Interview with Sushil Pyakurel

Bruce Van Voorhis

(Ed. note: Sushil Pyakurel is a former commissioner of the National Human Rights Commission [NHRC] in Nepal. He left his country several months after King Gyanendra took control of Nepal on Feb. 1, 2005. Bruce Van Voorhis, editor of Human Rights SOLIDARITY, interviewed him at the office of the Asian Human Rights Commission [AHRC] in Hong Kong in May shortly before his term on the commission expired.)

AHRC: To better understand what occurred on Feb. 1 this year, are there any historical factors which you believe contributed to the king's coup?

PYAKUREL: To start with, this is not the first time that a king in Nepal has amassed political power for himself; for when the Nepalese people began the democratic movement half a century ago, there was a conflict between the democratic political forces and the monarchy system then. Consequently, this is not the first time that we have had this problem.

One thing that must be understood is that in Nepal at that time, although the institution of the king existed, the king was not ruling the country; state power was not vested in him. Rather, state power was vested in the prime minister, who was at the centre of what was known as the Rana regime, a feudal and tyrannical regime that ruled for 104 years until 1951. We did not have any constitution in our country then. Thus, whatever was said by the prime minister, who was always a member of the Rana family, was the law. According to this system, when the prime minister died, his immediate son or his brother would be appointed as the prime minister of the country.

Naturally, there was a great desire by the Nepalese people to end this system, and the king in the 1950s, King Tribhuvan, the grandfather of the present king, united with the country's political parties to remove the Rana regime. There was an understanding between the king and the political parties that the common enemy was the Rana regime. Both were trying to get rid of the Rana political system, a goal they achieved in 1951. However, the king's promises of a constitution and the formation of a republic whose leaders would be elected through a democratic political system were never realised. Instead, with political power now in his hands, King Tribhuvan began manipulating the political parties. For instance, the king appointed someone as prime minister and later sacked him after two or three months and then appointed another person. In this way, the king started playing with political power in the country. Even worse, the first prime minister that King Tribhuvan appointed was a member of the Rana family, thus throwing into doubt the understanding reached between the king and the political parties.

After King Tribhuvan died and his son Mahendra became king, there was no change to the political status quo. King Mahendra had no intention of holding a constitutional assembly to draft a new democratic constitution. His attitude was the constitution must be given by us, proclaimed by us, and not by the people. In the king's mind, Nepal was his country which he had inherited from his ancestors. Nepal, he believed, was created by the royal family, and the people were its subjects. Consequently, tension developed in the country - a situation reminiscent of the present political tragedy in Nepal.

What is important to note from this brief look at Nepalese history is the royal mindset of the country's kings for half a century. It is a mindset that still continues and that helps explain the psychological obstacles that deny democracy and human rights in Nepal today.

AHRC: This historical overview is quite useful in better comprehending the present reality in your country. Fortunately, Nepal did succeed in establishing a constitutional monarchy and introducing multiparty democracy in 1990. Were there any deficiencies in this process though that have implications for today?

PYAKUREL: Yes. First of all, when decisions were being made about creating a constitutional monarchy, there was widespread agreement that the army should be under the control of the civilian government that would be formed. When the army learned about this preference for civilian control of the military, 20 generals visited the acting prime minister at the time and told him they would revolt if this arrangement was left in the constitution. The compromise solution was that the military would only be mobilised by a security council composed of the prime minister, defence minister and commander in chief of the army. However, any decision made by this security council had to be approved by the king. In this way, the king became the ultimate arbiter of control over the use of the military in Nepal.

AHRC: When King Gyanendra assumed control of the country on Feb. 1 this year, one of the reasons he gave for removing the government and declaring a state of emergency was to suppress the Maoist insurgency that has been affecting the country since 1996. What was the impetus for this insurgency and the ensuing increase in human rights abuses in the country that it has spawned?

