liberties, withdraw the state of emergency, release all
political detainees, journalists and human rights workers,to
end all kinds of restrictions on the press and ensure autonomy
to the National Human Rights Commission. The proposal has,
at the same time, called on the Maoists to abide by the
international humanitarian laws.
The resolution under item
19 is a part of machinations of the troika - the United
States, United Kingdom and India - which did not support
a country resolution i.e. the appointment of a Special Rapporteur
on the situation of human rights in Nepal. The government
of Nepal was reportedly issued a deadline to sign a Memorandum
of Understanding (MoU) with the Office of the United Nations
High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) before the expiry
of the deadline for submission of the draft resolutions
on country situations under item 9 on 11 April 2005 or face
a country resolution.
Nepal has in a way complied
with the deadline. But, on the same day, King Gyanendra
completed the process of re-installing Panchayat system
by appointing five regional administrators for the country's
five development regions and 14 zonal administrators to
replace bureaucrats. Earlier, on 25 March 2005,
King Gyanendra innocuously promulgated the Local Administration
Fifth Amendment Ordinance 2061 to revive the post of 14
Anchaladhishes, the chief administrators of 14 Anchals,
regions. These posts, a symbol of Panchayat regime were
abolished after the 1990 democracy movement.
Fossils from the one party Panchayat system, such as
Tusli Giri, Vice Chairman of the Council of Ministers have
become the face of the administration following the coup.
On
17 February 2005, King Gyanendra set up the Royal Commission
on Corruption Control (RCCC) in an attempt to gain support
of the middle class in Kathmandu. The fact that the King,
who runs many businesses, and many people in the Royal family
who have been involved in massive corruption do not appear
to be an issue for the RCCC. After all, it was set up to
silence all forms of dissent and therefore, even the Supreme
Court judges were brought under its purview. The RCCC in
the last one week has served notices to former Minister
Prakash Man Singh and former Prime Minister Sher Bahadur
Deuba, among others.
The National Human Rights
Commission of Nepal has been a thorn in the flesh of the
King and Royal Nepal Army for exposing human rights violations
by the RNA. On 17 March 2005, King Gyanendra established
a high-level nine-member Human Rights Committee headed by
the Attorney Genera to undermine the NHRC. The nine-member
committee includes the secretaries of the Ministries for
Home, Defence, Foreign Affairs, Law, Justice and Parliamentary
Affairs, Women, Children and Social Welfare, Ministry of
Local Development, Ministry of Education and the National
Director at the Human Rights Promotion Centre. The Secretary
at the Office of the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers
is the committee’s member- secretary.
Since then NHRC changed
its tune. Justice Nayan Bahadur
Khatri, in his address to the 61st session of
the Commission on Human Rights blamed Nepali political parties
and defended the coup of February 1. The most respected
member of the NHRC, Sushil Pyakural was supposed to attend
the 61st session of the Commission on Human Rights
as Justice Khatri represented on earlier occasions. However,
Justice Khatri reportedly announced in the internal meetings
of the NHRC that he would attend the session of the CHR
and went on to openly question Sushil Pyakurel’s
views on the coup. It shows that NHRC can no longer be considered
as independent and a partner for implementation of the MoU
signed on 12 December 2004 with the OHCHR.
Earlier, Chief Justice of
Supreme Court of Nepal, Justice Hari Prasad Sharma supported
the coup as an attempt “to rectify bad governance, eradicate
corruption and instill transparent public life” at the 11th
conference of Chief Justices of Asia and the Pacific held
on 20 to 24 March 2005 in Australia.
The mandate given to OHCHR
to "monitor the observance of human rights and international
humanitarian law, bearing in mind the climate of violence
and the internal armed conflict in the country" and
submit periodic reports on any human rights violations committed
by the Security forces and the Maoists to the Commission
on Human Rights, the General Assembly, and the Secretary-General
is welcome. However, given the fact that all the institutions
responsible for protection of human rights - the Supreme
Court, the NHRC etc have already collapsed, the question
remains as to whether OHCHR should provide advisory services
to these institutions without ensuring their independence,
impartiality and autonomy.
King Gyanendra has no interest
to respect human rights and democratic freedoms. Madhav
Nepal, the leader of the CPN-UML remains under house arrest
since 1 February 2005 and hundreds of middle ranking political
leaders have been detained under the Public Safety Act across
the country. The ban on the press freedom is complete and
the restriction on the freedom of movement continues. While
the extrajudicial killings of 10
unarmed villagers of Bargadawa, Somani VDC of Nawalparasi district
on 15 April 2005 can be investigated by the human rights
defenders, the investigation into the extrajudicial killings
of the alleged Maoists symphatisers by the RNA and the vigilantes
in Kapilavastu and Bardiya in February 2005 was forbidden.
Later on, NHRC undertook an investigation and virtually
absolved the RNA of any accountability. In order to evade
a country resolution at the 60th session of the
Commission on Human Rights, the government of Nepal announced
25-point commitments on human rights on 26 March 2004. But
not a single comittment has been respected. It is clear
that the monitoring missions by the OHCHR are themselves
not adequate to restore democracy and democratic freedoms
in Nepal.
The emergency expires on
30 April 2005. King Gyanendra has very limited options -
either extend the emergency through another illegal ordinance,
revive the Raj Parishad, Royal Council, in the absence
of the Pratitinidi Sabha, the House of Representatives,
to justify the illegal measures or cobble up a government
with the democratic forces loyal to him. King Gyanendra
started a charade of wanting to restore democracy: he released
one of the most vociferous critics, G P Koirala, signed
the MoU with the OHCHR and directed the Election Commission
of Nepal to organize elections for the municipal councils
within one year. Having opposed a country resolution on
Nepal, the question remains whether the troika would support
the charade to throttle democratic forces of Nepal.
If the troika does support
the charade to look for a way out for not confronting the
tyrant, it will have devastating effects on Nepal. There
is no military solution to the Maoists crisis. The involvement
of the democratic forces for resolving the Maoist crisis
is indispensable and their support cannot be obtained under
dictatorship and tyranny of King Gyanendra. The troika appears
to believe that it can be more persuasive by engaging with
King Gyanendra to address his self-interest. However, persuasions
must be accompanied by measures which will force King Gyanendra
to listen to international community. The latest suspension
of yearly aid of USD 40 million by Denmark for the projects
related to rural energy, community forestry, industrial
environment and the Revenue Administrative Support Project
is instructive. However, assistance of Rs 29.72 million
for rehabilitation of Fatehpur-Kunauli Road Phase-II in
eastern Saptari District of Nepal by India fails to take
into account that the government of Nepal simply does not
have the capacity to undertake development activities. Unless
the troika discards such double standards, King Gyanendra
will continue to exploit the undecisiveness of the troika
and will not relent under the pressure of countries like
Denmark and Switzerland alone.