By Deepak Joshi Pokhrel.

Just last week, two political developments – one internally and one externally – have sent the message that peace is the ultimate aspiration of everyone. Externally, the ceasefire agreement between India and Pakistan has averted the full-fledged war, laying the ground for diplomatic talks and negotiations. Internally, the decade-long conflict victims heaved a sigh of relief after Nepal’s two important transitional justice (TJ) bodies – the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and the Commission of the Investigation on Enforced Disappeared Persons (CIEDP) – finally got their office bearers. The TJ bodies have been defunct since July 2022.

It is needless to mention that Nepal experienced a decade-long armed hostility from 1996 to 2006. During the conflict, over 17000 Nepalese lost their lives, and many more were injured and displaced to other places to safeguard their lives. The Nepalese mainly in the rural areas, were living under the edge of the sword, as they were targeted by the security personnel and then rebels under the pretext of spying on them. There were reports of forceful disappearances and grave violations of human rights during the conflict. With the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Accord (CPA) between the rebels and the government, the conflict finally came to an end. While signing the accord, both agreed to resolve the war-era crimes and grave violations of human rights through transitional justice bodies to be formed within two years.

But what seemed to be the beginning of a new beginning was in fact a blatant lie sold to the victims of the decade-long conflict. It took more than seven years to form the transitional justice bodies contrary to their commitment. Right from day one of its establishment, the transitional justice bodies served the agenda of the political parties and the sitting government rather than victims of decade-long armed conflict. The reason was not big. It was very simple: the chief of the commissions and other office bearers pledged loyalty to their political masters who appointed them. As a result, the commissions were not able to fulfil their objective despite their multiple extensions raising questions over their legitimacy and credibility.

But last Wednesday’s development brought some respite among the conflict victims. Based on recommendations of the five-member panel, the cabinet appointed former high court judge Mahesh Thapa as the TRC chair and former Chief Secretary Lila Devi Gadtaula as the CIEDP chair. The cabinet also nominated the members for each commission.

On the surface, this is a commendable move, as now both commissions are expected to expedite work to conclude Nepal’s peace process in a logical manner. But these appointments come as a blow to the victims of a decade-long armed conflict and their families, who have been waiting impatiently with hope to see those involved in grave violations of human rights during the conflict behind bars.  

Over the years, the appointment of commissions’ chiefs and office bearers has always come under the public scanner. The conflict victim argues that chiefs are appointed on the basis of their political connections, bypassing the entire selection process. The chiefs’ personal experience and professional background are never considered. What is important is their loyalty to the political masters who appoint them. Well, this is not the first time the commission’s chief and office bearers were appointed. However, beyond collecting complaints and limiting initial investigations, these commissions could not do anything substantial. There are 63718 complaints related to serious rights violations in the TRC, and more than 2500 cases related to the whereabouts of the disappeared persons in the CIEDP have been gathering dust.

This time as well, the victims claim that the appointments are politically motivated and excluded their voices, which are pivotal in the transitional justice process. Consultation with victims while appointing the chiefs should be at the core of the peace process. But politicians and sitting governments have always sidelined the victims, disregarding the collaborative approach. Contrary to victims’ expectations, they were never invited for consultation or dialogue in the commissions. This clearly illustrates that the government and politicians want the peace process to fizzle out, enabling them to walk scot-free.

What is even worse is the fact that some organisation representing conflict victims nudged the prime minister not to proceed with the appointment process. But it seems the concerns of the victims have fallen on the deaf ear of the prime minister. Not only PM disregard their calls, but the two chairs of other prominent parties-- Maoist Centre and the Nepali Congress – also paid lip service to their concerns.

A cursory look at our peace process clearly suggests that politicians and the sitting government have not been leaving any stone unturned to tire out the victims, thinking they will drop their demands. The strategies of the politicians and government are very simple: prolong the peace process, and compel victims to give up their demands. However, the conflict victims seem very determined and committed to ensuring that the peace process does not fall prey to the sinister agenda of the politicians.

It is an established fact that conflict victims are losing their patience, sowing the seed of disenchantment that could drive yet another conflict. Nepal cannot conclude the peace process logically without a victim-centric approach. The politicians should not dare to ignore the concerns of victims who have been perturbed by their inactions and airy talks. This warrants the new commissions to be mindful of the fact that their work and actions should be in the interest of the victims and their families as envisioned by the Comprehensive Peace Accord.

Nepal’s peace process has been very unique and homegrown. Unlike other conflict-torn countries, we did not seek any international support in bringing the warring parties to the negotiation table. Our politicians and then rebels demonstrated the utmost flexibility in pursuit of peace and agreed to end the conflict. This has been appreciated by the international community, saying Nepal has set an example of how peace can be restored with a win-win approach.

Any immoral and unconstitutional move on the part of the newly appointed chiefs and officebearers could risk undermining Nepal’s legitimacy on the global stage. The conflict victims first should be their only approach.