PYAKUREL: Just a few years after multiparty democracy was instituted in the country, one group of leftists, the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoists), announced that this type of parliamentary democracy was not going to assist the country in the future and help the people of Nepal. They specifically said that this type of democratic governance was not benefiting the poor people in the country at all. Instead, they said that an armed revolution would be the only solution. Subsequently, they took up arms and began attacking the police forces in the country. This was the beginning of the armed Maoist movement in our country.

AHRC: As we all know, the reaction of the government was to reply to this violence with force. In hindsight, do you feel this was the best course of action?

PYAKUREL: No. When the Maoist uprising began, the government, as you said, was trying to suppress this armed movement. The Maoists made certain demands though which everyone could see reflected the socio-economic problems of society - the illiteracy of 70 percent of the people and the ownership of 80 percent of the country's best agricultural land by 20 percent of Nepal's rich, feudal people, for instance. What the government should have done at this point was to address these main unresolved issues of the people in the country. It should also have taken into account all of the human rights problems of the people. Instead of calling the Maoists for a round-table meeting and resolving these issues through negotiations, however, the government tried to suppress the struggle through the use of the police, but the police could not tackle this problem. In fact, the actions of the police killed many innocent people, adding fuel to the fire as the Maoists were rapidly spreading their movement throughout the country. Consequently, the prime minister sought to mobilise the army.

AHRC: Then what happened?

PYAKUREL: At this point, the king - now King Birendra - told the government not to mobilise the army. He unequivocally said to the government that he was not going to grant permission to deploy the army throughout the country. The king stressed the fact that, if he gave permission to the government to do so, the army would be killing Nepal's people. He plainly stated that he did not want to see such a situation in the country. He made it clear to the government that the army is there to basically fight wars with other countries and not to kill their own population. Thus, he did not allow the government to use the army against the Maoists. All of these events happened around the year 2000.

AHRC: It is my understanding that today the military is leading the government's efforts against the Maoists. How did the army then become involved?

PYAKUREL: In June 2001, we suddenly heard that there had been a very big massacre at the royal palace. The king, crown prince, the brother and sister of the king - almost everybody in the royal family - had been killed. The only survivors of this massacre were the present king, his wife, son and daughter. What is truly remarkable is that the family of the present king, even though they too had been in the palace at the time of the massacre for a dinner party, was not hurt or touched. It was certainly fortunate for the present king that he was out of Kathmandu on that day and was not attending the party.

According to our country's constitution, if the king dies, his eldest son will become king; and if he dies or something happens to him, such as he is mentally not fit, then the second son will be the king. If there is no immediate family member to take over, then the line of succession will shift to the king's brother. In this way, King Gyanendra, the present king, became the king of Nepal.

After he took over as king, Gyanendra said that, because the existing political parties in the country were unable to find any solution to the problems taking place in Nepal, the Maoists were able to wield control over much of the country. Thus, we can see from the very beginning of this king's rule that there was tension between the king and Nepal's political parties.

To return to your question, King Gyanendra mobilised the military to fight the Maoists even though nowhere does it state in our 1990 constitution that the king can take executive power into his hands. Moreover, he did not seek any support for this decision from the country's Security Council. In addition, he subsequently appointed a new prime minister, Sher Bahadur Deuba, to replace Girija Prasad Koirala after he resigned.

AHRC: What effect did these actions have on human rights in the country?

PYAKUREL: First of all, it must be understood that unless a state of emergency was declared in the country the army was not prepared to engage the Maoists. At this stage, it must be clearly stated that the sole purpose of declaring a state of emergency was to suppress civil liberties in the country. The aim was to gain control over the media and human rights issues. In other words, from the military's point of view, they needed a considerable amount of impunity to do their jobs to control the Maoists. This was the main reason why they had insisted that the king declare a state of emergency, a move which was supported and imposed by Deuba.

