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.