Friday, August 30, 2013

Tenacity in the time of villainy


The Maoists deride the Adhikari couple’s fast-unto-death, the state administration is fearful and timid, and the international community looks the other way.
By Kanak Mani Dixit
Inside the ‘Old ICU’ of Bir Hospital on Thursday morning, Nanda Prasad and Gangamaya Adhikari entered the 38th day of their refusal to take food, demanding investigation and prosecution on the murder of son Krishna Prasad. Their act of ascetic rebellion, ongoing for nine years and culminating in the current fast-unto-death, seems to have finally woken up the political class. But there is no saying this will deliver justice rather than more tokenism.
The Maoists were, of course, the first to react. Pushpa Kamal Dahal and Baburam Bhattarai called a press conference to blame the Adhikari family for ‘social misdeeds’ in their native Gorkha, tar human rights activists as ‘dollar mongers’, and warn the Khil Raj Regmi government not to proceed with investigations. The two former prime ministers went as far as to threaten revolt.
The UCPN-Maoists argue that the place for Krishna Prasad’s murder, an ‘elimination’ the party owns, is the truth and reconciliation commission. But the commission does not exist, sabotaged by the Maoist insistence on making it an instrument for amnesty. Nor does it matter for Dahal/Bhattarai that UN Human Rights Committee rulings, an OHCHR briefing paper specifically for Nepal, as well as Supreme Court precedence, have clarified that a TRC can never supplant the criminal justice system.
The Maoist attempt at blackmail further holds that the peace process will derail if conflict era crimes are raked up, that the elections will be foiled. The other parties do not have the circumspection to speak up to reject such claims: there has been no agreement to exonerate anyone of war crimes and criminal acts of the conflict era; and it is the inability to prosecute Krishna Prasad’s killers that would cast a pall over the upcoming elections, convincing the voters that might is right in the ‘new Nepal’.
Run of politicians
On Tuesday, President Ram Baran Yadav finally showed interest in the case and spoke on the phone with the attending doctors at Bir. The political leaders too woke up from their slumber, and on Wednesday a bevy arrived at the Old ICU – Sushil Koirala, Jhalanath Khanal, Madhav Kumar Nepal, Ishwor Pokhrel, CP Mainali, et al. Health Minister Vidyadhar Mallik has been in regular attendance, and, on Thursday, Chairman Regmi and Home Minister Madhav Ghimire came by to try their hand at convincing the couple to end their fast.
The couple had heard the arguments before: “Even to fight for justice you have to be alive… The government has started investigations… It’s not possible to arrest without going through the procedures… You can always start another fast if the government goes back on its word.” Nanda Prasad’s response was the same one he has always given to the rights activists, nurses and doctors: “On what basis are we to end our fast, what is the adhaar?”
Gangamaya is in visible pain, writhing under the sheets, tears in her eyes. She says, “Aba marincha kyare (I think one will now die). One son was finished by the party, another is being chased all over, while the government is finishing us off.” Asked to consider ending her fast, Gangamaya says, “Hos, aba hamilai maarun. Khopne ra ropne kaam nagarikana hamilai marna diyeko bhaye hunthyo.” (Let them kill us. I wish they had let depart go without all this poking and piercing.)
Nanda Prasad’s response has been consistent over the weeks, and he said nothing different to Chairman Regmi: “Why are you wasting your time? I would eat if you would arrest the guilty. The police is under your government, so what’s stopping you? Bhanai matra ho, garai hoina – you only talk, there is no result. Hamro bijog herna matra aayeko jasto lagyo – you seem to be here simply watch us in misery.”
Health bulletin
Confronted by the astonishing tenacity of the Adhikari couple, the doctors at Bir have been studying cases of fasting activists near and far, including Irom Sharmila of Manipur. Their’s is the ethical dilemma of allowing a voluntary fast to lead towards eventual death. In literature search, they have found helpful principles enunciated in the Declaration of Malta on Hunger Strikers of 2006. That document deals with issues such as the ‘principle of beneficence’ versus ‘individual autonomy’ and the possibility of peer pressure and coercion – and advises against force-feeding of patients who voluntarily refuse to eat.
At the Old ICU, Gangamaya’s condition is deteriorating fast while Nanda Prasad could become critical at any moment, say the doctors. For not having eaten, they are both on the path to ‘metabolic derailment’. Some days ago, rights activists convinced the couple to allow intravenous drip, through which they are receiving dextrose, sodium and potassium, but not essential fat, minerals and protein.
