During the conflict, both the government and the Maoists by and large relied on small arms to wage the battle. Now, when the process for the recategorization of the former Maoist combatants is nearly complete, 3,400 different types of weapons they used during the civil war have been locked in seven cantonments. A few are still being used for the security of high-ranking Maoist leaders.
The government and the Maoist Party made an astute decision to manage the arms and prevent their pilferage by storing them in locked containers. But doubts remain in some quarters that not all small arms used by the Maoists during the conflict have been accounted for. If this is the case, the security implications of the unaccounted small arms might be huge.
The UN defines small arms as the weapons that can be transported and used by one person. If that definition is to be followed, hand guns, grenades, revolvers, self-loading pistols, landmines, sub-machine guns, mortars, and light missiles all fall under this category. In Nepal, with the notable exception of twelve-bore and air guns, the law forbids possession of other small arms.
The Government of Nepal has, for the record, till date issued more than 34,000 small arms licenses.
Post conflict countries have bitter experiences of misuse of arms and their direct and indirect pilferage. This might, in the long run, undermine the state’s sovereignty by spawning a gun culture. Gun culture has unique characteristics. Those who advocate for it are neither concerned about human rights nor are they willing to abide by the rule of law—which they are wont to interpret in their own terms.
The Government of Nepal issues licenses for twelve-bore guns for self-defense to those deemed fit for it. But gun rights organizations like the National Rifle Association of America argue that each non-criminal person has a right to self-defense, and the most effective way of doing so is allow individuals to bear arms. Their argument is that since warlords and governments in conflict areas have access to weapons, disarmament only creates more defenseless victims. But surely, the argument that people need to bear arms to deter those already armed is flawed. This is not only bad logic but against the fundamentally basis of peace and human security.
In the period between 2006 and 2011 Nepal Police seized 1,336 pistols, revolvers and country-made pistols and arrested 2,787 people.
Clearly, there are more small arms in Nepal than have been officially registered. Nepal Police has been mobilizing its human resources and logistics to intervene the supply-and-demand chain of those involved in this business. But it has had only limited success. The data of the past two years indicate nearly 100 illegal armed groups are operating in the Tarai, eastern hills and mid-western hills, killing innocent people, abducting school children and extorting money from business persons, farmers , employees and others.
In order to curb the growing sense of insecurity and to maintain law and order in the country, the government had launched the special security programme a couple of years ago. The government also urged the armed groups to surrender voluntarily. Heeding the government’s call, some armed groups did indeed come forward for talks. But the series of dialogues were by and large fruitless and a huge disappointment for the mediators.
The degree of proliferation of small arms is indicated by the fact that in the six year period between 2006 and 2011 Nepal Police seized 1,336 pistols, revolvers and country-made pistols. Meantime, a total of 2,787 people were arrested with small arms. Yes, the rate of the seizure of small arms shows a decreasing trend, but does this imply that the society is largely secure from the threats of small arms?
Probably not. In order to make a serious dent on the crime rate it will be important to manage the porous Indo-Nepal border more rigorously. Small arms have been linked with most cross-border crimes as many people, knowingly or not, are entering Nepali territories with pistols and revolvers. This needs to be checked at all costs. Correspondingly, it would also be a wise idea to openly destroy the entire cache of the weapons now stored in containers.
As in the US, a small but vocal group of high-profile personalities in Nepal want the small arm possession legislation be made more liberal. During the Panchayat regime, the members of royal family and other high-profile people did keep pistols and revolvers, but in the democratic dispensation such rights have never been granted, probably as the lawmakers were well aware of the great dangers of proliferation.
It is high time the pervasive threat of small arms to peace and development in Nepal was addressed. In the period of transition, many grey areas open up for the criminal elements. With the current government focused on peace and constitution drafting, the criminal armed groups and other miscreants have stepped up crimes like smuggling, killing, kidnapping and gang fighting. Most alarming is the prospect that the rampant use of illegal arms might ultimately lead to their use in settling communal disputes. Things could indeed turn ugly if the small arms are used to protect group identities, with many criminal proxies in between.
At this critical juncture of post-conflict management, the state is in a compromise mode: compromise between and among the major stakeholders of ten-year-long armed conflict, Madheshbadi activists, marginalized and other ethnic and non-ethnic population groups. This is a fragile scenario, in which the government needs to adopt a two-pronged strategy: create favorable public opinion for its efforts to control gun proliferation and ensure good governance with zero tolerance of rights violation. It is also upon the state to make sure that the weapons don’t fall on wrong hands. That might be too high a price to pay. Nepal cannot afford any more instability at the moment.
The writer is former home secretary
kusum100@hotmail.com
Related story
Box office: 'Bullet Train' arrives with so-so $30.1 million deb...
