April seems to be an interesting month for Nepal. The devastating earthquake in April 2015 shook the country, drawing the world's attention. With youths thronging out into the streets to help people in need, it was a display of camaraderie, empathy and volunteerism of our youths, which kindled hope of a better future. Almost a decade ago, in April 2006, hundreds of thousands of people swarmed the streets of Kathmandu expressing hope and aspiration of peaceful and prosperous Nepal. Popularly recalled as the April Uprising, it also marks the triumph of peaceful protests that overthrew monarchy and hastened Nepal's peace process. Apparently, April 2016 would also be the month when the Commission of Investigation on Enforced Disappeared Persons (CIEDP) and Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) start registering complaints from conflict victims.It took a decade for transitional justice bodies to come into existence. This tardy pace of transitional justice is not a coincidence or merely a reflection of the working style of the country's policymakers and bureaucrats. At the risk of sounding naïve, I would argue, that this inaction was deliberate; as the warring parties had not negotiated for 'justice' but for a 'standalone peace'.
Tired of the violent conflict, the warring parties—the government of Nepal and the then CPN (Maoist)—negotiated 'peace'. Peace was negotiated not because one had lost the war but because they had both agreed to peace. It was a compromise, to end the war in the hope of a more stable and peaceful Nepal. People were fed up with the violent conflict and wanted an end to the uncertainties in life, wanted a life which was more predictable and peaceful. The negotiated peace therefore came with a price. Given the context and circumstances of the negotiations, the price was what everyone agreed upon at the time.
One of the reasons for exclusive focus on concluding the 'peace process' was the context of negotiated peace which meant that 'peace' prevailed over everything else. Peace prevailed over process, peace prevailed over practice and peace prevailed over justice. As the priority of everyone was 'peace' and concluding the peace process, the realization of justice did not come naturally to most. For the majority, conclusion of peace process and peace dividend would automatically entail justice for all.
No wonder, the formation of transitional justice bodies took forever. Interestingly, during the passing of the TRC bill, the civil society as well as the political parties largely chose to keep mum. Why was everyone silent? An underlying fear of possible derailment of 'peace process' among parties was the primary cause. This reaffirms the people's preference of peace over justice, even among the ones who claim to have been working on transitional justice.
Interestingly, organizations working on transitional justice have also been one of the 'players' who time and again halted the peace process. To borrow the idea from Tshepo Madlingozi, these organizations have become 'transitional justice entrepreneurs' and their priority has been in 'production' of victims for consumption within the transitional justice industry.
In all of this, the conflict victims have suffered. They have been treated mostly as collateral damage. There isn't much consideration on reparation of victims. The focus is again on distribution of compensation and relief package. This is not because political parties do not have the ability to address issues of justice, but because the issue of justice has never been a priority for them. The deliberate inaction in forming transitional justice mechanisms and the exaggerated focus on concluding the peace process minimize the role of post-conflict justice.
Transitional as defined by oxford dictionary means "relating to or characteristic of a process or period of transition". In the context of Nepal, the period of transition—from 2006 up until today—has seen bitter contestations and a great deal of uncertainty for conflict victims. Meanwhile, the central question remains unanswered: Are we sacrificing 'justice' for 'peace'?
The author is a program officer at Alliance for Social Dialogue. The views expressed are personal
@SwagatRajPandey
Related story
Let’s live in peace and embrace diversity
