Lisa White

(Kanchan Chaudhari is a Nepalese human rights lawyer and the director of a human rights organisation in the country. The interview was conducted by a former intern at the Asian Human Rights Commission [AHRC] from the United States.)

AHRC: Please describe for us conditions in Nepal since King Gyanendra took control of the country through his royal coup on Feb. 1, 2005. What are your biggest challenges, and what role is civil society seeking to play in the current environment?

CHAUDHARI: The situation has gone from bad to worse since Feb. 1 when the king took over all the powers of governance; and since then, we do not have any democratic space for civil society: democratic institutions have been eliminated. This is the biggest challenge we are now facing. As a lawyer, I can also say that other major challenges include an erosion in the rule of law, continuous human rights violations and complete impunity for the perpetrators as well as the denial of access to justice for the victims of human rights violations and constant threats to human rights defenders. In addition, the people are muzzled with the government's undemocratic rules and regulations. Moreover, the size of the security forces has increased dramatically in the country. The government has also been sponsoring violence in the rural areas through its support of village defence forces to counter the Maoists. We find so many unseen forces now, and the people cannot speak freely. Dozens of civilians have been killed by these so-called village defence forces—these vigilante groups.

Meanwhile, civil society organisations are constantly trying to create their own space to raise the issues of human rights violations and the rule of law, condemning the atrocities and informing the international community about developments in the country. Their role is also to try to bring into being an environment for the peace process.

AHRC: Can you describe some of the democratic elements which have collapsed? Especially since the king took power, can you see any move that may bring democracy back to the country, even in the form of a long-term process?

CHAUDHARI: The suspension of Parliament; rule of the country by handpicked royalists; systematic attacks on the judiciary; appointment of the commissioners of the National Human Rights Commission, which has completely curtailed the independent nature of the commission; the appointment of royalists as the head of the districts and zonal and regional administrations; passing legislation to restrict freedom of the press; attacks on NGOs [non-governmental organisations] that have independent and proactive voices; restrictions on freedom of assembly; arbitrary arrests and detentions—these are some examples. The list can go on and on.

There is no alternative to democracy in Nepal. The people though have had a level of frustration with the political parties in the past as the then-governments failed to address the structural problems of the country. People, however, firmly believe in democracy and cannot think of Nepalese society being ruled by an autocratic regime. People's frustrations with the political parties move them to strengthen the democratic culture in the country, not to invite an autocratic regime to take power.

One of the biggest achievements of the 1990 political change in Nepal was freedom of the press, freedom of speech, a free space for civil society organisations in general and NGOs in particular. During this period, people could, and would, criticise. They were able to speak, and they were able to make demands about issues that had been suppressed for many years. The general awareness among the people increased. Therefore, the issues that were never discussed, but were fundamental in the transformation of society, began coming to the surface. The answer to these demands though is not the collapse of the rule of law and the imposition of an autocratic regime.

Despite extremely difficult circumstances in the country, hundreds of thousands of people have taken to the streets demanding the establishment of full-fledged democracy. Although the regime has suppressed these peaceful demonstrations with brutal tactics, people persistently resist it. Thus, I am optimistic that the democracy which will be restored by the movement of the people will last a long time and will serve the people.

AHRC: How have the social and economic conditions of the people been affected by what has happened to the country?

CHAUDHARI: As you know, in the absence of the rule of law and a democratic framework, it is impossible for meaningful development to take place. Society is traumatised as the killing, torture, maiming, extortion and displacement have become a part of life. Life in rural Nepal is even more difficult as the populace there is caught between the Maoists and the State.

After the Feb. 1 coup, development activities, including the construction of infrastructure, have been curtailed and have basically disappeared. Many aid agencies have withdrawn from the country, and it is not possible to implement development projects. The country is divided with the capital controlled by the government and the rest of the country by the Maoists. As there is a full-fledged war, no one dares to implement development activities as the resources eventually end up in the hands of one of the armed groups, either the State or the Maoists. In such a fearful situation, people cannot participate in any development activities as the security of one's life becomes the foremost priority.

Moreover, the youth of the villages have either joined the armed groups or have left their village, which has affected productivity. Constant fear, traumatic experiences and psychological pressures have also affected the ability of people to work, leaving them living in miserable conditions. In addition, the government has even put restrictions on the work of NGOs, which are the agencies bridging the gap between the grassroots people and development activities.