The state of emergency was in operation for a period of nine months, and the prime minister wanted to extend it further. This move, however, was opposed by various political parties in Parliament. Even Deuba's own Nepali Congress party members were opposed to such a move. They said that people were being victimised as there had been widespread impunity in the country and a lot of killings. Previously, they said, the Maoists had been responsible for the killing of innocent people, but now the military had added to the country's violence as thousands of people had disappeared in 2001 and 2002 - all taking place under the cover of this emergency.

I must say that there were several investigations done by our commission into these disappearances; and when the report is out, people will see that more than 90 percent of these acts had been covered by the impunity granted to the military under the emergency regulations.

Actually, it was a desire to extend the state of emergency even further that led to the dismissal of Parliament in May 2002 and later the king's dismissal of the first Deuba-led government in October of that year when elections could not be held on schedule because of the increasing violence unleashed by the Maoists in the country that killed many people. In removing the prime minister, the king said that he was taking this unprecedented step - the first time that the king had sacked a prime minister and directly assumed political power under the country's 1990 constitution that established a constitutional monarchy - because of the prime minister's inability to hold elections within the constitutionally prescribed period of six months and his government's failure to quash the Maoist insurgency. Does this sound familiar? It is the same rationale used by Gyanendra to dismiss another Deuba government on Feb. 1 this year.

Thus, Nepal found itself without a Parliament and a prime minister in 2002. King Gyanendra subsequently began to appoint this man and that man according to his choice to hold various positions, including prime minister, which sparked the Maoists to intensify their attacks even more. In this way, slowly, the democratic system in our country was derailed, and there was less and less space for the democratic activities of the people. Because there was no place in the country for the people's voice to be heard, the people became very frustrated. Moreover, the state agencies could not operate outside the urban centres in the rural areas. The army was very much confined to the cities. Thus, in the rural areas, there was no rule of law. Instead, a type of anarchy existed in the countryside.

AHRC: Is it also correct to say there were also no schools or hospitals functioning properly outside of Nepal's urban centres?

PYAKUREL: Yes, the schools and hospitals had to function under the directives of the Maoists in the countryside. The Maoists were opening and closing educational institutions whenever they wanted. They were also imposing their own curriculum on the students. In most schools, children were forced to join the Maoist movement, and afterwards, they were forced to take up arms and fight. Moreover, the army was killing school teachers, stating that they were supporting the Maoists' activities in the country. As for hospital services, they were affected as doctors were not going to work. Furthermore, there was no electricity in many parts of Nepal so the rural people were not receiving any services from the state.

Consequently, the state was slowly becoming ineffective and unable to address any issue in the country by 2003. This inability to govern was a problem. In addition, the political parties were similarly not able to raise their voice as Parliament had been disbanded, and the political party leaders were unable to visit their constituencies because the Maoists were preventing them from doing so. Therefore, they too became very ineffective in responding to the country's problems.

AHRC: The discussion thus far provides a good foundation to move to Nepal's most recent repressive event - the royal coup of Feb. 1 this year. What do you think sparked this incident?

PYAKUREL: This national tragedy to our democratic political system and threat to people's human rights in Nepal was motivated by a number of calculations, or miscalculations, by King Gyanendra.

First of all, the king wanted to deal with the Maoists and thought this was an opportune time to do so. Because of Sept. 11 in the United States, when the Americans got involved in Nepal's military efforts, he felt that he could label them as "terrorists" and declare his determination to combat them, a move that would justify the coup, he believed, and gain the support of the United States. Moreover, India also has a very serious problem with Maoists so India, he thought, would support the coup too. In addition, Britain had already made commitments on the terrorist issue, and another major donor country, Japan, had previously given pledges to Nepal that it would support efforts to resist any terrorist movement in our country. Consequently, Gyanendra thought that all of these large and influential nations would support his actions. He also assumed that since the country's constitution was not functioning and there was utter chaos in the country, if he takes power in his hands, the international community would assist him, that they would try to bring stability back to our country. In short, through the coup, the main aim of the king was to show world players, like the United States and other major countries, that he is the sole person who is engaged in fighting the Maoists in Nepal. Thus, the world would have no option left but to trust the king's actions and support him, for the international community too was also thinking that all the problems in Nepal had been created by the Maoist insurgents. Consequently, he was under the impression that he would get some time to deal with the situation.

