Long arm of law

The detention of Colonel Kumar Lama in London on charges of extra judicial torture during the armed insurgency in Nepal was wrongly viewed by the Nepali government in a narrow perspective of action against a Nepali citizen. In fact, the right perspective to view the episode would be in the broader spectrum of Nepal being recognized as a responsible member of an international comity of civilized nations. Whether Kumar Lama is found guilty by the British court of violating human rights in Nepal is beside the point. The consequences would be limited to him. What is significant is that actions committed in Nepal against basic human rights, as upheld by the United Nations conventions, are subjected to international judgment and legal prosecution.

In that sense, Nepal is deemed mature and sensible enough to uphold public conduct commensurate with civilized norms. Nepalis should feel proud and unpretentious of receiving such an acknowledgment of belonging to a world of civilized people, and not to a barbaric lot. They can, therefore, no longer take it for granted that what they do within the national territorial confines out of spite and malice is their exclusive concern. The big global brother is watching our behavior towards our brethren at home. If that is not something to feel cheerful about, I wonder what is.

I had driven this point home a few years ago (Republica July 5, 2009) in an opinion column, “New Nepal not in Nepal.” Nepal’s citizens have, over the last two decades, spread all over the world, not in thousands but in millions. It is a “natural cause of globalization that has swept our country across-the-board. Instead of groaning over the apparent mass exodus of Nepali labor and brain force across the seven seas, it should be considered a healthy sign of our nation’s ability to adapt to the changing international pattern.

PHOTO: NTNNEWS.MANJUNET.COM

Instead of viewing it negatively in the context of building a new Nepal, it should be welcomed as a positive development to assist in building a new nation. Instead of compelling Nepalis to build a new Nepal within the territorial confines of Nepal, an uncertain proposition under the instable circumstance, they should be encouraged to build new Nepals in different parts of the world, a high probability evident from our hitherto experience.” Kumar Lama is one such Nepali who has emulated this spirit of extended Nepal in working and enjoying life beyond the borders of Nepal. It was by chance that he was caught unawares in Britain, for actions performed in Nepal.

Whether he will be prosecuted or not is yet to be decided. However, he symbolizes a case that has opened our eyes and spread panic and fear in the hearts of all those who have been accused of committing war crimes and human-rights violations during the 10-year long armed conflict in Nepal. Killing is defended as inevitable for political or radical causes by a select group of revolutionaries and their equally ferocious rivals, in Nepal and elsewhere in the world. It, however, is not an accepted value in the broader society that abieds by the due processes of law in dealing with crime and punishment. The earlier we learn and emulate this lesson, the better. Else, we will be facing many more embarrassing situations like this one in the coming days.

Killing is accepted as inevitable for political causes by revolutionaries and their rivals, but not by the rest of the society.

Like it or not, Nepal is already in the midst of a globalized world. Nepal was shaken in 2004 when 12 young Nepali workers were mercilessly slain in Iraq for no fault of theirs. People went crazy for a day, ransacking private and public properties, including those of religious importance. The government reacted by imposing a ban on the further entry of Nepali workers into Iraq, which did not hold well over a period of time. It had to renege on its decision, and declare the nearly 30,000 Nepali residing in Iraq ‘legal’. In the case of Lama’s arrest in London, public reaction is found supportive of the action as opposed to the desperate and despondent comments from the government. It is obvious that the British action has made thousands of Nepalis in the state civil and security services, and important party cadres including those in the present government, vulnerable to prosecution in all developed countries which have signed the UN Convention on war crimes and human-rights violations.

Thanks to this action, which came as a bolt from the blue, Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai broached the idea of forming the much-vaunted Truth and Reconciliation Commission to take up all cases of war excesses during the 10-year armed rebellion in Nepal, and deliver justice to the victims. The government claims that Nepal is capable of grappling with this problem through its own system of law and justice. But the question is, when? Will the victims have to wait eternally, till they are dead, or go berserk? That is exactly what it looks like, going by the Prime Minister’s latest action of trying to obstruct the investigation process in the murder case of journalist Dekendra Thapa in Dailekh. By disallowing the process of investigation in a similar case of human-rights violation right under his nose, the PM is subtly justifying the British action of prosecution. If Nepal refuses to act in such cases, there are others who will.

The author is a senior journalist

adityaman@hotmail.com