MURDER IN THE MADHES

Adv. Dipendra Jha

Prevalence of extra-judicial killings in the Madhes can be partly attributed to the prejudice of security forces

Popular political analyst CK Lal, in an article on ratopati.com on March 29, said that the ‘situation of Madhesis is worse than dogs and bears in Nepal’. When dogs are killed in Kathmandu, animal rights activists deplore their killings but there is no response from rights activists when a Madhesi is killed. His argument was that the hill-centric rights activists are maintaining a culture of silence when it comes to Madhesis being killed. The life of a Madhesi has little value for hill-centric rights activists, was Lal’s conclusion.

Extra-judicial killings

Why do the extra-judicial killings happen in the Tarai? And why don’t such killings ache hearts in Kathmandu? The killings that took place during the Madhes Movement are twice the number of killings that took place during the nationwide Janaandolan of 2006.

No individual should be killed by the state in any part of the country but the reality is that not a single encounter is reported in Kathmandu and the hill areas. In the Tarai, however, almost every month there is at least one case of a so-called crossfire killing. The ratio of crime is higher in Kathmandu. Dreaded ‘dons’ and extortionists are brought to court but in the Tarai, suspected criminals are killed.

This situation implies racism. Most security officers are from the hills and the chances are that they could easily be prejudiced against Madhesis. Often Pahadi security personnel are more aggressive towards Madhesis whom they suspect of being criminals or being associated with armed groups in the Tarai. Racial discrimination in security bodies has to be seriously debated if we want to deal adequately with extra-judicial executions that have taken place in the Tarai post-2007.

Just why do we have this culture of silence? Actually, the omission of the

issue itself is a commission. Maybe some of the victims of unlawful killings were involved in crimes but their right to life needs to be respected. Anybody who commits a crime should be arrested, charged and tried for the crime they have committed but nobody should be shot in cold blood. After all, the police are supposed to uphold the rule of law.

International attention

Recommendations and conclusions from UN human rights committees have exposed this discriminatory attitude of security personnel in the past. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) documented the pattern of killings in the Tarai in a July 2010 report, which investigated 57 alleged extra-judicial killings between January 2008 and July 2010. One of the reasons for the hurried exit of OHCHR from Nepal was also this report. Similarly, OHCHR, in a 2008 report ‘Conflict Related Disappearance in Bardiya District’, concluded that Tharu civilians were particularly harassed and humiliated by security forces operating in the district. These civilians were harassed during regular operations, at security check-posts and around army barracks. Among the victims of harassment were 123 men (including 102 Tharus), 12 women and 21 children. Similarly, the International Crisis Group’s July 2009 report on ‘Nepal’s Troubled Tarai Region’ made similar recommendations in its report advocating affirmative action to redress ethnic and regional imbalances in security forces through recruitment, training and promotion. The implication being that the exclusive representation of hill people in security forces can lead to racially-motivated violence against Madhesis and Tharus.

Despite this reality, there has been no attempt at affirmative action in the police. Advertisements calling for Inspectors on June 19, 2013, for which the written tests were conducted from September 4-7, 2013 is a case in point. There were 17 seats for Madhesis but only four passed the written test and the remaining 13 Madhesi seats were merged into the general category.

The simple act of speaking against rights violations and exclusion can get you tagged as an ethnic actor promoting communal disharmony. International communities try to keep themselves away from this so-called sensitive issue, even though they come under the purview of international human rights. Surprisingly, the UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) made similar recommendations and observations on March 27. It was only the second review of the committee on the civil and political rights (ICCPR) since Nepal submitted an initial report in 1994. Contrary to what the government delegation told HRC experts about alleged human rights violations in Nepal, including the allegation of extra judicial executions, the HRC expressed concerns in its observations and recommendations “at reports of unlawful killings in the Tarai region” and the “ineffectiveness and vacuum at the National Human Rights Commission”.

Discourse game

These recommendations are not opinions that the state can easily ignore. The UN and the international community will use them as a reference point in the future as far as compliance with human rights laws are concerned. The Nepal Government, donors and diplomats have no choice but comply with the HRC recommendations. The UN and the international community are also looking carefully at the process for the nomination of new commissioners at the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC).

These genuine human rights concerns cannot be dismissed simply as donor-driven agendas, ethnic issues or political stunts. Such malicious allegations are made by the same ruling class of elites who receive the most assistance from foreign donors. This is exactly what Ujjwal Prasain argued in his article in Kantipur daily on April 2 titled, ‘Anka ganit ra discourse ko khel’ (‘Game of numbers and discourse’). Prasain argued that the game is all about creating a discourse that uses the permanent establishment of Nepal against the marginalised sections of society.

The government must therefore take HRC recommendations seriously and do the needful to ensure justice for victims of extra-judicial executions in the Tarai. The government also needs to ensure that transitional justice mechanisms meet international human rights standards and the Supreme Court directives. And finally, to maintain the independence and effectiveness of the National Human Rights Commission, Paris principles should be taken into consideration while appointing commissioners.

Jha is an advocate at the Supreme Court

(Extracted : The Kathmandu Post)