It has been just over one year since I first arrived in Nepal to take up the task of working as a management advisor for a small, indigenous Nepali NGO. Before embarking on my trip, I was encouraged—thorough talks with Nepali experts, and recent studies—that the Maoist insurgency that had racked the country for eight years was in its dying days and was confined to some of the more remote areas of the far western reaches of the Kingdom. The realities on the ground, however, were something quite different—almost immediately I learned that Maoist (and often agitating political parties, as well) called strikes, demonstrations and blockades effected life throughout the country, albeit, on a limited scale in the Kathmandu Valley, and were an almost daily occurrence.
My first assignment was with a small NGO working for the upliftment of dalit (the so-called untouchables) women in the southern Gangetic plain of Nepal, referred to as the Terai. My home then, Mahottari district, posts some of the lowest social and economic indicators in the country. Among dalit women, literacy rates are in the single digits or very low teens; dalit and other marginalized communities live separately in simple villages of the most basic adobe huts typically with no water or sanitation facilities. Dalit and other lower castes are denied almost total access to the public sphere—restaurants, tea houses, Hindu temples—and are forced to perform (and are often punished if they do not) the most menial of tasks: removing dead animal carcasses from towns; cleaning human excreta. In these areas, although the Maoist insurgents enjoyed some support due to their rhetoric of equality and development for all, strikes and blockades brought life to a virtual standstill. The wholesale abduction of schoolteachers for “re-education” was common, and Maoists and security forces alike reeked havoc on villages—raping, looting and generally threatening families caught in the crossfire to the point of numbness and indifference. Maoists killed villagers accused of complicity with the government; security forces killed villagers accused of sympathy towards the Maoists. Village Development Committee (locally elected bodies) offices were boarded up and secretaries resigned en masse.
During my first year, all attempts at renewing a cease-fire and instigating peace talks failed. Moreover, efforts to bring in the UN as a mediator in the conflict were rejected and debunked despite the dearth of indigenous solutions to the gridlock. The Royal Palace reinstated the disposed Prime Minister with the agenda of bringing about a cease-fire or calling elections if the Maoists refused to join the process. Mass demonstrations, rallies, blockades, strikes and mass killings and abductions, however, continued unabated. The horrific murder of 12 Nepali hostages in Iraq brought more grief and sorrow to this remote Kingdom, with, of course, more demonstrations and rallies that followed. The collective psyche of this Himalayan Kingdom remains battered and fractured.
When the King assumed control of the government on February 1, placed political party leaders under house arrest, enacted a state of emergency and promised to restore peace to the country, you could almost forgive the majority of downtrodden Nepalis for their initial euphoria—many Nepalese were willing to pay almost any price for peace.
Now two weeks into the state of emergency, life in the Kathmandu Valley continues mostly unaffected. More security forces patrol the streets of the capital these days, but the King has taken some minor measures to placate the masses: the price of cooking gas has come down and a beautification campaign in Kathmandu has commenced. For those of us engaged in human rights and development work in Nepal, however, these are trying and troubling times. Most political party leaders remain under house arrest, censorship of the domestic press is absolute and decrees banning public gatherings remain intact. Outside of the Valley, however, life has ground to a halt. A Maoist imposed indefinite blockade and strike has stymied public transportation and movement and despite the “reopening” of some VDC offices, most people remain close to home due to fear for their own life and safety. In some areas, security forces are as much maligned as Maoists insurgents. Caught in the crossfire for almost a decade, many do not know whom to trust.
Most western missions—and India—in Nepal have issued statements appealing for the reinstitution of multi-party democracy, the release of party leaders and human rights activists and the reinstatement of the most basic human rights. Indeed, as I write, many ambassadors are in their home country for consultations about how to proceed. For its own part, the US has issued a 100-day ultimatum for the restoration of multi-party democracy or risk losing all military and other forms of aid. International NGOs, too, seem shell-shocked as they contemplate their next move. Only reputable organizations like Amnesty and Human Rights International have issued statements—without a carrot or stick to dangle in front of the palace—demanding the immediate release of human rights activists and the restoration of basic human rights. The Association of International NGOs (AIN) in Nepal remains sharply divided between those that support a rights-based approach—how can we not speak out—and those favoring a more neutral stance.
As one of the poorest countries in the world, the recent coup staged by the King does not have any real tangible effect on the majority of Nepalis. Indeed, it is common knowledge that the government, in whatever form, only controls the Kathmandu Valley with Maoist de-facto administrations holding sway over wide swathes of the remote countryside. That much has not changed. For development aid and organizations, however, the task has become that much more difficult. It’s a sad irony that much of the development aid in Nepal takes a rights-based as opposed to needs-based approach to development focusing on sustainability through the good governance measures of accountability, transparency and empowerment. The palace takeover will only damage and set back many of the efforts, achievements and impact that have been made over the past decade(s).
My own work currently focuses on the eradication of child labor in Nepal with my organization implementing programs in the hard hit and impoverished southern part of the country. In this area, Maoists are known to “recruit” children into their corps while, at the same time, the local government refuses to enforce and earmark the necessary resources for education for all measures—with many of the poorest areas lacking even the most basic infrastructure. A dalit rights EU project that I helped design, for example, which called for dalit group formation and public forums demanding their rights, could now be threatened and disbanded as a danger to public security under the auspices of the current state of emergency. Remote villagers that demand education facilities and teachers for their children could be jailed under the current draconian measures to squelch public gatherings.
While Maoist atrocities over the past eight years are deplorable and to be condemned, His Majesty’s—and here we also include the Royal Nepalese Army—total control over the country will only continue to jeopardize the people who have been victims of the conflict all along—the majority of Nepalese that crowd a congested zone of poverty and underdevelopment. Transcending the current milieu of violence and conflict—through the immediate resumption of multi-party democracy (with all of its flaws) and the realization of a cease-fire and peace talks (with the assistance of the UN if necessary)—is the only viable means of bringing about a lasting peace and stability to Nepal.