Furthermore, if we closely analyse the annual budget and its expenses, it is very clear that the huge sum allocated for defence and "security" benefits the military and police in the country rather than development activities.

AHRC: How does the increasing poverty in Nepal affect the king's ability to govern the country? Does it affect him at all?

CHAUDHARI: To speak frankly, now the king has become richer than before and has benefited enormously. He is also a person who does not care if poverty affects the people. The budget of the palace was increased significantly when he took power. Based on some reports published in the newspapers, billions of rupees have been spent without mentioning where and how it was spent! There is no one to make him accountable!

The king's policies and decisions have increased the level of poverty. If you see how much money is allocated for defence, for example, it will be very clear whether there has been any attempt to improve the people's lives. Poverty cannot be alleviated by guns though. People need food, shelter, work, health and education. By diverting all of the national budget to defence, poverty in the country has deepened. The king and his regime do not hear the cry of the people. Hundreds or thousands of people now are in the streets participating in peaceful demonstrations. There is so much unrest, but the king and his government do not listen to the people's cries. When the people have been silenced and everything is controlled by you and a small group of your friends, you can govern in whatever way you want. This is what the king is doing now.

The Nepalese people clearly understand, however, that the king's takeover was not to improve the political situation in Nepal as he claims or to resolve the conflict with the Maoists. Rather, it was to grab power, institutionalise his supremacy as in the Panchayat era and destroy Nepal's democratic institutions and practices. It is unfortunate though how some governments in the world do not want to understand these realities and tend to believe the illusion that the king has created, stating that within three years he will fix all of the country's problems and restore democracy. Through eliminating all democratic institutions and practices, the kind of "democracy" he is envisioning is very clear.

AHRC: Shifting the direction of our questions for a moment, what impact, if any, did the attacks on the United States on Sept. 11, 2001, have on Nepal?

CHAUDHARI: It has had a significant impact. When the United States declared its "war on terrorism" immediately after the Sept. 11 attacks, the Maoist insurgents in Nepal were declared "terrorists" and their organisation a "terrorist organisation." Nepal's anti-terrorist legislation came into force, giving sweeping power to the security forces with the guarantee of impunity. The U.S. and U.K. governments declared millions of dollars in support to Nepal in general, and the Royal Nepalese Army, or RNA, in particular, to counter terrorism. Modern arms and ammunition arrived in Nepal; a nationwide state of emergency was declared, suspending many rights of the people; and extrajudicial killings in fake encounters skyrocketed. Moreover, Nepal topped the list of countries practicing enforced disappearances, people were put under prolonged periods of time in military detention and lawyers representing the people detained illegally were also arrested, detained and tortured as the supporter of terrorists. Parliament too was dissolved, shaking the elected prime minister, and the king eventually took power. This list, which continues to grow, shows the impact of the Sept. 11 attacks in the United States and its effects in Nepal.

Unfortunately, after Sept. 11, many countries in the world that had been experiencing any kind of armed conflict within their borders—sometimes for years—identified the conflict with the problem of terrorism. The terrorists, it seems, had suddenly emerged everywhere!

Reality, of course, is not so simplistic. If you observe the conflict in Nepal, one has to examine the root causes that have fuelled the conflict. Based on their own studies, many governments, donor organisations and major political parties have concluded that the Maoist movement has flourished as a result of the denial of social justice; the violation of human rights; an increase in corruption; and social exclusion and discrimination based on caste and gender, including access to development. Everyone subscribes to these conclusions as the root causes of the conflict. The approach thus should be addressing these problems rather than adding to them by using force.

In short, now the problem in Nepal is that people do not have any confidence in the present system as the government is the one violating the law rather than implementing it; it is the one violating the rights of people rather than protecting them. A vivid example of how governments are countering terrorism can be found in Nepal. Can any citizen of any country in this 21st century believe that a monarch that takes all power unto himself and rules the country by suppressing the people and curtailing all of their rights is countering terrorism?

I am not saying that if people are terrorists they should not be prosecuted. What we are demanding is that they have to be prosecuted through a trial in a just and fair manner, respecting in the process the country's laws and international human rights obligations.

