Restorative Justice: An Answer to Sexual Violence in Nepal?

How to cite this journal: Author, Date of the post, WMO Conflict Insight, Title of the post, ISSN: 2628 6998, https://worldmediation.org/journal/

ABSTRACT

Rising sexual violence threatens Nepal’s widely patriarchal, male-favoring, and gender-biased society. Research shows that the country’s traditional justice procedure commonly disappoints to address survivors’ holistic needs due to corruption, insufficient state capacities, and by restricting its engagement to penalizing the responsible party. A punishment-centered system is only a short-term answer, missing out on risks for repeated misdemeanors after detention discharge. Survivors of sexual violence stress their need for holistic justice that exceeds traditional courtroom scenarios. Restorative justice, a participatory alternative to sanction-centered systems, has proven its potential in Nepal and is, mostly unknowingly, applied in support programs. More awareness, support, and emphasis on the survivor-focused restorative mindset could greatly benefit many of those affected by or at risk of sexual violence.

KEYWORDS

Nepal, South Asia, restorative justice, alternative justice, criminal justice, survivor-centered approach, sexual violence, gender-based violence, violence prevention, violence against women, taboo, patriarchy, civil war, high—level corruption, police corruption, healing, mental health, COVID-19 lockdown, victim-blaming, awareness, online sexual violence, cybercrime, NGOs, funding challenges, advocacy, sexual and reproductive health and rights, reintegration, women empowerment

INTRODUCTION

Sexual violence against girls and women continues to be a pandemic threatening to harm psychologically, physically, and economically. For good reasons, it is declared as one of the most widespread human rights violations, depriving girls’ and women’s equality and self-worth.

According to the United Nation’s Populations Fund, UNFPA survivors of sexual violence need, among others, justice and healing the most. Survivors and their communities claim that the traditional criminal justice system often fails to meet their interests and needs. In a context with rising reported cases, Nepal’s rape survivors often experience that the police is not always their friend. Police and state mismanagement of sexual violence cases is a common issue, and victim-blaming still the knee-jerk response for many. One consequence is a debate over the opportunity to create and introduce a more innovative approach, including restorative justice principles.

Restorative justice focuses not only on the needs of the survivors and the community but also on the offending party’s reintegration. The approach, which includes conferencing, mediation, and circles, addresses the survivor’s need for validation and compensation and contributes to preventing future sexual offenses.

Ph.D. candidate Tobias Volz assessed the awareness of sexual violence through an online survey. He interviewed Nepali sexual violence survivors and experts to look into current procedures and analyze the potential of restorative justice in this setting. This article provides insights into the results and calls to more actively advocating for the concept.

MAIN CORPUS

Sexual Violence and the Need for Restorative Support

The South Asian country Nepal, rich in culture and nature, remains one of the least developed nations worldwide. The mostly Hindu-dominated society defined itself for centuries through the hierarchical caste system, which often outlines women’s roles as housewives and justifies violence against them. According to an assessment of sexual violence in different districts, a high prevalence of sexual violence exists among adolescent girls. Almost one in ten girls, 9.8 percent, stated that they experienced sexual violence.

Recent public incidents created concern, and issues like online sexual violence indicate the urgency for changes. Consequently, some women stopped checking the news since additional reports became unbearable to read. Women activists utilize the benefits of online activism, significant during COVID-19 lockdowns, a period in which intimate partner violence spiked.

The consequences of sexual violence are often severe and shattering, creating layers of needs within survivors. One of the first responses when asking about survivor’s needs is the necessity of getting justice. Interviewed women claimed that justice is subjective and individual in each case. Getting justice can often be equivalent to restoring survivors’ lives. Various survivors expressed the desire to talk to the harming party to learn the reasons or to hear explanations, validation, or an apology to move on.

The concept of restorative justice is most defined by what it is an option to. The idea helps to experience a real sense of justice, often not guaranteed through the traditional justice system. The restorative justice concept entered Nepal’s general discourse after signing the Comprehensive Peace Accord. Initially, it was a procedure meant to support the country dealing with the legacy of human rights violations from the past. Nepal pilot projects on trial and probation, bringing new opportunities to link restorative and traditional justice.

Restorative justice work for sexual violence survivors in Nepal is practiced in different forms. In most cases, those who work restoratively are either unaware of it or do not call it restorative, for example, due to fundraising challenges. Women’s rights experts believe community mobilization and involvement, a core principle of restorative justice work, is one of Nepal’s major strengths.

The vast majority of interview partners did not see significant risks in applying restorative justice in cases of sexual violence in Nepal. However, one needs to pay special attention to ensuring the confidentiality and safety of survivors, showing professional standards, and preventing re-victimization and community biases. If working restoratively means having a facilitated dialogue with the harming party, text- or video chats might be viable if safety can otherwise not be ensured.

Unfortunately, government actions are often oriented towards acute events, such as the civil war, the earthquake, political tensions, or managing the COVID-19 pandemic. While many live in poverty and struggle to cover their basic needs, restorative justice, and sexual violence prevention are seen as a comparatively secondary priority.

SUMMARY *

The research reported here rests on what survivors themselves said they needed. Their answers pointed less consistently toward punishment than toward validation, explanation and acknowledgment, and several expressed the wish to hear from the person who harmed them why it happened. Set against this, the criminal process is described as reaching only a small proportion of cases and addressing only a part of what those cases involve. The author’s finding that restorative practice already exists in Nepal without being named as such, whether through unfamiliarity with the term or because funders do not recognise it, is the study’s most practically significant observation.

CONCLUSION

Conclusion and Recommendations

Violence against women, especially sexual, is a global threat, including for many women in Nepal. The country’s patriarchal system discriminates against women based on cultural, religious, and societal practices, which are explanatory factors, yet no excuses for sexual violence. Restorative justice has excellent potential here.

Working restoratively can start as small as through a basic conversation. For example, the author experienced that some of the interviews with survivors, especially on their needs and justice understandings, had restorative effects. Interviewees expressed that the conversations about their experiences through the restorative justice lens are helpful and valuable in themselves, and this idea might be utilized for projects in the field.

One survivor shared that talking about sexual violence during the interviews made her realize that she has been more frequently affected by sexual violence than she was initially aware of. She learned how sexual violence she experienced through numerous harassment experiences accumulated and unconsciously affected her attitude towards men. She agreed that talking about restorative justice has been a restorative experience and helped her express her emotions.

Nepal progressed significantly within the last decade in terms such as literacy and education, which brings hope that women’s situations can continue to improve when it comes to sexual violence. Positive experiences in applying restorative justice must be utilized for advocacy and build upon. While possible future scenarios discussed in interviews often projected mixed pictures, the general consent was that more work needs to be done to present future generations a more bright picture.

POTENTIAL SOLUTION *

Restorative approaches to sexual violence are among the most contested questions in the field, and the article’s contribution is strongest where it stays close to what survivors said. It is worth setting out both the case and the objections, because a journal advancing this approach should be seen to have considered them.

The case begins with what conventional prosecution actually delivers. Attrition rates in sexual offence cases are high in every jurisdiction; most reported cases never reach trial, most trials that occur do not convict, and the process itself is frequently experienced by complainants as a second injury. Meanwhile the questions survivors most often raise, why did you do this, do you understand what you did, will you acknowledge it, are questions a criminal court cannot ask and a defendant is advised not to answer. That gap is real and is not closed by improving the courts.

The objections are equally serious. Sexual violence is an offence of power, and any process bringing the parties together risks reproducing that power in the room. Where community or family pressure to settle exists, a survivor may participate without genuinely choosing to. And there is a danger that restorative processes come to be treated by overburdened systems as a cheaper alternative to prosecution, which would transform a survivor centred option into a means of disposing of inconvenient cases.

Practice has converged on safeguards that address these objections, and any programme in this field should adopt them explicitly. Participation must be initiated by the survivor and revocable at any point without consequence for the criminal case. The process must be additional to prosecution rather than a substitute, so that choosing it costs nothing. The person who caused harm must have accepted responsibility before any meeting, since a process that becomes a forum for denial re injures the person it was meant to serve. Preparation must be extensive, often months, conducted separately and by facilitators specifically trained in sexual violence and trauma. Indirect formats, letters, recorded messages, shuttle communication, of the kind the article mentions, are frequently the safer choice and deliver much of the benefit. And the survivor defines what the process is for; where the desired outcome is acknowledgment rather than reconciliation, reconciliation should not be an objective.

The article’s finding that restorative work is already happening unnamed points to the most immediate opportunity. Practitioners doing this work without the vocabulary are also doing it without the safeguards, without supervision and without shared standards. Naming the practice, documenting it, training those who conduct it and building peer supervision would raise its quality substantially, and it can be done without waiting for legislative change. The observation that funders do not recognise the term is a solvable problem of communication rather than of substance.

Finally, the article’s report that the research interviews themselves had restorative effects deserves to be taken seriously as a finding rather than as an aside. Being asked, in a structured and unhurried way, what happened and what one needs is a rare experience for survivors in most systems, and it appears to be valuable in itself. That points toward something achievable at scale and at modest cost: trained listening, offered early, independent of whether any case proceeds. It also carries an obligation, which is that research contact of this kind must be accompanied by referral pathways to continuing support, since opening such conversations without anywhere to direct people afterwards leaves them exposed.

* Added by the WMO Editorial Team

REFERENCES

1. UNICEF, Domestic Violence Against Women and Girls, Innocenti Digest. Florence, Italy: Innocenti Research Center, June 2000, 2.
2. UNFPA, “Survivors of Sexual Violence Need Healing and Justice Even amid Pandemic, Leaders Assert – World,” ReliefWeb, 2020, accessed December 29, 2020, https://reliefweb.int/report/world/survivors-sexual-violence-need-healing-and-justice-even-amid-pandemic-leaders-assert.
3. Bhrikuti Rai, “For Rape Survivors in Nepal, Police Is Not Always Their Friend,” 2019, accessed December 28, 2020, https://kathmandupost.com/national/2019/07/17/for-rape-survivors-in-nepal-police-is-not-always-their-friend.
4. Amnesty International, “‘I Knew I Couldn’t Stay Silent Anymore’: Meet the Amazing Women Fighting Sexual Violence in Nepal,” 2019, accessed December 29, 2020, https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2019/01/i-knew-i-couldnt-stay-silent-anymore-meet-the-women-fighting-sexual-violence-in-nepal/.
5. Clare McGlynn, Julia Downes, and Nicole Westmarland, Seeking Justice for Survivors of Sexual Violence: Recognition, Voice and Consequences, SSRN Scholarly Paper (Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network, November 22, 2014), accessed December 7, 2020, https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2874138.
6. Ibid.
7. Tobias Volz, “Restorative Justice in Nepal: An Analysis of the Approach in Cases of Sexual Violence Against Women” (Ph.D. diss., EUCLID, 2021).
8. Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, “Kathmandu: National Capital, Nepal,” 2020, accessed June 12, 2020, https://www.britannica.com/place/Kathmandu.
9. Lynn Bennet, Dilli R. Dahal, and Pav Govindasamy, Caste, Ethnic and Regional Identity in Nepal: Further Analysis of the 2006 Nepal Demographic and Health Survey (Calverton, United States of America: Macro International Inc., 2006).
10. Himalayan Human Rights Monitors, Sexual Violence Assessment in Seven Districts of Nepal: A Study Conducted in Kanchanpur, Kailali, Bardiya, Banke, Dang, Parsa, and Bara (Kathmandu, Nepal, December 2012), accessed December 21, 2020, https://www.himrights.org/download/12_1633811810.pdf.
11. John Braithwaite, “Restorative Justice: Assessing Optimistic and Pessimistic Accounts,” Crime and Justice 25 (1999): 1–127.
12. Amnesty International, “Nepal: Recent Steps Undermine Transitional Justice,” 2020, accessed October 25, 2020, https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/01/nepal-recent-steps-undermine-transitional-justice/.

Supplementary references added by the WMO Editorial Team

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2020). Handbook on Restorative Justice Programmes (2nd edition), New York, including guidance on serious and gendered violence.

Daly, K., & Stubbs, J. (2006). Feminist Engagement with Restorative Justice. Theoretical Criminology, 10(1), 9 to 28.

Keenan, M., & Zinsstag, E. (2022). Sexual Violence and Restorative Justice: Addressing the Justice Gap. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Jülich, S., & Landon, F. (2017). Achieving Justice Outcomes: Participants of Project Restore’s Restorative Justice Processes. In Restorative Approaches to Sexual Violence. Routledge, London.

Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (Istanbul Convention), 2011, Article 48 on the prohibition of mandatory alternative dispute resolution.

World Health Organization (2013). Responding to Intimate Partner Violence and Sexual Violence against Women: WHO Clinical and Policy Guidelines, Geneva.

National Penal Code Act, 2017, Nepal, provisions on sexual offences and the statutory limitation period.

TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR WAR CRIMES: THE WORK OF NEPAL’S TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION

How to cite this journal: Author, Date of the post, WMO Conflict Insight, Title of the post, ISSN: 2628 6998, https://worldmediation.org/journal/

ABSTRACT *

This article examines restorative justice in Nepal and the work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission established in 2015. Opening with the case of a man permanently paralysed by a bomb during the civil war, the author surveys the conflict of 1996 to 2006, its human cost, and the further strains placed on the country by the earthquake of 2015 and the constitutional crisis that followed. The concept of restorative justice is then defined through the work of Zehr and Gohar and others, with attention to its three pillars, its procedural safeguards and its acknowledged limitations. The article sets out the Commission’s mandate and legal framework before reviewing the criticism directed at it by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the International Commission of Jurists, including politicised appointments, the absence of witness protection, the failure to complete a single investigation of more than sixty thousand complaints, and concerns about amnesty for serious crimes. The author closes with six recommendations for reform.

KEYWORDS *

Nepal, restorative justice, transitional justice, Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Comprehensive Peace Accord, impunity, reparations, enforced disappearance, victims’ rights, accountability, Maoist insurgency, amnesty

INTRODUCTION

On November 14, 2002, a young father of two got on a bus from his village in eastern Nepal, heading towards the country’s capital Kathmandu where he intended to apply for a working visa in South Korea. When the bus crossed a bridge in the rural district of Dolakha, a bomb planted by Maoist rebels exploded. After waking up from a nineteen-day coma, the man realized that he was paralyzed and unable to move. Thousands of people suffered similar fates in Nepal during a decade-long civil war in which security forces and rebels killed approximately 17,000 people and forcefully displaced almost 1,400.[1] The severe battles ended through the Comprehensive Peace Accord, signed on November 21, 2006. During the fighting, uncountable people, mostly civilians, were cruelly hit by gross human rights violations, including rape and sexual violence, forced displacement, torture, and other crimes.[2] Only a few of the war’s victims have received reparations and support with healing through restorative processes, repairing the harm caused by criminal behavior.

The restorative justice concept entered Nepal’s general discourse after signing the Comprehensive Peace Accord. Advocated by international and local civil society actors, restorative justice was meant to be a procedure to support the country in dealing with its legacy of human rights violations from the past. Officials claimed that processes would include actions such as prosecution, truth-seeking, institutional reforms, and reparations. Therefore, the Government of Nepal implemented two restorative bodies, the Commission of Investigation on Enforced Disappeared Persons and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, to tackle atrocities conducted during the period of war.[3]

In light of Nepal’s ongoing peace process, this paper will help readers understand Nepal’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s work and limitations. The paper will start with an overview of Nepal’s civil war, highlighting relevant background information on why restorative justice processes are valuable assets and benefit today’s situation. Then, the concept of restorative justice will be defined and explained, including the approach’s benefits and limitations. Further, the paper will provide an overview of Nepal’s restorative justice, describing the country’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s objectives, work, and criticism, followed by a discussion of the Commission’s work. It will end with a personal conclusion, including a summary of restorative justice work in Nepal and recommendations.

MAIN CORPUS

A Period of Trauma and Crimes: Nepal’s Civil War

Nepal is a South Asian country based around the Himalayan mountain ranges between India to the south, east, and west and the Tibetan Autonomous Region of China to the north. As a landlocked state, almost 30 million people call the country their home.[4] Nepal’s capital city and business center is Kathmandu, located in the country’s hilly region.[5]

Nepal, ruled by a hereditary government that preferred a policy of isolation, was closed to most of the world for decades.[6] Due to the self-inflicted geographical seclusion, the country remains among the least developed nations in the world.[7]

This chapter will provide insight into Nepal’s history and current struggles.

The People’s War

Nepal is still in the process of recovering from its decade-long civil war that shook the state between 1996 and 2006. At this time, approximately 17,000 people were killed, and more than 100,000 were displaced. The primary victims of war-related murders were civilians, predominantly indigenous people, the rural poor, and the Dalits. This group stands at the bottom end of the Hindu caste system. During the period of war, violence spread all over Nepal.[8]

Over the centuries, Nepal was led by royal dynasties. When more and more people started to perceive the system as unjust, political groups combined efforts and initiated a democratic movement called the People’s Movement. The movement aimed to overpower the monarchy through a series of street protests. Finally, in May 1991, for the first time, Nepal had elections.[9]

The civil war was characterized by escalating violence between the Government of Nepal’s security forces, such as the military and armed police forces, and the Communist Party of Nepal, the Maoists.[10] Through a non-confidence motion in 1994, the back-then leader of the country, Girija Prasad Koirala, was defeated. In the elections that followed, a Communist government was formed, which was again dissolved a year later. The Maoist revolt initiated their movement in 1996 to abolish the monarchy. Importantly, in 2001, numerous of Nepal’s Royal Family members were murdered by Crown Prince Dipendra before committing suicide. Therefore, Gyanendra, the king’s brother, becomes the new king.[11]The event further facilitated the Maoist movement. Following years of battles between the Maoists and the ill-equipped police force, Nepal’s Government announced a national emergency state in 2001 and 2005. The declaration was accompanied by numerous restrictions, such as civil liberties.[12]

In 2006, the conflicting parties created the so-called Comprehensive Peace Agreement, which led to the end of the civil war and initiated a transition phase to become a democratic state. In 2008, the monarchy was officially abolished. Till now, not all sections of the peace agreement have been implemented, and tensions among Maoists and numerous political parties remain a threat to Nepal’s peace.[13]

In a detailed report, the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights, UN OHCHR, highlights that the civil war was marked by severe violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights treaties. Both the Government and the Maoists were involved in the intimidation of villages, contributing to an atmosphere of fear. Offenders misused teenagers and children as porters, cooks, and soldiers.[14]

An additional backlash for the country’s healing process was the 7.8-magnitude earthquake that hit Nepal on April 25, 2015. The natural disaster resulted in the death of approximately 9,000 people. Tens of thousands of people suffered from the loss of their homes.[15] Additionally, transportation and communication were severely interrupted; countless people left their homes due to fear of aftershocks. Older people, children, women, and people belonging to lower castes were disproportionally highly affected.[16]

Many people in Nepal argued that the Government took advantage of the chaotic situation in the aftermath of the earthquake to silence opposition voices while creating a long-awaited constitution based on their ideas. Specifically, the Madhesi ethnic group protested that their voices were ignored and claimed that the constitution would further enable injustice to go on. Due to the resulting protests focusing on Nepal’s South, neighboring India imposed an unofficial border blockade, justified by security concerns.[17] As a result, many people, such as police personnel, got killed, and essential goods such as cooking gas, medicine, and petrol were not allowed to enter Nepal.[18]

Nepal Today: A Need for Healing

After the elections in 2017, Khadga Prasad Oli became Nepal’s new Prime Minister in 2018. With the support of the Communist Party, he created a majority in the parliament.[19] Human Rights Watch stresses that restorative justice is still a concerning Nepal challenge, criticizing inadequate restorative justice mechanisms for victims and granting amnesties for civil war offenders. Perpetrators who encountered reasonable charges against them are still in powerful positions.[20]

Approximately 81 percent of Nepal’s society follows Hinduism and locates itself within the hierarchical caste system. Over centuries, Nepalis socially defined themselves by the case system’s rules and structure to determine their identity.[21] In many cases, one can identify a person’s caste by surname.[22] Although caste-based discrimination is legally banned in Nepal, the system still concerningly contributes to inequity.[23]

Besides caste-based discrimination, gender inequality is an alarming issue in Nepal, which is, for example, reflected in 37 percent of girls getting married before the age of 18, which is among the highest child marriage rates in Asia.[24] Nepal is an extremely patriarchal country, with women being worse off than men in almost every measure.[25] With a Gender Inequality Index of 0.476, Nepal ranks 115 out of 162 nations globally.[26]

Because of Nepal’s least-developed economy, thousands of migrant workers go to countries such as India, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Malaysia, where they work under harsh conditions with limited access to government support and health care. Every day, around two Nepali migrant labor workers die abroad.[27]

While the people of Nepal are still struggling to overcome the country’s recent past, additional events and situations described in this part of the paper have worsened the condition of the Nepalese. To be better prepared to deal with further trauma and pain, it is imperative that the past is overcome and that healing is achieved. The author of this paper believes that an essential part of this is paying attention to gross human rights violations during the civil war. Even though remarkably resilient, Nepal’s people can benefit from restorative processes, which will better equip them to cope with current struggles.

