Peace Process Towards Conclusion

A taskforce comprised of members from the Nepali Congress, CPN-UML and CPN- Maoist Centre struck an agreement on a number of sensitive transitional justice provisions a few days ago. With the agreement on numerous complex problems of the transitional justice process, which had been in limbo for almost 18 years, the taskforce members stated that the country's stalled peace process would now come to its logical conclusion.

The three major parties struck what many called a momentous agreement. The newly agreed-upon measures would be incorporated into the TJ bill, which both houses of parliament would approve for its effective implementation. The taskforce members, politicians, peace process stakeholders and others praised the new pact, which, they said, intended to heal the physical and mental trauma that thousands of victims endured as a result of the decade-long insurgency that left 17000 Nepalis dead, many injured, and crippled. Many Nepali women have become victims of sexual assault, rape, and other crimes.

Political disagreements

Meanwhile, Nepal's path to transitional justice had been fraught with difficulties, including political disagreements and the struggle to address the aftermath of a decade-long insurgency that claimed thousands of lives and left deep scars on the country's social structure. The recent agreement will reform the Enforced Disappearances Enquiry and Truth and Reconciliation Commission Act, which is an important step towards bringing this long-running peace process to a close.

Earlier, the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) of 2006, which ended the armed conflict between the government and the Maoist rebels, laid the foundation for Nepal’s transitional justice mechanisms. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and the Commission of Investigation on Enforced Disappeared Persons (CIEDP) were set up to redress human rights abuses, seek justice for insurgency victims, and foster national reconciliation. However, political disagreements and legal issues hampered the efficiency of the TRC and CIEDP, resulting in lengthy delays in delivering justice to victims.

The new accord, meanwhile, achieved some significant milestones after it categorised serious forms of human rights abuses, which remained the root cause behind the stalling of the peace process. The parties regard intentional and arbitrary killings, as well as sexual assault and rape, as severe forms of human rights violations. This guarantees that such crimes are not dismissed as insignificant and that offenders are held accountable. Previously, the Maoist Centre was accused of seeking to trivialise the issue by arguing that killings should be classified as severe or non-serious, but the current accord has addressed this.

Similarly, there is consensus on a reduced sentence. The signatories of the agreement have established a clause that will decrease the sentences of individuals found guilty of major human rights crimes by 75 per cent. This clause is regarded as a provision aimed at balancing justice and reconciliation. However, the inclusion of the clause has aroused concerns among human rights activists that it was intended to provide leniency to perpetrators of significant human rights violations.

Furthermore, the three parties have also inserted another significant element, which states that victims of insurgency now have the right to pursue legal action to resolve their complaints. If victims do not wish to reconcile with the criminals, they may pursue justice via the attorney general or by knocking on the door of the courts. This clause allows victims to seek legal treatment outside of the reconciliation framework.

As per the new agreement, the state would provide reparations and compensation to victims of insurgency. All disqualified Maoist militants, including child soldiers, as well as the families of security forces killed or injured during the battle, will be compensated. This is intended to address the complaints of many individuals or groups impacted by the Maoist insurgency. 

The latest deal has aroused differing responses from many groups, highlighting the complexity of transitional justice systems. They stressed that the agreement is focused on the victims' concerns and corresponds to both national and international transitional justice principles. However, several victims' groups claimed that a decreased penalty for perpetrators of significant human rights breaches would weaken justice and provide amnesty to criminals. But there are many who have highlighted the significance of achieving justice for former Maoist child soldiers, who have been denied significant assistance. 

Meanwhile, several human rights groups stressed that addressing crimes against humanity and other related war crimes is essential to considering the transitional justice process as complete. However, many victims and relatives of victims backed the new understanding, stating that the agreement is a hopeful step towards justice, particularly in terms of reparations. They however emphasised the importance of appointing the right leadership for transitional justice commissions to ensure the justice process is effective and credible.

Challenges

Despite achieving major goals of the peace process, some challenges remain in completing the process. Implementing the amended act, the appointment of competent leaders to the TRC and CIEDP, and the actual delivery of justice and reparations are crucial steps that need careful attention. Ensuring that the process is inclusive, transparent, and victim-centric will be key to the new agreement’s success. 

Many argue that the transitional justice process should achieve a delicate balance between holding perpetrators accountable, preventing future conflicts, and constructing a just society to foster reconciliation. The recent consensus among key parties indeed marks a significant milestone in the country’s long journey towards reconciliation and justice. The transitional justice process will reach a logical conclusion if it authentically follows the principles of justice, accountability, and inclusivity, amplifying the voices of all victims and redressing their grievances. Only then can Nepal expect to heal its scars from the past and provide the groundwork for long-term peace and harmony. Nonetheless, stakeholders have held high hopes that the new accord will lay to rest the most tortuous issue of contemporary time for good. 

(Upadhyay is former managing editor of this daily)