Submit your Article

To address war-era human rights viola­tions, a five-member Truth and Reconcil­iation Commission was set up in Febru­ary 2015. The commission was formed with a two-year mandate—which has been extended by a year two times—with the objective of resolving conflict-era issues and providing justice to conflict victims. The extended mandate of the TRC will expire on February 10, 2019. In TRC’s four year existence, there has been lit­tle progress in dealing with war-era cases. Reports are that the government will not further extend the TRC mandate, and replace the TRC and the Commission of Investigation on Enforced Disappeared Persons (CIEDP), the two transitional justice bodies, with political mechanisms. In this context, Kamal Dev Bhattarai talked to TRC member Manchala Jha.

Interview

MANCHALA JHA

 I have come to a conclusion that the TRC formation process was faulty

How do you measure the progress made by your commission?

We were unable to complete our mandated tasks in the past four years. First, the con­cept of such a commission in Nepal was something new. In initial days, we faced logistical problems such as shortage of human resources and offices. Once those problems were resolved, the earthquake struck, diverting attention. The TRC reg­ulation was delayed.

Right now, the TRC togeth­er with the CIEDP has received around 63,000 complaints. Last year, we established offices in all seven provinces and appointed experts to study the complaints. We completed investigation on 800 cases from Province no 1, which is good progress.

There are reports of lack of support from political parties.

Nepal’s conflict was unique. It was not a racial or caste conflict, nor was it a conflict over natural resources. The Maoist conflict had a political dimension, which was backed by marginalized communities. The conflict was resolved through all-party con­sensuses and moreover, Nepal’s peace process was homegrown. The Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) in 2006 had envisaged the formation of the TRC within six months. Due to the lack of political consensus, it took eight years.

When the commission was finally formed, we met top political leaders to solic­it their help in our task. They had assured us every kind of help and had committed not to interfere in our work. Both these promises were broken. Nor did frequent change in government help our cause.

In February 2015 the Supreme Court annulled the amnesty pro­visions of the Transitional Justice Act, saying that it was against established principles of justice and international law. There was no attempt to amend the law in line with SC verdict. This made our work difficult.

Are you implying that political parties are not serious about settling TRC issues?

I think so. I have come to a conclusion that the TRC for­mation process was faulty. The then Maoist Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal has said that the commission should never have been formed, which gives us some hint of our politicians’ seriousness to the cause of tran­sitional justice. Not only Dahal, political leaders from other par­ties are also not interested.

The TRC component was incorporated in the CPA follow­ing UN pressure. Then, in 2012, the UN human rights commission came up with a detail report on rights violation in Nepal that prompted parties to set up tran­sitional justice mechanisms. I think the commission was set up only so that our politicians could save face in front of the international community.

But there is also a pos­itive side. The parties started distributing relief package to war-era victims after 2006. One million rupee was provided to the family of each person killed during the conflict. Similarly, their children got scholarships to study.

Do you think the commission had too broad a mandate?

This commission should have been mandated only to find out the truth. We had a very broad mandate but the right condition to fulfill it was not created. For instance the Act allows us to identify perpetrators of conflict-era crimes as well as their victims. But when we tried to identity the perpetrators, the parties felt uncomfortable.

Did the political parties directly intervene with the functioning of the TRC?

The leadership of the TRC is sluggish, as is its working style. This suggests our leadership is under pressure.

There are also questions over the efficiency of TRC team. Why has it failed to assure conflict victims?

We were short on resources, including logistics and human resources. Our chairman often took up this issue with political parties and the government. But it is also true that we could per­haps have done a better job of giving hope to conflict victims. We should do some soul-search­ing on this. I am ready to take my share of the blame.

What are other reasons for lack of progress?

We take money only from the government. Donor agencies offered to help but we shunned them. We thought the TRC was a sensitive issue and there should be no outside influence. Now I feel that without the interference of donor agencies and rights activists, it is difficult to get any­thing done in this country. The same is applicable in the case of the TRC.

How do you see the issue of transitional justice going forward?

I now think the conflict vic­tims will not get justice. I feel guilty I could not provide justice to the rape victims I had assured otherwise. Conflict victims them­selves are in a state of confusion and are divided, which is not a good sign.

There are many hurdles in transitional justice process, and it will get even more com­plex from hereon. The politi­cal parties settled the issue of integration of Maoist combat­ants and constitution promulga­tion. They should now take the lead in settling transitional justice issues.

At the ongoing meeting of Nepali Congress Mahasamiti, the party’s second most pow­erful decision-making body after the general convention, over 40 percent of the delegates petitioned party leadership to change Congress charter to again designate Nepal a Hindu state. The leadership of the main oppo­sition party is divided into three camps. The first comprises sec­ond-rung leaders such as Bimalen­dra Nidhi and Krishna Prasad Sitau­la, who are of the view that the party should stick to secularism. In their reckoning, NC cannot give up secu­larism as a secular constitution was promulgated under its leadership.

The second group includes Gener­al Secretary Shashank Koirala, who has publicly asked for a referendum on the issue, and central working committee members such as Shan­kar Bhandari and Pushpa Bhusal, all of whom want to restore the country’s Hindu character.

