Opinion Untrue and unreconciled

The UNMIN said goodbye last year with its job half-done,leaving enough space for criticism for its alleged pro-Maoist tilt. Nepali political parties and actors have now undertaken the job to rehabilitate and integrate Maoist combatants verified by UNMIN,something whose success or failure will have a direct bearing on the peace and constitution-writing process.

The OHCHR was not as disliked. But last week,it bade farewell to its operation much against its will,although human rights groups now agree that the culture of impunity continues in an alarming scale in the country. The Maoist government is not only resisting trials of its leaders and cadres involved in gross human rights violations,but trying to give them immunity through laws and executive decisions. The government has been delaying forming the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to investigate human rights violation cases during the years of conflict committed both by the state and the rebels as it wants a guarantee from major political parties that the Maoists involved in human rights violation would not be punished on “political grounds”.

The UNMIN ’s departure has not in any way diluted the interest of the UN Secretary General,to whom it reported directly,and who keeps commenting on or encouraging the actors for timely completion of the peace and constitution-making process on time (May 28). But Ban Ki-moon was adequately,and perhaps effectively,warned this time not to be seen in any manner associated with the Maoists,and he seems to have read the message rather positively. He cancelled his proposed three-day visit to Nepal,beginning April 28 the last two days in Buddha’s birth place as the guest of Maoist chief Prachanda who also heads the National Lumbini Development Steering Committee.

Kul Chandra Gautam,a known face in Nepal’s too factionalised Civil Society Group,and formerly Executive Director of UNICEF,asked Ban not to commit an act of “sacrilege” by sharing the dais with Prachanda “whose hands are stained with the blood of innocents”. Gautam also told Ban how Prachanda and Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai were reluctant to investigate the cases of human rights violation committed by Maoists.

On March 21,the UNDP’s country representative Robert Piper announced that “Ban’s visit will be rescheduled to allow more time for preparations for Lumbini conference and to avoid distracting current key peace negotiations”. He however,gave no fresh date for Ban’s visit. Prachanda’s move to secure a pro-peace credential from Ban has failed at least for now.

Piper perhaps knows the UN in Nepal is not above controversy,and that the Secretary General should at least remain above it,and that he should not be seen as aligning with the Maoists until and unless they act irreversibly on the peace process,democracy and the investigation on human rights abuses.

In fact,not only the UN,but key external actors and donors who are also major contributors to Nepal’s peace process are suspected of promoting ethnocentric nationalism that may have its impact on India as well. The Department for International Development (DFID),AUSAID and Swiss Development Corporation apparently funded the International Indigenous Conference in Dharan (January 19-21). Apart from IP activists from Nepal,there was participation from Jharkhand,Nagaland,Gorkhaland and Bangladesh’s Chittagong Hill Tracts,with some even suggesting a joint ethnic territorial movement across the border. India is believed to have raised with Nepal the issue of some north-eastern secessionist groups having found space here. But the Maoist party that heads the government is itself a votary of the creation of federal units based on ethnicity.

However,with the deadline pressure on one hand,and the increasing rift within the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) weakening Prachanda’s stature and acceptability,Ban

Ki-moon’s visit to Lumbini would have helped project him as the sole hope for Nepal’s peace and constitution-writing. Prachanda,no doubt,is a loser. But equally unfortunately,Ban’s haste in accepting the invitation has brought the UN into further controversy.

yubaraj.ghimire@expressindia.com