Gangamaya’s vital signs are dipping, with low blood pressure, deep vein thrombosis, spread of infection (sepsis), and gastro-intestinal bleeding. Nanda Prasad is more stable, but he has lost muscle mass. Wife and husband have both refused to be fed by nasal tube (as in the case of Irom Sharmila), and the two will not submit to a ‘central line’ providing sustenance through the sub-clavical or jugular veins.
While Gangamaya prefers silence, Nanda Prasad remains as lucid as he was a month ago. He says, “I have not lost my faculties, but bolda boldai marchu jasto lagchha (…I feel like I will die even as I am talking). There is no need to keep us alive. This is our end.”
State capture
The ministers of the interim government are concerned that the Gangamaya and Nanda Prasad will die on their watch – the Accountability Watch Committee has warned that the Regmi regime and leaders of the five-party High Level Political Committee are accountable for the health of the couple. The ministers don’t want the kalanka (stigma) that would attach on their persons, but seem unable to swing the sluggish government machinery into action.
Indeed, that entire machinery seems compromised by the fear of Maoist displeasure. The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) could have given a more detailed directive to the government. The Attorney General’s Office has gone through the motions of forwarding the NHRC letter, rather than telling the police that an earlier order to halt investigations (by the Bhattarai regime) stands over-ridden. Meanwhile, the police force is impacted by the timidity of its chief at Kathmandu HQ, as with the Dekendra Thapa case of last year.
Gangamaya and Nanda Prasad, frail and weakening, seem to be more alert to this reality of state capture than the great editorialists, which explains their dogged struggle for justice in the face of all-round tokenism. Indeed, if a leaf has moved (to use a Nepali expression) for accountability in the present instance, it is due to a couple who will not forget their son, nor his murder.
The adhaar (basis) that Nanda Prasad seems to seek in order to break the fast is evidence of good faith in investigation and prosecution. And his skepticism is well-founded – this is a couple that has been humiliated endlessly for seeking justice, including a forced stay at the mental hospital in Lagankhel.
Resounding silence
May Nanda Prasad and Gangamaya live a long life – long enough to see Nepal evolve as a country of laws, where accused war criminals are tried rather than allowed to run for office. And let the international community once so interested in human rights in Nepal – OHCHR, the various embassies and their human rights cells, the UN Secretary General’s Office, Amnesty International, ICTJ, ICJ, Human Rights Watch, Medicin Sans frontieres, the international electronic and print media, and so on – understand that their silence on the Adhikari couple’s fast for justice is echoing across our Himalayan valleys.