Restorative Justice: A Tool for Healing

When a person faces injustice or is affected by a human rights violation, feelings such as anger, hatred, helplessness, and trauma might result. Restorative justice has great potential to support survivors in moving on and adapting. The statement below of a woman who was abused and confronted by her offender through a victim-centered process emphasizes the healing effects of restorative justice tools:

I told him it was because I didn’t want to carry around what he’d done to me anymore. I’d move on, and forgiving him was for me, not for him. I wanted an apology, and I got one. An apology is one word, but it’s a massive thing. I’m not angry anymore- that’s lifted. And hearing him say that it was all his fault was massive.[28]

Following, the concept of restorative justice will be described.

What is Restorative Justice?

While Howard Zehr and Ali Gohar describe that there is no general definition of restorative justice, they suggest the following, which should help to understand what the concept includes:

Restorative justice is a process that involves, to the extent possible, those who have a stake in a specific offense to collectively identify and address harms, needs, and obligations to heal and put things as right as possible.[29]

Some specific pillars and principles help to understand what restorative justice means.

The three pillars of restorative justice, according to Zehr and Gohar, are:

Stakeholder engagement,

Focus on harm and needs, and

The need to make damage right.[30]

Restorative justice focuses on the harm of an offender’s crime, negatively affecting the victim. While state-based justice systems usually focus on sentencing an offender and imposing punishments through court processes, restorative justice concentrates on the victim. It seeks to repair damage concretely and symbolically. Through a participatory procedure, the roots of a crime are addressed, and victims’ needs are identified.[31] According to Zehr and Gohar, restorative justice strongly considers the obligations that result from harm caused by a crime. State justice systems see accountability as a tool that can be achieved through law-regulated punishment. Restorative justice defines accountability as the need for offenders to acknowledge the harm caused by one’s wrongdoing. Not only offenders but also the affected community has relevant obligations. Thus, restorative justice promotes the engagement of the offender, the survivor, and the community.[32]

Tony F. Marshall describes crucial issues that require attention when one develops a restorative justice program. Among others, restorative justice practitioners need to ensure the rights of defendants and victims. Every legal procedure comes with different means for protecting offenders, for example, disproportionate sentences or wrongful convictions. In case these means are entirely removed, such as in prosecution through family conferences, there is a chance that offenders will plead guilty to avoid prosecution. The potential for this event might be low, but it still exists, so safeguards are needed. Tools to ensure safeguards include detailed guidelines and legal counseling. One safeguarding factor would be to employ neutral practitioners who are free of biases.[33]

Additionally, complaint mechanisms need to be established to prevent unfair treatment. In the case of community-led restorative justice, one should not include tough sanctions such as physical punishment.[34] To ensure victims’ rights, harmed parties should never be put in a situation where they must make unfair choices.[35]

Another issue highlighted by Marshall is the principle of voluntariness. Every engagement in restorative justice, from the offender, victim, or community side, must be voluntary to ensure commitment to participate in creating sustainable outcomes.[36]

Restorative justice can take place through direct or indirect mediation. Direct restorative processes include face-to-face meetings, such as victim-offender mediation, circles, or conferences. Nevertheless, in some cases, for instance, due to safety reasons, indirect communication, such as through shuttle restorative justice, is a good alternative to ensure that participants can still benefit from the restorative concept.[37]

The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crimes, UNODC stresses that trained restorative justice professionals must prepare the parties and facilitate the process.[38] First, restorative justice practitioners must conduct risk assessments to identify possible harms and create mitigation strategies. In every case, assessed risks must be communicated with all parties in the initial preparation phase.[39]

Limitations of Restorative Justice

Restorative justice comes with many great opportunities for the victim, offender, and community. Nevertheless, the approach also has its limitations, which one needs to be aware of when implementing restorative procedures.

Kathleen Daly describes the following limits of restorative processes:

There is no generally agreed-upon definition of restorative justice.

Restorative justice does not focus on the fact-finding stages of the criminal process.

It is challenging to achieve sincere apologies.

Restorative conferences can help victims recover from the crimes they faced, but they are contingent on their distress level.

Participants of restorative processes should expect modest results and not unrealistic outcomes.[40]

Lawrence W. Sherman and Heather Strang stress that the development and implementation of restorative processes must be based on detailed research but may backfire in rare cases.[41]

The example of South Africa shows that, especially in settings characterized by a high level of violence, the acceptance of soft approaches can be low. Many people who face severe violent crime incidents may demand higher sentences or even the death penalty for offenders. Thus, one needs to raise awareness of the benefits of restorative justice among the general public, politicians, and the police.[42]

Restorative Justice in Nepal

The peace agreement 2006 set the foundation for political reforms, reconciliation, and restorative justice processes. Only in 2006 did the Nepalese start to hear about restorative justice and its benefits.

This section of the paper describes Nepal’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s work, an agency with a restorative mission.

Nepal’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission

Nepal’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission was created on February 10, 2015, based on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Act of 2014. The objectives of the Commission are as follows:

Provision of reparation for victims of the civil war,

Creation of an environment for sustainable peace and reconciliation through an improved spirit of tolerance and common good faith in the society,

Drafting of recommendations to take legal steps against offenders involved in severe crimes and

Identification and publication of incidents of human rights violations during the civil war and of those involved in them.[43]

To reach these objectives, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission focuses on investigative tasks, victim and offender identification, drafting recommendations for reparations, and providing identity cards for the victims. Human rights violations include murder, enforced disappearance, taking hostage, torture, sexual violence, possession or damage of public or private property, forced displacement, and other kinds of inhumane acts regulated by international human rights law and humanitarian law, as well as crimes against humanity.[44]

The work of the Commission is regulated by various protocols and acts, such as the Code of Conduct of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, 2072. Rules and regulations include working impartial, credible, and independent. Human rights violations should be tackled sensitively and following international law. The Commission should exclude discrimination based on any ground and ensure that people are treated with dignity and respect.[45]

The Commission has five members, including at least one woman and the chairperson. Also, the members’ qualifications and standards, and activities are regulated by existing guidelines.[46]

Criticism

Amnesty International criticizes that Nepal’s recent steps are severe setbacks to the country’s restorative justice process. Alongside other NGOs, such as Human Rights Watch and the International Commission of Jurists, they expressed concern about two commissioners’ latest appointments. The commissioners were assigned without consultations and amending legal frameworks to harmonize Nepal’s ruling and international human rights law decisions. International organizations claim that Nepal’s Government carried out secretive and rushed consultations that failed to respect victims’ and civil society actors’ demands. Amnesty International states that political parties and the Government increasingly show that they are incapable and unwilling to deliver justice, truth, and reparations to civil war victims.[47]

Additionally, Agni Sapkota was nominated as the speaker of the Federal Parliament. He is accused of the abduction and killing of one individual during the war in 2005. Critical voices stress that authorities should not appoint a person under investigation for human rights abuses if they could disturb the investigation.[48]

South Asia director at Human Rights Watch states:

Nepal’s political leaders know that a transparent process is essential to ensure justice and accountability for egregious rights violations during the conflict, but they keep trying to protect those responsible for the abuses.[49]

The International Commission of Jurists, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and other players have repeatedly expressed concerns about Nepal’s restorative justice processes. According to them, restorative justice systems need a robust legal basis consistent with international standards and the political will to address the needs of victims of the war.[50]

Concerns include:

Disparities between definitions of particular crimes under human rights obligations, international law, and domestic law; inappropriate means to ensure obligations of international law and criminal accountability; and a reliance on reparations at the costs of other compensation means for survivors of conflicts and their families.[51]

Human rights organizations urge the Government to amend the 2014 Transitional Justice Act to harmonize it with the Supreme Court’s ruling and international guidelines.[52]

SUMMARY

The work of Nepal’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission is controversial. Mia Swart writes that even fourteen years after the peace agreement was signed by the Maoists and the Government of Nepal, only a little progress has been achieved on restorative justice.[53]

Thousands of complaints by victims and families of harmed people have been ignored, and insufficient findings have been published by the Commission. Activists stress that there is no witness protection policy in place and that the work of the Commission is perpetrator-led, paying no attention to victims’ interests. Also, as stated above, the Commission is often accused of filling positions with political appointments. In 2019, the Commission was not operational, and it was waiting for a new commissioner’s appointment. A massive point of discussion is still the lack of adequate consultation and transparency. Considering these issues, the Commission enjoys limited trust by victims and the international community. Also, many people claim that the Commission grants amnesty for offenders found guilty of torture and extra-judicial killings.[54]

For various reasons, large parts of Nepal’s society perceive the work of the Commission as a failure. On February 9, 2020, the Commission’s operational mandate was due to expire. Even though the commission did not complete a single investigation of the tens of thousands of complaints submitted by human rights violation victims, the Government of Nepal extended the agency’s mandate for one more year until the end of 2020. While the extensions were carefully welcomed by the international community, the achievement of victims’ meaningful justice faces both renewed uncertainties and persistent challenges.[55]

Only a little progress has been achieved during the years since the Commission became operational. One can say that this failure is based on the high number of complaints received, as more than 63,000 complaints were registered. Other voices say that 63,000 complaints are still minimal, considering the high number of violations. Also, the work is challenged by inadequate funding and limited resources.[56]

Another significant challenge is the persisting culture of impunity in Nepal, which leads to assumptions the government created the Commission to ensure that powerful offenders are granted impunity from punishment. Hypotheses are further supported by Nepal’s long-lasting history of failed commissions. For example, the Commission’s guidelines state that amnesties cannot be granted for serious crimes, but the term is not further defined.[57]

Recent reports suggest that Nepal’s Government plans to create restorative justice mechanisms led by its Ministry of Law and Justice. Many victims perceived the announcement positively, hopeful that better tools would be implemented.[58]

However, if the challenges are addressed, the Commission would have the potential to assist victims of the war on their way to healing. The work of other truth and reconciliation commissions, such as in South Africa, shows such a commission’s wide range of possibilities. South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s work includes granting financial, in-kind, and emotional services and enabling victims to receive psychosocial counseling. Thereby, the responsibilities covered by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa are broader. In Nepal, one gets the impression that the focus might be more on the offender, and the true restorative spirit of the Commission is questionable.

CONCLUSION

Nepal and its people have been severely affected by painful social wounds since 1996, when the unrest started to kick in. While restorative justice has great opportunities and chances for healing, restorative processes remain a low priority.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission has been formed to reconcile gross human rights violations and draft needed recommendations. So far, many people claim that the Commission only achieved little due to limited capacities, insufficient funding, and a lack of transparency.

The demand for restorative justice in Nepal needs to be linked to broader structural reforms promised in the Comprehensive Peace Accord. Also, restorative justice elements of the ongoing peace process must be taken back on track, respecting the Supreme Court’s orders and international obligations. Discussions should be extended to include the wider society and should not be limited to victims of international human rights NGOs. Partners of Nepal should develop and follow a common strategy and work closely with national actors working in peace. Also, Nepal’s donors seem to have become more indifferent to peace and restorative justice challenges.

I would like to make the following recommendations:

The work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission requires additional funding based on a detailed needs assessment. The process should also include a re-analysis of Government budgets supported by international development partners. Funding support should be provided through neutral institutional donors.

International and local experts should assess the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s capacities and provide need-based capacity-building support through training and coaching.

Processes of the Commission, including the appointment of commissioners, must take place transparently following intensive consultations. Appointments and processes must be re-designed to meet international human rights standards and procedures.

The last extension of one year’s mandate is insufficient to handle the high workload and satisfactorily manage all complaints. Thus, a long-term mandate needs to be established.

Trust among the public must be gained through effective campaigning and educational activities. Regulatory measures must be developed and implemented to prevent corruption and fraud.

In case the developments over the past years go on in a similar direction, there is little ground to think that Nepal’s Government’s processes will not further entrench impunity, probably intensifying the pain of victims like the paralyzed man in the introduction.

Certainly, restorative justice cannot heal all his pain and suffering. Still, the approach might help him live as well as possible with the consequences, reach an understanding, and overcome likely anger and bitterness.

POTENTIAL SOLUTION *

The author’s recommendations address capacity, funding and transparency, and each is sound. But a commission that has completed no investigation in five years, while those accused of wartime crimes hold senior office, does not primarily have a resources problem. It has a design problem, and more money delivered to the same design will produce the same result.

The design flaw is visible in the sequence of events the article records. Both former parties to the conflict now share power, and both have members exposed to the commission’s mandate. A body whose commissioners are appointed by those parties, whose legal framework permits amnesty for offences it has not defined, and whose mandate is renewed in twelve month increments, is structurally incapable of examining the people who constitute it. Reform therefore has to begin with appointment: a transparent, published process with civil society and victims’ organisations formally involved in selection, and eligibility rules that exclude anyone implicated in the matters under investigation. Without that, every other improvement is decoration.

Two provisions follow from it. The Supreme Court has already ruled that amnesty is unavailable for serious violations, and legislating that ruling into the transitional justice framework, with the offences defined rather than left open, removes the ambiguity on which the present arrangement depends. And a mandate long enough to complete the work, secured against annual political renewal, is what allows a commission to plan investigations rather than to survive from year to year.

The article’s comparison with South Africa deserves to be pressed further than it is, because the difference is not only one of breadth. That commission’s amnesty was conditional: an individual received it only in exchange for full disclosure of what they had done, in public, before those they had harmed. Truth was purchased, and it was purchased individually. Blanket or discretionary amnesty offers nothing in return and therefore produces neither truth nor acknowledgment. Whatever one concludes about the South African settlement, the conditionality is its transferable element.

Meanwhile the victims, sixty three thousand of whom have registered complaints, are ageing and in many cases destitute. Interim reparations do not require the completion of any investigation and can be delivered now: medical care, particularly for those with permanent injuries of the kind described in the article’s opening, educational support for the children of the disappeared and the killed, and pensions for those unable to work. Delivering these while the political questions remain unresolved is the single measure that would most improve the lives of the people this process exists to serve, and it would rebuild some of the trust that fifteen years of delay has consumed.

Finally, a word on where else the work can happen. Where a national mechanism is stalled, memorialisation, documentation by civil society, community level truth telling and psychosocial support continue independently of any commission, and they preserve both the record and the possibility of a later reckoning. And universal jurisdiction cases in third countries, already brought against Nepali officials, are a reminder that a state which does not investigate does not thereby close the matter. That is not a substitute for domestic justice. It is what remains available when domestic justice is withheld.

* Added by the WMO Editorial Team

REFERENCES

Bibliography

Amnesty International. “Nepal: Recent Steps Undermine Transitional Justice,” 2020. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/01/nepal-recent-steps-undermine-transitional-justice/.

Bennet, Lynn, Dilli R. Dahal, and Pav Govindasamy. Caste, Ethnic and Regional Identity in Nepal: Further Analysis of the 2006 Nepal Demographic and Health Survey. Calverton, United States of America: Macro International Inc., 2006.

Center for Restorative Process. “Restorative Justice and Restorative Practices,” 2015. http://www.centerforrestorativeprocess.com/restorative-justice-and-restorative-practices.html.

Daly, Kathleen. “The Limits of Restorative Justice,” 2006. https://euclid.egnyte.com/dl/XFlA7o47Ct/?

Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. “Kathmandu: National Capital, Nepal,” 2020. https://www.britannica.com/place/Kathmandu.

European Institute for Gender Equality. “Gender Inequality,” n.d. https://eige.europa.eu/thesaurus/terms/1182.

Gill, Peter. “Nepal’s Sisyphean Struggle for Justice,” 2019. https://thediplomat.com/2019/01/nepals-sisyphean-struggle-for-justice/.

Government of Nepal. “The Codes of Conduct of the Truth and Reconciliaiton Commission, 2072 (2015),” 2015. http://trc.gov.np/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/codesofcoduct.pdf.

———. “The Enforced Disappearance Enquiry, Truth and Reconciliation Commission Act, 2071 (2014),” 2014. http://trc.gov.np/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/actsrulesguidelines.pdf.

———. “Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Nepal,” n.d. https://trc.gov.np/about-commission/.

Human Rights Watch. “Between a Rock and a Hard Place: Civilian Struggle to Survive in Nepal’s Civil War,” 2004. https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/nepal1004.pdf.

———. “Nepal: Events of 2018,” 2018. https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2019/country-chapters/nepal.

Jeffery, Renee. “Nepal’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission Limps On,” 2019. https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/nepal-truth-and-reconciliation-commission-limps.

Kathmandu Post. Gender Inequality Continues to Plague Nepal, 2019. https://kathmandupost.com/editorial/2019/12/12/gender-inequality-continues-to-plague-nepal.

K.C., Luna. “Conflict, Disaster and Changing Gender Roles in Nepal: Women’s Everyday Experience.” PhD diss., Wageningen University, 2019.

Maepa, Traggy. Beyond Retribution: Prospects for Restorative Justice in South Africa. Pretoria: The Restorative Justice Centre, 2005.

Marshall, Tony F. Restorative Justice: An Overview. London: Home Office: Research Development and Statistics Directorate, 1999.

Oxfam. “Nepal Earthquake Response: Creating Lasting Change for Survivors,” 2020. https://www.oxfam.org/en/nepal-earthquake-response-creating-lasting-change-survivors.

Pattisson, Pete. “Nepal Border Blockade ‘Threatens the Future of the Country Itself’, Says UN,” 2015. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/nov/18/nepal-border-blockade-india-threatens-future-un-unicef.

Peace Insight. “Nepal: Conflict and Peace,” 2020. http://www.insightonconflict.org/conflicts/nepal/.

Pherali, Tejendra J. “Education and Conflict in Nepal: Impact of Violence on Schools and the Role of Education in Peacebuilding.” Liverpool John Moores University, 2012. http://researchonline.ljmu.ac.uk/id/eprint/6125/1/570726.pdf.

Restorative Justice Council. RJC Practitioners Handbook. Norwich: The Restorative Justice Council, 2016.

Rose, Leo E., Pradcumne P. Karan, Matinuzzaman Zuberi, and Richard R. Proud. “Nepal,” 2020. https://www.britannica.com/place/Nepal/Climate.

———. “The Economy,” 2020. https://www.britannica.com/place/Nepal/The-economy#accordion-article-contributors.

Sherman, Lawrence W., and Heather Strang. Restorative Justice: The Evidence. London: The Smith Institute, 2007.

Swart, Mia. “Nepal Transitional Justice Making Little Progress: Rights Groups,” 2019. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/12/4/nepal-transitional-justice-making-little-progress-rights-groups.

thelongestwayhome.com. “Nepali Caste System Culture & How It Effects Society Today,” 2012. https://www.thelongestwayhome.com/blog/nepal/nepalese-caste-system-culture-in-nepal-today/.

UN OHCHR. Nepal Conflict Report: Executive Summary. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations, 2012.

UNDP. “Earthquake in Nepal,” 2015. https://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/crisis-response/past-crises/nepal.html.

UNODC. Handbook on Restorative Justice Programmes: Second Edition. 2nd ed. New York: United Nations, 2020.

Human Rights Watch. “World Report 2019: Rights Trends in Nepal,” December 18, 2018. https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2019/country-chapters/nepal.

Zehr, Howard, and Ali Gohar. The Little Book of Restorative Justice. Peshawar: Uni-Graphics, 2003.

[1] Peter Gill, “Nepal’s Sisyphean Struggle for Justice,” 2019, accessed October 23, 2020, https://thediplomat.com/2019/01/nepals-sisyphean-struggle-for-justice/.

[2] Mia Swart, “Nepal Transitional Justice Making Little Progress: Rights Groups,” 2019, accessed October 23, 2020, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/12/4/nepal-transitional-justice-making-little-progress-rights-groups.

[3] Swart.

[4] Leo E. Rose et al., “Nepal,” 2020, accessed October 23, 2020, https://www.britannica.com/place/Nepal/Climate.

[5] Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, “Kathmandu: National Capital, Nepal,” 2020, accessed October 23, 2020, https://www.britannica.com/place/Kathmandu.

