|
[home]>[programmes]>nepal
Nepal
Report on Workshop on Peace, Human Rights and Humanitarian Action
in Nepal
 SAFHR held a Workshop on Peace, Human Rights and Humanitarian Action
in Nepal in Kathmandu on December 16-20, 2002. The workshop brought together
about 30 participants from different parts of Nepal. More than 20 resource
persons from Nepal, Sri Lanka and India also attended the workshop. It
was SAFHR's second initiative in engaging with the social and political
consequences of the Maoist conflict in Nepal with the objective of strengthening
Nepali civil society's capacity to respond to the conflict within a framework
that linked Peace, Human Rights and Humanitarian Acton. The first interactive
workshop on the root causes of the Nepal's political crisis was held by
SAFHR in Kathmandu in December 2001. This programme was held in partnership
with the South Asia Regional office of Friedrich Naumann Stiftung.
The impulse to organize the workshop had come from SAFHR's partners in
Nepal in response to the practical dilemma - what can civil society do
in a situation of virtual civil war? Over the last three years SAFHR has
been involved in civil society peace initiatives in different parts of
the region. SAFHR has also developed an annual Human rights and Peace
Studies Orientation Course as a foundational educational program for human
rights and social workers in the region of South Asia. SAFHR has a regional
network and can access resource persons pragmatically experienced in building
civil society activism in humanitarian action, defending human rights
and peace building in similar conflict situations in South Asia. More
fundamentally, SAFHR was approached because of its perspective of going
beyond traditional conflict management practices to linking peace within
a framework of democracy and justice.
For SAFHR it was an experiment in building on the annual South Asian
Peace Studies and Human Rights Orientation Course and developing an appropriate
'National' level programme suited to serve the particular situation in
Nepal and largely in the Nepali language. The relevance and indeed success
of the workshop can be assessed by the enthusiasm of the participants
to want to horizontally expand and decentralize the workshop by organising
similar programmes at district level. SAFHR has agreed to organise these
workshops in partnership with Nepali human rights, social justice and
welfare groups. The participants of the recently concluded 2002 workshop
and the Nepali participants of SAFHR's three regional Peace Studies and
Human Rights Orientation Courses would constitute the alumni base for
the following workshops in 2003. An example of this was the integration
as resource persons in the December 2002 workshop of Nepali alumni from
the annual regional Peace Studies and Human Rights Orientation Course.
 The Workshop was designed to help participants to look at the ongoing
conflict in Nepal in a holistic perspective, beyond the episodic events
of violence of the State and the Maoists. Participants were encouraged
to explore the difference between legal and social sanction of the gun
of the state and the gun of the Maoists, and thereto the responsibility
of the state's forces to abide by the rule of law. An effort was made
to understand the relationship between structural violence and the Maoist
use of violence as the language of their politics. It is not incidental
that the stronghold areas of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), the
mid-west, is among the most regionally disadvantaged, ethnically discriminated
and economically deprived areas of Nepal. Participants were urged to recognise
that there are many parties to the conflict. While the Maoists and the
government are the known protagonists, there are others without the gun
that fuel the conflict from behind the scene and contribute to a polarized
public rhetoric. In addition there is the political and financial role
of the international community which impacts on the State's ability to
pursue the military option. It was emphasized that our capacity to understand
the multi-layered complexity of the conflict is vital to addressing and
transforming it.
The presence of participants from different communities and affected
districts enabled a pragmatic and empirically rooted discussion. For example,
a participant from a Dalit organisation questioned assumptions about the
Dalits being a constituency of the Maoists, along with 'janjatis'
(ethnic nationalities), backward castes and women. "If you look at
the small numbers of Dalits in the Maoist struggle, you cannot generalise
that most Dalits support the Maoists", Binod Bishwkarma a Dalit Rights
activist from HURON asserted. Participants from the worst affected districts
brought grass roots information about reports of a mounting humanitarian
crisis, which gave an urgency and depth to the discussion on how civil
society can create the 'neutral' space to intervene at the humanitarian,
human rights and peace building levels. It lent a note of seriousness
to the interactions with resource persons on what were the enabling laws
and institutions and strategies that have worked elsewhere in emergency
situations.