Evidently, we are alone in this fight against impunity. Gangamaya and Nanda Prasad are trying to tell us something – we are responsible for ourselves, the rest are only onlookers and well-wishers.
Published in Kathmandu Post,

August,30/013.                       

Tuesday, August 20, 2013


राज्य पुनर्संरचनाको आधार
Monday, 15 April 2013 10:35 डा. पद्मप्रसाद खतिवडा
Description: E-mailDescription: Print
6
जनगणना २०६८ बाट संकलित जातजातिको तथ्याङ्कलाई पहाडी जाति, पहाडी जनजाति, तराई जनजाति, मधेसी, पहाडी दलित, तराई दलित, धार्मिक तथा भाषिक समूदाय र अन्य गरी ७ समूहमा विभाजनमार्फत् विश्लेषण गरिएको यो लेखमा नेपालका जातजातिहरूको बाहुल्य स्थान र बसोबासका क्षेत्र औंल्याइएको छ। ऐतिहासिक थातथलोका हिसावले राज्य पुनर्संरचना गर्ने आधार खडा गर्न जति महत्वपूर्ण छ, त्यति नै जातजातिको वितरण अवस्थाको विश्लेषण गर्न जरूरी छ। सैद्धान्तिक र व्यावहारिक दुवै सत्यलाई आत्मसात गर्न नसक्ने हो भने अबको संविधान सभाले पनि नयाँ संविधान बनाउला भन्ने ग्यारेन्टी छैन। किनकि विगतको संविधान सभामा सबैभन्दा पेचिलो मुद्दा नै यही बनेको थियो।
जातीय तस्बिर
समग्रमा ३१.३ प्रतिशतमा रहेका पहाडी ब्राह्मण, क्षेत्री, संन्यासी/दशनामी र ठकुरी समुदायलाई मिलाएर हेर्दा यी जाति हिमालमा ११.१, पहाडमा ५६.९ र तराईमा ३२ प्रतिशत छन्। यी जाति विकास क्षेत्रका आधारमा पूर्वाञ्चलमा १५.७, मध्यमाञ्चलमा २७.६, पश्चिमाञ्चलमा १८.९, मध्यपश्चिममा १९.४ र सुदुरपश्चिमाञ्चलमा १८.५ प्रतिशत छन्।
समग्रमा २६.९ प्रतिशत ओगटेका मगर, राई, लिम्वू, गुरुङलगायत्का जनजाति हिमालमा ८.६, पहाडमा ६८.८ र तराईमा २२.६ प्रतिशत देखिन्छन्। हिमालमा बसोबास गर्ने बाहुल्य समुदायमध्येका शेर्पा भने हिमालमा आधाभन्दा बढी (५९.४ प्रतिशत), पहाडमा ४६ तराईमा ४.६ प्रतिशत रहेको तथ्याङ्कले देखाउँछ। पहाडमा बाहुल्य जातिका रूपमा चिनिएका मगरहरू भने हिमालमा १.५, पहाडमा ७०.२ र तराईमा २८. ४ प्रतिशत छन्। गुरुङहरू भने हिमालमा ५.७, पहाडमा ७२.७ र तराईमा २१. ६ प्रतिशत छन्। लिम्बूहरू भने हिमालमा १६, पहाडमा ५२.५ र तराईमा ३१.५ प्रतिशत रहेको पनि तथ्याङ्क देखाउँछ। त्यस्तै तामाङहरू भने ७० प्रतिशत पहाडमा नै रहेको देखिन्छ। तर उनीहरू हिमालमा (१३.४ प्रतिशत) छन् भने तराईमा (१६.४ प्रतिशत) छन्। यस हिसावले तामाङहरू हिमालमा भन्दा तराईमा बढी भएको तथ्याङ्कले देखाउँछ।
विकास क्षेत्रका आधारमा हेर्दा पहाडी जनजातिहरू क्रमशः पूर्वाञ्चलमा २५.५ प्रतिशत, मध्यमाञ्चलमा ४४ प्रतिशत, पश्चिमाञ्चलमा २१.१ प्रतिशत, मध्यपश्चिममा ८.२ प्रतिशत र सुदूरपश्चिममा १.२ प्रतिशत छन्। यिनमा मगरहरू पश्चिमाञ्चलमा (४३.५ प्रतिशत) केन्द्रित देखिन्छन्। गुरुङहरू पनि पश्चिमाञ्चल (५८ प्रतिशत) मा नै केन्द्रित छन् भने लिम्बूहरू अधिकांश पूर्वाञ्चल (९४.४ प्रतिशत) मा केन्द्रित छन्। तामाङहरू भने मध्यमाञ्चलमा केन्द्रित छन्, जहाँ उनीहरू ८० प्रतिशतभन्दा बढी छन्। यस पटकको जनगणनामा राईको जनसंख्या विभिन्न जातजातिमा विभाजन हुन पुग्दा एकिन गर्न गाह्रो छ। समग्रमा ८.९ प्रतिशतमा रहेका थारु, दनुवार, झाँगड, खवास, राजवंशी, सतार/सन्थाललगायत्का तराई जनजातिहरू हिमालमा अत्यन्तै कम (०.२ प्रतिशत), पहाडमा ५.१ प्रतिशत र तराईमा ९४.८ प्रतिशत छन्। पहाडमा रहेका तराई जनजातिमा खासगरी पहाडी बेंसी तथा नदी किनारमा बस्ने दनुवार, खवासलगायत्का समुदाय पर्छन्। विकास क्षेत्रका आधारमा तराई जनजातिहरू पूर्वाञ्चलमा ३०.१ प्रतिशत देखिन्छन्, जहाँ धिमाल, राजवंशीलगायत्का जनजाति ९५ प्रतिशतभन्दा बढी छन्। त्यस्तै थारुको बाहुल्य भनेर चिनिने मध्यपश्चिम र सुदूरपश्चिममा थारुहरू क्रमशः २७.४ र २५.३ प्रतिशत छन्।
