By Dr. Gyan Basnet
Nepal is struggling to come to
terms with the aftermath of a decade-long violent civil war that ended six
years ago. Genuine peace has not yet dawned, and the task of drafting a new
constitution remains incomplete and now the country is going through the worst
political crisis since the country entered into the peace dialogue in 2006.
During the decade-long insurgency (1996-2006) eighteen thousand Nepalese, most
of them civilians, were killed, and horrendous human rights violations were
committed, some amounting to crimes against humanity.
Since Nepal entered the current
political transition, the Maoists – instigators of the ten years of civil
conflict in the name of the ‘People’s War’ – have led the government twice and
have been able to make themselves the largest party in the Constituent Assembly
(demised 27 May). However, far from becoming the solution to their country’s
woes they seem now to be their chief cause. The time has come for some
important questions to be asked of the present Maoist government and of the
Maoist party as a whole. As a researcher and writer in defence of human rights
and fundamental freedoms and a firm believer in the rule of law, this columnist
would like to ask the following: Has so huge a sacrifice led to any improvement
in their country’s fortunes? If not, what was it all for? How have ten years of
suffering in the name of the People’s War been justified by its end result? The
Maoists must provide answers to the people of Nepal today, and their response
must cover the following points:
The Maoists fired the first shot
in the People’s War on 1 February 1996 when they demanded that the government
implement a forty point action plan that included the following: the removal of
all unequal stipulations and agreements from the 1950 Treaty between India and
Nepal; an admission that the anti-nationalist Tanakpur Agreement had been
wrong, and that the consequent Mahakali Treaty should be nullified; and an end
to the monopoly of foreign capital in Nepal’s industry, trade and economic
sector. The paradoxical irony is that not one of these demands has yet been
addressed despite the fact that their Maoist authors have themselves twice been
in power since the country entered into the peace process. Their demands of
1996 could hardly be regarded as simply a piece of paper that might easily be
torn up and disposed of: those demands became the basis for ten years of
conflict in which over eighteen thousand of our fellow countrymen were to die.
Not only, indeed, have those
demands now been ignored, but the party has a few months ago agreed with Delhi
to enforce the treaty on the Mahakali and Pahcheshower projects that they
themselves called Rastraghati (anti Nepal’s interest and one-sided) in the
forty-point demands: they urged then that the project be stopped. Moreover,
contrary to the Maoists’ own demand to nullify the ‘monopoly of foreign capital
in Nepal’s industry’, the
Maoist-led government has concluded the controversial Bilateral Investment
Promotion and Protection Agreement with India. Furthermore, both Prime
Ministers, Puspa Kamal Dahal aka Prachanda and Dr Bhattarai have made state
visits to India, but neither
appeared to raise the matter of the so-called ‘unequal’ treaty of 1950 between Nepal and India.
How can such things be so easily
and quickly forgotten? Once the Maoists came to power (and certainly since they
signed the twelve-point agreement brokered by India in 2006) the party has
completely ignored its original demands. What a paradoxical absurdity! The
people of Nepal
must now demand a proper justification for their failure to fulfil the very
demands that they articulated so well before declaring war on the then
Government of Nepal. Either they should fulfil all the demands now, or, if they
cannot (or will not), offer a reasoned explanation and apology not only to our
twenty-seven million citizens alive today but also to the souls of the eighteen
thousand who died in what would appear to have been a wasted war.
Nepal has under the present
government witnessed some of the worst examples of human rights violation,
lawlessness and rampant corruption since the country entered the political
transition. Government under the Maoists appears synonymous with injustice, terror
and the provision of a safe haven for criminals, mafia dons and murderers
already convicted by the courts. Many criminals, such as Bal Krishna Dhungel
etc., have been convicted by the Supreme Court and yet are today members of the
government and many were members of the Constituent Assembly. They walk freely
and are well protected by the government. Is that not a great mockery of their
justice and legal system?
Many times the government has
promised to restore law and order in the country, but ironically its own
behaviour proves that it is itself unwilling to recognise the law of the
country and the decisions of its highest court. Its few months ago decision to
withdraw around four hundred criminal cases, some relating to the gross
violation of human rights during the ‘People’s War’, has further intensified
the on-going culture of lawlessness in their country. A recent Amnesty
International report on Nepal
proves those facts stating ‘Nepal
continued to backtrack on commitments to hold perpetrators of human rights
abuses accountable before the law.
Political parties in government
actively subverted justice by demanding the withdrawal of criminal charges in
hundreds of cases, including for serious human rights violations committed
during the armed conflict. Torture and other ill-treatment in police custody
remained widespread.’ The Government’s action to release high-profile criminals
from prison has made a further mockery of the rule of law and amounts to a
gigantic misuse of political power.
