An oped from the Kathmandu Post forwarded by the Asian Human Rights Commission
On September 15 2015, twelve-year-old Ranjana Singh Kshetri, a resident of Bethari in Rupandehi district, received a bullet in the neck when she stuck her head out of the kitchen to see what was happening outside. On the same day, BinodLakaul, 48, a resident of Gonaha-6, Bethari, who owned a liquor shop in the market, was also shot in the forehead by the police while he was standing behind the counter in his shop.
Search for justice
These innocent victims were killed when the police fired shots indiscriminately in a local market in Bethari, merely because they suspected that the agitating cadres of the SamyuktaLoktantrik Madhesi Morcha (SLMM), who had allegedly pelted stones at police earlier, might have fled towards the market. However, both these victims belonged to the hill community and had nothing to do with the Madhes movement. Ranjana’s mother is still questioning why the police targeted her daughter? Why has an investigation not been carried out into these killings? Where are the human rights organizations and the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC)?
Such killings and state repression fueled the sentiments of the Madhesi-Tharu community. Like Ranjana, 41 people were killed by the police in the Tarai during the Madhes movement and data analysis proves that 22 of them were innocent bystanders like Ranjana and Binod; and 19 others were protesters that did not constitute an immediate risk to life and, therefore, under international standards, should not have been targeted by lethal force.
The state is liable to investigate all these killings, but none of the state organs are taking actions towards that end. Such lack of accountability on the part of the government gives an impression of complete impunity where prosecutions against the powerful and security officials are almost impossible. Impunity is increasingly becoming rampant in Nepal and there is a huge possibility that those responsible for the killings of these innocent people like Ranjana will never be brought to justice.
Issue of rights
The NHRC had to face much criticism when its chairperson, Anup Raj Sharma, recently visited the Tarai. At a discussion programme in Janakpur, some people were so furious that they were calling the NHRC a ‘Khasbaadi Aayog’ (a Khas-centric commission). This accusation reflects the psychology of the Madhesis and their distrust towards state mechanisms.
There is a proverb in Hindi ‘jab jaago tab saberahai’, which roughly translates into ‘the morning is when you wake up’ (or, better late than never). Similarly, though belated, the recent visit of the NHRC chairperson to the Tarai is commendable. The visit successfully left a symbolic impact as it gave a message to the security forces that they were being watched. Security personnel must have felt that if they do not maintain restraint, they could be held responsible for their actions by the NHRC. Had Sharma visited the Tarai during the initial phase of the movement and kept visiting it during the protests, he could have helped to save a few lives.
To have substantive impact following the NHRC’s visit to the Tarai, Sharma now needs to publish a comprehensive investigation report of all the killings that took place during the recent Madhes movement. The NHRC and all other human rights bodies need to ask the government and the Ministry of Home Affairs to immediately suspend those who violated the provisions of the Local Administration Act on the use of force.
The NHRC, however, did carry out some substantial work last year. It played an important role when it called for the withdrawal of the Nepal Army from the Tarai. Another important task that the NHRC completed was the publication of its report, ‘Monitoring Report: Human Rights Situation During the Agitation Before and After the Promulgation of Constitution of Nepal’, where they have disclosed that most of those who were killed during the Madhes agitation received bullet either in the head or in the chest which is a violation of the Local Administration Act.
Nonetheless, on 4 December 2015, when the Madhes movement was at its peak, the NHRC had taken a hasty and premature decision to call back its human rights monitors from the Tarai after an attack on its vehicle in Nawalpur, Sarlahi. A human rights body is different from other public or private bodies. A human rights body should be ready to work even if it is targeted or attacked by rogue elements. However, Sharma did reverse that decision within two days.
Bridging the gap
The government needs to take human rights violations more seriously. The police killed many innocent citizens during the Madhes agitation and such killings should be condemned. Equally condemnable is the killing of security forces in Tikapur and Mahottari. But how fair is it to form an investigation commission for the killing of security personnel in Tikapur, and leave other cases uninvestigated. The killing of Assistant Sub-inspector Thaman Singh BK and dozens of Madhesis equally deserves investigation and prosecution if we want to restore and rebuild the trust of the Madhesi populace towards the Nepali state mechanisms.
In the aftermath of the Tikapur killings, some Tharu owned houses were set on fire and false charges were filed against some Tharus. These issues are also a subject of investigation. People responsible for the Kailali carnage should be punished but the incident should not be used as an opportunity for revenge against the Tharu-Madhesi community by filing false cases against them. It should not be a pretext for the state to continue subjugating this community, which has suffered discrimination for centuries.
So, this is the time for the government to bring a separate reconciliation package for these two communities in the Tarai through investigation, prosecution, compensation and psychosocial reconciliation to minimize their sense of alienation from the Nepali state. Efforts to prove that the Nepali state mechanisms as well as civil society and media are not “Khasbaadi” and they represent all citizens’ concerns will go a long way in bridging the gap between the hills and the Madhes.
About the author: Dipendra Jha is an advocate at the Supreme Court.