The real motivation though for King Gyanendra's grab for power was his desire to marginalise the political parties. As I said earlier, there has historically been tension between the king - whoever sat on the throne in the past 50 years - and Nepal's political parties. Since Gyanendra became king through the death of his brother and the rest of the royal family in 2001, he has always tried to put the blame on the existing political parties for the present state of affairs in the country. He has always said that the political parties could not resolve the crisis faced by Nepal and its people.

Thus, to achieve his aims, he imposed the state of emergency throughout the country to silence the political parties and obstruct any attempt they might make to respond to the coup by issuing statements or mobilising their supporters. Moreover, with the media muzzled and the means of communication in the country cut off, Gyanendra saw himself with an open playing field to further condemn the political parties and sow in people's minds their deficiencies and weaknesses. In this way, he felt confident of getting the necessary support of the people. He then thought that peace would come to the country and he would be able to take political power in his hands as peace and stability within the country would be seen to have been restored by him. He was therefore very confident of mustering the support of the people so that later he could introduce another constitution in which the king would have full political powers. He foresaw that all of this would happen through his own personal initiatives, not through any democratic process.

AHRC: Thus, you believe that the overall objective and motivation of the king in staging the coup was to sideline the political parties?

PYAKUREL: Yes, it was very much so. I do not believe the present king sees his duty as fighting the Maoists because this group never challenges the king directly. His main fear is the democratic political parties in the country, for he wants full executive power for himself. Because of the monarchy and Gyanendra's desire to preserve and expand its power, he perceives the political parties as an immediate threat to this system.

I must add before the next question though that the king has made several major miscalculations. First, the people will not really support any long-term grab for power by the king even though they may not be entirely satisfied with the past performance of the political parties. Why? Because they have enjoyed more than a decade of democracy; they are not willing to go back to being governed by an autocratic system. This position can be clearly observed today. Similarly, in the 21st century, the international community nor any international body will support an autocratic king. These views Gyanendra did not properly consider.

AHRC: In analysing the current state of affairs, it appears that there are only two centres of power in Nepal at the present time - the king and the Maoists - and the people have only these two options from which to choose.

PYAKUREL: This is exactly correct. The people can now only join the side of the Maoists or the king, and that is what the international community must understand.

You also see the youth today putting pressure on the political party leaders to join the Maoists because it is felt by Nepal's young people that what the king has ultimately succeeded in doing is only suppressing them. Consequently, they argue, What's the point of supporting the constitutional monarchy now? Rather, they insist on joining the Maoists. In this way, you can thus see how the leadership of the country's political parties has become weaker and weaker. Because of the king's state of emergency, it has weakened the political parties to such an extent that there is no place for them now in the country.

AHRC: Regarding this last point, at the end of April, the king lifted the state of emergency he had imposed on the country on Feb. 1. Do you see this decision as a positive move that will now improve respect for human rights in Nepal?

PYAKUREL: Not really. The king only lifted the state of emergency to appease the international community. In reality, nothing has changed; it is still the same old system operating throughout the country. What this means is that people's freedom of movement is restricted and all public places that the political parties used in the past for their mass meetings have been declared restricted areas that are closed to the public. Consequently, the effects of the state of emergency are virtually the same, especially for the political parties, and there is no improvement in human rights.

AHRC: Could you please elaborate on this last comment about human rights?

PYAKUREL: Under the autocratic rule in existence today in our country, how can human rights improve? This is the main problem now. Human rights doesn't mean facts and figures - how many arrests have been made or how many killings committed. These are just a human rights scorecard. Instead, a person's civil liberties - their freedom - must be the primary measuring stick. If you can imagine that your freedom of movement is curtailed and your civil liberties are curtailed and the basic fundamental rights of the people are suspended, you can then imagine the current situation in Nepal today. In an autocratic system, the people, of course, can never enjoy these rights and liberties.