 In analysing the root causes of the Maoist conflict, participants explored
how the absence of human rights destroyed democracy and created a favourable
environment for violent conflicts. Moreover, while several of the participants
blamed politics (multi-party democracy) as has come to be practised in
Nepal, Prof. Ranabir Sammadar, Director of SAFHR's regional Peace Studies
Programme, invited participants to reflect that "it was not too much
politics but too little politics which was at fault". He argued that
"human rights should be understood as the right to do politics".
He highlighted the inter relationship between Peace, Human Rights and
Humanitarian Action. The first two were sites of political struggle, the
third - humanitarian action was an ethical issue - but they were interdependent.
Resource persons ranging from academics, lawyers, media professionals,
human rights activists to international humanitarian agency representatives
discussed how every single act of denial of justice and abuse of human
rights that goes unchallenged contributes to the exacerbation of this
conflict. It explained why in this situation defending human rights of
the ordinary people forms an essential part of peace making; it is necessary
to break the cycle of revenge that fuels conflict.
Objective
- Understanding the roots of the violent conflict and identifying the
multiple actors involved and the conditions for its transformation -
Framework linking peace, human rights and democracy
- Strengthening Civil Society capacity to respond in a civil war situation
for
- Humanitarian Action
Defending Human Rights
Building Peace
- Network for Seeding Local level Workshop on Peace, Human Rights and
Humanitarian Action
Structure
The five days residential workshop was organised around lectures, roundtable
discussions, working groups and video screenings. The inaugural session
on "Opportunities for Peace Building in Nepal" was an occasion
for participants to hear and interact with representatives of three political
parties, Mahesh Acharya (Nepali Congress), Sarita Giri (Nepal Sadbhavna
Party) and Subhash Nembang (Communist Party of Nepal-UML). The workshop
core was organised around five themes for discussion and analysis:
(A) Nature of Nepal's Continuing Conflict;
(B) Role of Civil Society and Creating Space in Time of Conflict;
(C) Humanitarian Work in Acute Conflicts;
(D) Minimising the Impact of Violence and Creation of Peace Zones
(E) The Role of Information and Media in Conflict.
Resource persons were actively encouraged to associate with the workshop
as a continuing faculty presence and several enthusiastically participated
throughout the five days. An evaluation process was structured into the
workshop.
Resource Material
The participants were provided with a comprehensive compendium of reading
materials, largely in Nepali. The resource package contained a selection
of articles by Nepali academics, intellectuals and social activists on
various aspects of Nepal's history, politics, development programmes and
the root causes of the ongoing conflict. It also included information
on national and international human rights laws and mechanisms and the
methods of accessing these mechanisms and humanitarian law as applicable
in situations of internal war. In addition it also provided information
about the programmes of international NGOs and other bilateral donor states
that may be of assistance in their work.
Participants: To ensure representative diversity, half of the
30 workshop participants were from outside of Kathmandu, while others
were chosen from within the Kathmandu valley. Participants had responded
to an open advertisement and been nominated by SAFHR's Nepali partner
organisations and international NGOs working in Nepal. Local activists
working in districts in the area of development, health, education, women's
development and human rights were encouraged to apply. A Committee comprising
SAFHR's programme staff, SAFHR's Governing Board Members from Nepal and
invitees on the basis of transparent criteria, selected the participants.
Participants came from a wide range of professions, including advocacy
and development NGOs, law, media and research institutions. The faculty
also came from a diverse background, the majority from Nepal, and other
mentors from India as well as Sri Lanka. They included human rights activists,
local politicians, academics and journalists.
Language: The language of the Workshop was largely Nepali and
interpretation was available for resource persons speaking in English
and Hindi. Though most participants claimed that they did not require
an interpreter, however, the evaluation shows that non-Nepali speakers
were at a disadvantage. The discussion during the sessions conducted by
non-Nepali resource persons were far less vigorous than in the sessions,
which were conducted in Nepali language, and on Nepal.
Resource persons
Resource persons were largely from Nepal with considerable professional
experience in analysing and negotiating the conflict. They included eminent
personalities who had been involved in mediating between the Maoist leaders
and the government, academics, human rights activists, specialized agency
representatives -ICRC, trauma specialists and media professionals.
