The human rights, humanitarian and political crisis in Nepal has hit a new low and demands an immediate solution. On the eve of the third week of widespread, legitimate popular protests against the direct rule of King Gyanendra, the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) calls for immediate and credible steps to be taken in order to avert further bloodshed and loss of life. Thirteen days of consecutive national strikes and large-scale demonstrations by opponents of the King’s seizure of absolute power in February 2005 have been met with increasingly repressive action by the authorities. This has included the arrests of thousands of persons, the injuring of hundreds and the death of some five persons.
While some demonstrations have turned violent, which the AHRC cannot condone, many demonstrators and bystanders have been targeted indiscriminately and with excessive, disproportionate force by the security forces, including the firing of rubber bullets, the use of baton charges and live ammunition fired into crowds. Torture of detainees has also been reported, notably in Morang prison, and access to detainees by lawyers and doctors has been denied in numerous detention facilities. Inadequate and overcrowded facilities are also of serious concern, as are the restrictions being placed on the media, including attacks upon journalists trying to cover these events.
The indefinite strike and widespread and determined protests have included the “usual suspects”: political opposition groups, members of civil society and students. However, in addition, a range of groups and individuals, including Supreme Court staff, lawyers, doctors, engineers, disabled persons groups, tourism workers, journalists, teachers, civil servants, and others not usually known to participate in such actions, are now also engaged in the demonstrations and have also been met with indiscriminate and disproportionate force on several occasions. This is a clear indication that Nepali people from all walks have been pushed too far by the authorities. The arguments claiming that opposition to the authorities only comes from marginal groups are therefore shown to be baseless. The protests’ organisers have pledged to continue the shutdown indefinitely and are calling on all Nepalese citizens to participate and to withhold on tax and bill payments until democracy is restored.
Two paths present themselves to the Nepali authorities at this point. Firstly, the authorities may continue to attempt to ignore the legitimate demands of the Nepali people and to clutch onto autocratic power for as long as possible. Offers, such as those made by the King on Friday April 14, 2006 to hold dialogue with the alliance of opposition political parties and to hold parliamentary elections in April 2007, have been flatly rejected by the opposition as being part of such an approach. Such intransigence by the authorities will without doubt lead to a further escalation of protests and related repression and cost the lives or limbs of many more persons.
It is worth recalling that the King took over direct control in Nepal, in the so-called “Royal coup” on February 1st, 2005, claiming that such action was necessary in order to effectively counter the Maoist insurgency. Since that time, however, the insurgents have only been gaining ground, both in geographical and political terms. The plan has failed. A new direction is needed.
Besides the repression of demonstrators by the authorities over the last two weeks, which the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Nepal has qualified as being an “excessive use of force” in a statement on April 11, 2006, the prolonged crisis is leading to a shortage of vital supplies, most notably food, in much of the country. The AHRC underlines that it is the responsibility of the State to ensure the protection of its people and the authorities therefore have the responsibility to immediately find a solution to this deepening crisis.
In an interview with the BBC, the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights, Louise Arbour, has intimated that Nepal may be referred to the UN Security Council. The King and his government risk becoming totally isolated from the international community, as numerous States, including the US, UN, EU, Japan, Switzerland and even Nepal’s traditional supporters India and China are becoming more vocal in denouncing the authorities’ actions and calling for reconciliation between the King and the political parties. Ms. Arbour has expressed “shock” at the use of excessive force in Nepal. The US State Department has stated that the King’s direct rule has “failed in every regard”. Furthermore, high-ranking Chinese official Tang Jiaxuan made a point of meeting opposition leaders during an official visit last month, signalling a significant shift in the country’s position.
A solution can only come by going down an alternate path to that currently being taken. The authorities need to cater to the demands of the people of Nepal, namely by bringing about an end to the armed conflict, building security and enabling the immediate return to multi-party democracy. The AHRC already pointed to the need for such a solution during interventions made at the time of a preceding escalation in the crisis in January and February of this year.
Not only is the immediate resolution of this latest, bloody phase of the crisis necessary in order to safeguard the human rights of the people of Nepal, but it is in everyone’s favour. By continuing to press on with the failed policy of direct rule, the King is increasingly isolating himself and placing the monarchy itself in jeopardy. The will of the people of Nepal will likely ultimately prevail, as it did under similar circumstances in 1990, when then-King Birendra was forced to abandon absolute rule and restore democracy. The latest protests began on April 6th to mark the anniversary of the 1990 democracy movement.
The authorities must immediately offer and enter into a reciprocal ceasefire with the Maoist insurgents, in order to bring an end to the devastating conflict. This should be accompanied by an immediate return to multi-party democracy and the holding of a Constituent Assembly. Without such action, there is little hope for improvement concerning the gravely deteriorated human rights situation in Nepal.