To more fully appreciate today's human rights situation, one must remember conditions in the country before the Feb. 1 coup, such as the presence of various democratic institutions, the monitoring of people's rights by civil society and other institutions, like the National Human Rights Commission, etc. But now we are all under the control of the government.

As a member of the National Human Rights Commission, for instance, I was going to make some official investigations for the commission after the events of Feb. 1, and I too was not allowed to travel. I was totally prevented from doing my duties which were within the scope of my regular duties as a commissioner. Political party leaders are now not even permitted to go and see their own fellow members who have been taken into custody by the army or law enforcement authorities. They did not even allow the prime minister to go and visit his deputy prime minister who was in custody in the hospital. Thus, one can clearly see the present conditions that exist in our country today. We actually do not know the facts and figures as to how many people have disappeared, how many are now facing various human rights abuses. I must say that there is now a complete lack of accountability and impunity. Things have deteriorated to such an extent that the army is even dropping bombs from helicopters; they are shooting from the sky from helicopters, which is totally illegal.

AHRC: The day after the coup, if I remember correctly, there was student unrest and reports of shooting at demonstrators. Could you verify this incident?

PYAKUREL: Yes, they were shooting on the students from helicopters - the incident I just mentioned. Now similar aggressive actions are also taking place in the villages. This clearly indicates that there are no independent monitoring systems in place in the country at the moment.

I also want to relate one other event that really prompted me to leave Nepal. After the Feb. 1 coup, the king created vigilante groups similar to what are called village defence committees in the Philippines and gave them arms to fight the Maoists. These vigilante groups though were killing innocent civilians in the name of combating the Maoists. In the district of Kapilbastu, it was initially reported that these vigilante groups killed 29 people and burned down 600 houses.

To properly understand this incident, you must know that when a Maoist comes to your house in the countryside with a gun and requests food or shelter the people cannot refuse their request; they are forced to do anything the Maoists need them to do. I must say that even soldiers' families feed these groups and give them financial aid too, even high-ranking officials if they have houses in the villages. What are they going to do? They are helpless and have to accept the instructions of the Maoists.

In this way, as these villages were supporting the Maoists, these poor people in Kapilbastu were killed by these vigilantes and their houses were burned down. I must also add that it has become known that three ministers were at the scene of these murders, and they provoked these vigilante groups to kill people. Later I learned that 54 people, not 29, had been killed.

Thus, I wanted to go there and investigate this tragedy, but I was not allowed to leave Kathmandu. At the airport, I was not able to depart. Then I made an attempt to travel to this area by using the road transport system, but again, I was not allowed to go overland either. Consequently, I thought that just sitting in this country in Kathmandu without being able to serve the people of Nepal is meaningless so I left the country.

AHRC: Could you please describe the work of the National Human Rights Commission of which you are presently a member before and after the coup? Was there a change to its response and approach to human rights violations after Feb. 1?

PYAKUREL: Before the king's coup, the National Human Rights Commission, or NHRC, was one of the most outspoken organisations in Nepal. We did all of our investigations independently and released our observations and reports on all human rights violations that occurred in the country. We really gave a very hard time to the Royal Nepalese Army for violating the rights of the people.

After the coup, however, I must say that all five of our commission members were very scared. My commission even did not have the courage to issue a statement outlining what had happened. As I noted earlier, our movements were also severely curtailed. We could not move about the country to monitor or investigate human rights abuses. My chairman was now telling me that the country was not like it was under a prime minister, that it is now directly controlled by the king. Therefore, he said that we should not criticise the government's human rights actions now.

Since the coup, the situation is beginning to improve in a very slow manner, i.e., commission members can undertake some work in the urban areas, although the remote areas are still off limits. When our members prepare the reports of their investigations though, they are afraid to say how the people were killed or disappeared or how many people were killed, etc.