[6] Rose et al., “Nepal.”

[7] Leo E. Rose et al., “The Economy,” 2020, accessed October 23, 2020, https://www.britannica.com/place/Nepal/The-economy#accordion-article-contributors.

[8] Human Rights Watch, “Between a Rock and a Hard Place: Civilian Struggle to Survive in Nepal’s Civil War,” 2004, accessed October 23, 2020, https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/nepal1004.pdf, 1.

[9] Ibid., 1.

[10] Ibid., 1.

[11] Tejendra J. Pherali, “Education and Conflict in Nepal: Impact of Violence on Schools and the Role of Education in Peacebuilding” (Liverpool, United Kingdom, Liverpool John Moores University, 2012), accessed October 23, 2020, http://researchonline.ljmu.ac.uk/id/eprint/6125/1/570726.pdf.

[12] UN OHCHR, Nepal Conflict Report: Executive Summary (Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations, 2012), 14-16.

[13] Ibid., 14-16.

[14] Human Rights Watch, “Between a Rock and a Hard Place: Civilian Struggle to Survive in Nepal’s Civil War,” 2.

[15] UNDP, “Earthquake in Nepal,” 2015, accessed October 23, 2020, https://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/crisis-response/past-crises/nepal.html.

[16] Oxfam, “Nepal Earthquake Response: Creating Lasting Change for Survivors,” 2020, accessed October 23, 2020, https://www.oxfam.org/en/nepal-earthquake-response-creating-lasting-change-survivors.

[17] Pete Pattisson, “Nepal Border Blockade ‘Threatens the Future of the Country Itself’, Says UN,” 2015, accessed October 23, 2020, https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/nov/18/nepal-border-blockade-india-threatens-future-un-unicef.

[18] Peace Insight, “Nepal: Conflict and Peace,” 2020, accessed October 23, 2020, http://www.insightonconflict.org/conflicts/nepal/.

[19] Human Rights Watch, “Nepal: Events of 2018,” 2018, accessed October 23, 2020, https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2019/country-chapters/nepal.

[20] Human Rights Watch.

[21] Lynn Bennet, Dilli R. Dahal, and Pav Govindasamy, Caste, Ethnic and Regional Identity in Nepal: Further Analysis of the 2006 Nepal Demographic and Health Survey (Calverton, United States of America: Macro International Inc., 2006), 1.

[22] thelongestwayhome.com, “Nepali Caste System Culture & How It Effects Society Today,” 2012, accessed October 23, 2020, https://www.thelongestwayhome.com/blog/nepal/nepalese-caste-system-culture-in-nepal-today/.

[23] Bennet, Dahal, and Govindasamy, Caste, Ethnic and Regional Identity in Nepal: Further Analysis of the 2006 Nepal Demographic and Health Survey, 3.

[24] European Institute for Gender Equality, “Gender Inequality,” n.d., accessed October 23, 2020, https://eige.europa.eu/thesaurus/terms/1182.

[25] Luna K.C., “Conflict, Disaster and Changing Gender Roles in Nepal: Women’s Everyday Experience” (PhD diss., Wageningen University, 2019).

[26] Kathmandu Post, Gender Inequality Continues to Plague Nepal, 2019, accessed October 23, 2020, https://kathmandupost.com/editorial/2019/12/12/gender-inequality-continues-to-plague-nepal.

[27] “World Report 2019: Rights Trends in Nepal,” Human Rights Watch, December 18, 2018, accessed October 23, 2020, https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2019/country-chapters/nepal.

[28] Center for Restorative Process, “Restorative Justice and Restorative Practices,” 2015, accessed October 23, 2020, http://www.centerforrestorativeprocess.com/restorative-justice-and-restorative-practices.html.

[29] Howard Zehr and Ali Gohar, The Little Book of Restorative Justice (Peshawar: Uni-Graphics, 2003), 40.

[30] Ibid., 21.

[31] Ibid., 21.

[32] Zehr and Gohar, 22.

[33] Tony F. Marshall, Restorative Justice: An Overview (London: Home Office: Research Development and Statistics Directorate, 1999), 23-24.

[34] Ibid., 23.

[35] Ibid., 24.

[36] Marshall., 24.

[37] Ibid, 28.

[38] UNODC, Handbook on Restorative Justice Programmes: Second Edition, 2nd ed. (New York: United Nations, 2020), 5.

[39] Restorative Justice Council, RJC Practitioners Handbook (Norwich: The Restorative Justice Council, 2016), 17.

[40] Kathleen Daly, “The Limits of Restorative Justice,” 2006, accessed October 23, 2020, https://euclid.egnyte.com/dl/XFlA7o47Ct/?, 1-10.

[41] Lawrence W. Sherman and Heather Strang, Restorative Justice: The Evidence (London: The Smith Institute, 2007), 75-76.

[42] Traggy Maepa, Beyond Retribution: Prospects for Restorative Justice in South Africa (Pretoria: The Restorative Justice Centre, 2005), 43.

[43] Government of Nepal, “Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Nepal,” n.d., accessed October 23, 2020, https://trc.gov.np/about-commission/.

[44] Government of Nepal.

[45] Government of Nepal, “The Codes of Conduct of the Truth and Reconciliaiton Commission, 2072 (2015),” 2015, accessed October 23, 2020, http://trc.gov.np/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/codesofcoduct.pdf, 3-4.

[46] Government of Nepal, “The Enforced Disappearance Enquiry, Truth and Reconciliation Commission Act, 2071 (2014),” 2014, accessed October 23, 2020, http://trc.gov.np/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/actsrulesguidelines.pdf, 5-12.

[47] Amnesty International, “Nepal: Recent Steps Undermine Transitional Justice,” 2020, accessed October 23, 2020, https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/01/nepal-recent-steps-undermine-transitional-justice/.

[48] Ibid.

[49] Ibid.

[50] Ibid.

[51] Amnesty International.

[52] Ibid.

[53] Mia Swart, “Nepal Transitional Justice Making Little Progress: Rights Groups,” 2019, accessed October 23, 2020, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/12/4/nepal-transitional-justice-making-little-progress-rights-groups.

[54] Swart.

[55] Renee Jeffery, “Nepal’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission Limps On,” 2019, accessed October 23, 2020, https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/nepal-truth-and-reconciliation-commission-limps.

[56] Ibid.

[57] Jeffery.

[58] Ibid.

Supplementary references added by the WMO Editorial Team

Comprehensive Peace Accord between the Government of Nepal and the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), 21 November 2006.

Supreme Court of Nepal, Suman Adhikari and others v. Government of Nepal, judgment of 26 February 2015 on the Transitional Justice Act.

United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (2012). Nepal Conflict Report, full report, Geneva.

Promotion of Truth, Justice, Reparation and Guarantees of Non recurrence, reports of the United Nations Special Rapporteur, Geneva.

Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa, Final Report, Cape Town, 1998, on conditional amnesty in exchange for full disclosure.

Hayner, P. B. (2011). Unspeakable Truths: Transitional Justice and the Challenge of Truth Commissions (2nd edition). Routledge, New York.

International Center for Transitional Justice, country programme documentation on Nepal, New York and Kathmandu.

Interfaith conflicts in Nepal: The struggles of including Islam and Christianity in a Hindu-dominated society

How to cite this journal: Author, Date of the post, WMO Conflict Insight, Title of the post, ISSN: 2628 6998, https://worldmediation.org/journal/

ABSTRACT *

This article examines the situation of religious minorities in Nepal and the largely unrealised potential of interfaith dialogue as an instrument of peacebuilding. Opening with the communal violence at Narainapur in the Terai, the author surveys the country’s religious landscape, the transition from Hindu kingdom to secular state and the disputes surrounding the constitution of 2015. Two minority situations are examined in detail: the marginalisation of Muslim communities, including educational disadvantage and the rise of hostility during the pandemic, and the contested position of Christianity, where growth in numbers is accompanied by criticism of missionary practice and a constitutional prohibition on conversion. Drawing on the author’s own years of residence and work in Nepal with non governmental organisations and the United Nations, the article observes that interfaith dialogue is almost absent from the development and peacebuilding agenda, and argues that it should become a standard component of programming.

KEYWORDS *

Nepal, interfaith dialogue, religious minorities, Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, secular state, Terai, marginalisation, conversion, peacebuilding, constitution 2015

INTRODUCTION

The villages of Narainapur Municipality are located in Nepal’s lowland Terai area. Sadly, the villages are characterized by an extreme level of poverty. Vast parts of the area have no access to electricity, and the streets are usually empty.[1]

In December 2016, the dusty streets were filled with parading people, celebrating Muslim communities who live in Hindu-dominated Nepal. They were waving flags with the Muslim declaration of faith, singing Islamic prayers, and celebrating their identity. Little did the pious paraders know about how their day would end.[2]

Previously, on the same day, a personal dispute between Muslim and Hindu youth nearby had escalated into a communal fight. Hindu groups blocked the streets when the demonstrators reached the fight’s location. While Muslim leaders tried to approach the Hindu community to negotiate the dispute, the Hindu group attacked the parade with homemade weapons killing one Muslim and injuring many.[3]

Many things in life remain a mystery due to a lack of exposure, the flow of information, and experience. In a culturally and religiously diverse setting like Nepal, especially insufficient exposure can be seen as an obstacle to harmony, progress, respect, and well-being. To date, interfaith dialogue receives little to no public attention and is not the focus of the development assistance and peacebuilding landscape.[4]

The concept of interfaith dialogues stemmed about 125 years ago. Back then, the Indian Swami Vivekananda addressed the Western world and highlighted the relevance of religious dialogue to unite people who face divisions, lack of opportunities, or violence due to their faith. In Nepal, media personnel have little or no knowledge about the concept, contributing to little coverage of the topic and no awareness of interfaith issues.[5]

A pluralistic society characterizes Nepal. Nepali people follow various religions, norms, and traditions, which shape their emotions and perceptions. So far, efforts towards leading these emotions towards peace, love, and tolerance mostly failed. In a post-conflict setting like Nepal, interfaith dialogues can lead in promoting reconciliation, development, and long-lasting peace.[6]

While Nepal is a secular state, society and traditions are dominantly marked by the Hindu religion. Nevertheless, other religions, such as Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam, exist alongside each other. Although the country is often named as a positive example of people of different religions peacefully living together as neighbors and friends and religious holidays of all major faiths celebrated publicly, smaller conflicts between religions persist. Interfaith dialogue as a platform to resolve disputes is often underestimated in Nepal.[7]

The paper will start with an overview of the religious landscape in Nepal, highlighting the situation of Hinduism, Christianity, and Islam, incorporating descriptions of inter-faith dialogue opportunities. In the following section, the author will explain the struggles of including Islam and Christianity in the country, presenting examples of dialogue interventions. The paper ends with a discussion of findings and a personal conclusion. Throughout the paper, the author describes his experiences in Nepal, where he lived and worked for several years.

MAIN CORPUS

The religious landscape of Nepal: Hinduism and Islam

Religion is a visibly prominent and universal component of society. Nevertheless, defining what faith means can be challenging.

Religion can be seen as a pervasive and influential part of life. Furthermore, it can be seen as a moral and ethical code of conduct. Religious manifestations are in and around one. Different religions share various characteristics.[8]

Currently, the religious demography in Nepal is structured as follows:

6 percent of Hindus,

0 percent Buddhists,

0 percent of Muslims,

6 percent of folk religions, and

Less than 1 percent each: Christians, Jews, unaffiliated, and other faiths.[9]

Nepal’s public life is marked by the Hindu religion, which is extremely visible throughout the country. Temples, statues, symbols, and parades are commonly found all over Nepal. Hindu traditions are fixed parts of the daily lives of many people. Nepali Hindus worship different gods, such as the ancient Vedic God. Among others, Bramha, the creator, Shiva the destroyer, and Vishnu the preserver are worshiped in different ways and practices.[10] Charles Kimball argues that Hinduism is a glaring example of polytheism, including the belief that 330 million gods exist, but it can also be monotheistic.[11] Rituals of Hinduism include cremation, which is based on the assumption that one’s soul cannot enter another body before the former body returns to its elements.[12] The body of literature deemed sacred by Hindu groups is diverse and appeared in its current form in different parts of India.[13]

Even though a clear Hindu domination persists, religious syncretism has existed in Nepal for centuries. For example, Hindus in Nepal also worship Buddha, and some Buddhist groups in Nepal celebrate Hindu holidays. Additionally, Nepal has become a host country for religious refugees, such as Buddhists from Tibet, Rohingyas from Myanmar, and Ahmadis from Pakistan.

According to Peter Gill, high-caste Hindu leaders have traditionally controlled Nepal. Nevertheless, the 239-year-old constitutional monarchy was abolished in 2008, and the country turned from a Hindu kingdom into a secular state. This change is, furthermore, reflected in Nepal’s new constitution, which went into force in 2015, shortly after a 7.8-magnitude earthquake hit the country. The new constitution resulted in protests, dominantly in the Terai region, where several ethnic groups, including Muslims, felt that the document did not address the traditional injustice they were facing.[14]According to Klemen Furman, religious conflicts often originate not from religious values but from the misuse of religion as a tool of political power.[15]

In several discussions on the new constitution with the people of Nepal, the author of this paper encountered viewpoints against establishing a secular state, which was a significant part of the constitution. While some people link a Hindu state with the past or neighboring India, other people are firmly in favor of having Nepal as an official Hindu country. For many, Hinduism is not just religion and culture but a big part of their identity. Nationalism among strict Hindu groups is on the rise.

Islam in Nepal

Islam is considered one of the major religions, alongside Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, and Buddhism.[16] Islam is a monotheistic religion, meaning only one God exists.[17] The central sacred text, the eternal word of God in Islam, is the Qur’an.[18]

In 2017, as described in the introduction, Muslim-targeted violence in Nepal shocked the country. Despite recent progress in the promotion of the pluralism of religions, many Muslim communities in Nepal remain neglected in politics, marginalized, and discriminated against. As a result of the anti-Muslim incident in the villages of Narainapur, thousands of Muslims gathered in a city nearby to hold funeral rituals, thereby creating attention towards the marginalization of Muslim groups in Nepal. While the Government of Nepal rewarded benefits to the families of the injured and killed Muslim demonstrators, Muslims feared that the incident could repeat in an even more severe manner.[19]

According to Gill, despite progress, Muslims remain poor and often marginalized in Nepal. While the country seemingly accepts its diversity, Muslims continue to struggle to become accepted members of Nepali society.

Muhammad Siddique writes that ethnically, Muslims in Nepal have four origins: Indians, Tibetans, Nepalese as well as Kashmiri.[20] Muslim communities, mostly Sunni, lived in Nepal for centuries, and many were invited and welcomed by former Hindu rulers. Ninety-five percent of Nepal’s Muslim population lives in the country’s southern part, and most work as farmers. As citizens of Nepal were hierarchically ranked based on their caste, Muslims were positioned at the bottom of the hierarchy, just above the lowest caste, the Dalits. Nevertheless, during the democratic transition phase in the 1950s, public worship became easier for different religions. Today, Muslims still rank low on Nepal’s Human Development Index, especially compared to Hindu communities.[21]

Salif Khalid highlights that Muslims in Nepal face severe educational disadvantages. For instance, only 26 percent of Muslim women in Nepal are literate, while the national average for women is 55 percent.[22] Prakriti Kandel claims that Muslim-affiliated schools in Nepal still receive less attention and support than government-run schools.[23]

Since the author of this paper lived in Kathmandu, it is evident to him that Muslims are a marginalized minority in the country. Even though there are few mosques in the capital city, the level of information and prejudice against Muslims remain in society. In the past, attacks targeted Muslim institutions in Kathmandu, including mosques and offices of Arabic airlines, such as from Qatar, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. While a significant part of Nepal’s workforce goes abroad, mostly to the Middle East, information and exposure are low. Even abroad, Nepalis mostly live among their people.

At times of crisis, such as during the current COVID-19 pandemic, some groups suspect that Indian Muslims residing in Nepal’s southern regions are pushed back to neighboring India.[24] Aditi Aryal writes that Islamophobia is primarily on the rise during the pandemic. Suspicion and paranoia have hiked, mostly influenced by anti-Muslim sentiments in India.[25] Moreover, Islamophobia has sparked due to Muslim people in Nepal who were infected with Covid-19.[26]

Christianity in Nepal

Kimbal argues that Christianity is also a monotheistic religion.[27] The most sacred text in Christianity is the Bible.[28]

When one searches for Christianity in Nepal through the online platform Google, one will mainly find negative articles associated with conversion.

According to Eric Metaxas, Christianity is rising in Nepal, but tensions come along. In 1951, Nepal’s census showed that, back then, zero Christians officially lived in the country. Ten years later, the number grew to 458. In 1991, officially, 102,000 Christians were living in Nepal. Considering that in 2011, 375,000 Christians were based in Nepal, the number is growing significantly. Estimations show that more than 2.3 million Nepali people are Christians, almost 10 percent of the population.

Nepal’s constitution, protecting the Hindu identity, states that no one is allowed to convert a person from one religion to another. Regardless, many Nepali people are turning to Christianity. Theorists suppose that conversation is still happening as the law is difficult to enforce.[29] Nevertheless, many Christians in Nepal fear that the constitution of the country, which declared the nation to be secular, is threatening religious freedom as well as the entire Christian community.[30]

Article 26 of the Constitution states:

No person shall… convert another person from one religion to another or [perform] any act or conduct that may jeopardize [another’s] religion.[31]

Pete Pattison writes that Christian missionaries who work throughout the country are often criticized. Many people claim that missionaries offer money and gifts as motivational factors to convert to Christianity instead of focusing on charity work, which they claim to do. One can, therefore, argue that Christian missionaries make use of the poverty and needs of Nepal’s marginalized groups. For example, the low-caste discriminated Dalits are among the groups who convert to Christianity the most.[32]

While the author of this paper was living in Nepal, he had the chance to discuss Christianity with different Nepali Christians. He often heard that they feel left behind in many ways. For example, many Christians face threats from neighbors and feel that the Government of Nepal is not doing enough to protect the rights of Christian minorities. Nevertheless, they also mentioned that they appreciate the opportunity to celebrate Christian holidays publicly. Furthermore, the author was frequently approached in the streets by Christian people who thought he, a white German male, must be interested in joining the Nepali Christian Church and invited him to their events and prayer.

Interfaith Dialogue: Methods and Approaches

Even though different communities in Nepal practice different faiths, particular sentiments, traditions, and perceptions are similar. Similarities must be formulated and adopted as guidance tools for the journey towards humanity. Interfaith dialogue can serve as a platform in which arguments are discussed to come to an acceptable conclusion. Thus, interreligious dialogue allows one to identify shared virtues among the different religious groups in Nepal and bring them closer.

According to Narendra Pande, the concept and principles of interfaith have not yet started to spread in Nepal effectively. While interfaith dialogue refers to positive interactions and cooperation between people of different faiths, one must understand that interreligious dialogue aims not to convert other parties. Moreover, interfaith dialogue does not aim to win a theological debate or critique another religion.[33]

The Struggles for Inclusion

Anti-Islamic Attitudes in Nepal

In 2012, the Government of Nepal established a Muslim Commission to conduct research and advise on Muslim-oriented policies in the country. However, Pande claims that the role of the Commission is limited, and the inclusion processes of Muslims remain slow. Moreover, Muslims are often lumped together with the ethnic group of the Madhesi, mostly living in the Terai. Muslims feel that the politically active ethnic group of the Madhesi does not adequately represent their interests.

When the new constitution began in 2015, parts of the Madhesis started to protest, which escalated quickly. As a result, several people, half of them police personnel, were killed. Thus, India imposed an unofficial border blockade, justifying this step with security concerns. Many see the border blockade as a means to support the Madhesi’s demands. The blockade embargoed the flow of crucial goods, including food, petrol, cooking gas, medicine, and humanitarian. These events unfolded in Muslims becoming disillusioned with the Madhesis, feeling that they had failed to include Muslims in leadership roles.[34]

From the author’s experience, many people in Nepal believe that being Hindu is a crucial part of the traditional Nepali identity. Thus, voices are occasionally raised that Muslims cannot be Nepali. Therefore, Muslim communities mostly live among themselves. Nevertheless, the younger generation is more and more open to other religions. Different famous Nepali Muslim celebrities speak up for their integration into society and often receive positive feedback for their advocacy efforts.

