Kanak Mani Dixit.
March,6, 014. Kathmandu.
“There is direct line from Cabin-16-17 at Bir Hospital to a prosperous Nepali future.”
It is necessary to understand why on the 132nd day of their fast-unto-death, being kept alive through a protein tube to the neck, Nanda Prasad and Gangamaya Adhikari have not been visited over the past four months and more by the human rights cells of local Western embassies, the UN including OHCHR, the international human rights organisations. This neglect is inexplicable, but there must be an explanation.
There can be no doubt that this case does NOT fall within the purview of the proposed transitional justice mechanism, viz. the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. This was the brutal murder of the 16-year-old Krishna Prasad Adhikari, a schoolboy who had nothing to do with the conflict. The killing cannot be considered ‘political’ just because the perpetrator was Maoist. The ruling by the Supreme Court of Nepal as well as OHCHR’s own handbook on application of the proposed TRC to Nepal under international standards both indicate that there is no option but to apply the criminal justice system on a case such as the Krishna Prasad murder.
Even if the legality and process were unclear to some, especially given the TRC smokescreen created by the Maoists, it would still seem the duty of the international community to visit the couple on the grounds of sheer compassion. Why is this humanitarian spirit not evident? Why was there at least some show of concern (even if not visitations) during the couple’s first fasting that lasted 47 days (and was halted on governmental assurances that were not fulfilled) and not now?
What has changed in the international perception about the Adhikari couple and their fight for justice? All they are demanding is: Our son was murdered, we want the perpetrators and others involved to be identified and prosecuted. Having sought justice for nine long years, long before the media ‘discovered’ them a year ago, and having been manhandled over innumerable inhumane ways by the police and state, they came to the conclusion that the only way to get justice was through a satyagraha fast.
Even as the weeks extended into months, the couple has refused to heed the continuous plea of activists that they need to remain alive to see justice done, that they must end their hunger strike. The government and relevant civil society are sensitised, the broader community of conflict victims is solidly behind them, and there can really be no going back on the road to justice. But such is the level of the Nanda Prasad’s and Gangamaya’s scepticism about the ability and commitment of the police, state administration, politicians and rights activists, that they are unwilling to take food in the absence of arrest and credible prosecutions against the accused.
Slowly, the newly formed Parliament is taking up the matter of Adhikari couple, and the topmost levels of bureaucracy, at least, is exercised if not the police. One can make out that police is lagging in investigations, not having shown due diligence despite much ballyhooed special teams and assurances on progress made. For their part, the well-known civil society ‘stalwarts’ have been unconcerned about the couple, never bothering to visit Cabin 16-17 of Bir Hospital where they are kept under intravenous medication and protein-feed.
It is as if larger practicalities of politics and governance are enough to make the politicians and stalwarts insensitive to the victims’ demands of justice. Little do those in power realise that neglect of the peace of demand for justice will leave a permanent open wound on the body politic, and that the cumulative pain of the victims will rise to explosive proportions over time rather than died out – just remember the events, Bhairabnath and Bardia disappearances, Doramba and Maadi mass killings, and the names, Maina Sunar, Muktinath Adhikari, Guru Prasad Luintel, Arjun Bahadur Lama, Dekendra Thapa…
Been there, done that
The international community is dutybound to support any society that is challenged on human rights and democracy. While engagement with constitution writing or the day-to-day conduct of politics would be considered interference on sovereign affairs, not so actions to protect human rights and pluralism. And, in Nepal, over the decade of conflict and the transitional period of seven years since, including the run-up to the People’s Movement of 2006, the Western embassies and aid agencies were quite involved and interested in the matters of human rights and democracy. They supported the National Human Rights Commission, forensic investigations, investigation teams (such as Doramba), visiting Bardia to study the disappearance of Tharu youth by the state security, and so on.
Could it be that the aid agencies and embassies believe that they would be perceived as ‘playing politics’ in showing concern for Gangamaya-Nanda Prasad? They may believe that the Maoists will go berserk, enough to derail the constitution-writing. If such were the argument, it is untenable, because the need for justice for human rights excess during the conflict by either side (rape, murder, disappearance, torture) must be investigated and prosecutions carried out. Anywhere in the world as in Nepal. Investigation and prosecution of excess is important for the sake of both victims and society, and their joint interest should override all concerns.
Nepali society, especially after being placed back on the democratic track by the November 2013 elections, is not so feeble that it cannot stand up for justice and challenge the positioning of the Maoists and the state security forces, including the Nepal Army, on transitional justice. Besides, what kind of constitution do we expect to be written if the drafters are the kind that cannot stand up to those who have raped, murdered, disappeared and tortured?
However, to conclude, the reason for lack of international concern about the satyagraha of Nanda Prasad and Gangamaya Adhikari probably has little to do with worries about the constitution-writing. It probably has more to do with fatigue with human rights in Nepal among the internationals, which is of course nothing but a copout that cannot be acceptable to the Nepali people.
In the end, it is the Nepali people who should be up to the fight for justice (and they are), but a little bit of interest of the world community would help. For us, it is not a ‘been there, done that’ matter. Energised by the need to move on to revive development and economic growth, the major donor and embassies seem to be putting human rights matters on low burn. If true, this is unfortunate. The people want growth and prosperity, more than donor agency, ingo or embassy staff, but they also know that any attempt at economic growth conducted in the absence of rule of law, human rights, accountability and activation of criminal justice system – will not be sustainable. There is direct line from Cabin-16-17 at Bir Hospital to a prosperous Nepali future.
END