Naturally, under these conditions, the commission cannot function as an independent body, which is vital for its work to have any credibility. With the present commission's term now coming to an end very soon this month and the next commission only consisting of members appointed by the king because the Parliament has been disbanded, there will not even be a facade of independence, and the work of the NHRC will most likely only be, at best, a farce.

In this environment, Nepal's people, of course, have been affected as well. People live in fear; they are unable to speak out on any issues. In this way, the king has succeeded in creating fear among the people of Nepal.

AHRC: How has the judiciary in the country responded to the king's coup, especially in relation to protecting people's rights? Has it been able to maintain the rule of law and its judicial independence?

PYAKUREL: The easiest way to answer this question is to say that the chief justice of the Supreme Court, the country's highest court, is appointed by the king. Does this answer your question? You can therefore imagine that the judiciary is not functioning independently in Nepal today.

AHRC: Are all of Nepal's judges appointed by the king?

PYAKUREL: Fortunately, this is not the case. They are primarily appointed by the Judiciary Council, which is headed by the prime minister and the law minister, but presently, we don't have a person called a prime minister in our country, and Parliament, moreover, has been disbanded and is not functioning. King Gyanendra has control of all of these institutions.

Let me give you some further examples though to illustrate the state of Nepal's judiciary today. A short time ago, for instance, our chief justice went to Australia and made a speech in which he supported the king's seizure of power. There is obvious reluctance on the part of the chief justice and the judiciary in general to comment on this constitutional and political issue.

To give you another recent incident, the king appointed a royal commission to probe into corruption in the country. The constitution though doesn't grant authority to the king to form such commissions; he doesn't have that power. He has done these things, however, and I am sad to say the Supreme Court has not exhibited the courage to say that what he has done is against the constitution of Nepal. Consequently, I must say that when matters pertaining to the king arise before the Supreme Court they do not function in a democratic manner. This silence is primarily because under our country's constitution no can question the king's actions; no one can criticise the king. The principal generally adopted is that the king can do no wrong.

Under these circumstances, I must state that the judiciary in Nepal cannot function independently because they are not taking any political stand. The country's constitution is being totally bypassed. If the Supreme Court, Nepal's final court that  acts like a constitutional court on certain important matters - the court that interprets the constitution - remains silent and does not entertain any petitions against the actions of the king, how can one say that our country's judiciary is independent?

To be fair to the judiciary though, I must say that there have been judges who are concerned about the independence of the judiciary and who have tried to uphold the rule of law and render justice. They have tried to deliver decisions in a just and fair manner, but it is sad to say that these decisions have not been implemented.

Just recently, there was an order by the Supreme Court to release some suspects who had been detained by the police; but before they came out of the Supreme Court, the police immediately rearrested them and took them away. Thus, this is the current state of affairs of our judiciary today.

AHRC: In April, a memorandum was signed between the government of Nepal and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to set up a monitoring mechanism in the country. What is your view on this development?

PYAKUREL: From everything I've said, it's obvious that Nepal needs a very strong nationwide monitoring presence to be established in the country, and I hope that the U.N. monitoring team can play this role.

AHRC: What obstacles do you foresee though for the United Nations to adequately monitor human rights conditions in Nepal?

PYAKUREL: I think the main obstacle they are facing now is starting their work. Almost more than one month has passed after establishing the U.N.'s office in Nepal, but nothing has happened. They are very slow in addressing the issues faced in the country, and meanwhile, people are still being killed.

The second obstacle is we are undergoing a very difficult time in Nepal. We don't have properly functioning transportation and communication facilities in our country. How many resources are they going to be able to get and give to us to overcome these problems? I must say that only keeping U.N. officials in Kathmandu is not going to help at all.