There were three resource persons from outside Nepal, Prof G Haragopal
a human rights activist with a distinguished record of defending civil
liberties and democratic rights in a situation of similar Maoist led agrarian
conflict in Andhra Pradesh (India). Visakha Dharmadasa is a women peace
activist with pragmatic experience of mobilizing women and building a
human rights and justice platform in Sri Lanka around the symbol of motherhood.
Joe William is a peace activist from Sri Lanka associated with the National
Peace Council and the Consortium of Humanitarian Agencies.
However, despite their inspirational presentations for some participants,
the "foreign- ness" of the conflicts inhibited the strategies
adumbrated by the visiting faculty from fully resonating with them. Some
of the participants said that it would have been more useful if the resource
persons had related their experience in their own countries to the situation
in Nepal. While it showed that the participants are searching for appropriate
'tools' to intervene in the conflict they need wider exposure to experiences
of peace making to develop a holistic approach to peace. However the majority
of the participants were appreciative, and indeed the sessions with Visakha
Dharmadasa were amongst the most highly valued in the evaluation forms
of the participants.
Workshop Dynamics:
The inaugural session set the tone with three political leaders, Mr.
Mahesh Acharya (NC), Ms. Sarita Giri (NSP) and Mr. Subhash
Nemwang (CPN-UML), focusing on the tension between the arguably legitimate
grievances and demands that the Maoist rebels have raised and their unacceptable
language of politics- violence. While some speakers rejected the Maoist
proposal of an interim government and convening an elected constituent
assembly, others explored possibilities ranging from constitutional amendments
to challenging the status quo. All the three political leaders agreed
that the October 4 dismissal of the elected government and the assumption
of "executive powers" by the King had de-facto created a radically
different constitutional situation and a different strategy had to be
worked out for the restoration of multi-party democracy in Nepal. The
idea of Third party mediation/facilitation was particularly mentioned.
However, the theme that dominated the workshop discussions was the issue
of the Maoist ideology of politics through violence. Prof. Chaitanya
Mishra and Tapan Bose provoked the participants to recognise
the condition of structural violence - the invisible life threatening
systemic violence of every day deprivation in health and education, malnutrition,
maternal and infant mortality - which the poor majority of Nepal daily
face. Through an analysis of the economic development programmes of the
government, Prof. Mishra exposed the linkage between invisible structural
violence and visible violence. He underlined the need for appreciation
of this linkage as an essential step for sustainable initiatives for the
transformation of the conflict in Nepal. Prof Lok Raj Baral followed
through the consequences of this logic to analyse the role of violence
in effecting socio-political change in the history of Nepal. Speaking
about the violence inherent in the social and political structures of
Nepal he invited the participants to examine whether various changes in
the history of the Nepal polity had been effected through negotiations
or mediated through violence or a combination of both?
Mr. Padma Ratna Tuladhar, has been a familiar figure in all initiatives
at a dialogue in the recent past. He walked the participants through the
troubled trail of 'talks' between the Maoists and the government. He felt
that the Maoists were showing a measure of flexibility, which the government
was yet to respond to positively. He said that the good offices of the
Norwegians and the UN were available if the two parties could not talk
directly. Mr. Shyam Shrestha editor Mulyankan weekly emphasised
the critical difference subsequent to October 4. He felt there were several
party to the conflict today - the Maoists, the parliamentary political
parties, the army and the Palace. He pointed out that the civil society
of Nepal did not want an end only to guns, the civil society also wanted
an end to unemployment, injustice, discrimination and inequality. According
to him the peace table needed to be a four corned or a round one. He pointed
out that the peace process therefore, had to be more inclusive than just
'dialogue' between the Maoists and the government.
ICRC's Mr. Krishna Chandra Chalise explained the enabling provisions
of International Humanitarian Law and the activities of International
Red Cross Society to protect civilians in a war situation including prisoners
and the wounded. Under International law religious persons, ambulances,
hospitals, public service places, schools, etc are all protected. Nepal
is a signatory to the Geneva Convention. He explained that ICRC is providing
medicines in the affected areas and has been visiting 'Maoists' in jails
as per their mandate. However they have as yet not been able to visit
Maoist jails and plan to approach the Maoist leaders. Visakha Dharmadasa
added that ICRC's access to the LTTE prison camps had been vital in keeping
many Sri Lankan soldiers held prisoner by the LTTE alive.