This Government has promised time
and again to ensure the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, to
establish a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and to bring to justice those
responsible for extra-judicial killings, rapes and honour killings during the
ten-year conflict. On the contrary, however, the Government and the Maoist
party had tried to negotiate with other political forces in the country to
achieve a blanket general amnesty for those who were responsible for the
atrocities of the civil strife. There can be no greater disrespect for human
rights and fundamental freedoms than that. A few months ago, the major
political parties have agreed at long last to table the draft bill to establish
the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC).
However, since then there has
been silence, and still they have failed to punish the perpetrators of 18,000
deaths and hundreds of disappearances. Such establishment has been delayed for
years, owing to the parties’ divergent views on the terms of the bill. Late though
this may be, it is nevertheless a most welcome step. What is not so welcome is
that the major parties have agreed also to remove a clause that would prohibit
any amnesty for serious conflict-era abuses. The omission of this clause could
throw into doubt the possible effectiveness and fairness of the future TRC in
seeking to establish the truth. Will there not be a danger and a fear that the
perpetrators may use the TRC as a means of legitimizing their own gross actions
during the war?
Present government, now caretaker
since the demise of the Constituent Assembly in 27 May, talks repeatedly about
ensuring good governance in the country, but its actions appear to justify
practices more corrupt than ever before in all sectors of the administration.
‘Good governance’ has many characteristics: it is participatory; it is
consensus-oriented; it is accountable; it is transparent; it is responsive; it
is effective and efficient; it is equitable and inclusive; and it acts always
in accordance with the rule of law. It ensures, above all, that corruption is
minimized. However, under the current government, the level of corruption has
increased, the politics of ‘Bhagbanda’ (Politics of give and take) have been
encouraged, and there is a mafia-style grip on the nation’s economy (note the
cosy relationship between politicians, press barons, business and contractors),
siphoning off riches to family and friends and taxpayers’ money to its
supporters. This is a monstrous example of nepotism, favouritism and
corruption. In the twenty-first century it is hard to believe that Nepal has
become a ‘networking’ state in action, a place where contacts count, and where
what you do or are capable of doing matters less than whom you know.
The politics of ‘Bhagbanda’ are
spreading as a cancer in their country. No single public institution appears
immune from them today as the political parties bargain to appoint officials
from the lowest to the highest. The practice of patronage has destroyed a
society that was once based on merit, and it is destroying fast any suggestion
of a democratic nation. The lavish life-style of the leaders contrasts
dramatically with that of the forty per cent of our people who must live on
less than one dollar a day. Therefore their people ask today: Do these immoral
and irresponsible politicians have the right to mortgage the country and the
future of people for their benefit alone?
The central mission now must be
to change the mind-set of their twenty seven million people – to encourage them
to engage in active citizenship. Their politics will only find sensible
solutions when they start asserting their rights as citizens. To solve this
problem, they need to reduce the concentration of power and wealth
dramatically. Only by strengthening their democratic norms and values and
making internal politics fairer, more transparent and more accountable shall
they achieve any improvement in their state. They must seek to preserve the
best of the past and abandon the worst. More homework is needed, and there must
be a greater involvement of qualified individuals. As citizens and rights
holders, people of Nepal
must become more active politically and socially. It is vital that they
exercise good judgement when participating in the political process. It is
vital that they use common sense when choosing between right and wrong, between
good leaders and bad. They as citizens must prove that they are more than blind
supporters. They must start from today to search out a destiny for themselves.
Democracy is a noble ideal,
imbued with universal principles, rights, obligations, and procedures.
Democracy involves the people in a struggle to decide, not only how to organize
themselves, but also how to define their system of governance and its social
and cultural boundaries. Any political leaders or parties that fail to align
themselves with the norms of democracy, human rights and fundamental freedoms
must be offered no second chance. Power must be seen to lie with the people.
That is the very essence of democracy.
Citizens need to be heard, and
the political process must be wrested from the monopoly of a few politicians.
Very different leadership qualities are needed from a louder cadre of public
intellectuals who understand the nature of politics and are able to transform
them into something more than just a ‘dirty game’. Now is the time to establish
a positive message in their country that politics are a form of art that
deserves the respect of them all.
Dr Basnet,
who holds a Ph.D. and an LL.M degree in International Human Rights Law at
Lancaster University, U.K, is a Columnist, Researcher in International Human
Rights Law and an Advocate in the Supreme Court Nepal. Email:
gyanbasnet@aol.com.
Courtesy:
Eurasia Review
No comments:
Post a Comment