While human rights activists are active in Nepal on many issues, the challenges of religious minorities are often not addressed. According to Jean-Paul Marthoz and Jospeh Saunder, human rights movements should not neglect religious issues and scale up efforts against anti-Muslim sentiments.[35] Religious pluralism, a modern concept that can be seen as an outcome of secularization, must be ensured.[36]

Interfaith Dialogue Initiatives

According to David R. Smock, peacebuilding activities, such as interfaith dialogues, can have various forms. Interreligious dialogues have the potential to transform different societies into harmonious groups.[37]

The processes can be structured in four phases. Participants expressed their interest in dialogues and explored similarities in the first phase.[38] In the second phase, participants start, more and more, to identify differences among groups and reveal stereotypes.[39] In the third phase, participants explore values and address questions on contradictions in religious practices.[40] Moreover, in the fourth and last phase, participants often realize the benefits and limitations of interfaith dialogue. As a result of the dialogue, parties feel more empowered, have an increased understanding, and connect better with groups of different faiths.[41]

The Christian non-governmental NGO, United Mission to Nepal, UMN, operates throughout Nepal and supports interfaith dialogues.

As part of interfaith dialogue efforts, UMN provides training to strengthen skills to better advocate for interreligious peace. Through these training sessions, peace actors learn to organize interfaith dialogue sessions and support dialogue processes. Skills required include cultural and religious sensitivity, understanding of ethnic groups in Nepal, and communication.[42]

While the author of this paper was working for different NGOs and the United Nations in Nepal, he never personally encountered an interfaith dialogue-focused development project. Although many projects work towards the inclusion of minorities, Christianity and Islam as discriminating factors hardly play a role. Despite many national and international NGOs in Nepal using their religious profile in projects, the author never encountered an international NGO focusing on the issue. Discussions with other development practitioners and diplomats confirmed his viewpoint.

SUMMARY

Discussion

The topic of anti-Muslim sentiments still receives little to no recognition and attention from the media. Thus, training journalists, media personnel, writers, and TV personalities in interfaith dialogue should become a more urgent priority. While radio is the most widespread and accessible tool for media in Nepal, especially for rural communities, radio shows on the topic, for example, supported by the United Nations, might be a powerful tool to overcome obstacles for religious minorities.

When the new constitution was implemented in 2015, many Muslims raised their voices against the implementation of a secular state. Surprisingly, many Muslims feel that a Hindu nation is more secure for them. Moreover, many Muslims believe that a secular state system will bring additional problems to the country’s religious minorities, as it can be seen as a break between longstanding unity among Hindus and Muslims. For many, a secular identity is not relevant.

Due to missionary practices that are often seen as unethical, such as offering money, Christians are often put in a difficult spot in Nepal. As interfaith dialogue does not aim to convert the other party, the image of Christianity in Nepal needs to improve before communities have the trust required to participate in dialogue processes. Still, many foreign missionaries are arrested and deported from Nepal due to their doing in different parts of the country.

While discrimination against Christian and Muslim minorities persists in the country, little to no attention is given to government efforts and NGOs. From the author’s viewpoint, religion is a cross-cutting issue, and interfaith dialogue needs to be included as a critical component in the schedule of various initiatives. Therefore, awareness of the problem must urgently be raised among NGO staff and the general society.

CONCLUSION

Nepal is often highlighted as a positive example where many religions live peacefully together. However, tensions against religious minorities remain.

Interfaith dialogue provides a platform for different religious groups to negotiate faith-based issues and increase mutual understanding and acceptance. However, this does not include converting the other party to another religion.

Still, things could be worse for Nepal’s Muslim communities. For example, there are no dominant political parties that openly attack the rights of Muslims. Especially when looking at Nepal’s neighboring country of India, where Muslims are frequently attacked, and anti-Muslim sentiments are on the rise, Nepal’s Muslim community is often more protected.

On the contrary, Christianity is often perceived negatively due to unethical missionary practices. Thus, by utilizing the potential of interfaith dialogue, the image of Christianity can be improved to promote harmony

Working in mediation and conflict resolution often means dealing with faith-based conflicts and discrimination. The complexity, as well as the potential of interfaith dialogue, have to be understood and applied accordingly. It is crucial, particularly in Nepal. As of now, the opportunities that this tool can provide for peacebuilding and reconciliation have not been sufficiently utilized in the Himalayan nation of Nepal.

POTENTIAL SOLUTION *

The article’s most valuable observation is one made from inside the sector: after years of work with non governmental organisations and the United Nations in Nepal, the author never encountered a single project focused on interfaith dialogue. That is a striking gap, and understanding why it exists is the first step toward closing it.

Development and peacebuilding organisations avoid religion for reasons that are not disreputable. Many are secular by mandate; those that are faith based fear that engagement will be read as proselytism; donors are cautious about funding anything that could appear to favour one community; and staff often lack the training to facilitate conversations where theology, identity and grievance are entangled. The result is that religion, one of the most powerful organising forces in the societies these organisations serve, is treated as outside their competence.

Closing the gap therefore begins with something modest: treating religious identity as a standard dimension of conflict analysis, alongside caste, ethnicity, gender and region. Where an assessment routinely asks who the religious authorities are, where communities meet across confessional lines, and where friction recurs, programming can respond to what it finds. Much of that response need not be labelled interfaith at all. Shared water systems, mixed school committees, joint disaster preparedness and cooperative agriculture bring people of different faiths into sustained practical cooperation, and in societies where explicit religious dialogue is politically sensitive, this indirect route is frequently the only one available and often the more durable.

Where dialogue is possible directly, two design points matter. It should be built around a shared task rather than around theology, since people who work together on something concrete develop the relationships that later allow harder conversations, while people who begin with doctrine tend to discover only that they disagree. And it should include those with authority to influence their own communities, which in Nepal means Hindu priests, imams, pastors and Buddhist monks alongside local officials and teachers, because a dialogue among the already convinced changes nothing outside the room.

Two further elements follow from the article’s own material. The conversion question is the principal obstacle to Christian participation and cannot be avoided; it can, however, be addressed directly, through an agreed code of conduct in which participating organisations commit that humanitarian and development assistance carries no religious condition, and through joint monitoring of that commitment. Such codes exist internationally and adapting one locally would remove the suspicion on which much of the hostility rests. And rapid response capacity deserves attention, since the incident with which the article opens escalated within hours from a personal quarrel between young men into communal violence. Standing local committees with members from each community, able to convene immediately when such an incident occurs, are among the most effective and least expensive instruments in communal conflict prevention, and they work precisely because the relationships were built before the emergency.

Finally, the article records a finding that deserves emphasis because it is counterintuitive: some Muslims regarded the Hindu state as offering greater security than the secular one. Whatever one concludes about that assessment, it is a reminder that minorities do not always want what outsiders assume they want, and that any process claiming to serve them must begin by asking rather than by knowing.

* Added by the WMO Editorial Team

REFERENCES

Bibliography:

“18 Nepali Muslims Who Attended Nizamuddin Congregation in Delhi, Quarantined in Nepal,” 2020. Accessed May 20, 2020. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/18-nepali-muslims-who-attended-nizamuddin-congregation-in-delhi-quarantined-in-nepal/article31227593.ece.

Aryal, Aditi. “A Worrying Rise in Islamophobia Ever since a Number of Muslim Men Were Diagnosed with Covid-19,” 2020. Accessed May 20, 2020. https://kathmandupost.com/national/2020/04/21/a-worrying-rise-in-islamophobia-ever-since-a-number-of-muslim-men-were-diagnosed-with-covid-19.

Furman, Klemen. Interfaith Dialogue Documentary, 2015. Accessed May 20, 2020. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INS4FVtEHgU&feature=emb_title.

Gill, Peter. “As Nepal Strives to Become More Inclusive, Are Muslims Being Left Behind?,” 2018. Accessed May 20, 2020. https://html5-player.libsyn.com/embed/episode/id/6218180/height/50/width/640/theme/standard/autonext/no/thumbnail/yes/autoplay/no/preload/no/no_addthis/no/direction/backward/.

Kandel, Prakriti. “Nepali Muslims on the Margins,” 2019. Accessed May 20, 2020. https://www.nepalitimes.com/banner/nepali-muslims-on-the-margins/.

Khalid, Salif. “The Muslims of Nepal: Coming out of the Shadows,” 2016. Accessed May 20, 2020. https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2016/05/muslims-nepal-coming-shadows-160518133039988.html.

Kimball, Charles. Comparative Religion: Course Guidebook. Chantilly, United States of America: The Great Courses, 2008.

Marthoz, Jean-Paul, and Joseph Saunders. “Religion and the Human Rights Movement,” n.d. Accessed May 20, 2020. /dl/kJ32m1FCOb.

Metaxas, Eric. “Christianity, Religious Tensions on the Rise in Nepal, ” 2016. Accessed May 20, 2020. https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/eric-metaxas/christianity-religious-tensions-rise-nepal.

Nepal Tourism Board. “Culture of Nepal,” n.d. Accessed May 20, 2020. https://www.welcomenepal.com/plan-your-trip/culture.html.

Oldmeadow, Harry. Crossing Religious Frontiers: Studies in Comparative Religion. Bloomington, United States of America: World Wisdom, 2010.

Outlook India. “Movement of Corona Suspects from Nepal to India,” 2020. Accessed May 20, 2020. https://www.outlookindia.com/newsscroll/movement-of-corona-suspects-from-nepal-to-india-intel/1798009.

Pande, Narendra. “Interfaith Dialogue: For Religious Tolerance,” 2020. Accessed May 20, 2020. https://thehimalayantimes.com/opinion/interfaith-dialogue-for-religious-tolerance/.

Pattisson, Pete. “‘They Use Money to Promote Christianity’: Nepal’s Battle for Souls,” 2017. Accessed May 20, 2020. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/aug/15/they-use-money-to-promote-christianity-nepal-battle-for-souls.

Persecution.org. “New Challenges to Christianity’s Growth in Nepal,” 2020. Accessed May 20, 2020. https://www.persecution.org/2020/01/02/new-challenges-christianitys-growth-nepal/.

Pew Research Center. “Religions in Nepal,” 2020. Accessed May 20, 2020. http://www.globalreligiousfutures.org/countries/nepal#/?affiliations_religion_id=0&affiliations_year=2020&region_name=All%20Countries&restrictions_year=2016.

Siddique, Muhammad. “Muslim Population in the Kingdom of Nepal: Some Outstanding Features.” Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, 2001, 333–45.

Smock, David R. Interfaith Dialogue and Peacebuilding. Washington DC, United States of America: United States Institute of Peace, 2002.

United Mission to Nepal. “Supporting Interfaith Dialogues,” 2018. Accessed May 20, 2020. https://www.umn.org.np:443/news/771.

World Watch Monitor. “Nepal.” World Watch Monitor, n.d. Accessed May 20, 2020. https://www.worldwatchmonitor.org/countries/nepal/.

[1] Peter Gill, “As Nepal Strives to Become More Inclusive, Are Muslims Being Left Behind?,” 2018. Accessed May 20, 2020. https://html5-player.libsyn.com/embed/episode/id/6218180/height/50/width/640/theme/standard/autonext/no/thumbnail/yes/autoplay/no/preload/no/no_addthis/no/direction/backward/.

[2] Gill, “As Nepal Strives to Become More Inclusive, Are Muslims Being Left Behind?”

[3] Ibid.

[4] Narendra Pande, “Interfaith Dialogue: For Religious Tolerance,” 2020. Accessed May 20, 2020. https://thehimalayantimes.com/opinion/interfaith-dialogue-for-religious-tolerance/.

[5] Pande, “Interfaith Dialogue: For Religious Tolerance.”

[6] Ibid.

[7] [7] Pande, “Interfaith Dialogue: For Religious Tolerance.”

[8] Charles Kimball, Comparative Religion: Course Guidebook (Chantilly, United States of America: The Great Courses, 2008), 4-5.

[9] Pew Research Center, “Religions in Nepal,” 2020. Accessed May 20, 2020. http://www.globalreligiousfutures.org/countries/nepal#/?affiliations_religion_id=0&affiliations_year=2020&region_name=All%20Countries&restrictions_year=2016.

[10] Nepal Tourism Board, “Culture of Nepal,” n.d. Accessed May 20, 2020. https://www.welcomenepal.com/plan-your-trip/culture.html.

[11] Charles Kimball, Comparative Religion: Course Guidebook (Chantilly, United States of America: The Great Courses, 2008), 46.

[12] Charles Kimball, Comparative Religion: Course Guidebook, 50.

[13] Ibid., 41.

[14] Gill, “As Nepal Strives to Become More Inclusive, Are Muslims Being Left Behind?”

[15] Klemen Furman, Interfaith Dialogue Documentary, 2015. Accessed May 20, 2020. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INS4FVtEHgU&feature=emb_title.

[16] Kimball, Comparative Religion: Course Guidebook, 5.

[17] Ibid., 8.

[18] Ibid., 21.

[19] Gill, “As Nepal Strives to Become More Inclusive, Are Muslims Being Left Behind?”

[20] Muhammad Siddique, “Muslim Population in the Kingdom of Nepal: Some Outstanding Features,” Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, 2001, 33–45.

[21] Ibid., 33-45.

[22] Salif Khalid, “The Muslims of Nepal: Coming out of the Shadows,” 2016. Accessed May 20, 2020. https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2016/05/muslims-nepal-coming-shadows-160518133039988.html.

[23] Prakriti Kandel, “Nepali Muslims on the Margins,” 2019. Accessed May 20, 2020. https://www.nepalitimes.com/banner/nepali-muslims-on-the-margins.

[24] Outlook India, “Movement of Corona Suspects from Nepal to India,” 2020. Accessed May 20, 2020. https://www.outlookindia.com/newsscroll/movement-of-corona-suspects-from-nepal-to-india-intel/1798009.

[25] Aditi Aryal, “A Worrying Rise in Islamophobia Ever since a Number of Muslim Men Were Diagnosed with Covid-19,” 2020. Accessed May 20, 2020. https://kathmandupost.com/national/2020/04/21/a-worrying-rise-in-islamophobia-ever-since-a-number-of-muslim-men-were-diagnosed-with-covid-19.

[26] “18 Nepali Muslims Who Attended Nizamuddin Congregation in Delhi, Quarantined in Nepal,” 2020. Accessed May 20, 2020. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/18-nepali-muslims-who-attended-nizamuddin-congregation-in-delhi-quarantined-in-nepal/article31227593.ece.

[27] Kimball, Comparative Religion: Course Guidebook, 45.

[28] Ibid., 38.

[29] Eric Metaxas, “Christianity, Religious Tensions on the Rise in Nepal,” 2016. Accessed May 20, 2020. https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/eric-metaxas/christianity-religious-tensions-rise-nepal.

[30] World Watch Monitor, “Nepal,” World Watch Monitor, n.d. Accessed May 20, 2020. https://www.worldwatchmonitor.org/countries/nepal.

[31] Persecution.org, “New Challenges to Christianity’s Growth in Nepal,” 2020. Accessed May 20, 2020. https://www.persecution.org/2020/01/02/new-challenges-christianitys-growth-nepal.

[32] Pete Pattisson, “‘They Use Money to Promote Christianity’: Nepal’s Battle for Souls,” 2017. Accessed May 20, 2020. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/aug/15/they-use-money-to-promote-christianity-nepal-battle-for-souls.

[33] Pande, “Interfaith Dialogue.”

[34] Gill, “As Nepal Strives to Become More Inclusive, Are Muslims Being Left Behind?”

[35] Jean-Paul Marthoz and Joseph Saunders, “Religion and the Human Rights Movement,” n.d.. Accessed May 20, 2020. /dl/kJ32m1FCOb, 2.

[36] Harry Oldmeadow, Crossing Religious Frontiers: Studies in Comparative Religion (Bloomington, United States of America: World Wisdom, 2010), 33.

[37] David R. Smock, Interfaith Dialogue and Peacebuilding (Washington DC, United States of America: United States Institute of Peace, 2002), 73.

[38] Smock, Interfaith Dialogue and Peacebuilding, 27.

[39] Ibid., 27-28.

[40] Ibid., 28.

[41] Ibid., 28-29.

[42] United Mission to Nepal, “Supporting Interfaith Dialogues,” 2018. Accessed May 20, 2020. https://www.umn.org.np:443/news/771.

Supplementary references added by the WMO Editorial Team

Constitution of Nepal, 2015, Articles 4 and 26 on secularism and religious freedom.

Central Bureau of Statistics, Government of Nepal, National Population and Housing Census, data on religious affiliation, Kathmandu.

Code of Conduct for the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and NGOs in Disaster Relief, 1994, principle four on aid without proselytism.

Sphere Association (2018). The Sphere Handbook: Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response, Geneva.

United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, annual reports covering Nepal, Washington, D.C.

Appleby, R. S. (2000). The Ambivalence of the Sacred: Religion, Violence, and Reconciliation. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham.

Gopin, M. (2000). Between Eden and Armageddon: The Future of World Religions, Violence, and Peacemaking. Oxford University Press, New York.

Arms Trade Treaty: The work of the United Nations in disarment

How to cite this journal: Author, Date of the post, WMO Conflict Insight, Title of the post, ISSN: 2628 6998, https://worldmediation.org/journal/

ABSTRACT *

This article examines the Arms Trade Treaty and the United Nations bodies responsible for supporting its implementation. After outlining the work of the Office for Disarmament Affairs and the Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Asia and the Pacific, the author describes the treaty’s origins, provisions and scope, including the obligations on export assessment, record keeping and reporting, and presents the Centre’s assistance to Timor Leste as a practical example. The article then considers the treaty’s limited effect on the overall volume of arms transfers, drawing on the author’s own experience working with United Nations entities in Kathmandu, and concludes that treaties remain essential while their enforcement stays constrained by the absence of central authority in international law.

KEYWORDS *

Arms Trade Treaty, disarmament, UNODA, UNRCPD, conventional weapons, export controls, arms embargoes, treaty enforcement, Timor Leste, transparency, Yemen, international law

INTRODUCTION

Since World War II, more states have decided to join world trading systems, thereby lowering protectionist barriers. Contrary to general trends, such as trade liberalizations, certain goods, such as drugs, antiquities, and arms, have increasingly become a matter of international control systems. Many governments do more and more restrict and control the flow of arms as part of international regulatory agreements. These regulations aim to minimize the negative impacts of traded arms on society [1].

Weapons are still used for unintended reasons, such as genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, terror attacks, or direct attacks on vulnerable groups. Therefore, treaties, international agreements, aim to regulate the international trade of arms worldwide. The most relevant treaty in this regard is the Arms Trade Treaty, monitored by the United Nations Regional Center for Peace and Disarmament.

Jeff Abramson writes that more than 140 countries supported the United Nations First Committee to proceed with discussions on establishing a global arms trade treaty. However, the United States of America did not vote in favor of the treaty and was unsure if the country would continue its participation in discussions. In case the United States of America would have stopped its participation, this would have had a significant impact on the sustainability of the treaty as the country is the world’s most influential trader of arms[2].

The paper will start with a description of the context of the Arms Trade Treaty. Moreover, I will describe the treaty’s scope and explain the work of the United Nations Center for Peace and Disarmament and the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs. Afterward, I will discuss the findings and end the paper with a conclusion. Having worked for the United Nations in Nepal inspired me to choose this topic for this paper.

MAIN CORPUS

United Nations and Disarmament

The United Nations System

The United Nations was founded in 1945 as an intergovernmental organization. Currently, the United Nations consists of 193 Member States. The United Nations is guided by the principles and purpose of the founding Charter. Through the authority provided in the Charter, the United Nations can become active on problems threatening society, with a focus on security, peace, sustainable development, climate change, disarmament, human rights, humanitarian emergencies, terrorism, food production, and gender equality. The framework of the United Nations’ work is the Sustainable Development Goals.

Furthermore, the United Nations serves as a forum for members to express views in the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council, the Security Council, and other entities and bodies of the United Nations system. The United Nations aims to encourage dialogue among members, host negotiations, and resolve problems through agreements. Moreover, the United Nations is led by the Secretary-General[3].

United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs

The United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs, UNODA, was founded in January 1998. UNODA was established as a part of the Department for Disarmament Affairs. Originally, UNODA was established in 1982 due to the recommendation of the General Assembly’s second special disarmament session. The organization’s name was changed to Centre for Disarmament Affairs in 1992. In late 1997, the name was changed to Department for Disarmament Affairs. However, in 2007, it was finally renamed the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs.

UNODA assists in multilateral efforts, aiming at achieving the final goal of complete disarmament under the capable and strict control of the international community. Mass destruction and weapons remain to be the primary concern and threat to humanity. UNODA, therefore, also works on the humanitarian impact of conventional weapons and weapon technology, such as autonomous weapons.

