If you want peace, get ready for war—Adolf Hitler
Neglect of the rural poor by urban ruling elite was a major reason for rise and success of UCPN (Maoist)’s decade long rebellion. Insurgency was brutal, but it was borne out of frustration among several minorities in the hills, mountains, and rural Nepal in the mid-west and far-west regions.
Ruling elites’ indifference to the concerns of this huge chunk of Nepali population led them to think that revolution was the only way to get their voice across to Kathmandu. The revolution came, and went. But those responsible for crimes committed during the conflict era have gone unpunished. Perhaps this is the unique case among the countries that have gone through civil conflicts in the world.
Surely, both the parties—the Maoists, and the Nepali State—had equal share in those crimes. Eight Dalits who worked for a local landlord in Achham were beaten and their legs were crushed by the Maoists as a punishment for working for the landlord.
Children and adults, alike, were kidnapped and forced to join the Maoist army. Police kidnapped Hari Prasad Bolakhe from Banepa on 27 December 2003, and his remains were found two and a half years later, in June 2006. Eyewitnesses had reported that the then District Police Officer, Khadga Bahadur Lama, was the one who had abducted Bolakhe.
Although Nepal Police has taken some initiatives to punish some crime-accused, justice in Hari Prasad Bolakhe’s case is still elusive. Nepal Army is no different in this regard. So in terms of crimes committed during the conflict era, all three—Nepal Army, Nepal Police and Maoists—are equally responsible, former two more responsible at times. National and international human rights monitoring agencies have shown that of over 13000 people killed during the Maoist conflict, majority were killed by the state security forces.
When the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) was signed between the Maoists and the Nepali government in 2005, provision to fulfilling national and international human rights obligations was clearly spelt out. And, that meant the violators of human rights during the conflict had to be brought to justice, and duly punished. But this has not happened. The Maoists and the government security forces have not been held accountable. And, so, impunity reigns supreme.
According to International Criminal Court (ICC), the main goal of its Rome Statute is to put an end to impunity for those that were involved in the most serious crimes committed against humanity. Killing of over 13000 people falls under this category. The United Nations Commission on Human Rights defines impunity to be the “impossibility…of bringing the perpetrators of violations to account.”
Thus there is no dearth of statute to bring the violators to dock. What lacks is willingness to do so. Several security Acts grant the security forces immunity from being convicted of human rights violations if they claim to have committed such violations while discharging their “duties.”
Under the National Code, there is no provision for “independent inquiry” if security forces are charged of murder. Members of the security forces cannot be tried for perjury because they are “not obliged” to tell the truth under the National Code. Such lack of willingness is not limited to security forces. It applies to civil servants in government jobs too but many of them seem unaware of it.
A September 1999 study by The Asia Foundation suggested that impunity in Nepal is structural as well as cultural with the general populace apparently accepting impunity. However, this acceptance of cases of impunity could have more to do with structural absence of information and justice rather than a mere cultural acceptance of the phenomenon. The study highlighted that impunity was highest in bureaucracy and polity.
The study also found that human rights organizations in Nepal were not very active in documenting impunity cases vis-à-vis human rights violations, and advocating against those violations. The situation may have improved in 13 years, but not much.
There is a tendency, among some, to blame the public for being apathetic to impunity in Nepal. But that is not the case.
They are virtually powerless to anything about it. As many of the victims are illiterate or ignorant of the avenues to seek justice against their perpetrators, justice for them remains a far cry, mostly. Thus apathy to impunity rests in Nepali government that has done next to nil to amend the acts that debar justice delivery, or to pursue criminal cases against those who perpetrated human rights violations during the conflict.
The worst thing about this institutional apathy towards impunity, as well as state’s inability in punishing the perpetrators is that it has a reinforcing effect. Apathy towards one case of impunity begets another case. The apathy towards Maoist and Army impunity has only encouraged other factions of Nepali society to pursue violent means.
The blatant violation of human rights during the Madhes uprising was an example of that. Babarmahal blast of February 27, and a gleeful admission by an ethno-political outfit for carrying out that bombing, is the latest reinforcement of impunity. As long as perpetrators of human rights violation, injustice and violence can walk scot-free, impunity will only keep multiplying by several folds. Oh, impunity!
mukhanal@gmail.com
Related story
Protests, Power and the Price of Neglect