मधेसी समुदायको अवस्था
समग्रमा १४.८ प्रतिशतमा रहेका यादव, तराई ब्राह्मण, हजाम/ठाकुर, काठवानियन, कोइरी/कुसुवा, कुर्मी, लोहार, तेलीलगायत्का मधेसी हिमालमा अत्यन्तै कम (१.३३)प्रतिशत, पहाडमा ३.४ प्रतिशत र तराईमा अत्यधिक धेरै (९६.३ प्रतिशत) छन्। विकास क्षेत्रका आधारमा भने यिनीहरूको बाहुल्य मध्यमाञ्चलको तराई नै हो, जहाँ उनीहरू ५७.६ प्रतिशत छन्। त्यसपछिको बाहुल्य क्षेत्र पूर्वाञ्चलमा २४ प्रतिशत र पश्चिममा १४.३ प्रतिशत छ। यी समुदायबाट प्रतिनिधित्व गर्दै समग्र मधेस प्रदेशको नारा बोकेर राजनीतिमा प्रभाव जमाउन खोज्ने नेताहरूले बुझनुपर्ने कुरा के हो भने मध्यपश्चिम र सुदूरपश्चिममा आफ्नो प्रतिनिधित्व एकदमै कम (क्रमशः ३ र १ प्रतिशत) देखिन्छ।
दलित समुदायको स्थिति
समग्रमा ८.१ प्रतिशतमा रहेका वादी, दमाई, गाइने, कामी, सार्की समुदाय हिमालमा ९.५ प्रतिशत, पहाडमा ६३ प्रतिशत र तराईमा २७.३ प्रतिशत छन्। विकास क्षेत्रका आधारमा यी समुदाय पश्चिमाञ्चल (२८.५प्रतिशत र मध्यपश्चिमाञ्चलमा २७.४ प्रतिशत) तुलनात्ममकरूपमा केही बढी छन् भने अन्य विकास क्षेत्रमा १५ प्रतिशतको हाराहरीमा देखिन्छन्। यिनीहरूमा पनि खासगरी विश्वकर्माहरूको बाहुल्य मध्यपश्चिम (३१.८ प्रतिशत) मा छ भने दमाई र मिजारहरू क्रमशः २७.७ प्रतिशतर ३७.२ प्रतिशतका रूपमा पश्चिममा बाहुल्य जाति भनेर चिनिन्छन्।
समग्रमा ४.४ प्रतिशतमा रहेका बातर, चमार, चिडीमार, धोवी, डोम, दुसादलगायत्का तराई दलितहरू हिमालमा अति कम (०.०३ प्रतिशत), पहाडमा १ प्रतिशत र तराईमा ९८.९ प्रतिशत छन्। विकास क्षेत्रका आधारमा यिनीहरूमध्ये लगभग आधा (४७.७ प्रतिशत) मध्यमाञ्चलमा केन्द्रित छन् भने त्यसपछि पूर्वाञ्चलमा ३६ प्रतिशत छन्। यीमध्ये बातरको बाहुल्य पूर्वाञ्चलमा (९१.४ प्रतिशत), चिडिमार मध्यपश्चिममा (९६.६ प्रतिशत) र टट्मा/टट्वा मध्यमाञ्चल (७२.४प्रतिशत) देखिन्छ।
धार्मिक र भाषिक समुदायको अवस्था
समग्रमा ४.५ प्रतिशतमा रहेका मुलसमान, बंगाली र पञ्जावी शिख समुदायहरू हिमालमा अत्यन्तै कम (०.०५ प्रतिशत), पहाडमा ५.२ प्रतिशत र तराईमा ९४.८ प्रतिशत छन्। विकास क्षेत्रका आधारमा भने यिनीहरूको बाहुल्य मध्यमाञ्चल (४७.५ प्रतिशत) मा छ भने सुदूरपश्चिममा प्रायः नगण्य (०.६ प्रतिशत) र पूर्वमा लगभग २४ प्रतिशत छ। यिनीहरुमध्ये मुसलमानहरू पश्चिमाञ्चलमा ४७.९ प्रतिशत, बंगाली पूर्वाञ्चलमा ४७.९ प्रतिशत र पञ्जावी तथा शिखहरू मध्यमाञ्चलमा ४९.७ प्रतिशतमा केन्द्रित देखिन्छन्।
यस हिसावले हेर्ने हो भने विगतमा वास्तविक धरातलभन्दा फरक किसिमले उठेका बहसहरूका कारण नै विगतको संविधान सभाले संविधान बनाउन सकेन। तर, अबको संविधान सभाले संविधान तयार गर्नुअघि जातीय तथ्याङ्कलगायत् देशका आर्थिक, सामाजिक, सांस्कृतिक, प्राकृतिक र भाषिक तथ्यहरूमा बहस गरेरमात्रै देशको संघात्मक योजना बनाउनतिर लाग्नुपर्छ। त्यसो गरिएमात्रै अब बन्ने संविधान सभाले संघीय लोकतान्त्रिक गणतन्त्रसहितको नयाँ नेपाल सम्भव होला।