Likewise, the third group includ­ing senior leaders like Ram Chandra Poudel and Shekhar Koirala, have taken a middle-of-the-road position and are in favor of mentioning ‘reli­gious freedom’ instead of ‘secular­ism’ in the national constitution.

Advocates of Hindu state in Con­gress argue that during the writing of the constitution people were not consulted on religion. Party Presi­dent Sher Bahadur Deuba and other senior leaders don’t want to criticize the advocates of Hindu state as their support will be crucial if they hope to keep their leadership roles.

This attempt of the main opposi­tion to turn the clock back has not amused political analysts. They say Congress would be flogging a dead horse and that such an approach would be electorally suicidal. But on current form, this dispute over reli­gion will continue to dog the Grand Old Party, and could be a defining issue at the next general convention due in March 2020.

Nepali Congress and a Hindu state

Of 1,600 party delegates assembled in Kathmandu for the meet, around 700 (over 43 percent) supported a signature campaign at the Mahasamiti venue to press party leadership to support the Hindu state

A decade after the coun­try was declared a secular republic, a sizable section of Nepali Congress (NC) is pressing party leadership to rethink secular­ism, a demand that goes against the new constitution.The demand has surfaced during the ongoing Mahasamiti meet as well (the meeting continued as we went to press). NC’s second biggest deci­sion-making body after the general convention is mandated to discuss party policies and programs but not to change party leadership. Of 1,600 party delegates assembled in Kath­mandu for the meet, around 700 (over 43 percent) supported a sig­nature campaign at the Mahasamiti venue to press party leadership to support the Hindu state.

Up against a potent communist force, they believe religion can be an effective tool for the party’s reviv­al during the next electoral cycle. General Secretary Shashank Koirala leads this front.

On religion, party leaders are in fact divided into three factions. The first group is comprised of sec­ond-rung leaders such as Bimalen­dra Nidhi and Krishna Prasad Sitau­la, who are of the view that the party should stick to secularism. In their reckoning, as a secular constitution was promulgated under NC leader­ship, the party cannot deviate from this line.

The second group includes Gener­al Secretary Shashank Koirala, who has publicly asked for a referen­dum on the issue, as well as central working committee members such as Shankar Bhandari and Pushpa Bhusal, all of whom want to restore the country’s Hindu character.

Likewise, the third group including senior leaders like Ram Chandra Poudel and Shekhar Koi­rala are in favor of mentioning ‘reli­gious freedom’ in lieu of ‘secularism’ in the constitution.

Advocates of Hindu state in Con­gress argue that people were never consulted on religion and the deci­sion to do away with the country’s Hindu designation was made by a handful of leaders. Party Presi­dent Sher Bahadur Deuba and other senior leaders cannot criticize these advocates because their support is crucial if they hope to remain in leadership roles.

Political analysts say raising the issue of religion now is irrelevant and the Hindu card is an outdated political instrument

At the 13th general convention, late NC leader Khum Bahadur Khad­ka had made the party’s backing of Hindu state a condition for support­ing Deuba’s candidacy for party president. For a long time, Khadka had led the campaign for Hindu state in the party. Before that, late Nepali Congress leader Krishna Prasad Bhattarai had notably left the party when NC officially ditched monarchy and Hindu state.

To appease Hindu loyalists in the party, Deuba, during the last par­ty convention, had publicly said that the party was failing to honor Hindu sentiments. Deuba thinks that a volte-face now could do him political harm.

The signature campaign in favor of Hindu state during the Mahasami­ti meeting clearly shows a big sup­port to reverse the course. “A plural­ity of Mahasamiti members want to turn the country into a Hindu state,” said Min Krishna Maharajan, a dele­gate from Kathmandu district who had taken the initiative of signature campaign. During the Mahasamiti meeting supporters of Hindu state were seen putting up posters and handing out pamphlets to support their cause. They were also urg­ing central committee members to stand in favor of Hindu state.

Congress leaders say such voices were always there in the party. “The government decision to support and organize a program of a Chris­tian organization seems to have given new fuel to these dormant voices,” NC leader Nabindra Raj Joshi told APEX. “We are commit­ted to secularism but I think it will become a major agenda at the next general convention.”

Political analysts say raising the issue of religion now is irrele­vant; the Hindu card cannot be a political instrument to revive the party’s fortunes.

“NC leaders must learn from Ras­triya Prajatantra Party-Nepal which had gone into the last round of elec­tions with the Hindu state agenda. People rejected it,” said political analyst Shyam Shrestha. “People are not in favor of any religious or caste conflicts in Nepal. That certain Con­gress leaders are bringing up this issue is indicative of the weak lead­ership of Party President Deuba.”

As the Hindu agenda gathers momentum in Congress, it has raised eyebrows in the ruling Nepal Communist Party. Speaking at a function in Pokhara on Dec 10, NCP co-chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal said, “Even though NC played a vital role in the peace process, its current role is suspicious. Many of its lead­ers are unhappy with the changes.”

