Opinion
The path to peace
State authorities arguably have a greater responsibility to comply with the laws that they seek to enforceRandhir Chaudhary
Ever since the four parties—Nepali Congress (NC), CPN-UML, UCPN (Maoist) and Madhesi Janadhikar Forum Nepal (Loktantrik)—proposed the six-province model, protests have erupted in various parts of the country. More than four protestors have been killed by security personnel during the shootings in Surkhet and Jumla. The police also killed Rajib Raut, a local resident of Bhardah, Saptari, recently by shooting at his chest.
Such killings are examples of excessive use of force by the Nepal police.
Abide by the law
According to the Local Administration Act, the Chief District Officer (CDO) can direct the police to prevent any mass gathering which may result in violence. If the police are unable to prevent a crowd from doing so, CDOs—or an authorised officer—has to personally persuade the crowd to disperse. Only if the crowd does not oblige can the police use force by taking the following steps (the choice of which depends on the situation): baton charge, air shots, lob gas canisters and water cannons.
If the police are still unable to stop the mob after taking all of these actions, a written order from the CDO and a warning to the crowd that they will be fired upon if they do not disperse has to be issued. Most importantly, even while opening fire under these limited circumstances, the police may only shoot at protestors below the knee.
Furthermore, a member of the Agreements Implementation Recommendation Commission 2014 (AIRC) says that the killings in Saptari are a murder by the state—not merely the euphemistic “excessive use of force”.
Therefore, the security agencies have clearly breached their mandate. The firing of live bullets which killed more than four people flouted the law—Rajib was shot in the chest, Gopal Mandal was shot in the stomach, Dipak Sah was shot in his ear, and Satya Narayan Bhagat was shot in head. These injuries are evidences of blatant breaches of the Local Administration Act. Furthermore, the killings of the protestors constitute extra-judicial executions that infringe upon the protestors’ most fundamental right to life.
Condemn violence
In recent years, people from different parts of Nepal have used protests as a democratic tool to demand their rights. The residents of Karnali—who have been politically and economically marginalised for decades—and the indigenous Tharus took to the streets soon after the six-province model of federalism was announced. They wanted the model to be amended to respect their identity. Now, the protests in Karnali have died down after the major leaders announced a seven-province model. However, the Tharus and the Madhesis continue to protest.
The need of the hour is to condemn violence on part of both the protestors and the security forces. On part of the protestors, they attempted to set Baidyanath Chaudhary (a Constituent Assembly member of the CPN-UML) on fire. The protestors should also refrain from violence and destroying public and private properties. Non-violent protests have historically proven to be more effective in creating a long-lasting consensus and subsequent peace. However, it should be borne in mind that as law-enforcing authorities, the police officials arguably have a greater responsibility to ensure that they comply with the very law that they seek to enforce.
Think critically
For what has perhaps been far too long now, Nepal is passing through critical crossroads—the drafting of the constitution to form the basis of an inclusive state and a lasting peace. It is undoubtedly a challenge for lawmakers to restructure the state to make it inclusive of ethnic populations in a proportional manner, while ensuring that the structure of the state is strong and economically feasible. Transitional justice concerns and ongoing grievances have to be addressed.
However, the significance of the venture necessitates that the journey is surmountable. Communities that have been downtrodden for decades are trying to achieve political—and therefore economic and social—rights, and these rights have been threatened by the proposed restructuring of the state. The protests on the ground are the manifestation of the desires of the communities. The state should tread cautiously, and learn from history.
In 2007, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights reported that 54 protestors died after the excessive use of force by the Nepal Police and the Armed Police Force when the Interim Constitution was promulgated without federalism. Shooting citizens when they are protesting for their rights may appear to solve the problem in the short-term, but conflicts elsewhere in the world throughout history—from Kosovo to Sri Lanka—show that these violations may trigger larger problems of the state losing its legitimacy and authority.
Chaudhary is human rights officer at Terai Human Rights Defenders Alliance