From Republica (July 3, 2025)
Principle and practicality demand that the two commissions be watchdogged and allowed to proceed with their work.
The selection committee headed by Ex-Chief Justice Om Prakash Mishra to appoint commissioners to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and the Commission of Investigation on Enforced Disappeared Persons (CIEDP) was a national embarrassment. It did not have confidence to select members on its own and was completely beholden to big party directives.
While the selection process was flawed, however, we must take a call on whether to sine die reject the two commissions that have been established, or to watchdog them to ensure truth-seeking, accountability, justice and reparation on behalf of conflict victims. The latter seems to be path of reason, though a flank of rights defenders and conflict victim representatives have called for a boycott and reconstituting of both commissions.
Over 20 years, the TJ process of Nepal has seen continuous marginalisation of conflict victims, with politicos focussed more on government coalitions, and former perpetrators bent on sabotage and prevarication. The human rights and conflict victims community have been continuously active in protecting the peace process, and standing up for a TJ law as mandated by the Supreme Court in 2015. That ruling struck down amnesty provisions in the pre-existing law, asked for prosecution of perpetrators of heinous crimes, and stood on the side of international human rights law and rights of conflict victims.
Dialogue and monitoring
In the past, this writer and others vociferously objected to the ‘Bandi Bill’ (brought by then Law Minister Govinda Prasad Sharma Koirala ‘Bandi’), which among other terrible provisions sought to distinguish between ‘heinous murder’ and ‘commonplace murder’ as a passage to provide amnesty to perpetrators. We have also spoken up for recognition of families of murdered or maimed security personnel and for child soldiers, and in the latest instance challenged the problematic Sudip Pathak when he was flagged for chair of the TRC.
In the present instance, while one may question the competence or commitment of individual commissioners, the two TJ commissions must not be rejected wholesale before they have even begun work. Frankly, we do not know how they will function. The two chairpersons are not from the arena of human rights or TJ, one coming from the judiciary and the other from bureaucracy. In fact, that may be why they were acceptable to the political bigwigs. Had they been activists, one side or other (Maoists, security forces, political parties) would have objected, and we’d be back where we began.
Against the proposed boycott of the TRC and CIEDP, one must recall that the two sets of consecutive commissions before this, with all their problems, did not face rejection once they were formed. Remember, too, that those commissions functioned under a problematic TJ law, which was amended in August 2024 on the basis of the 2015 Supreme Court directive.
Related story
Going by precedence, therefore, the present commissioners must be given opportunity to show their mettle. Meanwhile, there seems to be no appetite on the part of the political parties to disband the two commissions as demanded by some. Despite misgivings that have arisen because of the ham-handed way in which both bodies started work in their initial weeks over Spring, it would be advisable accept their existence and to establish a civic group to monitor the commissions and promote dialogue between stakeholders.
The dialogue should provide channels for communications and defend the commissions against political pressure from the government-of-the-day or interested parties (security forces, rebels-turned-politicos, etc). The monitoring work must watch out for the commissioners’ missteps and see to it that they follow national and international standards on TJ. It must ensure that the truth of of conflict era violence and atrocities are brought out, and ensure a balance between the practical, principled and humanitarian pathways to bring Nepal’s peace process to a ‘just and logical’ conclusion.
The monitoring exercise must ensure that: reparation/compensation to conflict victims is not delayed for any reason; work completed by previous commissions are incorporated into the current work programmes; the CIEDP and TRC make use of UN-OHCHR’s ‘Nepal Conflict Report’ in the investigations into conflict era excesses, as well as the credible documentation compiled during the conflict years by the organisation INSEC.
Interested parties
The fervent opposition by some human rights defenders and conflict victim leaders is based on expressed dissatisfaction over the appointed commissioners. The boycott proponents can be questioned on two counts: Firstly, the questionable procedures of the Selection Committee were not challenged by them in the beginning or when the shortlist came out, but only after the final list of commissioners was announced. In fact, early on, some present-day opponents were vocal in their support for the Selection Committee and its procedures, and even lobbied with the political leaders to get certain names included in candidate lists.
Secondly, the opposition campaign is being led by individual human rights defenders whose names figured in the Selection Committee’s initial list, and by two conflict victim stalwarts who had apparently been promised a commissionership each. Indeed, the opposition to the two commissions seems opportunistic, the call to boycott coming after failing to secure a berth.
It was naïve for both categories to think that the political leaders of the NC, UML and Maoists (machiavellis, all!) would keep their word. The victims leaders, meanwhile, should have known that had they been selected, the security forces and others too would have demanded some form of representation in the commissions. In the most positive sense, victims are ‘interested parties’ in the TJ process, also as individuals who have filed cases on conflict era abuse. Asking that the TJ process be ‘victim-led’ does not ipso facto imply the appointment of conflict victims as commissioners.
It is worth considering whether conflict victims that are living away from the limelight have been consulted by the Valley-based human rights defenders and victims leadership making the boycott call. The fact that the TRC has held many consultations and been approached by scores of conflict era affected (Maoist victims, state victims, etc) indicates that the boycott is not as popular as we are made to believe.
Trojans
There seems to be a problem with the list of more than two dozen organisations that are said to be part of the ‘rejectionist movement’. There are many victims not represented in the groupings, while a fair degree of peer pressure seems to have gone into building the signatories list. The chairperson of at least one significant organisation has stated that its name was included without authorisation.
The opponents to the two commissions have been taking the entire conflict victims community up a path of no-return since the commissioners took oath of office in mid-May. They have rejected the appointment of commissioners, declared a boycott of the two bodies, and asked the international community to follow suit. This all-or-nothing activism by the stalwarts seems designed to ensure that backtracking becomes impossible, even if and when the TJ commissions start exhibiting diligence and dynamism.
The stance of the opponents is concerning because, firstly, the three concerned political parties do not seem to be in a mood to disband the CIEDP and TRC. If the two commissions are hobbled enough to fail, however, the chance of the political forces coming together to swiftly restart the process is slim. The two commissions were formed in May with the agreement or acquiescence among the NC, UML and Maoists, and it will be difficult for the constellations again to come into alignment.
In the past, the Maoists leadership primarily, but also the army/security forces, were able to scuttle the TJ process by slipping trojan commissioners into the TJ process. While the capacity and capability of the new commissioners is yet to be tested, it is likely that this time around there will not be sabotage from within. This is all the more reason for the two commissions to be allowed to function.
Rejectionist flank
The proposal by the ‘rejectionist flank’ to form a parallel citizens’ transitional justice mechanism is welcome, for it can serve as a platform for discussing all relevant issues. But there will be political, legal and logistical hurdles if such a citizens’ commission were to seek to duplicate the law-mandated task of the two commissions, plus it may not secure support from the spectrum of stakeholders.
In conclusion, the CIEDP and TRC are not ideal in terms of membership and Selection Committee itself was faint-hearted. Yet, we must work from the outside to guarantee that the commissions deliver a just conclusion to the peace process with the interests of the conflict victims foremost – from truth-seeking to reparation, accountability and memorialisation. This will not happen without diligent civic monitoring and watchdogging by conflict victims and rights defenders.
Dissent cannot be a perpetual motion machine, neither can the TJ process be rushed to a conclusion just because ‘it has taken too long’. Objections have to be based on the platform of principle and practicality. In the present instance, rather than decry the TRC and CIEDP, their functioning must be supported and monitored.
If either or both commissions prove to be incompetent in addressing transitional justice or have mala fide intentions in favour of conflict era perpetrators, we will have to come together to exercise our civic right and call for their disbanding.