UNODA provides organizational support in disarmament via the General Assembly’s work. UNODA fosters disarmament, focusing on establishing dialogue, strengthening confidence on matters of military, and encouraging regional efforts towards disarmament and transparency.

Furthermore, UNODA provides impartial and updated information on disarmament activities for governments, civil society organizations, intergovernmental media organizations, the United Nations, and educational institutions. UNODA assists in developing and implementing practical disarmament activities after war and conflict[4].

United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Asia and the Pacific

The United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Asia and the Pacific, UNRCPD, supports states in Asia and the Pacific in their efforts for peace, disarmament, and security. UNRCPD belongs to UNODA, which falls under the United Nations Secretariat. Countries covered by the UNRCPD mandate include, among others, Afghanistan, Bhutan, Nepal, the Philippines, Timor-Leste, Thailand, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Malaysia, India, and Indonesia. The UN entity offers coordination of activities and substantive support on international, regional, and sub-regional levels. Furthermore, UNRCPD assists in information sharing on regional and global activities.

The regional center is mandated to support activities upon request by the UN Member States in the region. Therefore, UNRCPD works in close partnership with different organizations, civil society organizations, and United Nations agencies. UNRCPD focuses on the three following areas:

Technical assistance and capacity building

Establishing and actively participating in dialogues and

Engaging in advocacy and outreach on disarmament.

As a part of the organization’s work, UNRCPD assists nations through capacity building to completely implement the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540, the promotion of disarmament, and peace education to increase awareness of the public and thereby support disarmament efforts worldwide. Furthermore, UNRCPD supports countries in accessing and ratifying the Arms Trade Treaty[5].

From my perspective, UNODA and UNRCPD are very active and committed UN entities. However, having cooperated with UNRCPD during my assignment at the UN in Kathmandu, I frequently heard that both UN agencies struggle to receive sufficient funding. Disarmament can play a major role in civil wars and international crises and is a top priority of the United Nations system. Therefore, hearing about funding struggles was surprising to me. Furthermore, I found the UNRCPD’s chosen location in Kathmandu, Nepal. Compared to other regional hubs, such as Beijing, Hong Kong, Singapore, or Bangkok, Kathmandu is relatively small, with only a few regional partners at the same location. Also, considering the wide range of countries the office covers, communication, cultural differences, and access to information are often difficult. Consultants might be experts in the field for certain countries but also develop and conduct workshops in countries and contexts they know little about. Also, I believe that cooperation with national UN offices, such as UNDP, might benefit mutual projects, such as training for military or government stakeholders.

The Arms Trade Treaty

Context

International law provides opportunities to resolve international issues, often resulting from customary practices. However, compared to domestic law, international law has no central authority to enforce the regulations. Domestic law can utilize penalties to implement laws, such as imprisonment. International law, however, uses treaties for common agreements among state parties[6].

The Arms Trade Treaty, ATT, regulates the trade of conventional arms on an international level. The treaty covers small arms, battle tanks, warships, and combat aircraft. The treaty entered into force in December 2014[7].

The ATT aims to reduce illicit arms trade and human suffering as a result of the irresponsible transfer of arms. Furthermore, the ATT aims to enhance regional stability and security and promote transparency and accountability of countries involved in weapon trade. Nevertheless, ATT does not restrict specific types or quantities of arms that a state can buy, sell, or possess. Additionally, ATT does not influence domestic gun control laws or policies on individual firearm ownership.

The ATT resulted from an almost twenty-year-long process, including advocacy, diplomacy efforts, and many meetings. In July 2012, after a two-week-long conference, North Korea, Iran, and Syria blocked the final text. Therefore, supporters moved to the UN General Assembly, which then endorsed the ATT by votes. 156 states agreed, three disagreed, and 23 states gave abstentions. The treaty was then opened for signature.

The provisions of the ATT include regulations on the categories of conventional arms to which the ATT will apply, according to articles 1 and 2. Article 3 of the ATT requires nations to regulate the export of munitions fired. Articles 6 and 7 state the conditions of export regulations. Article 6 specifically prohibits arms trade that would oppose international legal obligations. Article 7 provides guidelines for authorities in considering the potential of arms. Articles 12 and 13 regulate how states need to keep records of the export of conventional arms [8].

Scope

The ATT requires all parties to establish fundamental rules and processes for approval for weapons trade and cross-border flow. Furthermore, the treaty establishes common standards for export and import. More specifically, the states must implement and maintain national control systems for weapons and a control list. Also, states must designate competent authorities to ensure transparent national control procedures and systems.

The treaty prohibits the transfer of arms to countries that would violate United Nations Security Council measures, specifically arms embargoes. The treaty focuses precisely on weapons trade when states know that weapons would be misused for crimes against humanity, attacks against civilians, war crimes, or breaches of the Geneva Convention of 1949.

Moreover, the treaty requires states to assess how exported weapons would contribute to or undermine security and peace. Countries need to analyze if weapons might be used to violate human rights, contribute to terrorism, organize transnational crime, and establish activities to prevent and mitigate risks. If the risks remain high, weapons shall not be exported.

States are furthermore required to establish a national control system to control the export of ammunition and munitions fired or delivered by conventional arms like missiles, attack helicopters, or warships.

Each country must take the necessary steps to control the brokering of weapons in its territory and prevent the diversion of arms. Furthermore, every state must submit an annual report on the imports and exports of weapons [9].

UNRCPD’s ATT support in Timor-Leste

As a part of UNRCPD’s efforts to support countries in the implementation of ATT, the organization concluded baseline studies to assess the national capacity of Timor-Leste to regulate conventional arms, light weapons, and small arms. The project was initiated at the request of the Government of Timor-Leste.

Furthermore, UNRCPD provided legal and technical assistance to the Timor-Leste government through the project to facilitate ATT’s further implementation. UNRCPD consultants met with stakeholders of the Government of Timor-Leste, reviewed plans, supported the implementation of strategies, provided training, and gave recommendations on the steps to take[10].

Discussion

From my perspective, ATT is a critical element of sustainable peace. Treaties are useful tools to regulate relations between states. Currently, the ATT proves its impact and value in regulating the transparency of cross-border weapon transfer. Article 5 states that State Parties are encouraged to implement provisions of the document.

Nevertheless, it is recognized that potential exports can still cause tragic humanitarian disasters.

Horrible wars in Yemen or Syria are often coupled with rivalries of power between global players like Russia, the United States of America, and China. Unsurprisingly, weapons are a thriving industry worldwide. Significant weapons sales in the last five years increased by about ten percent. The United States of America remains the leader of arms exporters and is accountable for 34 percent of global arms sales. The exports of America are 58 higher than Russia’s, the second-largest weapons exporter. Among the biggest consumers of America’s weapon industry are countries of the Middle East, often known to be war-torn to date. The biggest importer of American weapons is Saudi Arabia, which is one of the leading powers in the war in Yemen. The United Nations calls the war in Yemen a human-made disaster.

Many organizations, such as Amnesty International, are disappointed about the implementation of the ATT. Critical voices believe that the United States, France, and the United Kingdom, by continuing to trade arms with Saudi Arabia, continuously violate ATT provisions. Nevertheless, the UK’s highest court ruled the trade of weapons between the UK government and Saudi Arabia was lawful.

One can argue that the ATT might have an impact on curbing the weapons flow to non-state actors, but it has had, so far, no visible impact on the overall arms trade[11].

I believe that the treaty is violated through the actions of many different states. Therefore, states urgently need to come together with the Secretary-General to discuss the treaty’s implementation.

SUMMARY *

The article’s evidence points in two directions at once, and the tension between them is its most interesting feature. The treaty has produced real institutional change: national control systems, designated authorities, annual reporting, and technical assistance of the kind provided to Timor Leste. It has not produced a measurable reduction in the volume of transfers, and the largest exporters continue to supply parties to conflicts in which civilian harm is documented. The author reads this as evidence of violation; it can equally be read as evidence that the treaty regulates process rather than quantity, which is what its drafters agreed and what its text provides.

CONCLUSION

Weapons misused in war contributed to the most disastrous scenarios in history. War crimes, genocide, civil war, or terror attacks still threaten humanity. Nevertheless, the trade of weapons continues to persist. One could ask oneself:

Why is ATT even needed? Why is it necessary that arms are traded to countries like Saudi Arabia?

Does the United States of America violate the ATT? Why do countries violate treaties?

Are financial interests more critical than regulated trade, leading to decreased killing and humanitarian disasters?

Are treaties regarding the trade of weapons useful?

How can they become more effective?

I firmly believe that treaties are crucial; however, their enforcement remains restricted as central authorities enforcing laws remain limited. Ethics, humanity, and value-based interventions of state actors and government entities remain highly important to ensure peace and stability worldwide. The assessment of the possible outcomes of weapon trade, transparency, and regular reporting on weapon trade with support through United Nations entities and bodies, such as UNODA and UNRCDP, need to strengthen and improve states’ commitment through increased awareness. Nevertheless, possible sanctions on countries that violate treaties need to be considered.

Having worked for United Nations entities, I firmly believe that UN support and mechanisms can be crucial to bringing State Members together to discuss and implement agreements. The United Nations Treaty Section also serves as a forum to draft, develop, and implement treaties of a different kind. Moreover, one should not forget that it’s not only the weapons and trade with weapons but also the people who use them. I believe national laws on using and possessing arms, which do not fall under international law, must be reviewed by national entities to ensure peace under their territory. Understanding ATT and treaty mechanisms are crucial for everyone working in disarmament and conflict resolution.

POTENTIAL SOLUTION *

The author’s closing question, how such treaties can become more effective, has an answer that begins with an uncomfortable clarification. Much of what is described as violation is in fact discretion. Article 7 requires an exporting state to assess whether there is an overriding risk that a transfer would be used to commit serious violations, and it leaves that assessment to the exporting state itself. Where a government concludes that the risk is not overriding, it has applied the treaty rather than breached it, which is precisely why the litigation in the United Kingdom turned on the adequacy of the assessment process rather than on the sale as such. Recognising this locates the weakness where it actually lies: not in state defiance of a clear rule, but in a rule that permits states to mark their own examination.

That points to the first and most achievable reform. Common risk assessment criteria, agreed among states parties and applied transparently, would narrow the discretion without amending the treaty. Publication of the reasoning behind contested licensing decisions, subject to genuine commercial confidentiality rather than blanket exemption, would allow parliaments, courts and civil society to test that reasoning. The litigation the article mentions demonstrates that domestic judicial review is currently the most effective enforcement mechanism available, and it works only where the assessment is documented and disclosable.

The second reform concerns reporting. Annual reports are the treaty’s principal transparency instrument, yet submission rates have declined and many reports are withheld from publication. A treaty whose central obligation is fulfilled by fewer than half its parties has a compliance problem that precedes any question about Saudi Arabia. Publishing which states have reported, in what detail, and which have not, is costless and creates the peer pressure on which instruments without enforcement necessarily depend.

Third, universality. The largest exporters and importers include states that have not ratified, and one signatory has withdrawn its signature. Every absence weakens the norm and gives ratifying states a commercial argument against strict application, since business declined is business transferred. Regional assistance of the kind the Centre provided to Timor Leste addresses this at the level where it can be addressed, by making implementation feasible for states that lack the administrative capacity rather than the will.

Finally, the author’s observation about the Centre’s resourcing deserves to be taken seriously as more than a personal impression. Technical assistance is what converts ratification into functioning control systems, and it is the least glamorous and most reliably underfunded part of the disarmament architecture. A regional office covering more than forty states, in a location distant from the region’s diplomatic and commercial centres, with consultants advising on contexts they know only from documents, describes a structural constraint rather than a failing of the people involved. Treaties do not implement themselves, and the modest sums required to help states build export control systems are among the highest value expenditures available in this field.

* Added by the WMO Editorial Team

REFERENCES

Bibliography

Abramson, Jeff. “Arms Trade Treaty Discussion Creeps Forward | Arms Control Association.” 2020. Accessed March 29, 2020. https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2008-12/arms-trade-treaty-discussion-creeps-forward.

Arms Control Association. “The Arms Trade Treaty At a Glance.” 2017. Accessed March 29, 2020. https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/arms_trade_treaty.

Bowler, Tim. “Which Country Dominates the Global Arms Trade?” BBC News, May 10, 2018, sec. Business. Accessed March 29, 2020. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-43873518.

Dixon, Gregory C. International Law (POLS4501/5501) 01, 2014. Accessed March 25, 2020. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6PMzBFtCww.

Efrat, Asif. “Toward Internationally Regulated Goods: Controlling the Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons” 2001. Accessed March 29, 2020. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0020818309990257/type/journal_article.

United Nations. “About Us – UNODA.” Last modified n.d. Accessed March 29, 2020. https://www.un.org/disarmament/about/.

———. “Arms Trade Treaty – UNODA,” n.d. Accessed March 29, 2020. https://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/arms-trade-treaty-2/.

———. “Overview.” Last modified October 2, 2014. Accessed March 26, 2020. https://www.un.org/en/sections/about-un/overview/index.html.

———. “UNRCPD Concludes First Part of Project to Support Timor-Leste in Implementation of UN PoA and ATT.” 2019. Accessed March 29, 2020. https://www.un.org/disarmament/update/263033/.

UNRCPD. “About UNRCPD.” UNRCPD. n.d. Accessed March 29, 2020. http://unrcpd.org/about/.

[1] Asif Efrat, “Toward Internationally Regulated Goods: Controlling the Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons,” 98-99.

[2] Jeff Abramson, “Arms Trade Treaty Discussion Creeps Forward | Arms Control Association,” 2020, accessed March 29, 2020, https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2008-12/arms-trade-treaty-discussion-creeps-forward.

[3] United Nations, “Overview,” 2014, accessed March 26, 2020, https://www.un.org/en/sections/about-un/overview/index.html.

[4] United Nations, “About Us – UNODA,” n.d., accessed March 29, 2020, https://www.un.org/disarmament/about/.

[5] UNRCPD, “About UNRCPD,” UNRCPD, n.d., accessed March 29, 2020, http://unrcpd.org/about/.

[6] Gregory C. Dixon, International Law (POLS4501/5501) 01, 2014, accessed March 25, 2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6PMzBFtCww.

[7] United Nations, “Arms Trade Treaty – UNODA,” n.d., accessed March 29, 2020, https://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/arms-trade-treaty-2/.

[8] Arms Control Association, “The Arms Trade Treaty At a Glance,” 2017, accessed March 29, 2020, https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/arms_trade_treaty.

[9] Arms Control Association, “The Arms Trade Treaty At a Glance.”

[10] United Nations, “UNRCPD Concludes First Part of Project to Support Timor-Leste in Implementation of UN PoA and ATT,” 2019, accessed March 29, 2020, https://www.un.org/disarmament/update/263033/.

[11] Tim Bowler, “Which Country Dominates the Global Arms Trade?,” BBC News, May 10, 2018, sec. Business, accessed March 29, 2020, https://www.bbc.com/news/business-43873518.

Supplementary references added by the WMO Editorial Team

The Arms Trade Treaty, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 2 April 2013, entered into force 24 December 2014, Articles 6, 7, 11, 12 and 13.

ATT Secretariat, Geneva, annual reports of states parties and Conference of States Parties documentation.

Campaign Against Arms Trade v. Secretary of State for International Trade, Court of Appeal of England and Wales, judgment of 20 June 2019.

Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Arms Transfers Database and Yearbook, Stockholm.

Report of the Group of Eminent International and Regional Experts on Yemen, United Nations Human Rights Council, Geneva.

Amnesty International and Control Arms, monitoring reports on Arms Trade Treaty implementation.

The Indo-Nepali Treaty of Friendship

How to cite this journal: Author, Date of the post, WMO Conflict Insight, Title of the post, ISSN: 2628 6998, https://worldmediation.org/journal/

ABSTRACT *

This article examines the Indo Nepali Treaty of Peace and Friendship of 1950 and the tensions surrounding it. After surveying the relationship between the two states, including the open border, trade, water resources, defence cooperation and India’s earthquake assistance, the author sets out the legal definition of a treaty and applies it to the agreement. The analysis then turns to the treaty’s contested provisions, the consultation obligation, arms imports, land ownership and residence rights, and to the border blockade of 2015, which the author reads as a possible breach of the treaty’s own terms. Drawing on the author’s own residence in Nepal at the time, the article documents the resulting anti Indian sentiment and Nepal’s turn toward China, and concludes that the treaty should be revised through a formal review process. The assessments reflect the author’s own perspective; this journal’s editorial position is neutral as between the states concerned.

KEYWORDS *

Nepal, India, Treaty of Peace and Friendship 1950, treaty law, open border, border blockade, asymmetry, pacta sunt servanda, treaty revision, dispute settlement, China, landlocked states

INTRODUCTION

The Himalayan country of Nepal is well-known for its ancient culture, natural beauty, and ethnic diversity. The country was closed to the outside world until the 1950s when it was ruled by a monarchy. Since then, Nepal has progressed and established a multi-party parliament system, the central outcome of the country’s decade-long civil war. Nepal is surrounded by global players, China in the north and India in the south. The country was hit by a 7,8 magnitude earthquake in 2015, killing more than 9,000 people and eliminating the livelihood and houses of thousands of Nepali people. To date, the country is one of the poorest in the world, marked by hierarchical caste systems and deep-rooted social inequality (BBC 2018).

India is the biggest democracy in the world. According to UN estimations, the country is expected to overtake China’s population in 2028 and become the world’s most populous nation. India is a rising economic power and a strong regional power. At the same time, the country is tackling significant social, environmental, and economic issues. Additionally, India is home to several ancient surviving civilizations. The Indian subcontinent reaches from the mountainous Afghan frontier to the forests of Myanmar. The country is extremely diverse in terms of language, ethnicity, and cultural traditions (BBC 2019).

Relations between India and Nepal are playing an essential role for both nations. However, one must highlight that Nepal depends on India in many regards. To regulate their relationship, the governments established a treaty in 1950, the Indo-Nepali Friendship Treaty. Having witnessed the difficulties between the two nations that persist to date inspired me to choose this treaty as a topic for this paper.

The paper will start with an overview of the relationship between India and Nepal. Furthermore, I will explain the term treaty and describe the Indo-Nepali Friendship Treaty. Additionally, I will discuss the findings and end the paper with a conclusion.

MAIN CORPUS

Background: Relations between India and Nepal

As direct neighbors, the Governments of India and Nepal share strong ties of cooperation and friendship. A characteristic of the relationship between the countries is not only the open border but deep-rooted contact between people across the state border. Furthermore, the countries share many cultural traditions and religious similarities, such as Hinduism. The tradition of free movement between nations has a long history. The shared border is over 1850 kilometers long and includes five Indian states: West Bengal, Bihar, Sikkim, Uttarakhand, and Uttar Pradesh (Government of India 2019).

There are frequent exchanges of high-level visits and interactions between the Indian Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi and Nepal’s Prime Minister Khadga Prasad Oli. The countries have several bilateral institutional dialogue mechanisms, such as the India-Nepal Joint Commission, co-chaired by India’s External Affairs Minister and the Foreign Minister of Nepal.

When an earthquake hit Nepal in 2015, India sent National Disaster Response Force teams and aircraft with humanitarian goods and relief packages to Nepal after only six hours. The overall earthquake relief support of India exceeded 67 million USD. Additionally, India granted its neighbor several loans in times of crisis.

Within the past decade, trade between Nepal and India grew significantly. Exports from Nepal to India almost doubled, whereas India’s exports to Nepal grew over eight times. The main import products to Nepal from India are petroleum products, motor vehicles, rice, paddy, electrical equipment, medicine, agricultural equipment, coal, vegetables, tin, and wires.

Indian companies are among the most significant investors in Nepal. Also, more than 150 Indian ventures are operating in Nepal. These companies include Asian Paints, Dabur India, Hindustan Unilever, Punjab National Bank, MIT Group Holdings, and Tata Power.

Furthermore, the countries cooperate in water resources, mainly focusing on common rivers. Shared water resources form one of the most critical cooperation areas. The rivers in Nepal’s south and India’s north have the potential to be the leading irrigation and power resources for both of the countries. A bilateral mechanism was concluded in 2008 to regulate cooperation in water resources, inundation, hydropower, and flood management between the two countries.

Moreover, India supports Nepal’s development efforts through many projects, focusing on infrastructure, water resources, health, education, and community development. Additionally, the countries partner in agriculture, such as in agriculture research, development of agriculture, and agriculture education.

Furthermore, the countries have robust cooperation in the area of defense. India assisted the Nepal Army in modernization, provided military supplies, conducted training sessions, and joined military exercises. The Indian Army recruited more than 32,000 Nepalese soldiers who are now serving India’s military forces.

