Speaker Subash Nembang on Friday instructed Home Minister Bamdev Gautam to furnish clarification on alleged use of excess force in Tarai. It is now clear that Nepal Police, following the Kailali tragedy where it lost nine personnel, has since chosen to err on the side of self-defense. Of course, it's easy for us to sit here and say the police should behave a certain way. When you are out there, in the front line of battle trying to fend off the machete- and ax-wielding protestors, it's a different ballgame altogether. Often, it's a question of the survival of the fittest—and the best armed. Nor can the morale of Nepal Police, which has come under withering criticism from rights activists and sections of media, be very high. We believe the restraint they displayed in Kailali and other prior incidents has not been appreciated enough. You have to feel for the front-line policemen in particular who are only obeying orders. But more than a sense of panic has contributed to the use of excess force by police recently.Again, going back to Kailali, the reason eight Nepal Police officials, including a Senior Superintendent of Police, had to die was because the Armed Police Force (APF) failed to come to their rescue. This, despite the fact that the APF personnel deployed in Tikapur that day were better armed, and if they wanted, they could arguably have saved their cousins from Nepali Police. But if its personnel had decided to open fire that day, APF counters, there could have been many more deaths. Whether or not the APF's version is true, the incident made many question the relevance of the 40,000-strong paramilitary force. If it cannot be effectively deployed in what are some of the most testing times in the history of democratic Nepal, why have it at all, at the cost of billions of rupees for the poor state? Had the APF lived up to its objective—"to control an armed struggle that has occurred, or is likely to occur, in any part of Nepal"—there would also have been no need to deploy Nepal Army, security analysts inform Republica. The use of a national army in law and order duties is a risky strategy. If attacked, the army, unlike the police, does not first fire tear-gas shells and rubber bullets. It's live ammunition they employ. The army's deployment is legally dicey, too.
We must find a better way to use the APF, or it has to be done away with. After all, the force was formed to tackle the armed Maoist rebels during the insurgency. The Maoist guns have long since fallen silent. In this context, if the APF is to justify its existence, it must first have a clear Terms of Reference (ToR) for its deployment. And there should be a clear and justifiable demarcation between the duties of Nepal Police and the APF. As we saw in Kailali's Tikapur, vague jurisdictions and lack of coordination between the two police forces can have deadly consequences.
Related story
Huawei releases six products to supercharge the cloud