The third problem pertains to the seriousness of the United Nations and its work in the country. How they are going to ensure that their recommendations are implemented in Nepal? This is a very great challenge to them. Left to be seen, for instance, is how Nepalese government officials and the Maoists are going to respond to their recommendations for our country and how the entire international community will react.

I must once again state quite categorically that if these U.N. officials are just kept in our country, like any other agency, and only create documents of cases occurring in Nepal then the actual purpose of the U.N. mission is going to be in serious doubt. If only keeping documents and records by the United Nations is put into practice in Nepal, like what has happened in other countries, then it will only legitimise all of the actions of the king and Maoists.

Consequently, my fear is that the U.N. directives are not going to be effectively and aggressively implemented in Nepal or in any other country. Then the real purpose of the U.N.'s role in responding to these issues is in doubt, for it will only pave the way for governments to continue their undemocratic practices when establishing the rule of law. Such action will only legitimise the undemocratic actions of the governments concerned. Thus, it is essential that the U.N. officials in Nepal do more than just keep records, that they seriously address the human rights issues in the country and implement their recommendations in Nepal.

AHRC: In other words, what you are trying to explain is your fear that the role of the United Nations will be more like a scorekeeper instead of a referee when monitoring human rights in your country?

PYAKUREL: This is exactly correct. This is my main fear. Actually, if they are not acting as a referee, they will only be like an ordinary scorekeeper as you just said.

AHRC: Given everything you've noted already in our interview, do you think negotiations with the king are possible to resolve the crisis that Nepal is now facing?

PYAKUREL: If you ask me, I would say there isn't any possibility of doing so. If I say it's impossible to find any solution under the king, however, it will give the impression that I believe the king should be abolished from the country or even from the earth perhaps. Even the political parties are not saying this though, but what I think as an individual is it will be pointless now to reconcile with the king unless the king totally agrees to limit his administration to the walls of the royal palace. I do not, and cannot, see this particular king doing that, however. Everything is very clear about how the present king has spoken and acted since he became the king of Nepal. We can see how the king has dismantled all of the democratic constitutional norms that were in existence in the country, for instance.

At this juncture, the king should show the world that he is going to bring back the true democratic process to Nepal, but, as I just said, I cannot see such a move being taken by this king. It is because of this belief that I say the international community must play a very vital role in bringing back normality to our country.

AHRC: What role do you believe the international community should play to restore respect for human rights and Nepal's democratic institutions?

PYAKUREL: If the international community is sincere towards the democracy of Nepal, they have to act in the correct manner in resolving this issue. They should not think only about controlling the Maoists in the country. They must advise the king that there is no military solution to this problem in Nepal. Even the Americans are now saying there is no military solution. The international community must understand that what has occurred in Nepal in the past few months is the result of our own internal political dynamics between the king and the country's political parties that I tried to describe earlier. This relationship between the king and the political parties is the real crux of the current problem.

Secondly, intense pressure must be put on the big players in the region, like India, Japan and Korea, and also the United States and Britain, all of which are giving a lot of aid and military assistance to the Nepalese government. It is their taxpayers' money that they are giving us. Is it justifiable for them to give money to a government which is not accountable for its actions and is not adhering to the directives issued by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights into which they have entered into an agreement?

It is also imperative that the international community provides the United Nations monitoring mission in Nepal with all of the resources that it needs to do the job it has been given. In addition, all members of the international community and international organisations must closely examine the work of the U.N. mission in Nepal.

As for human rights groups outside of Nepal, I would ask them to bring the information from inside the country and disseminate it around the world and to put as much pressure as possible on the king and the undemocratic government he has created and now heads. Lastly, I would ask in general for human rights organisations abroad to support Nepal's human rights defenders, political parties and civil society in the struggle in which we presently find ourselves. I must stress that action must be taken now.

AHRC: As for our organisation, I can ensure you that we will do all we can to assist the people of Nepal in general and human rights defenders in particular in the midst of this crisis. I want to thank you very much for your time and for sharing your insights with us and our readers.