RPP-N, a party which has long been advocating a Hindu state and monarchy, is upbeat about the recent turn of events in Nepali Congress. “We can collaborate if NC officially decides on Hindu state,” its chairman Kamal Thapa said recently.

Nepal was formally declared a secular state in 2006 by the rein­stated parliament through a House proclamation, a designation which was later cemented in the Interim Constitution 2007. During the con­stitution drafting process in 2015, it was one of the disputed issues. Nonetheless the country’s new sec­ular character was retained.

Reportedly, one of the reasons India imposed five months of block­ade on Nepal during 2015-16 was that top Nepali leaders had reneged on their promise to remove the pro­vision on secularism during the 2015 constitution-making process. During the process, RPP-N’s proposal that the country be made a Hindu state again was snubbed by two-third Constituent Assembly members. The new constitution adopted on September 20, 2015 declares the country a secular state, and defines secularism as “protection of the age-old religion and culture and religious and cultural freedom”.

On November 20, Mahanta Thakur, the reigning presidium coordinator of the Rastriya Janata Party Nepal (RJPN), was replaced by Rajendra Mahato, in what has been described by Thakur’s supporters as a ‘coup’. Thakur supporters also blamed Mahato for compromising Madhesi agenda in his rush to join the federal government. Kamal Dev Bhattarai caught up with Mahato to get his inputs on the federal government’s performances, his chances of joining it and the intra-party rift in the RJPN.

How do you view the federal government performance in past 10 months?

The performance of a government with two-thirds support in national parliament is unsatisfactory. It has failed to meet people’s expecta­tions, and has invited a lot of anger and frustration. The two-thirds gov­ernment has neither been able to deliver on its promises nor to speed up the development process.

Your party supported Oli-led gov­ernment in return of a promise that the constitution would be amended. What is the progress?

When the government was formed, PM Oli had sufficient sup­port of lawmakers in federal par­liament, and there was no need of our support to secure majority votes. PM Oli, however, sought our help to widen his support base. We supported him with some con­ditions though: one of them was regarding constitution amendment. At that time, PM Oli had assured us that the constitution would be amended on the basis of necessity and relevance. Madhesi, Tharu and Janajati, Dalit and other marginal­ized community are eagerly waiting for the amendment but there has so far been no progress.

Are you planning to withdraw your support to the government?

In terms of arithmetic strength, our support does not make any dif­ference as the ruling NCP has suf­ficient numbers in parliament. At the same time, even if we support the government, we are free to pro­test and criticize it. However, if this government is not serious about our demands, we could think of withdrawing our support. We are currently in intra-party discussions, and are also considering withdraw­ing our support to the government.

Some RJPN leaders close to Mah­anta Thakur say that you have been particularly keen on joining the government. Is this true?

This is not true. Until and unless our demands are fulfilled, we cannot join the government. In the current situation, there is no point in joining the government. The focus of our party is to press for constitution amendment at the earli­est. During different Madhes move­ments, many have sacrificed their lives for the rights of Madhesis and other groups and it is our responsi­bility to honor their sacrifice.

There are media reports about ongoing unification talks between the RJPN and Upendra Yadav-led Sanghiya Samajbadi Forum.

There are some fundamental differences between the two par­ties on how they view the constitu­tion. We marked the Constitutional Day (Ashoj 3) as a black day, while Yadavji celebrated the occasion. Currently Sanghiya Samajbadi Forum is in the government. That is why I do not see the possibility of unification. There are far too many ideological differences between the two parties.

Aren’t the core Madhesi agendas being diluted due to constant rifts and splits in Madhes-based parties?

I do not think so. Our first priority is to resolve all agendas through peaceful means and we are urging major parties to heed our demands. There is a perception that the Mad­hesi movement can be strong only if we hit the streets. If necessary and if the government continues to ignore our demands, we will even do that. Right now, we are drawing the gov­ernment’s attention to our demands through peaceful means.

In 2015, there was strong Indian support for the demands of Mad­hes-based parties. It now seems that India has abandoned you.

The international community sup­ports all political movements of Nepali people. There was interna­tional support for the 1990 move­ment as well as the 2006 movement. There was also support for other movements launched by the peo­ple. If people again come to the street demanding their rights, they will once again get international support. Our major demands are change in provincial boundaries, more autonomy for the provinces and, guaranteed rights of all mar­ginalized communities such as Dalit, Madhesi, Janajati, Tharu and others.

How do you plan to push for that elusive constitution-amendment?

We are in consultations with stake­holders on how to move ahead. Instead of going separately, we have realized a need for a unified move­ment among the proponents of iden­tity politics. I think that only a uni­fied movement of Madhesi, Tharu, Dalit, Janajati and other marginal­ized community would yield result.

There is no point in joining the government. The focus of our party is to press for constitution amendment at the earliest

In a separate context, dissatis­faction seems to be going in the RJPN after you took the post of its presidium coordinator?

I do not think so. Now, we are making preparations to hold the party’s general convention. That done, the party will be stronger and more united. We want to develop the RJPN as an alternative political force of the country. That is why our priority is to strengthen the party at the grassroots level.