Not in words but in deeds
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
THE never-ending debate of who was really responsible for the large number of disappearances and illegal killings during the past decade is unlikely to die down soon. The UN watchdog body, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR), has already made its own observations on the truth and reconciliation bill now before the interim parliament.
The Supreme Court, the other day, ordered the government to probe the disappearances by the security forces. There are those who would be satisfied with just probing the security forces and meting out the required punishment. There are yet others who wonder if the security forces alone are responsible. What about those who killed, abducted and disappeared in the name of rebellion? Do many of our rights bodies and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) have the answer? Punishing army generals and commanders responsible for the atrocities is fine, but what about the Maoist commanders who were allegedly directly responsible for the atrocities in their respective areas?
Conflicts of any kind tend to leave scars on the face of the nation. The bloodstained Maoist insurgency was no exception. It resulted in the unnecessary killing and untimely and unnatural deaths of more than 13,000 Nepalis. Hundreds of thousands of people were displaced from their homes and the suffering the children of this country underwent can never be fully described.
Many of the private properties in different parts of the country were seized by the rebels in the name of bringing justice to the masses. The untold suffering of physical, mental and emotional that the people, both who supported the movement and those who did not, should not go unheeded. But so far what purpose have the sufferings served?
Many watchers of the present political scene are asking if the decade-long conflict, the heart-rending suffering of the people and the virtual collapse of the economy, was merely a guise used by political parties to grab power. The wrangling within the SPA (seven party alliance)-Maoist government only cements such opinions. The political dramas performed by the Maoist ministers from time to time is a glaring example of how the people are sought to be diverted from the main objective of "creating" a "new" Nepal and turning it into Switzerland in 10 years (if one cares to give credence to the top Maoist leader's public utterances).
The question of punishing those who allegedly committed illegal activities during the decade-old insurgency will always remain a difficult one. Despite the best of efforts, most of the rights organisations, including the National Human Rights Commission, have the true picture of the situation. The numbers of those disappeared by the state and by the Maoists still remains hazy. The numbers of those disappeared by the state and the Maoist are around 900 and 100 respectively. The number of illegal (they may not be extra-judicial as Nepali laws, as far as I can recall, have abolished death sentence and therefore do not permit killings of any kind) killings by both the state and the Maoists remain unknown. But as the rights activists have been rightly urging, such killings should not go unpunished.
However, what bothers a considerable number of people is that such punishments should not be just one-sided. The Nepali security forces have blundered and resorted to killings and so have the Maoists. The reasoning is it will be unjust to punish just one side and provide what will amount to an amnesty to the other party.
In the eyes of the law, an individual is just as liable to legal measures as is the state. Both a citizen and the machinery must abide by the prevailing laws of the land. And so when the Maoists talk of justice, they should and must include their own area commanders and higher-ups for any killings for whatever reason they might have indulged in during the past decade in the name of their "Peoples War".
What some have been unable to understand is, why do the Maoists object to promotions and posting in the army while they have none over the non-conformity with the internationally accepted norms of conflict of some their own commanders? The security forces have to be open to investigation and punishment, if needed, while there seems to be a complete impunity for the Maoists. Acceptable?
Any steps taken to redress the past excesses must embrace both the government of the day and the Maoists. It is only then that the question of justice not only being done but seen to be done will bear any meaning. The rancour and ill will that are so manifest in these days cannot be wiped out by merely punishing one side and letting the other go scot-free.
The decade of bitterness and enmity that existed during the 10 years of insurgency must be ended and that is possible only when true — as opposed to virtual. Kathmandu Post/ANN
The Supreme Court, the other day, ordered the government to probe the disappearances by the security forces. There are those who would be satisfied with just probing the security forces and meting out the required punishment. There are yet others who wonder if the security forces alone are responsible. What about those who killed, abducted and disappeared in the name of rebellion? Do many of our rights bodies and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) have the answer? Punishing army generals and commanders responsible for the atrocities is fine, but what about the Maoist commanders who were allegedly directly responsible for the atrocities in their respective areas?
Conflicts of any kind tend to leave scars on the face of the nation. The bloodstained Maoist insurgency was no exception. It resulted in the unnecessary killing and untimely and unnatural deaths of more than 13,000 Nepalis. Hundreds of thousands of people were displaced from their homes and the suffering the children of this country underwent can never be fully described.
Many of the private properties in different parts of the country were seized by the rebels in the name of bringing justice to the masses. The untold suffering of physical, mental and emotional that the people, both who supported the movement and those who did not, should not go unheeded. But so far what purpose have the sufferings served?
Many watchers of the present political scene are asking if the decade-long conflict, the heart-rending suffering of the people and the virtual collapse of the economy, was merely a guise used by political parties to grab power. The wrangling within the SPA (seven party alliance)-Maoist government only cements such opinions. The political dramas performed by the Maoist ministers from time to time is a glaring example of how the people are sought to be diverted from the main objective of "creating" a "new" Nepal and turning it into Switzerland in 10 years (if one cares to give credence to the top Maoist leader's public utterances).
The question of punishing those who allegedly committed illegal activities during the decade-old insurgency will always remain a difficult one. Despite the best of efforts, most of the rights organisations, including the National Human Rights Commission, have the true picture of the situation. The numbers of those disappeared by the state and by the Maoists still remains hazy. The numbers of those disappeared by the state and the Maoist are around 900 and 100 respectively. The number of illegal (they may not be extra-judicial as Nepali laws, as far as I can recall, have abolished death sentence and therefore do not permit killings of any kind) killings by both the state and the Maoists remain unknown. But as the rights activists have been rightly urging, such killings should not go unpunished.
However, what bothers a considerable number of people is that such punishments should not be just one-sided. The Nepali security forces have blundered and resorted to killings and so have the Maoists. The reasoning is it will be unjust to punish just one side and provide what will amount to an amnesty to the other party.
In the eyes of the law, an individual is just as liable to legal measures as is the state. Both a citizen and the machinery must abide by the prevailing laws of the land. And so when the Maoists talk of justice, they should and must include their own area commanders and higher-ups for any killings for whatever reason they might have indulged in during the past decade in the name of their "Peoples War".
What some have been unable to understand is, why do the Maoists object to promotions and posting in the army while they have none over the non-conformity with the internationally accepted norms of conflict of some their own commanders? The security forces have to be open to investigation and punishment, if needed, while there seems to be a complete impunity for the Maoists. Acceptable?
Any steps taken to redress the past excesses must embrace both the government of the day and the Maoists. It is only then that the question of justice not only being done but seen to be done will bear any meaning. The rancour and ill will that are so manifest in these days cannot be wiped out by merely punishing one side and letting the other go scot-free.
The decade of bitterness and enmity that existed during the 10 years of insurgency must be ended and that is possible only when true — as opposed to virtual. Kathmandu Post/ANN
Business Besides Oil
