Oped»
Boot camp
AUG 21 -
Nepal Army has been accused of human rights abuses from the time of its active engagement against the Maoists, to which the Army has not responded satisfactorily. Though some of these allegations may have been inflated by rights organisations, many might be true. Whether the corrective actions and legal arrangements to punish the perpetrators have been adequate, or if training and awareness of soldiers on human rights and humanitarian laws have been sufficient, are matters of research. Despite it not being the policy of the Army to indulge in violent practices, a culture of violence has crept into Nepali Army which might explain the violent behaviour of soldiers. Immediate actions to address and reform these violent practices are necessary.
The policy documents of Army forbid any kind of violence within the organisation and its dealings with the public. The use of physical violence against anyone, senior or junior, military or civilian, is strictly forbidden and there are legal remedies should anyone become a victim. Legality aside, however, the use of violent punishments is widespread—and thriving. Discipline and punishment, which the French Philosopher Foucault believed were essential for a 17th century military, seem to characterise Nepal Army these days.
A practice of reliance on systematic physical abuse has crept into the daily life of soldiers and has come to be seen as a necessity in imparting discipline in the recruits, hence transforming a civilian into a soldier. The training system is plagued with overemphasis on physical fitness and undocumented physical abuse has become widespread which might have a long term effect on the psychological bearings of soldiers. This in turn might explain their violent behaviour towards the civilians during the period of emergency. It is hard to find a member of Nepal Army, including some senior officers, who has not been through some kind of physical abuse at some point in their career.
Real time training does play an important role in production of capable soldiers; however, inhumane treatment without a set training objective has brought in a culture of violence. The aim of any military training is to produce professional soldiers by providing them adequate simulation of real life scenarios that one would face in the course of fulfilling duty. But sometimes the trainees are beaten to the extent of being physically maimed. This is not only done by instructors, but following on their footsteps, even by senior recruits to junior recruits in places like the Military Academy which produces officers. The use of violence has been instituted in the psyche of the Army officers. The officer corps of Nepal Army is strong, closely knit and a disciplined one, however, many officers perhaps misunderstand this bond as being a result of that physical abuse. But
the reality seems to be that unknowingly the soldiers and officers have developed a psychological tendency for the use of inhumane physical treatment and validated it, which perhaps explains the rights abuses that have been reported in the operations against the Maoists in the past.
As a cycle of experience, the structure of Army ensures that an individual goes through both sides of the abuse: being abused as well as abusing others. The hierarchical organisation of the Army and responsibility delegation to the officers ensure that actions are taken only with the consent of the officer in charge; the human rights abuses might be connected to the experience of violence by the officers themselves in the training. The practice of violence has also found its way into other areas such as while dealing with the disciplinary shortcomings. The disciplinary actions taken are typically that of beatings and tortures rather than concrete non-physical corrective actions. For instance, despite being forbidden, physical abuse is used in dealing with actions such as absence without leave, drunkenness and disorderliness or other breach of discipline. A culture has developed whereby physical punishments such as tying the perpetrator with ropes and even severe beatings and other inhumane treatments are preferred. As has been the case recently in Hile barracks, sometimes these beatings result in loss of life.
There is an urgent need to address this issue of inherent violence in the Army as it has not only resulted in loss of lives and violation of human rights, but has also been detrimental to the institution’s reputation. The type of threats that nations face today have changed and most armies in the world are reorganising to adapt to tackling human security issues rather than being modelled on conventional prototypes. It is an imperative to ensure that practice of abuse and violence is curtailed in the Army and soldiers be made aware of this, as even the United Nations peacekeeping missions, of which Nepal is one of the largest troop contributors, are based on human security approach.
Realising that the existing culture of violence within the organisation has had detrimental effects, and taking concrete actions towards addressing it, will only make it better for the organisation. It is not that there have been no efforts from within the organisation to address this issue, but these have been purely individual efforts of a few senior officers. These efforts need to be seen at the organisational level. Credit should be given where it is due, and there is no denying that the Army has stood as the only organisation that has held the nation together through the difficult times, when all others had crumbled. Reduction of violence in the Army will improve its image and a strong, transparent, accountable, credible and professional Army will only ensure national stability.
(The author is an ex-Army major currently doing his Masters in International Conflict at King’s College, London)
Posted on: 2010-08-22 09:37
Headlines
Advertisements
