In an interview with this paper this week, Maoist Centre Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal refuted the general perception that he and his party are afraid of the transitional justice process, although he admitted that the fear of internalisation of war-era cases might be affecting people psychologically. Though Dahal denied that he cancelled his recent trip to Australia because of the fear of arrest there, he did acknowledge he was warned of the possibility by a CPN-UML minister two hours before his flight.  

There are similar fears of prosecution among the state actors. A Nepal Army officer, Kumar Lama, was acquitted on Monday by a British court on one count of torture against an alleged Maoist cadre. The jury failed to arrive at consensus on the second count, pushing Lama’s hearing in the case of another Maoist cadre until the first week of September. Lama was arrested in the UK in January 2013 under Britain’s Section 134 (sub-section 1) of the Criminal Justice Act, a law that defines torture as being subject to universal jurisdiction. This provision allows those accused of crimes abroad to be tried in Britain.

Averting war-era cases from being internationalised could be an incentive for all Nepali stakeholders to put a credible transitional justice process in place. The stakes could be even higher for the Nepali Congress and Maoist leaders, who will likely head the new ruling coalition, as outstanding cases have been filed against their top leaders. While that could add some urgency to the peace process, the primary reason should always be domestic concerns; families of conflict victims need justice and their disillusionment with the system will only deepen as long as their concerns remain unaddressed.

Rights activists like Ram Bhandari fear that such a scenario can trigger a relapse into conflict. Experiences from around the world suggest that a complacent attitude is dangerous, particularly for a country like Nepal with a high population of youths, low per capita income and unenthusiastic economic growth. All these factors make a new conflict likely, according to Paul Collier, a scholar of conflict and post conflict transitions. Frustration of ex-Maoist combatants has also been revealed by a few studies. In a study on them by Berhof Foundation and The University of York in 2014-15, over 75 percent of the respondents said they could retake arms if their plight continued to be ignored. Besides the moral imperative to heal the wounds of the war, this is one more reason to accord greater seriousness to transitional justice.  

It is unfortunate that the two transitional justice bodies, Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and Commission of Investigation on Enforced Disappeared Persons (CIEDP), whose two-year mandate is going to expire in less than seven months, have still been rendered toothless due to a lack of political will and resources. Laws criminalising enforced disappearances, torture, rape and other gross human rights violations are yet to be passed. The transitional justice process should undoubtedly be victim-centric and grave rights violators should be punished. The process, however, should be guided by a broader spirit of reconciliation. South Africa, which is considered a successful case of post-conflict reconciliation, can provide a helpful model for Nepal to take lessons from. Our transition to peace has dragged on for too long; it is time to end it once and for all.