V for vendetta
CrossrOADS
Useful Links
» A new way to read online, exact replica of your daily and magazine
» For all you tweety fans out there!
» Allows you to find only those news from any date you choose!
» Search any news/ articles by author/ category/ date/ keyword
The controversy over Maoist MP Bal Krishna Dhungel may not appear strong enough to derail PM Baburam Bhattarai’s government but, mishandled, it can demoralise Bhattarai’s supporters, deplete his broad-based political capital and begin the process of his undoing. His Jumbo Cabinet, whatever the political calculations, has already gone contrary to his austerity measures in adopting the Mustang-Max vehicle, economy class air travel and so forth. Bhattarai needs to discriminate between what is good and what will set disastrous precedence for the country. And he needs to do much more explaining.
The Dhungel controversy is the third most crucial issue of a post-2006 Nepal, next to the PLA question and constitution writing. In fact, resolution of insurgency-era non-combat killings and maiming is even more important for long-term peace and prosperity. If the PLA compromise is a resolution to the military aspect of the conflict and the future constitution is its political dividend, coming to terms with the decade-long blood-letting is their moral underpinning. The political parties seem to have finally been coming to grips with the first two. The Dhungel controversy offers them an opportunity to resolve the moral dimension.
Of course, there are those who wish that the insurgency had never happened. For them it was the handiwork of a handful of Maoist extremists; it was unnecessarily imposed on Nepalis to advance its leaders’ personal ambitions; and Nepal would have done far better without it. This nostalgia for the bygone golden past, desire for a fantasy course of might-have-beens and denial of the actual unfolding of history, has always been a familiar refrain of the erstwhile dominant class, whose slipping grip on its monopoly over power impels them to deny history. But hardly any marginalised group in Nepal would say that the insurgency, despite its many traumas, accomplished nothing.
However, coming to terms with the 16,000 or so deaths and countless tortures, however, is trickier than either condemning nostalgia seekers or embracing the Maoists’ and others’ desire for indiscriminate amnesty to the perpetrators of every death and disappearance.
Those societies that have trampled over the deaths of its innocent citizens during internal conflicts have suffered from a prolonged revival of the vendetta culture. Even in South Africa, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission faced criticism for jettisoning justice in favour of blanket amnesty and involuntary forgiveness. The result in South Africa has been an exponential rise in crime and revenge.
Therefore, the Dhungel case needs more careful handling. PM Bhattarai may have political compulsions for what he has done. Many among the Madhesi leaders, too, want other violations forgiven so that everyone can begin anew. But forgetting the past just because it’s politically expedient might come back to haunt them and the country. Besides, people who turn their back on justice can’t be expected to build a just society.
Of course, perpetrators of violence as part of the exigencies of war should receive amnesty but only after the process of confession, repentance and compensation. Otherwise, there are too many blood-stained hands in Nepal, as Bhattarai rightly pointed out in his press conference at TIA, to allow the country to move forward in peace. But cold-blooded murders committed in the name of caste and ethnicity must not receive amnesty. If the facts are what the family of the murdered Shrestha brothers and others say they are, then Dhungel deserves to serve out the remainder of his prison sentence. In many countries, they would have him hanged.
No matter, we must take exception to the prime minister’s statement at his TIA press conference that the Human Rights workers’ hullabaloo about Dhungel amnesty is part of their vested interest in Dollar Farming. What Bhattarai has said is precisely what a commandant Major General of the Royal Nepal Army in Itahari told me in 2003. I had gone there to have two of my villagers, both Madhesi UML workers, falsely framed as Maoists, freed from further arrest and harassment. I had told the suave general and his colonels that the Army’s reputation had been tarnished by human rights violations as reported by the media and Human Rights organisations. The general had dismissed the former as yellow journalism and the latter as the compulsions of Dollar Farmers. This sort of language doesn’t suit Bhattarai’s democratic aspirations. Nepalis expect him to be more nuanced, more complex and more compassionate about the victims of the decade-long violence.
Dhungel’s case on its own may not be much. He has already served out eight years of his prison sentence. But what is more important here is the precedent that his case will set by blurring the line between the inevitability of violence during conflict and personal, caste and ethnic vendetta that can be guised as political violence. If Dhungel is offered amnesty despite his proven motive of revenge for an inter-caste marriage, it will encourage caste, ethnic and personal revenge in an emerging Nepal that must rely only on people’s goodwill toward each other and fear of the rule of law. Bhattarai’s new Nepal of prosperity may turn into Rwanda, Sudan or Somalia in tomorrow if facts in the case are not impartially dug up and judgment made accordingly.
There is no hurry to make a final judgment on the case. The President should investigate the case impartially by evaluating the verdicts of the District, Appellate and Supreme courts and then come to a conclusion whether Dhungel’s involvement was motivated by personal, caste and ethnic vendetta or was as part of the inevitability of war against the state.
There are many constructive ways to come to terms with such a past. First of all, murder committed for reasons of personal, caste and ethnic enmity must be punished. The government should set up the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, where both the victims and perpetrators of violence would testify. Confession, repentance, compensation and forgiveness should be the guiding principles of this commission. But hasty action is going to cost PM Bhattarai, the Maoists and the entire country in the long run.
Post Your Comment