Both countries signed a power exchange agreement in 1971. The agreement regulates the exchange of electricity in the border region. Nepal exports large amounts of electric power to India. Additionally, an agreement on electric power trade and border electricity transmission was signed in October 2014 to strengthen cross-border transmission.

Within the last few years, India has contributed to the development of Nepal’s education sector and provided scholarships to Nepalese citizens. Furthermore, India and Nepal promote the exchange of culture between the nations, such as in art and media. Joint training for journalists, editors, writers, and other professionals is frequently conducted across the countries. The two states also signed several agreements to support cultural exchange, such as between Sahitya Kala Akademi India and Nepal Academy, Doordarshan India and Nepal TV, Lalit Kala Akademi India and Nepal Academy of Fine Arts and Sangeet Natak Akademi India and Nepal Academy of Music and Drama.

The Government of India has a large embassy in Nepal’s capital city of Kathmandu and a Consulate General in Birgunj. Furthermore, Nepal’s government has an embassy in India’s capital, New Delhi, and a Consulate General in Kolkata[1].

Indo-Nepali Treaty of Friendship: What is a treaty

Global Solidarity describes a treaty as a bilateral or multilateral arrangement. Its content can characterize a treaty. Furthermore, treaties can regulate the mandates of intergovernmental organizations, e.g., the Constitution of the European Union or the United Nations Charter (Global Solidarity 2016).

The Vienna Convention describes that treaties can be concluded between two states in written form. Furthermore, treaties are governed by international law. A treaty, whether it consists of a single instrument or two or more related instruments. Treaties can be named differently. However, the designation does not say anything about the legal status. A treaty is an essential tool of international law. Treaties cannot be concluded between a government and a private company (Aust 2007).

Comparing the Indo-Nepali Treaty of Friendship, I came to the conclusion the agreement is a treaty because it was bilaterally concluded between the two nations of Nepal and India, signed by the former Ambassador of India in Nepal and the former Prime Minister of Nepal; the treaty is registered and published in the treaty section of the United Nations as well as governed by international law. It consists officially of one signed instrument. I believe proofing if an agreement is a treaty, according to this definition, is essential as the document’s title says nothing about the status.

Friendship treaty between India and Nepal

The India-Nepal Treaty of Peace and Friendship was concluded in 1950. The treaty forms the basis of the relations between India and Nepal. The treaty gives approximately six million Nepalese citizens residing in India the right to live and work in India and vice versa for the 600,000 Indians living in Nepal (Government of India 2019).

The treaty consists of ten articles, envisioning harmony between the states and upholding the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the states. The treaty ensures unrestricted cross-border movement of citizens of both countries. Additionally, the treaty is the basis for active cooperation on different matters, such as defense relations. The main reason for the agreement was the occupation of the communist state of China in Tibet in 1949. India and Nepal were concerned about matters such as regional security (Mohanty 2019).

Shortcomings in the treaty

Articles 1 and 2 of the treaty highlight mutual respect between the parties regarding territorial integrity as well as sovereignty. Both governments are obliged to inform each other about every abrasion with other neighboring countries that might have an impact on bilateral affairs. Nevertheless, Nepal argued that India missed consulting Nepali during the 1962 Sino-Indian war and the wars with Pakistan.

Article 5 of the treaty states that Nepal is allowed to import weapons through Indian territory. Nevertheless, the article does not limit Nepal from importing weapons from other countries. Therefore, one can argue that India broke the agreement when it imposed an economic blockade on Nepal in the late 1980s when Nepal imported weapons from its northern neighbor of China.

Articles 6 and 7 focus on bilateral economic prospects and the treatment of each other’s citizens. Indian citizens, therefore, have the right to obtain land in Nepal, which is contradictory to other regulations that ban foreigners from buying property in Nepal. Both countries give each other’s citizens rights regarding job opportunities and residence.

Article 10 of the treaty states that it remains in force until one of the parties determines it with one year’s notice (Mohanty 2019).

Discussion

Nepal, being a landlocked country, is also strongly dependent on India. Nepal is divided by China through hardly accessible mountains, which makes trade with India crucial.

Nepal has increasingly raised formal and informal objections to the Indo-Nepali Friendship treaty. As a consequence, both countries have agreed to review the treaty. However, not much progress has been made. Reasons for the demand to review the treaty are shifting priorities in the countries’ bilateral relations and new geopolitical contours.

The treaty is in the focus of discussions since 1959 when a confidential document was negotiated at the same time as the treaty was revealed. In the document, India is named as the primary project partner for natural resource projects with Nepal. Many Nepali people believe that the treaty can be seen as a burden to Nepal, resulting in the Rana dynasty, who were not considered representatives of the Nepali people. Additionally, many people in Nepal, as well as political groups and oppositions, perceive the treaty to be unfair to Nepal and demand revision of the document (Mohanty 2019).

When Nepal adopted its new constitution in 2015, and protests increased in Nepal’s south, India imposed an unofficial border blockade on Nepal. This led to dramatic shortages of medicine, petrol, cooking gas, and other essential goods. The results of the blockade were tragic for the people of Nepal who have been hit by an earthquake only a few months before. Humanitarian goods were not allowed in the country; the economy suffered; already vulnerable people had to suffer even more. Nepal criticized India for this procedure (Plesch 2015).

Furthermore, the blockade resulted in increasing anti-Indian sentiments of the Nepalese population. On social media, Nepali citizens started to express their anger. People sharply criticized India’s interference in Nepal, calling it a crime(Firstpost 2015).

From my experience of having lived in Nepal in 2015, many Nepali people not only showed their hatred on social media but also on TV, radio, newspapers, and conversations. Graffiti with anti-India slogans were found all over Kathmandu. Indian colleagues in organizations operating in Nepal were increasingly bullied. Activists urged the government of Nepal to find alternatives to its strong ties with India.

Due to its dependence on India, Nepal has increasingly reached out to and strengthened ties with its northern neighbor, China. Currently, Nepal and China are planning a rail link to Tibet and a tunnel system, intending to end Nepal’s dependence on trade with India. The 70-kilometer-long railway will link Kathmandu with Gyiron in Tibet, China, and is seen as one of Nepal’s most ambitious infrastructure projects. At the moment, India accounts for almost two-thirds of Nepal’s trade. Therefore, India, as a reaction, is criticizing Nepal for these steps (Sharma 2019).

Moreover, India’s border blockade can be seen as a violation of Article 2 of the treaty, as India did not inform Nepal’s government prior to their planned intervention, which would have given space for diplomacy, highlighted in Article 3 of the treaty, and finding solutions to address India’s concern. The pacta sunt servanda principle might have been violated through India’s actions. Nevertheless, Nepal’s government did not sufficiently critically reflect India’s reaction but condemned them from the beginning.

Additionally, the treaty does not explicitly address legal issues such as termination, reservations, or dispute settlement procedures. This lack of details might be a reason for the struggles to address the criticism the treaty is facing these days. Nevertheless, eventually, the Nepal Government, which felt that India was doing wrong, did not even take the treaty under consideration at this moment as a tool to resolve the issue.

SUMMARY *

The article’s underlying finding is that the treaty’s difficulties arise less from what it says than from what it lacks. Concluded seventy years ago between parties of very unequal weight, and drafted in response to a security concern that has since changed character, it grants extensive reciprocal rights while providing no mechanism through which either party can raise a breach, obtain an interpretation or compel a review. The blockade of 2015 illustrates the consequence: an instrument intended to govern the relationship was not invoked by either side at the moment of its greatest strain.

CONCLUSION

Treaties are tools to regulate relationships between nations. However, Nepal is highly dependent on India. There is an imbalance of power with the giant global player India on the one hand and landlocked, economically weak Nepal on the other. The Indo-Nepali Friendship Treaty regulates cooperation between the countries, grants each other citizens exclusive rights, and regulates trade and common projects on natural resources. However, the people of Nepal increasingly demand a review of the treaty, claiming that India broke the treaty, that the treaty is unfair, and that it is more for India’s benefit. Considering that the treaty was concluded 70 years ago and situations might have changed, I believe this is a valid argument for a revision.

Nepal and India need to be clearer in their articles. From Nepal’s perspective, India broke the agreement several times. Reviewing the treaty might be an essential opportunity to adapt the document and include the opposition’s concerns. The peace and political situation of Nepal was and remains fragile. Conflicts and protests are commonly observed. Oppositions often claim that their voices are not heard. Therefore, I strongly recommend that both countries fast-track the formal review process. Intergovernmental organizations, such as the United Nations, offer practical support mechanisms for these processes. Interpretative declarations might be an option to avoid such different interpretations for future treaties.

Both countries should respect the ethics of an open border and bilateral cooperation. Treaties cannot include force. Countries need to bring the will and commitment to follow agreements.

POTENTIAL SOLUTION *

The author’s diagnosis identifies precisely the feature that makes revision so difficult, and understanding why points toward what can realistically be done. A treaty terminable on one year’s notice by either party, with no dispute settlement clause, offers each side only two options: comply or exit. There is no intermediate step, no forum in which a grievance can be raised without threatening the whole arrangement. That is why neither government reached for the treaty during the crisis of 2015; invoking it would have meant escalating rather than de escalating.

The remedy is to add what is missing rather than to renegotiate what exists. A protocol supplementing the treaty could establish a standing joint commission with authority to receive complaints of non compliance, an agreed procedure for interpretation, and recourse to conciliation or arbitration where interpretation fails. None of this requires either party to concede anything of substance, and it converts every future disagreement from a question about the treaty’s survival into a question to be processed within it.

Substantive revision is harder, and the asymmetry the author describes is the reason. The weaker party seeks revision precisely because it feels disadvantaged; the stronger party has little incentive to reopen an arrangement that suits it. Two considerations nonetheless favour movement. First, India’s own interest has shifted: an agreement that generates recurrent resentment and drives its neighbour toward alternative partners serves India poorly, whatever its formal terms provide. Second, an Eminent Persons Group of the kind the two states have already convened offers a route by which recommendations can be developed at arm’s length from governments, allowing each side to consider concessions without committing to them in advance. Such bodies work only if their reports are received rather than shelved, which is itself a test of political will.

The blockade deserves separate treatment, because it concerns a right that exists independently of this treaty. Under the Law of the Sea Convention and the transit conventions preceding it, landlocked states hold a right of transit through neighbouring territory, and any restriction of essential supplies to a population is a matter of humanitarian rather than merely bilateral concern. Agreeing in advance that food, fuel, medicine and humanitarian goods remain outside any future dispute, whatever its cause, is a modest commitment that would remove the single most damaging instrument from the relationship.

Two further points complete the picture. The blockade of 2015 was inseparable from Nepal’s internal constitutional dispute over Madhesi representation, and no bilateral arrangement will be stable while that question is unresolved, since India’s concern derived from communities on both sides of an open border. Progress domestically and progress bilaterally are therefore linked. And the popular sentiment the author witnessed at first hand is itself a factor in the relationship: resentment of this depth constrains what any Nepali government can agree to, just as it makes generosity politically costly for India. People to people contact, which the open border has sustained for generations, is the asset both states possess and neither should spend.

* Added by the WMO Editorial Team

REFERENCES

Bibliography

Aust, Anthony. 2007. Modern Treaty Law and Practice. Vol. Second Edition. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

BBC. 2018. “Nepal Country Profile.” BBC News, February 19, 2018, sec. Asia. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-south-asia-12511455.

———. 2019. “India Country Profile.” BBC News, February 18, 2019, sec. Asia. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-south-asia-12557384.

Firstpost. 2015. “#BackOffIndia Trends Worldwide as Nepal Citizens Protest against India’s Intervention.” 2015. https://www.firstpost.com/world/backoffindia-trends-worldwide-as-nepal-citizens-protest-against-indias-intervention-2441994.html.

Global Solidarity. 2016. Public International Law: An Introduction – Part 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mO0yirpY0gw.

Government of India. 2019. “India-Nepal Relations.” https://mea.gov.in/Portal/ForeignRelation/India-Nepal_Bilateral_Brief_September_2019.pdf.

Mohanty, Abhishek. 2019. “The India-Nepal Peace And Friendship Treaty: Need for a Critical Reappraisal – Synergy: The Journal of Contemporary Asian Studies.” 2019. http://utsynergyjournal.org/2019/01/06/the-india-nepal-peace-and-friendship-treaty-need-for-a-critical-reappraisal/.

Plesch, Valerie. 2015. “Crisis on Nepal-India Border as Blockade Continues.” 2015. https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/inpictures/2015/12/crisis-nepal-india-border-blockade-continues-151223082533785.html.

Sharma, Gopal. 2019. “Nepal Pushes to End Dependency on India with China Rail, Tunnel Deals.” 2019. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nepal-china-xi/nepal-pushes-to-end-dependency-on-india-with-china-rail-tunnel-deals-idUSKBN1WS0CA.

Supplementary references added by the WMO Editorial Team

Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the Government of India and the Government of Nepal, signed at Kathmandu, 31 July 1950, United Nations Treaty Series.

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969, Articles 2, 26, 31, 60 and 62.

Eminent Persons Group on Nepal India Relations, report and documentation, 2016 to 2018.

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982, Part X, on the right of access of landlocked states to and from the sea and freedom of transit.

Convention on Transit Trade of Land locked States, 1965, and the Treaty of Transit between Nepal and India.

International Crisis Group (2016). Nepal’s Divisive New Constitution: An Existential Crisis, Brussels and Kathmandu.

Mindful Reflection on Resource Conflicts in Nepal

How to cite this journal: Author, Date of the post, WMO Conflict Insight, Title of the post, ISSN: 2628 6998, https://worldmediation.org/journal/

ABSTRACT *

This article examines natural resource conflicts in Nepal and considers how mindful mediation might address them. After setting out the country’s poverty, rural dependence, caste hierarchy and the causes of the civil war, the author analyses three resource domains in turn: water, where irrigation, drinking supply, pollution and hydropower generate competing claims; forests, where community forestry has brought benefits but is held to favour wealthier groups while excluding the landless; and biodiversity, where protected area designation has displaced communities into buffer zones. The article then sets out the qualities of mindful mediation, deep listening, critical thinking and wise speaking, and argues for inclusive multi stakeholder processes prepared carefully and grounded in self reflection.

KEYWORDS *

Nepal, natural resource conflict, water, forests, biodiversity, community forestry, hydropower, mindful mediation, deep listening, inclusion, multi stakeholder process, conflict ripeness

INTRODUCTION

Nepal is a South Asian country well-known for its impressive mountains, natural beauty, and cultural diversity. Surrounded by its giant neighbors and global players India and China, the country is one of the poorest in the world. Nevertheless, its natural treasure is impressive. Water, forests, and natural biodiversity are crucial for the country, people, the economy, and the environment. Nevertheless, these factors also contribute to conflict and have mainly added to Nepal’s civil war, but they still play a key role in current disputes.

This paper is a part of the World Mediation Organization’s training program on mindful mediation. The paper will start with an introduction to what natural resource conflicts are and how they affect Nepal. Moreover, a summary of mindfulness will be given. Afterward, the concept of mindfulness will be applied to challenge the situation of Nepal’s natural resources, and recommendations will be provided. The paper will end with a conclusion.

MAIN CORPUS

CONTEXT OF NEPAL

Nepal is one of the poorest countries worldwide, ranked 147 out of 189 on the Human Development Index of the countries worldwide. An estimated 42 percent of the country is living under the poverty line, in some cases, even severe poverty. Most of the Nepalese community, 80 percent, live in rural areas. Many rural households suffer from insufficient access to food due to a lack of land for agriculture or other reasons such as climate change.

A significant part of the country is hilly, marked by forests that have been increasingly cut within the last decades. Degradation of mountains is, additionally, a challenge. Growing populations in Nepal that come along with shrinking natural resources have the potential to destabilize the country.

The societal structure of Nepal is marked by the caste system, which is rigidly hierarchical, causing social inequalities. Furthermore, ethnic diversity and deep-rooted traditions remain dominant characteristics of the country. Additionally, poverty and a lack of education contribute to challenges such as child marriage, early pregnancy, unemployment, and gender injustice (Schweithelm, Kanaan, and Yonzon 2006, iii – viii).

Furthermore, the country went through a decade-long civil war, which ended in 2008. The causes of the conflict were:

• A fastly growing population which resulted in degradation of the environment and scarcity of resources;
• Inequality in the society, which furthermore contributed to unfair access to natural resources;
• Limited access to education, which additionally contributes to unemployment;
• Limited job opportunities outside the urban centers;
• Failures of Nepal’s monarchical government back then (Schweithelm, Kanaan, and Yonzon 2006, vi).

RESOURCE CONFLICTS IN NEPAL

Michael T. Klare writes that resource conflicts have become increasingly prominent worldwide. Resource conflict is often mixed with religious, ethnic, and tribal antagonism. Resource conflicts have become an increasing threat to local, national, and international peace (Klare 2002, 1 – 10).

a) Water and conflict

Nepal is one of the world’s most significant water resources and has the potential to produce large quantities of hydropower. The irrigation systems in the southern Terai are mainly fed by river systems. As the river flow depends on the monsoon and temperature, agriculture is seasonal and limited to water availability. In hilly regions, access to drinking water is challenging.

Additionally, water sources within Nepal are increasingly polluted, especially in nearby urban centers like Kathmandu. Poorly managed water irrigation systems, mainly found in the hilly regions, fuel conflict potential. Moreover, only a small part of Nepal’s hydropower potential is utilized. Constructing hydropower facilities often comes with conflict between the people from the dam side and downhill part, as well as pollution during the construction. Furthermore, a conflict exists around fair water use: drinking water, industrial use, hydropower, or agriculture (Schweithelm, Kanaan, and Yonzon 2006, vii).

b) Forest and conflict

Nepal’s forests are traditionally crucial for livelihood. Villagers find food in the woods; building material is abstracted. Many trees are cut by smugglers from India, the Maoists, and other individuals and groups. Nepal has established a wide range of community forests. Over 13,300 groups, including 35 percent of the nation, have been formed, managing the community forests. However, it is believed that wealthier and socially dominant groups benefit more from the woods than others. Landless or impoverished community members are often excluded. Therefore, community forest groups are believed to contribute mainly to inequality. The benefits of community forests include access to healing plants, timber, and fiber plants (Schweithelm, Kanaan, and Yonzon 2006, vii).

c) Biodiversity and conflict

Nepal offers a wide range of areas protected due to its biodiversity treasure. However, conflict potential increased when communities started to utilize the protected areas for agriculture or other purposes that might harm existing biodiversity. Communities were forced out of the protected areas and re-settled in buffer zones. It is believed that the Maoist party, a key player in the civil war, had a plan to use the buffer zone for their purposes, such as utilizing displaced people for their ideas and strategies. Wildlife poachers are still hunting rare animals, fueling conflict potential further (Schweithelm, Kanaan, and Yonzon 2006, viii).

MINDFULNESS

a) What is mindful mediation?

Mindfulness is a mindset that can contribute to conflict resolution in resource-related conflict. Erdmann writes that mindfulness is an essential core skill found in everyone. Buddhist traditions offer different techniques of mindfulness, often related to greed as the source of suffering and the solution of detachment.

Being a mindful mediator requires the following:

Deep listening: A mediator must listen carefully throughout the mediation process, understand the situation itself, and help reveal what lies behind statements, behavior, positions, and demands. As a part of this, a mediator can use question techniques such as open questions, reframing, and paraphrasing. Critical thinking: Mediators must reflect on mediation processes critically, questions used, and statements given while maintaining transparency. Everything happening in mediation might have an impact on future developments. Wise speaking: Furthermore, mediators can support fruitful mediation processes by asking questions wisely, taking positions, dynamics, and the cultural context under consideration (Erdmann 2018).

b) Mindfulness in the mediation of resource disputes in Nepal

The three natural resources have, as explained above, contributed to Nepal’s civil war but still affect recent tensions. Utilizing mindful mediation brings many benefits that should be considered when resolving existing issues. Reaching the state of mindfulness includes understanding oneself, patterns, behavior, and the origin of emotions by listening to inner voices and self-reflection. Nevertheless, mediators do have the potential to guide and support mindful reflection.

Water is a sensitive factor for conflicts in Nepal. All parties using and arguing about water use in Nepal should ask themselves questions, focusing on finding what influences them in their position, behavior, and primary use of water. From my perspective, the same counts for the use of forests and the conservation of biodiversity. A mediator applying the principles of deep listening, critical thinking, and wise speaking can challenge current viewpoints and help to change patterns. I strongly recommend bringing representatives of relevant stakeholders to one table to resolve the disputes. Most importantly, processes must be inclusive, leave no one behind, and enhance self-reflection through wisely chosen question techniques.

