State of human rights in Nepal

Human rights violations are caused by a number of reasons— political, social, economic, to name a few. We must also understand that violations are caused by both human action and inaction, and in the language of human rights studies these actions and inactions are termed as positive and negative rights. Positive right is the ability to do something, whereas a negative right entails that people refrain from doing anything. The human rights discourse in Nepal is treading along a binary path, whereby non-state actors continue to exploit the state’s inability to act upon their sustained violation of human rights.

The reason why I argue that human rights are being propagated through a binary process is because certain political groups are using the medium of human rights as a political instrument to fine-tune their political propaganda. By raising popular issues, Maoists have managed to cajole both internal and external human rights groups to their side but, of course, Maoist actions more often than not have contradicted their posturing as the vanguards of human rights in Nepal. Their renewed extortion drive, continued intimidation of the citizenry and of their political adversaries are indications of the mockery of the human rights discourse in Nepal.

At this time, the question in contention is: Should the Nepali state be regulating non-state actors with the aim of mitigating human rights violations? To answer this question, the state must exercise its positive right or, in simpler words, must take action against any group, political or non-political, when human rights violations are committed. There are two important issues we need to look into while thinking of tackling human rights violators.

First, as Nepal is a signatory to numerous international treaties on human rights, primarily the Geneva Convention, we are bound by customary international laws and treaties. Customary international law seeks that the state does not abdicate its responsibility in protecting her citizens from sustained human rights violations. Second, we then need to question the government’s decision to adopt a policy of inaction or the adoption of negative right in dealing with human rights violators. In simple words, why is the government abdicating from its basic responsibility to protect her citizens?

The best way to describe the politics of human rights in Nepal is to see through the lens of the Madman theory. The Madman theory came into being during the US President Richard Nixon’s days and it aimed to tell the world that Nixon was mad and that he behaved irrationally with a touch of volatility. The net result of such an enactment was that the world thought Nixon was crazy and expected unpredictable reaction to any of their actions and as a result the communist blocks did not dare provoke him fearing severe action from Washington.

The only way to protect peace and democracy is by ensuring impartial human rights through sustenance of human dignity through which people can consciously choose what they do or do not want.

Our comrades in Nepal are doing much the same in making a complete mockery of the international community, the press and their political opponents. How this works in Nepal is quite simple: Every time there is an impending crisis, the howls get louder and the shrills even more bitter—war is threatened, an immediate breakdown of the peace process is percolated through popular rhetoric and a few hundred cadres go ballistic. Fearing blood bath, and political chaos, everyone eventually cave into the Maoists’ demand. And this is precisely the reason why Maoists continue to get away with murder. But in reality when you really come to think of it, neither can the Maoists return to war nor can they capture state power as they threaten to do. Going to war means political isolation, both internal and external, and now that the Maoists’ relation with India is strained, it will be political suicide to resort to any form of organized violence.

Their ability to sustain their power grab depends on the cooperation of the national security forces and international support—the army in that sense is their biggest obstacle. When you talk about international support, India and China are the only countries that really matters. But then again, Beijing knows very well that the Maoists are an Indian byproduct, and it is India that has maximum leverage over them. The anti-Indian protests by Maoists shows how desperately Pushpa Kamal Dahal is trying to tell Beijing he is their friend but, at the same time, he is also trying to tell the Indians there is room for renewed friendship.

So, what then is the solution?

Primarily, the government must exercise its right to protect its citizens. In other words, the government can no longer remain mute to any of the Maoists’ antics in the name of peace and democracy. The failure to do so will ironically catapult Nepal into a sphere of illiberal democracy and coerced peace. Nepal as a state has the obligation under customary internal laws to prosecute any group or individual for any human rights violations. There is good news too and not everything is bad.

First the bad: Even for their survival, the common people have now taken it as their fate and do not have the morale to protest against the suppression of their human rights. We must understand that we live in a period of coerced peace and human rights are being used as a political instrument to settle political scores. The consequences of this are quite blatant. People are losing interest in human rights and human rights institutions such as National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) are loosing credibility.

The good news is that the government can still exercise its positive right and in that sense, protect its citizens. There are both internal and external mechanisms such as OHRC and NHRC to name a few that can be taken into greater confidence in confronting challenges being meted out to the common people. However, the best news is that we have the capability to understand the bluff the Maoists are putting out, just like in a game of poker or like the Madman theory.

The Maoists will never go to war, and nor do they have the capacity to capture state power because they know they can only go to a certain length with such a policy. The end goal of the Maoists is to draft the constitution and then go for elections, no matter what they might tell the outside world. But elections will be fought, under Maoist terms, with intimidation and coercion as a fundamental component of their electoral strategy— nothing less will guarantee them absolute victory. The only way to protect peace and democracy is by ensuring impartial human rights through sustenance of human dignity through which people can consciously choose what they do or do not want. You decide.