But many are asking why 18? What is it about reaching 18 that suddenly turns you into an adult? Nothing really. Some people might be more mature at 17 than most people are at 21. But that’s neither here nor there. The fact is that the law says the age of consent is 18. This is what the people we elected to represent us decided and until now, we were all fine with it. But the moment it began to affect Shah, a celebrity that people apparently care about so much, the law is suddenly unfair and needs to be reevaluated. This is what we’ve decided as a society and we cannot begin to complain when it affects someone we care about. The law is the law and it must be applied equally to all, especially the rich, powerful, and popular.
Many have accused Shah of being a pedophile and of grooming his victim. I don’t believe Shah is a pedophile as pedophilia refers to a psychiatric disorder where adults are attracted to prepubescent children. I know it is easy to throw around that term but it refers to a specific pathology and has strict criteria. Shah sleeping with a 15-year-old is disgusting, reprehensible, and a crime but let us not get into the habit of being inexact, especially with disorders and pathologies. I don’t think what Shah did amounts to grooming either, but I don’t really want to get into semantics, lest I be accused of trying to defend Shah.
One important and actually relevant issue that has emerged in this case is that of the definition of rape. Nepali law specifies women and girls as the victim. Men, boys, and gender minorities are not included in the Criminal Code’s definition. The Act Relating to Children is better, specifying girl or boy child, but no such clarification is present for adult men or gender minorities. If we go by the letter of the law, Nepali law does not recognize that men and gender minorities can be raped. This is problematic as men can most definitely be raped, whether by women or by other men, as can gender minorities.
The current definition has already proved problematic. In 2020, when Ajita Bhujel, a trans woman, was raped and murdered in Biratnagar, the perpetrators were only charged with murder. Bhujel’s identity as a trans woman was not recognized by law and thus, the perpetrators could not be charged with rape in addition to murder.
Women’s rights activists had opposed the inclusion of men in the definition of rape on the grounds that it could “weaken women rape victims’ fight for justice” but that’s quite a myopic view of sexual abuse and assault. The patriarchy doesn’t just victimize women; men too are victims of the patriarchy. The existing definition of rape is definitely something that needs to be explored in more detail.
We’ve wandered quite a ways from Paul Shah but to bring it all back, the man — if he had sexual relations with the singer in question and all signs say that he did — then he is guilty of rape. There can be no extenuating circumstances or melmilap in this case. Just as minors cannot consent to sex, they also cannot consent to an agreement, and their guardians cannot agree on their behalf.
The case has been registered, Shah has been taken into custody and an investigation is progressing. No amount of rallies and demonstrations will convince the judiciary that Shah is innocent. The law is the law and in this particular instance, I am grateful that Nepal’s law is quite clear on the matter.
On The Record this past week:
Tim I Gurung on three incidents that changed his writing career
Shuvam Rizal on the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the political value of renewable energy
Sabin Ninglkehu on struggling with academic writing and all the lessons he’s learned along the way
Sajeet M Rajbhandari on the business of delivering food
Happenings this week:
Sunday - The House of Representatives finally ratified the MCC Nepal Compact, just a day ahead of the self-imposed deadline of February 28. The ratification comes with a separate ‘interpretative declaration’. The United States acknowledged the ratification while China merely ‘noted’ it.
Monday - The Foreign Employment Tribunal of the Special Court sentenced the chief executives of 53 foreign employment agencies to six months in jail and a Rs 100,000 fine for fraud. The companies were found to have forged documents including demand letters, employment agreements, and labor stickers for countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Malaysia.
Tuesday - The World Bank’s Women, Business and Law report placed Nepal at the top among countries in South Asia when it came to closing the gender gap when it comes to doing business. Nepal scored 80.6 out of 100, followed by India with 74.4 and the Maldives with 73.8. Take the index with a grain of salt though, like pretty much everything else from the World Bank.
Wednesday - Three stolen artifacts — a 14th-century idol of a flying apsara, a 17th-century torana, and a Malla-era stone sculpture of the Buddha — arrived in Nepal. The idol and torana were returned by the Rubin Museum while the sculpture was returned by the Tibet House of Manhattan, both based in New York City.
Thursday - Prices of petroleum products reached an all-time high owing to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Petrol is now Rs 150 per liter with diesel and kerosene at Rs 133 per liter.
Friday - The Kathmandu Valley lifted all Covid-19 restrictions as daily cases have fallen to just around a hundred from across the country. Kathmandu reported 25 cases on Friday with 6 in Lalitpur and 4 in Bhaktapur.
Article of the week:
‘Looking back to keep looking forward’ — Nishi Rungta visits the ongoing Kathmandu Triennale and reflects on the festival’s themes of time, memory, and indigeneity.
That’s all for this week. Off the Record will be back in your inboxes next Friday. I shall see you then, in your emails, for the next edition of Off the Record.
If you enjoyed today’s newsletter, please consider helping us grow by doing one of two things:
Sign up for membership. We recommend a pledge of Rs 3,000 a year.
Spread the word. Forward this newsletter or share The Record’s articles with others on social media.