SUMMARY

No one in Nepal wants to live in a scenario in which forests are destroyed, water sources are polluted or unequally used, or Nepal’s biodiversity has vanished. Nevertheless, as mediation is a voluntary process, parties must be committed and actively participate. Identifying the matching stakeholders might be an additional challenge. Considering the complexity of the conflicts and the high number of people involved, the process would need time and proper preparation. Mediators can also enhance the conflict ripeness.

In case parties agree to commit to mediation, the mediator must understand the conflict correctly. This paper gave a short overview, which could be utilized as the first step of preparation.

CONCLUSION

Natural resources are limited but too often taken for granted. The government of Nepal, political parties, the private sector, smugglers, communities, and individuals should reflect on the use of resources. The goal should be to act responsibly and take the preciousness, limited existence, and collective need for resources under reflection, understanding own and opposing positions. Abuses of political power, societal privileges, economic benefits, environmental aspects, and natural preservation need to be considered equally while using natural resources.

The effects of misused natural resources in Nepal cannot be ignored. Natural resources affect every part of the lives of Nepali people. In times of climate change, forests are more important than ever before. Water is the source of life, and every human has the right to access clean drinking water to stay healthy and productive.

From my viewpoint, it is high time to initiate mediation processes of natural resources in Nepal, focusing on mindfulness. Nepal, a country with many spiritual practices, is very tolerant towards Buddhism, which might serve as an ideal ground to apply mindfulness as a mindset.

POTENTIAL SOLUTION *

The article’s most useful observation is one it makes almost in passing: community forestry, widely regarded as a success and often cited internationally as a model, is held to have deepened inequality because wealthier and socially dominant households capture its benefits while the landless are excluded. That finding deserves to be central rather than incidental, because it identifies the difference between devolving a resource to a community and distributing it fairly within one. Where a community is stratified by caste, landholding and gender, handing management to the community as such transfers the resource to those who already hold power in it.

Design remedies exist and are well tested. Guaranteed representation on user group executive committees for Dalit, landless and women members, with quorum requirements rather than nominal seats, changes who decides. Differentiated entitlements, in which the poorest households receive rights to firewood, fodder and non timber products at no cost while commercial timber revenue is shared, changes who benefits. Public audit of user group accounts and an accessible appeal route for excluded members changes whether the rules are followed. None of this requires new legislation in most cases, only serious attention to the internal governance of bodies that already exist.

The water question needs a different instrument, because its parties are separated by geography rather than status. Upstream and downstream users, irrigators and drinking water users, hydropower developers and river communities each hold claims that are legitimate and mutually limiting. River basin level forums, in which allocation is negotiated among all users of a single system rather than settled sector by sector in Kathmandu, are the standard response and have worked in comparable settings. For hydropower specifically, benefit sharing arrangements agreed before construction, a defined share of revenue or free electricity to affected communities, compensation negotiated rather than assessed, and independent monitoring of construction impacts, convert a project imposed on a valley into one the valley has an interest in seeing completed.

On protected areas, the article records displacement into buffer zones without recording what those communities received in return. Conservation that depends on exclusion generates the resentment that poaching and encroachment express; conservation that shares tourism revenue, employs local people as rangers and guides, and involves them in management decisions converts the same population into the resource’s most effective protectors. This is now mainstream conservation practice, and Nepal has itself pioneered parts of it.

Finally, the author’s remark that mediators can enhance conflict ripeness deserves emphasis. In resource disputes, ripeness rarely arrives on its own, because the party benefiting from the status quo has no reason to negotiate. What creates it is usually a shift in the surrounding conditions: a court ruling, a funding requirement, a change in the law, or simply the accumulated visibility of a problem. Mediators working in this field spend much of their time preparing for such moments, mapping stakeholders, building relationships across divides, assembling shared data, so that when the opening comes, a process is ready rather than still to be invented.

* Added by the WMO Editorial Team

REFERENCES

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Erdmann, Daniel. "Section: B) – Syllabus 1 – World Mediation Organization," 2018. Accessed March 12, 2020. https://worldmediation.org/.

Klare, Michael T. Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict. 1st edition. United States of America, New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2002.

Schweithelm, Jim, Ramzy Kanaan, and Pralad Yonzon. Conflicts over Natural Resources at the Community Level in Nepal: Including Its Relation to Armed Conflict. Kathmandu, Nepal: United States Agency for International Development, 2006.

Supplementary references added by the WMO Editorial Team

Forest Act, 2019, and Forest Regulations, Nepal, provisions on community forest user groups.

Water Resources Act, 1992, and National Water Plan, Nepal.

Department of Forests and Soil Conservation, Nepal, community forestry programme data and guidelines.

Ojha, H., Persha, L., & Chhatre, A. (2009). Community Forestry in Nepal: A Policy Innovation for Local Livelihoods. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C.

Agrawal, A., & Gibson, C. C. (1999). Enchantment and Disenchantment: The Role of Community in Natural Resource Conservation. World Development, 27(4), 629 to 649.

United Nations Environment Programme (2015). Natural Resources and Conflict: A Guide for Mediation Practitioners. UNEP and UN Department of Political Affairs, Nairobi and New York.

Biodiversity and Conflict in Nepal

How to cite this journal: Author, Date of the post, WMO Conflict Insight, Title of the post, ISSN: 2628 6998, https://worldmediation.org/journal/

ABSTRACT *

This article examines conflicts over forest resources and biodiversity in Nepal through the dispute over the planned Nijgadh international airport. After outlining the significance of the Terai forests for rural livelihoods and the tensions arising from protected area management, the author describes the airport project, its scale, its economic justification and the environmental objections raised against it, including the court order of December 2019 halting construction. Two sets of reflective questions are then developed, addressed to the government and to environmental campaigners respectively. The author concludes that mindfulness offers both sides a means of understanding each other’s perspective and recommends its inclusion in any future mediation.

KEYWORDS *

Nepal, Nijgadh airport, forest resources, biodiversity, Terai, environmental conflict, infrastructure development, mindful reflection, protected areas, public participation

INTRODUCTION

The Government of Nepal is planning to construct a new international airport as the capacity of Nepal’s currently only international airport in Kathmandu has reached its limits. Apart from the presently constructed airports in Lumbini and Pokhara, government officials claim that an alternative to the capital’s Tribhuvan International Airport is urgently needed. Nijgadh, an area covered in forest, therefore, should become an additional airport within a short distance to Kathmandu. As a reaction, groups formed and started to protests against the government’s plans (Sah 2019).

This report will explain forest resource and biodiversity conflicts in Nepal through the current dispute on the planned airport in Nijgadh. Furthermore, I will create a list of mindful questions that could help as a tool of reflection. I will end the report with a short conclusion.

MAIN CORPUS

FOREST RESOURCES, BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION, AND CONFLICT

The forests of Nepal have always been of great importance to the country’s people. Forest is an essential basis for livelihood, provides food, building material, medicine, water, and animals to eat for thousands of rural-based Nepali families. In Nepal’s southern region, the Terai forests always served as a source for livelihood; however, forests are increasingly shrinking. Forests in the Terai are more and more affected by illegal tree harvesting, e.g., by Indian smugglers, the Maoists, and villagers (Schweithelm, Kanaan, and Yonzon 2006, vi).

Furthermore, there are many protected areas with rich biodiversity in Nepal. Conflict about biodiversity increased as people started to use protected areas for agriculture and livestock. Communities were resettled to buffer zones around the protected areas. Therefore, biodiversity and forest resources are still sensitive topics in Nepal and have the potential to fuel conflicts (Schweithelm, Kanaan, and Yonzon 2006, vii).

NIJGADH AIPORT

The Government of Nepal is planning to construct Nijgadh airport, highlighting economic benefits. The airport would cover 8,045 hectares of land and would thereby become the largest airport in South Asia.

The plans to construct more airports in Nepal initially came to the table in 1992, when several tragic airplane clashes took place around Nepal’s only airport. When a Turkish Airlines flight crashed into Nepal’s international airport runway in 2015, discussed got more serious. The airport is, however, highly controversial due to environmental concerns. Environmentalists argue that the damage of the project will damage forests and biodiversity irreparable. On December 6, 2019, the activists reached a court order forcing the government to put constructions on hold. The basis for the court order was a petition signed by the opposition of the project. Currently, the case is reviewed by the court (Sah 2019). As a result, protests on the streets and social media against the planned airport are common phenomena.

MINDFUL REFLECTION

Mindful questions have the potential to help conflict parties reviewing their viewpoints, identify reasons for patterns of thinking, and understand each other better. The ongoing conflict is not yet a case of mediation. However, this might be a possible outcome of the court order. Mindfulness, as a part of finding a mutual agreement, could include different possible questions.

The Government of Nepal could ask themselves:

• How can we build Niijgad airport from an environmental perspective?
• Why do we believe that the airport needs to be built? Which values and motivations are behind our viewpoint?
• How can we cooperate with opposition groups and find common ground?
• How do we set our priorities, and what is the basis for our strategy?
• How could an alternative look like? Why Nijgadh?
• How can we be mindful of our decision-making process?
• How can we include opposing positions in our plans?

Environmentalists could ask themselves:

• Why do we think we are right and ‘they’ are wrong?
• How should we show our protest?
• How does our mind influence our position and reaction?
• How can we better cooperate with the government?

SUMMARY *

The article situates a single infrastructure dispute within a wider pattern. Forest in Nepal is not scenery but livelihood, and decisions about it have repeatedly displaced the communities that depend on it, whether through protected area designation or through development projects. The Nijgadh case brings that pattern to a point: a project justified by aviation safety and economic need, on a scale that would make it the largest airport in South Asia, in an area whose value to those who live around it is not captured by either argument. With the courts now involved, the author sees an opening for a process in which the parties examine their own reasoning rather than only each other’s.

CONCLUSION

The conflict about Nijgadh airport is a very controversial dispute, currently going on in Nepal. I have talked to different people from Nepal and heard very opposing viewpoints. Some believe that the airport is needed and beneficial; others believe that the price of deforestation is too high. Mindfulness brings chances for both parties to understand each other and uniquely their perspective better. Therefore, I would highly recommend including the state of mindfulness in possible mediation efforts.

POTENTIAL SOLUTION *

Environmental disputes of this kind are more tractable than they appear, because the positions are usually further apart than the interests. The government needs additional aviation capacity, and the reasons given, congestion and the safety record at Kathmandu, are real. The objectors need the forest, its watershed function, its wildlife corridor and the livelihoods it supports. Neither of those needs is the negation of the other. What makes the dispute intractable is that it has been framed as a single decision about one site, so that any outcome delivers everything to one side.

Unbundling the question is therefore the first move. Where should capacity be located, how large must it be, what would be lost at each candidate site, and what mitigation is possible: each of these can be examined separately, and each admits of compromise where the composite question does not. A jointly commissioned assessment, with the scope of study and the choice of experts agreed by both sides rather than by the proponent alone, converts a contest of assertions into a shared body of evidence. This is the single most reliable technique available in environmental conflict, and it works because parties rarely dispute findings they helped design.

The community whose forest is at issue deserves particular attention, since it appears in this account mainly as the object of other people’s arguments. People living in and around the Nijgadh forest have interests that align with neither camp: they may want employment and connectivity, and they may want their land, water and firewood, and they are entitled to be heard on both. Free, prior and informed consultation, with resettlement and compensation terms negotiated rather than announced, and with a share in whatever benefits the project generates, is both a legal obligation under Nepal’s own framework and the practical condition for a project that is not resisted for a generation.

Two further elements would close the gap. Where loss is unavoidable, compensatory measures negotiated in advance, protection and restoration of comparable forest, secured wildlife corridors, watershed safeguards, monitored by an independent body with the objectors represented on it, address the environmental objection in the only currency that answers it. And phasing matters: a project built in stages, with capacity added as demand is demonstrated rather than in a single decisive clearance, reduces both the environmental footprint and the financial risk, and it keeps future options open.

Finally, a note on the role of the courts. The litigation has produced a pause, and pauses of that kind are the moment when mediation is most likely to succeed, because both sides face uncertainty and neither can be confident of winning. Court referred mediation, with the proceedings held in abeyance rather than abandoned, would allow the parties to negotiate under the shadow of a judgment neither controls. That is usually a more productive setting than either the courtroom or the street.

* Added by the WMO Editorial Team

REFERENCES

REFERENCES

Sah, Laxmi. “Nepal Needs Another International Airport. So Why Is Nijgadh Being Held Up?” 2019. https://kathmandupost.com/province-no-2/2019/12/19/nepal-needs-another-international-airport-so-why-is-nijgadh-being-held-up. Accessed March 17, 2020.

Schweithelm, Jim, Ramzy Kanaan, and Pralad Yonzon. Conflicts over Natural Resources at the Community Level in Nepal: Including Its Relation to Armed Conflict. 2006. Kathmandu, Nepal: United States Agency for International Development.

Supplementary references added by the WMO Editorial Team

Supreme Court of Nepal, interim orders and judgment in the public interest litigation concerning the Nijgadh International Airport project.

Environment Protection Act, 2019, and Environment Protection Rules, Nepal, provisions on environmental impact assessment and public hearings.

Environmental Impact Assessment Report, Nijgadh International Airport, Civil Aviation Authority of Nepal and Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Civil Aviation, Kathmandu.

International Union for Conservation of Nature, assessments of forest and biodiversity values in the Nepalese Terai.

International Finance Corporation, Performance Standard 6 on Biodiversity Conservation and Performance Standard 5 on Land Acquisition and Involuntary Resettlement.

Susskind, L., & Cruikshank, J. (1987). Breaking the Impasse: Consensual Approaches to Resolving Public Disputes. Basic Books, New York.

The Bhutanese Refugee Crisis

How to cite this journal: Author, Date of the post, WMO Conflict Insight, Title of the post, ISSN: 2628 6998, https://worldmediation.org/journal/

ABSTRACT *

This article applies the method of mindful reflection to the Bhutanese refugee crisis, in which more than one hundred thousand Nepali speaking people were forced out of Bhutan between 1990 and 1993. After outlining the One Nation, One People policy, the restrictions on language and dress, the protests and the state response, and the situation of those who remain in camps in Nepal, the author develops reflective questions addressed to the government of Bhutan, the government of Nepal and the ethnic Nepali community respectively. The author concludes that all parties acted without mindfulness, while stating a personal view that the minority has suffered disproportionately. The assessments, including the comparison drawn in the conclusion, reflect the author’s own perspective; this journal’s editorial position is neutral as between the parties.

KEYWORDS *

Bhutan, Nepal, Lhotshampa, refugee crisis, One Nation One People, statelessness, citizenship, mindful reflection, resettlement, minority rights, restorative justice

INTRODUCTION

According to Erdmann, conflict means two or more viewpoints, attitudes, expectations, or strategic approaches collide. Conflicts are a part of human relationships, on personal, industrial, community, national, or international levels. A dispute is a normal part of life and is found in political parties, friendships, relationships, family, church, and social organizations. Some conflicts are open; some are hidden. Additionally, a conflict is a chance for change and can lead to a more productive future. Every battle is unique in its structure. Core problems and minor problems need to be identified. Often, finding the core reason for conflict can be challenging and time-consuming. Reaching the core conflict can cause feelings like discomfort or stress among the parties. Therefore, setting an external framework of rules before starting the process is critical (Erdmann 2018).

More than 100,000 Nepali-speaking Bhutanese people were forced out of Bhutan between 1990 and 1993. Many of the refugees are staying in camps there to date. The conflict between Bhutan and Nepal has not been resolved, and restorative justice remains a hope (Schultz 2016). Mindfulness as a tool might add value to overcoming conflict.

This report will briefly introduce the refugee crisis of Nepali-speaking people from Bhutan. Furthermore, mindful questions for the conflict parties for reflection will be developed, which should help the reader to analyze the conflict critically. Also, a short personal conclusion will be given.

MAIN CORPUS

THE BHUTANESE REFUGEE CRISIS

Amnesty International calls the refugee crisis of Bhutan ‘one of the most neglected refugee crises in the world’ (Schultz 2016). In the early 1990s, the government of Bhutan felt increasingly threatened by the growing ethnic Nepali community in Bhutan. The country adopted in the 1980s a ‘One Nation, One People’ policy, defending the culture and political dominance of ethnic Bhutanese people. As a part of this policy, teaching Nepali as a language for ethnic Nepali children was banned in Bhutan. Nepali people were, from then on, forced to wear the traditional Bhutanese Drukpa dress. As a result, many Nepali Bhutanese communities started anti-government protests. Therefore, the government of Bhutan reacted by imprisoning demonstrators. Human Rights Watch found out that many cases of ethnic Nepali people were tortured in prisons in Bhutan. Government militant forces destroyed the houses of Nepali Bhutanese people. Communities were forced to leave their home and abused in different ways.

Some Nepali Bhutanese claim that most of their protests were peaceful; however, some turned violent. Ethnic Nepali people have been living in Bhutan for generations; nevertheless, their land was taken away. More than 18,000 Nepali Bhutanese refugees live in camps in Nepal (Schultz 2016).

In the mid-1980s, the Government of Nepal also passed a citizenship law, which forms the basis for declaring Nepali Bhutanese people as non-nationals of Nepal. Many refugees in the camps are resettled in other countries with the support of UNHCR (European Resettlement Network 2013).

MINDFUL REFLECTION

The behavior of the Government of Bhutan, the Government of Nepal, and the ethnic Nepali people in Bhutan can be critically reflected with a focus on mindfulness. I believe that all actors did not act mindfully throughout the ongoing conflict. Therefore, mindful questions should be asked as a tool of reflection and shared understanding.

The Government of Bhutan could ask itself:

• Why do we, as a government, not want the Nepali Bhutanese communities to live in Bhutan?
• Where are the cultural differences between Bhutanese and ethnic Nepali people living in Bhutan?
• Why do we perceive them as a threat to ‘our’ culture? What is ‘our’ culture, and where does it come from?
• What is an appropriate reaction to protests against the laws implemented against the ethnic Nepali people?
• Why do ethnic Nepali people think that they are Bhutanese?
• Are there factors for the government’s behavior related to socialization, upbringing, or other personal factors? If so, how do these factors influence the government?
• Is our acting according to Buddhism?

The Government of Nepal could ask itself:

• How can we treat the Nepali Bhutanese people in our country fairly?

The ethnic Nepali people of Bhutan could ask themselves:

How should the protest look? Was our form of protest in Bhutan appropriate? What could we have done differently? What was our motive? Which factors influence our behavior?

SUMMARY *

The author presents a case in which a state’s concern for the preservation of its own culture produced measures against a community that had lived within its borders for generations, and in which the resulting displacement has never been resolved. Three decades on, part of the displaced population has been resettled in third countries while a remainder continues in camps, without either return or citizenship in the country of asylum. The reflective questions are addressed to all three parties, though the author acknowledges that the burden of the questions falls unevenly, as does the burden of the events themselves.

CONCLUSION

Analyzing the Bhutanese refugee crisis with a focus on mindfulness is a beneficial tool for conflicting parties to reflect on their behavior but also to understand the other stakeholders’ perspectives better. It is not up to me to judge who was right or wrong. Still, in my viewpoint, the Bhutanese minority with Nepali ethnicity has significantly suffered, and justice is not foreseeable. I think this example can almost be called ethnic cleansing, similar to the Rohingya crisis in Myanmar. Governments urgently need to rethink their behavior: the Nepali government treats refugees with respect and ensures equity, while the Bhutanese governments need to understand that protests against a law that is perceived discriminatory can not be responded to with killing, torture, and deprivation of land.

POTENTIAL SOLUTION *

This case exposes a structural problem that reflective questions alone cannot reach. The people at its centre are not party to the negotiations that concern them. Bhutan and Nepal held sixteen rounds of bilateral talks over a decade, and at no point were the refugees themselves represented; the resettlement programme that followed was arranged between UNHCR and third countries. A conflict in which those most affected have never had a seat is one in which no agreement can be evaluated against what they actually want, and any renewed process should begin by correcting that, through elected representation from the camps and structured consultation with the resettled diaspora.

Verification is the second obstacle, and it is more tractable than it appears. The dispute between the two states turned on categorisation, whether those in the camps were Bhutanese nationals, voluntary emigrants or Nepali migrants, and it stalled because each side controlled the criteria. An independent verification mechanism, jointly mandated and applying agreed evidentiary standards suited to a population without documents, would settle the factual question on which everything else depends. This is unglamorous work, but disputes over identity and belonging rarely move until the facts are established by someone neither party appoints.

