By Deepak Joshi Pokhrel
Barely a month from now, Nepal will commemorate two decades of the peace process with grand celebrations across the country. On 21 November 2006, the then-warring parties—the Maoists and the seven-party alliance government led by Girija Prasad Koirala—signed what is widely regarded as one of the most historic agreements in Nepal’s history: the Comprehensive Peace Accord (CPA). With the signing of the CPA, the decade-long dance of death finally came to an end. More than 17,000 innocent people were killed by both state and non-state actors, while many more were maimed, displaced, and forcibly abducted. In signing the accord, both parties agreed to conclude the peace process logically through a transitional justice mechanism. However, even after two decades the peace process remains unfinished.
Why is the peace process still incomplete after almost twenty years? What has prevented us from concluding it logically? How much longer will the peace process drag on? All these questions remain unanswered even today.
It would not be an exaggeration to conclude that the decade-long armed conflict was characterised by grave human rights violations, including inhuman torture, enforced disappearances, and abductions.
Like other conflict-torn countries, Nepal agreed to establish a transitional justice mechanism to address grave violations and conflict-era crimes within two years. The warring parties committed to addressing past injustices, including serious human rights violations, through this mechanism. This commitment brought considerable relief to families whose near and dear ones had been killed or forcibly abducted by state actors and former rebels. Here lies the biggest irony: the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and the Commission of Investigation on Enforced Disappeared Persons (CIEDP) were established only on 10 February 2015—nearly eight years later than promised.
Media reports indicate that the TRC and CIEDP received more than 60,000 complaints but had not completed even a single investigation by 2023. One can imagine when investigations into all these complaints will actually begin.
Immediately after their establishment, the transitional justice bodies came under public scrutiny. There were overt and covert reports of attempts to grant amnesty even for grave conflict-era crimes. Following widespread criticism, the Supreme Court ruled in 2015 against granting amnesty for serious violations committed during the armed conflict.
It is an open secret that political parties and their leaders do not want the peace process to reach a logical conclusion. It is also crystal clear that the leaders of major political parties are leaving no stone unturned to sideline the victims and undermine the peace process. The reason is simple: even a limited, fair, and impartial investigation could put several current leaders of the three major parties behind bars.
For any commission to function effectively and efficiently, the roles of its chairperson and executive officials are crucial. They provide strategic leadership, regularly assess progress, and identify emerging challenges and gaps in implementation. Sadly, vacancies in key leadership positions have repeatedly disrupted Nepal’s transitional justice process, drawing criticism from conflict victims, human rights defenders, and sections of civil society. In addition, the prolonged absence of office-bearers has undermined efforts to deliver truth, justice, and reparations to conflict victims.
Even when executive officials and chairpersons are appointed, people suspect foul play in the selection process. The reason is simple: there has long been a tradition of selecting candidates on the basis of political affiliation. Candidates who share the political ideology of the government of the day are given priority. As a result, they remain beholden to their political masters and refrain from questioning them. One tangible consequence of these unethical practices is that victims and their families are rapidly losing hope, believing that justice will never be delivered.
The intentions of political parties have been under scrutiny ever since the CPA was signed in 2006. Leaders across the political spectrum are mindful that bringing the peace process to a logical conclusion could end their political careers, as they might be dragged into court over their involvement in conflict-era crimes. For this reason, political parties have deliberately withheld their support from the transitional justice bodies.
Political bhagbanda (the division and sharing of positions among political parties) has played a key role in reducing the justice commissions to bodies lacking real substance. Parties that otherwise remain poles apart come together to reach a consensus on placing their preferred candidates in advantageous positions, ensuring that they are not held accountable for grave human rights violations. Such immoral and unethical practices constitute one of the biggest challenges to the peace process.
Many argue that there is little point in establishing a commission if its chairpersons and members are guided by partisan interests. The commission is supposed to operate with honesty, integrity, and fairness. On the contrary, it has faced undue political pressure, hindering its smooth functioning.
As things stand, the key question is: What significant achievements have the TRC and CIEDP made over the past two decades? Likewise, what tangible progress has Nepal made in its peace process during this period? The answer is deeply disappointing, as little of substance has been achieved, leaving the resources and efforts invested largely wasted.
We all know that the key objective of the CPA was to bring the peace process to a logical conclusion. However, successive post-CPA governments have pushed the process to the back burner. They appear to have pursued a strategy of exhausting the victims, hoping that they will eventually abandon their demands and that the peace process will gradually fade away.
We hope that the new government in Baluwatar will understand that bringing the peace process to a logical conclusion is the foundation of lasting peace in the country. We also hope that the government will expedite efforts to complete this unfinished process. Conflict victims and their families are waiting impatiently for justice and have placed high hopes in the government led by Balendra Shah, popularly known as Balen.
Login to add a comment