Spread the love

By Deepak Joshi Pokhrel

This week, the major political parties displayed little maturity and came together to end the peace process logically. In a rare display of mellowness the three big parties–NC, UML, and Maoist Centre, iron out their differences over the content of the transitional justice giving an impression that the prolonged stalemate hindering the peace process would be resolved very shortly. Given the pace with amendment bills that have been rushed through the parliamentary committee, one can be hopeful that laws would be enacted during the ongoing session of the parliament. The three-party- panel comprising influential leaders will forge consensus on contentious issues paving the avenues for its endorsement. This development has certainly ignited hope among the victims who have been waiting for justice impatiently.

According to the party accord, the intentional and arbitrary killing would constitute a serious violation of human rights. Further, the victims who are unwilling to reconcile can move the court against the perpetrators of the violation of human rights. In addition, all the disqualified combatants of the Maoists and the families of the security personnel who lost their lives or were injured during the insurgency will get reparation and compensation as per the agreement. While inking the accord, the three leaders claimed that the tripartite agreement has brought huge respite amongst the victims of the decade-long insurgence who have had to wait for it for around two decades.

Just to recall, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and the Commission on the Investigation and Enforced Disappeared Persons (CIEDP) – the bodies entrusted with the task of concluding the peace process logically- have remained a sort of body without any essence. This tragedy can be attributed to the inaction and apathy of the successive governments formed after the signing of the comprehensive peace accord in 2006. If media reports are anything to go by, there are 3223 complaints of enforced disappearance. The same media report says that 63718 complaints have been registered with the TRC.

We are all mindful of the fact that TRC was mandated to inquire, ascertain and bring to the fore the cases, events and incidences of violation of human rights committed during the decade-long armed struggle from 13 February 1996 to 21 November 2006. Moreover, it was entrusted with the task of recommending legal action against those involved in heinous crimes and offences amounting to gross violations of human rights. But here lies the biggest irony, the commission was unable to deliver its result despite multiple extensions in its term and changes in its composition.

It is an open secret why the commission remained a body without any essence. It is also crystal clear that the commission falls prey to the design of the politicians who never aspire to end the peace process logically. While the conflict victims were moving every nook and cranny of the country seeking justice, our politicians were attempting to fizzle out the peace process and engaged in exercises in the pretext of ending the peace process logically.

In 2015, the Supreme Court, in its historic verdict, directed the government to revise the amnesty provisions in the Enforced Disappearance Enquiry, Truth and Reconciliation Commission Act by the international obligation to human rights. The Supreme Court verdict came after the conflict victims and human rights organizations expressed serious reservations over the amnesty provision

It is very strange that successive governments had not adhered to the Supreme Court verdict and failed to amend the Act by it. However, the proposed bill drafted and agreed upon by the major parties just last week more or less addresses the concerns of the victim’s families. With parties’ agreement over the contents, the peace process which was pushed to the backburner seemed to get the much-needed momentum.

Following the enactment of the Act, the government has to form the TRC and CIEDP commissions at the earliest. But there is already a growing voice over the impartiality, neutrality and non-partisan performance of the chiefs of the commission.

A cursory look at the TRC and CIEDP commissions in the past clearly suggests that they were indiscriminately politicized. The chiefs of the commissions were appointed based on political affiliation negating the entire selection process. What generally matters is their political connection and not their personal experience and relevant background. The resultant outcome thereof was below standard laying the ground to breed the seed of disenchantment among the conflict victims. We firmly believe that our politicians have learned from past mistakes, setbacks and failures and not engaged in cultivating and nurturing the ‘pet chief’

This is the most delicate and fragile moment in the context of the peace process. The victims are losing hope and their frustration has reached a tipping point. The logical conclusion of the peace process will lay the foundation for sustainable development and lasting peace. If we fail to deliver this time as well, it is very sure that conflict victims will revolt against the state which will only pave the avenues for disaster- political, social and economic.

This time, care should be taken to ensure that those two important bodies are headed by the people who do not dance to the tune of politicians and work in the true spirit of service. If they call a spade a spade, they do not deserve to spearhead such bodies which are mandated with the task of ending the peace process logically. We should be careful about this.