The remaining population needs a durable solution now rather than a settlement later. Three routes exist and none excludes the others: voluntary return with restitution or compensation for those who wish it and can safely go; naturalisation in Nepal for those with family and community ties there, which requires the citizenship framework the article mentions to be revisited; and continued third country resettlement for the rest. What matters is that each person chooses, since a solution assigned collectively reproduces the original wrong in a milder form. In the meantime, statelessness is itself an ongoing harm, and interim documentation permitting work, travel and education costs little and changes lives immediately.

The deeper question the article raises concerns what a state may do to preserve its culture. Bhutan’s anxiety about demographic change is not unique and not in itself illegitimate; nearly every small state with a large neighbour shares it. What is at issue is the means. A state may promote its language, protect its heritage and set immigration policy; it may not strip settled residents of nationality or expel them. Reframing the dispute in these terms offers something to both sides: recognition that the concern was real, alongside clarity that certain instruments are closed. Constitutional guarantees for minority language and culture, combined with confirmed citizenship for long resident communities, address the anxiety and the injustice at once.

Finally, a note on process. Neither government has an incentive to reopen a file that has been quiet for years, and pressure is unlikely to produce one. What can be built in the meantime is the groundwork: documentation of claims, contact between the diaspora and communities inside Bhutan, and quiet regional facilitation, so that when a political opening appears, the work of establishing who is who has already been done.

* Added by the WMO Editorial Team

REFERENCES

REFERENCES

Erdmann, Daniel. "Section: B) – Syllabus 3 – World Mediation Organization." 2018. https://worldmediation.org/. Accessed March 16, 2020.

European Resettlement Network. "Bhutanese Refugees in Nepal | European Resettlement Network." 2013. https://www.resettlement.eu/page/bhutanese-refugees-nepal. Accessed March 16, 2020.

Schultz, Erika. "Bhutanese Refugee Crisis: A Brief History," 2016. https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/bhutanese-refugee-crisis-a-brief-history/. Accessed March 16, 2020.

Supplementary references added by the WMO Editorial Team

Citizenship Act of Bhutan, 1985, and the census of 1988 in southern Bhutan.

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, documentation on the Bhutanese refugee situation in Nepal and the resettlement programme, Geneva and Kathmandu.

Human Rights Watch (2003). Trapped by Inequality: Bhutanese Refugee Women in Nepal, New York; and (2007) Last Hope: The Need for Durable Solutions for Bhutanese Refugees in Nepal and India.

Amnesty International, reports on Bhutan and the situation of the Lhotshampa, London.

Hutt, M. (2003). Unbecoming Citizens: Culture, Nationhood, and the Flight of Refugees from Bhutan. Oxford University Press, New Delhi.

Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, 1954, and the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, 1961.

The New Maoist Conflict In Nepal

How to cite this journal: Author, Date of the post, WMO Conflict Insight, Title of the post, ISSN: 2628 6998, https://worldmediation.org/journal/

ABSTRACT *

This article examines the emergence of a new Maoist conflict in Nepal and applies mindful reflection as a possible response. The author traces the political trajectory from the end of the civil war and the abolition of the monarchy through the constitution of 2015, whose adoption is described as having been accelerated in the aftermath of the earthquake at the expense of opposition voices, to the splinter group led by Netra Bikram Chand, its use of violence, and the government’s ban on its activities. Two sets of reflective questions are then offered, addressed to the government and to the opposition respectively. The author concludes that mindfulness as a basis for mediation could ease tensions, while stating that the violent methods of the splinter group are not justifiable. The assessments reflect the author’s own perspective; this journal’s editorial position is neutral.

KEYWORDS *

Nepal, Maoist conflict, mindful reflection, constitution 2015, Communist Party of Nepal, political violence, opposition, mediation, self reflection, post conflict instability

INTRODUCTION

Following a decade-long insurgency and a tumultuous peace process, a new conflict might occur in Nepal (Adhikari 2019). After the civil war ended in Nepal, the government established a new constitution in 2015, which was criticized by the opposition, especially the Maoist Communist Party. Mindfulness as a mindset might be beneficial in decreasing tensions and revising the viewpoints of all parties involved in Nepal’s current political landscape. This report will describe the ‘new’ Maoist conflict. Afterward, a list of possible mindful questions will be given to reflect on the parties’ position. A short conclusion will follow at the end.

MAIN CORPUS

THE ‘NEW’ MAOIST CONFLICT

A decade ago, after the civil war in Nepal ended in 2008, the people of Nepal seemed optimistic, entering into a new, bright era. Nepal’s People’s Movement went to the streets of Kathmandu in 2006, overruled King Gyanendra, and established a parliament. The monarchy was officially abolished in May 2008, and Nepal organized a democratic system. Nevertheless, credit for building a new policy went to all parts of the population, including the Maoists. In the following time, efforts focused on drafting a new constitution. When the country was hit by a 7,8 magnitude earthquake and a series of aftershocks in 2015, more than 9,000 people were killed. The dominant parties, after that, subdued opposition voices to fast-track the implementation of the final constitution, misusing the needs of the population after the earthquake as justification. Prime Minister Khadga Prasad Oli took office in February 2018, claiming that Nepal will rise. His political decisions were often perceived as ‘illusionary.’ One can argue that, e.g., railroads between Nepal and Tibet, through the inaccessible mountains, might be a challenging vision. At the same time, a big part of the country does not even have access to health care, primary education, or social justice. The Maoists increasingly criticized government decisions from that perspective. In 2012, a group splintered away from the Maoist Party, now included in the ruling coalition. The group started a new, unified revolution. The group called itself the Communist Party of Nepal, led by Netra Bikram Chand. Nevertheless, the group utilizes peaceful but also violent means. For example, in April 2018, the group planted a bomb at the office of the Arun III Hydro Project, established by a company from India. In February 2019, the group targeted the Nepali telecommunication company Ncell, motivated by rumors that Ncell did not pay millions of taxes. As a result, Nepal declared the group a criminal, banning all its activities. As a result, protests increased. Even though demonstrations seem to be calm right now, the conflict has the potential to break out at any time. After Nepal’s political leadership ignored the voices of opposition for several years, they are now in a situation where they face threats from a new Maoist force fueled by anger and disillusionment. Many theorists believe that this situation could destabilize Nepal’s peace (Adhikari 2019).

MINDFUL REFLECTION

According to Erdmann, a mediator needs a set of different qualities, such as an open mind and the ability to reflect behavior. Mediation is not solely focused on structures and regulations but needs to be tailored to the needs of the conflict parties. Asking the right questions is crucial to understanding the conflict and creating content (Erdmann 2018). ‘Be the change you wish to see in the world,’ – said Mahatma Gandhi. Change lies within each of us.

Translated to the conflict described above, the Government of Nepal could utilize mindful reflection as a tool to understand the Maoists, but also to reflect on their viewpoints and revise motivations:

• Why do we set our priorities the way we do?
• Why do we, as the Government of Nepal, ignore the voice of the Maoists for so many years?
• Why did the Maoists fuel the civil war in the past?
• Is it true that we used the chaos after the earthquake to silent opposition and designed the constitution according to our needs? If so, why?
• Where might the anger of the Maoists lead to? How can the conflict be resolved, and what can we, as the government, do to prevent violence?
• How do we act as role models?
• How can we practice what we preach and rule Nepal according to everyone’s interests?
• What do the Maoists’ threats do with us individually?
• How can we establish long-lasting peace and political stability?

The Communist Party, as the opposition, could ask themselves:

• How does our aim justify our means of violence?
• What can we do differently to be heard and taken seriously?
• Is violence the right answer?
• Is our response a result of our values, experiences, upbringing, or situation?
• What would we do if the government reacts in the same way as we? Would that be okay? Why?

SUMMARY *

The article identifies a pattern familiar from post conflict states: a peace settlement that brought former insurgents into government, followed by the exclusion of those who remained outside it, and the emergence of a new armed faction from precisely that exclusion. The author’s central claim is that the confrontation is sustained less by ideology than by unexamined positions on both sides, and the reflective questions are structured to test that on each in turn, asking the government about its use of the post earthquake moment and its treatment of dissent, and the splinter group about the relationship between its aims and its methods.

CONCLUSION

Considering Nepal’s government’s often criticized political priorities, ignorance towards the voice of opposition, and years of repression of oppositional groups, the Government of Nepal may highly benefit from mindful reflection. Nevertheless, the Communist Party’s violent approaches are, from my perspective, not justifiable. Therefore, a mediator bringing the two sides together utilizing mindfulness as a basis for mediation can potentially improve existing tensions.

POTENTIAL SOLUTION *

The reflective questions in this article point toward something the case demonstrates with unusual clarity: a peace process that ends a war can generate the next one if it defines success as bringing the armed party into government. Nepal’s settlement did exactly that, and the faction now at issue emerged from those for whom inclusion in the state meant abandonment of the programme they had fought for. The lesson is not that the settlement was wrong but that peace agreements require a continuing political channel for those who remain dissatisfied, or dissatisfaction will find the channel it knows.

Proscription illustrates the same difficulty in miniature. Banning a group’s activities removes its lawful avenues while leaving its grievances untouched, and it converts a political dispute into a security matter in which negotiation becomes an admission of defeat for whichever side proposes it. Where a group has both political and violent wings, the more effective sequence is generally the reverse: keep the political channel open on the explicit condition that violence ceases, so that renunciation of violence brings something tangible rather than nothing.

That points to the practical architecture of any renewed process. A reciprocal step, cessation of attacks in exchange for lifting the ban and restoring the right to organise, is achievable without either side conceding its programme, and it can be verified. Quiet facilitation by figures both sides accept, respected civil society organisations, religious authorities or elders from the districts concerned, is more likely to produce it than formal talks, since neither government nor banned group can afford to be seen requesting negotiations first.

Beyond the immediate confrontation, the article’s own observation about health care, education and access to justice identifies the ground on which this dispute grows. Grievances about exclusion are answered by inclusion, and visible improvement in the districts where the group recruits is both a public good and the most reliable form of prevention. Where the constitutional process itself is contested, a formal review mechanism, in which those who feel the document was adopted over their objections can raise amendments through parliament rather than through explosives, addresses the complaint at its source.

Finally, a word on the author’s closing position. Stating that violence is not justifiable is a legitimate moral judgment and a necessary one, but it sits awkwardly with the mediator’s role that the article otherwise commends. A mediator can hold firmly that violence must stop while still working with those who use it, precisely because those are the people whose conduct needs to change. The distinction worth preserving is between the act, which can be condemned without reservation, and the person, who must remain someone one can speak with. Refusing to speak with those who use violence is a defensible political choice; it is not, however, mediation, and the difference should be conscious rather than accidental.

* Added by the WMO Editorial Team

REFERENCES

REFERENCES

Adhikari, Gyanu. "The Spectre of a New Maoist Conflict in Nepal." 2019. https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/spectre-maoist-conflict-nepal-190404111507371.html. Accessed March 16, 2020.

Erdmann, Daniel. "Section: B) – Syllabus 2 – World Mediation Organization." 2018. https://worldmediation.org/. Accessed March 16, 2020.

Supplementary references added by the WMO Editorial Team

Constitution of Nepal, 2015.

Comprehensive Peace Accord between the Government of Nepal and the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), 21 November 2006.

International Crisis Group, reports on Nepal’s peace process and post conflict politics, Brussels and Kathmandu.

Human Rights Watch and Informal Sector Service Centre (INSEC), reports on political violence and the ban on the Communist Party of Nepal (Chand), Kathmandu.

Nepal Peace Trust Fund and United Nations Peace Fund for Nepal, documentation on implementation of the peace process.

A Mindful Reflection of the Madhesi Conflict

How to cite this journal: Author, Date of the post, WMO Conflict Insight, Title of the post, ISSN: 2628 6998, https://worldmediation.org/journal/

ABSTRACT *

This article examines the Madhesi conflict in the southern Terai region of Nepal and the border blockade of 2015, and applies the principles of mindful mediation to it. After outlining the background of the civil war, the earthquake, the disputed constitution and the resulting shortages of fuel, food and medicine, the author draws on the Buddhist understanding of attachment and ignorance as sources of suffering to develop three sets of reflective questions, addressed in turn to the Government of Nepal, to the Madhesi parties, and to mediators themselves. The author concludes that mutual understanding reached through such reflection could contribute to resolving a dispute in which agreements have repeatedly been signed but not implemented.

KEYWORDS *

Nepal, Madhesi, Terai, border blockade, mindful mediation, Buddhism, attachment, reflective questions, self reflection, mediator preparation, constitution, unimplemented agreements

INTRODUCTION

Crisis on the Nepal-India border as blockade continues: Three million Nepalese children under the age of five are at risk of death due to a shortage of fuel, food, and medicine (Plesch 2015).

Nepal went through a decade-long civil war from 1996 until 2006. During the war, the Maoist political party tried to overrule the traditional monarchy and implement democratic governance structures. Additionally, Nepal was struck by a massive earthquake in 2015 and a series of aftershocks that furthermore negatively affected political tensions within Nepal and with its neighboring country, India.

MAIN CORPUS

Madhesi Conflict History

After the earthquake in 2015, India imposed an unofficial blockade, which was supported by a part of the Nepali ethnic group of Madhesis in the country’s south. The political group protested the newly developed constitutions and felt marginalized as their request for an autonomous region in Nepal’s southern Terai remained unfulfilled. Inspired by the country’s recent protests and the Maoist party, the Madhesis initiated protests against the Government of Nepal. Thereby, more than 50 people have been killed. As a result, the Government of India, bordering the Terai, imposed a security-concern-related unofficial border blockade. Nepal, being highly dependent on supplies from India, such as fuel, food, and medicine, faced shortages that put vulnerable groups at severe risk, especially during the back-then harsh winter. The blockade started in September 2015 and affected Nepal for several months. The conflict, however, remains. During several mediation meetings, the Government of Nepal and the Madhesis drafted an agreement in which the Government promised the Madhesis more rights. However, the promises remain unfulfilled until now (Plesch 2015).

Mindful Reflection

Mindful mediation is a social competency that can be found in everyone. Additionally, mindful meditation is a fundamental requirement for human beings to be able to live together. Furthermore, mindful mediation contributes to communication within communities and groups.

In the theory of Buddhism, attachment and greed, tanha is the origin of suffering or conflict, dukkha. Ignorance, moha, leads to false views. False views are the source of attachment. According to Buddhism, the cause of tanha is incorrect (Erdmann n.d.).

According to the theory of Buddhism, the realization or correct understanding of this process can eliminate ignorance. The Madhesis party protests since 2007. Inspired by demonstrations of the Maoists that led to enforcing their interests, the Madhesis always felt that their interests were ignored, underrepresented, or neglected. According to this theory, one can argue that the Government of Nepal ignores the Madhesis’ requests and is thereby not necessarily mindful. Even worse, interests are ignored, false promises are given, and the implementation of agreements remains unfulfilled. Mindfulness in mediation processes has the potential to support sustainable agreements and help people understand each other more. The Government of Nepal could reflect on its position and ask itself:

What influences the Madhesis to protest?

Why are their demands so crucial to them?

What affects the Madhesis’ perspectives?

Why do we, as the Government of Nepal, reject their requests?

What influences the Government to ignore agreements?

How do we, as government officials, individually think and act? Why?

Where is the origin of the Government’s position?

Are there characteristics of the Madhesi culture that the Government does not understand?

However, one can also argue that the Madhesis’s interests are rooted in greed. Their demands for an autonomous region come from different desires based on personal interests. Therefore, the Madhesis involved in the blockade could ask themselves:

Why do we protest for so long, even if people die during fights?

What influences the government to refuse to accept our demands?

Why are the demands so vital to us that we do not give up?

Would integrating a third party help to resolve the dispute?

How did we grow up?

Does our religion play a role in our viewpoint?

How can we detach ourselves from our demands?

To exterminate attachment, according to Buddhism, the cause must be eliminated. Eliminating causes can occur through exchanging viewpoints, for example, through mediation. Parties need to observe and watch the purpose of the conflict.

Asking mindful questions during future mediation sessions could be a tool to increase the mutual understanding of the parties. However, I could not find relevant information on the eventual use of mindful meditation in previous mediation attempts. If not used yet, mutual understanding through the reflection of one’s perspective and the broad range of influencing factors could make a significant difference in resolving this conflict.

A mediator needs to be able to listen deeply, think critically, and speak wisely. Therefore, the mediator does not only need to include questions similar to the ones mentioned above but also supports the conflicting parties in critically reflecting on their viewpoints.

Furthermore, mediators must reflect on their upbringing, viewpoints, and other influencing factors. Questions to be asked can include:

How does my family background control my communication?

How does my cultural background reflect in mediation processes?

Why did I choose to become a mediator?

Do my previous relationships influence my behavior in this mediation process?

SUMMARY *

The article’s structure carries its argument. By addressing the same kind of reflective question to all three positions in turn, to the government, to the protesting communities and to the mediator, the author avoids assigning blame and instead treats the conflict as sustained by unexamined assumptions on every side. The recurring theme is the gap between agreement and implementation: commitments have been made repeatedly and not carried out, which the author reads as evidence that neither party has genuinely understood what the other needs.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, mindful mediation could bring chances to resolve the Madhesis conflict in Nepal’s Terai.

POTENTIAL SOLUTION *

The reflective questions offered here are well conceived, and their value increases considerably once one asks who is meant to answer them and in what setting. Asked privately by each party, such questions produce insight that changes nothing. Asked within a structured process, they become a method: each side prepares its answers separately with a facilitator, then presents them not as demands but as an account of what lies behind the demands, and each is required to restate the other’s account until the other recognises it. This turns self reflection into mutual recognition, which is where movement in identity conflicts actually begins.

The article’s own diagnosis points to where the work is most needed. Agreements in this conflict have not failed at the negotiating table; they have failed afterwards. An unimplemented accord is more damaging than no accord, because it teaches those who compromised that compromise brings nothing, and it strengthens whoever argued that only pressure works. Any renewed process therefore has to address implementation before substance: a published timetable, an agreed independent monitor, and early deliverables visible to ordinary people in the Terai, such as citizenship documentation, representation in the civil service and security forces, and local language use in administration. Constitutional questions about federal boundaries can follow once each side has evidence that the other keeps its word.

One framing in the article deserves gentle qualification, and the point is a general one about applying Buddhist categories to political conflict. Describing the Madhesi demands as possibly rooted in greed, while describing the government’s conduct as insufficiently mindful, applies the concepts asymmetrically. The demands at issue, citizenship, proportional representation, constituency boundaries reflecting population, are claims about inclusion rather than about acquisition, and treating them as attachment risks suggesting that a marginalised group should detach from its claim to equal standing. The teaching applies more evenly the other way: what both sides might usefully release is not the underlying need but the fixed position through which it is expressed, and the certainty that the other side acts in bad faith.

Two practical elements complete the picture. The blockade illustrates a feature of this conflict that no bilateral process addresses: a third state’s border policy became the decisive instrument, and a settlement between Kathmandu and the Madhesi parties that ignores the India dimension leaves that instrument available for the next round. Quiet trilateral understandings on the border, separate from the domestic negotiation, would remove it. And the humanitarian consequences documented at the beginning of the article, children at risk from shortages of fuel, food and medicine, are precisely what mediation should ring fence: agreement that essential supplies and medical access remain outside the dispute, whatever else is contested, is achievable early and saves lives while the political questions remain open.

* Added by the WMO Editorial Team

REFERENCES

References

Erdmann, Daniel. "Section: B) – Syllabus 1 – World Mediation Organization." n.d. https://worldmediation.org/. Accessed March 12, 2020.

Plesch, Valerie. "Crisis on Nepal-India Border as Blockade Continues." 2015. https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/inpictures/2015/12/crisis-nepal-india-border-blockade-continues-151223082533785.html. Accessed March 12, 2020.

Supplementary references added by the WMO Editorial Team

Constitution of Nepal, 2015, provisions on federal structure, citizenship and representation.

Comprehensive Peace Accord between the Government of Nepal and the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), 21 November 2006.

Madhesi Morcha and Government of Nepal, agreements of 2007, 2008 and 2016 on Madhesi demands.

International Crisis Group (2016). Nepal’s Divisive New Constitution: An Existential Crisis. Asia Report, Brussels and Kathmandu.

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, reports on the Terai protests and the use of force, Geneva.

United Nations Children’s Fund (2015). Nepal: Impact of fuel and supply shortages on children, Kathmandu.