Prof G. Haragopal came from Andhra Pradesh (AP) where for four
decades there has been a Maoist insurgency (Peoples War Group) in one
of the most backward areas of what is otherwise a prosperous state in
the Indian Union. He shared his experience of defending human rights in
the midst of the Maoist insurgency and counter insurgency of the state.
He pointed out that the civil liberties groups in AP have been insisting
that the state should address the insurgency essentially as a social and
economic problem and not as a mere law and order issue. He traced the
three phases of the growth of the civil liberties movement in AP and the
difficult internal negotiations within the movement over condemning state
violence and the violence of the Maoists (Naxalites), which splintered
the movement. Prof.Haragopal mapped how the civil liberties movement was
able to build trust and credibility to intervene between the government
and the Naxalites and defend human rights and mount a campaign to reduce
violence during elections.
Most cogently, he raised the issue of the rule of law that governed the
gun of the state and distinguished it from the gun of the Naxalites. He
said that the civil rights groups in Andhra Pradesh have been insisting
that the state cannot kill anybody except through the due process of law.
He said that every illegal and extra judicial killing which the state
often calls 'encounter' is condemned by the civil rights groups. He also
cautioned the participants to be alert to these tendencies in the 'counter
insurgency' operations. He said condemnation of the violence of the non-state
opposition was also essential as the civil rights groups were primarily
concerned about the rights of the people. 'The state', he observed 'is
not so much worried about Naxalite violence as their politics', comparing
state apathy towards the much greater violence in Gujarat which killed
several thousand men and women belonging to the Muslim minority.
Ms. Visakha Dharmadasa, the mother of a missing soldier in the
Sri Lankan army, spoke in an impassioned manner of her quest for justice
and how she founded the Association of Parents of Missing Soldiers. She
explained the slow and careful methods adopted by her in building a dialogue
of trust with the Sri Lankan Army and the LTTE as well as Sinhala and
Tamil women on the issue of "right to life". Pragmatically she
flagged as crucial in building a dialogue attitudes of - 'neutrality',
'appreciation', 'frankness', 'holding your own ground' and mutual respect.
She spoke of the need to 'humanise the other (LTTE), to learn to show
appreciation for 'good' done, e.g. appreciating LTTE's track record of
treating women well. Visakha shared her strategies of establishing a "corridor
of peace" in war torn Sri Lanka through peace journeys to pilgrimage
sites of all religious denominations reclaiming the country's syncretic
traditions. These journeys helped linking women (mothers of missing sons)
between the north and south.
Mr.Joe William further elaborated on how through the work of providing
relief, food and shelter to the population trapped in the 'war zone',
the Consortium of Humanitarian Agencies in Sri Lanka was able to negotiate
with the government of Sri Lanka, the Sri Lankan Army and the LTTE the
establishment of a humanitarian corridor. This he explained that it had
become essential because of the economic blockade of the north of Sri
Lanka by the Sri Lankan Army. He showed how the humanitarian agencies
were able to set up "zones of peace" in the north by convincing
the LTTE and the army not to attack the refugee camps, hospitals, food
distribution centres and schools. He spoke of the mutual interdependence
of the humanitarian agencies, the army and the LTTE. Both the army and
the LTTE needed the humanitarian agencies for the service they provided
to the local people trapped in a war zone. The humanitarian agencies often
served as a "bridge" or a "conduit" between the two
protagonists. He pointed out that the humanitarian agencies engaged in
providing relief and shelter were often able to gather a lot of information
and data, which could be effectively used in negotiations for conflict
reduction and transformation. He talked about his own initiative of documenting
the use of child soldiers by the LTTE by painstakingly examining gravestones
of the "fallen heroes" and the announcements of deaths of LTTE
soldiers in the local Tamil newspapers in the north. He explained that
the "dates of birth and death" engraved on the gravestones or
published with the photographs of the dead persons in the newspapers showed
that some of these LTTE soldiers were minors. Armed with this data and
his organisation's proven track record of rehabilitation of displaced
and orphaned children in the north, he was able to convince the local
LTTE commanders not to interfere in their work. They were also able to
reduce the recruitment of minor children in the LTTE.