AHRC: The United Nations and other monitoring organisations are closely scrutinising the situation in your country. What impact have they had?

CHAUDHARI: Conditions in Nepal have been very bad since 2001 when the present king gradually took power. By declaring a state of emergency, the king virtually took full control of the country, sacking the elected prime minister and cabinet, dissolving Parliament and putting military officials, in essence, in charge of the country. Victims were silenced. There is no system of accountability. The perpetrators of human rights violations enjoy complete impunity. Consequently, it has been very difficult for civil society organisations, for NGOs, to function smoothly. Thus, human rights violations in the country have skyrocketed. We therefore requested the United Nations to have constructive engagement in Nepal's affairs and to have a presence in Nepal by establishing an office representing the U.N. high commissioner for human rights in our country. Finally, in 2005, such a U.N. office was established in Nepal after the king's coup of Feb. 1. It is now the last resort available to the people in seeking justice and fair play.

The OHCHR [Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights] office in Nepal has a two-year agreement with the government. Almost one year has passed to establish their office and find the required human resources. This delay has disappointed many of us. Of course, by their presence, there have been some positive improvements, such as the level of confidence of human rights defenders has increased. We have also seen some deterrent effect as we see killings and disappearances in terms of numbers have decreased slightly. However, none of the perpetrators of extrajudicial killings have been brought to justice yet. None of the victims of disappearances have been brought to justice. Torture still is very systematic and a routine practice in detention centres. The denial of access to detainees continues. The structural problems in respect of human rights and the rule of law continuously persist. The crisis has deepened. We hope very strongly that the U.N. office will focus extensively on combating impunity in the country, protecting the victims and witnesses and creating an environment so victims can come forward to report cases of human rights violations. We also hope that the U.N. office in Nepal will put adequate pressure on the regime so it starts respecting the rule of law.

AHRC: What has Nepal's National Human Rights Commission, or NHRC, done to respond to the country's human rights problems?

CHAUDHARI: With the royal takeover, this institution also lost the confidence of the people as the legislation creating the National Human Rights Commission was amended. Under the amended ordinance, the provision of having the prime minister and the leader of the opposition party sit on the committee recommending its members, which was in the original legislation enacted by Parliament, has been removed. This change eliminates the people's representation in crafting the NHRC. Instead, by creating the NHRC based on the wishes of the king, the basic elements of independence and the impartial nature that drives the NHRC has been killed.

As a result, civil society organisations have said that they will not work with the present National Human Rights Commission because it has lost its independent identity. Of course, we are not criticising the institution. We are only critical about the manner in which the king formed the present NHRC. We do not believe that the present commission can, or will, work in a justifiable manner as an independent body. Recommendations of the NHRC are hardly observed by the State.

In addition, the people have now begun to fear the present National Human Rights Commission. Why? Their fear emanates from the fact that in the past they had sent a lot of information and cases to the commission. People also have gone personally before the commission and testified about various cases. They also have been interviewed there. Now people fear whether that information provided to the commission will be secure. It is a serious question. We too are personally worried about those records and information. At this juncture, if it is not handled properly, I am sure many victims and people's lives will be at great risk.

AHRC: What role, if any, will the U.N. human rights monitoring office play regarding the situation of the NHRC that you just described?

CHAUDHARI: Actually, when we were lobbying for the creation of a U.N. presence in our country, our main purpose was to get them to strengthen the activities of the NHRC and other NGOs. Unfortunately, everything has now turned out in this unexpected manner. We wanted to have a very strong National Human Rights Commission, and we demanded that the United Nations support this national institution. In the present situation, however, I feel it will be a very difficult task for them to perform this function.

AHRC: We are aware that many Nepalese people are seeking refugee status through the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Hong Kong. I would assume that other parts of the world have witnessed a similar phenomenon as well. How has the deteriorating security situation in Nepal contributed to the outflow of people?

CHAUDHARI: Life in general in the villages in Nepal has become very difficult. Otherwise, no one would really like to leave the country, abandoning the place where they've lived since childhood, forsaking their own country where their dreams and hopes were established. Sadly though, the situation has turned worse, and a lot of people are leaving the villages. This is a true fact today.