Mr. Gopal Siwakoti of HimRights and Prof. Kapil Srestha of
the Human Rights Commission of Nepal appraised the participants of Nepal's
commitments and obligations under the various provisions of international
humanitarian law. They also discussed the measures that civil society
organisations could take under the provisions of these international treaties
to put pressure on the government to respect the human rights of the people
and to observe the due process of law. In particular Gopal focused on
the plight of the increasing number of Internally Displaced Persons.
Mr. Kunda Dixit, editor of Nepali Times, Ms. Rita Manchanda
and Prof. Partyosh Onta addressed the role of the media in reporting
the Maoist conflict centring on the theme of "Information as Power".
They explained that in a conflict situation both sides manipulated information
and truth. A third of the participants were either media practitioners
or involved in documentation. Moreover a few participants were concerned
at media exploiting, distorting and therefore placing at risk people who
told their stories. Kunda Dixit discussed "How the Media Can be Part
of the Solution" adumbrating ten tips for journalists. Instead of
reporting the conflict as a football score and thus framing it as a win
or lose situation and thus polarising it, he suggested the possibilities
of a 'peace journalism' style of reporting. While neutrality was not possible,
he argued for fairness and accuracy in reporting. Rita took up the issue
of the media taking sides in a conflict and decontextualising the conflict.
She drew upon examples of reporting conflicts by the media in South Asia,
and then taking up concrete examples of inaccurate, biased and sensational
reporting in the Nepali media. In particular comparison was drawn between
reporting of Naxalite violence in Andhra Pradesh and Maoist violence in
Nepal. Pratyosh Onta a media analyst with Martin Chautari brought in the
dimension of FM radio and its untapped possibilities.
Evaluation Parameters
SAFHR's assessment of the five-day workshop was structured around evaluation
sheets to be filled out by the 30 participants. Inquiries related to a
breadth of themes, the design structure of the workshop and its physical
implementation. Questions ranged from course arrangements, course design,
interactive sessions, course material, gender sensitivity to the essential
usefulness and value of the course to the participants. For the most part,
responses were comprehensive and in a critical mind frame.
General Assessment
Generally, participants positively remarked on the usefulness and the
direct relevance "of learning and sharing experiences from the grassroots
to the policy level." Most found the breadth of views and content
to be "fruitful" and "stimulating," while a few commented
that more Nepal based case studies would have been preferable to shared
outside experiences in Sri Lanka and Hyderabad. Participants demonstrated
satisfaction with a breadth of issues, ranging from discussions on international
law, such as the Geneva Convention, to interactive dialogue on the Maoist
insurgency and approaches to conflict transformation. Various participants
felt the intensity and length of the conference were integral to imparting
such a wide and thorough base of knowledge on Nepal's conflict, human
rights, and the role of humanitarian action in conflict.
Some felt more dialogue and case studies relating to grass roots projects
and strategy implementation would have been beneficial. Further, participants
indicated that a field trip to a remote Nepali area would have provided
a useful learning experience; theory in practice to demonstrate the ground
situation and how to apply theory to the reality. Regarding lecture format,
many voiced suggestions about seating arrangements. The classroom style
was seen as inhibiting optimal interaction and dialogue amongst the faculty
and participants. In addition, shorter sessions and more frequent breaks
would have helped in view of the astounding amount of information they
were expected to digest. Yet these shortcomings were mentioned side by
side appreciation of the diversity of faculty, approaches and viewpoints
offered. The interactive dialogue sessions following the lectures were
thought to be most valuable and purposeful.
Participants markedly enjoyed the chance to discuss strategies and experiences
amongst themselves and with resource persons sharing their experiences
in Nepal, Sri Lanka, and India.
Follow Up
- Initiate e-mail network to foster coalition building and disseminate
information
- District Level Workshops
- Develop a manual or a handbook for peace activists including useful
tips for dealing with difficult situations, negotiation techniques and
dos and don'ts.
|
