The Maoists have done it again. The bodies of two boys named Nirmal Panta and Pushkar Dangol, allegedly abducted by the Maoists about a month back, were found in a decomposed condition in the Bhorlephant bank of Darial river in Dhading district. Such atrocities perpetrated by the Maoists are reminiscent of the conflict days, albeit with a difference. In the earlier days, there were police investigations, arrests and judicial actions. But with CPN-Maoist now heading the government, criminals openly defy law with impunity.

When asked about the administration’s inability to arrest the alleged killer of Ram Hari Shrestha, who openly met the Defence Minister and is reportedly doing business as usual inside the Shaktikhor camp, the Home Minister told the legislative body that his administration has no access to the Maoist camp. To a group of media persons, he further said that he has to seek the UNMIN’s permission to send his team inside the camps. This is a telling commentary on the home administration’s failure in maintaining law and order. Just two weeks back, the Moist-led government announced that the cabinet has withdrawn 350 court cases of “political nature”.

This author,from the House floor, had demanded that the details of these cases be made public. The fact is that all the cases involving the rebels and the politicians during the conflict days were withdrawn by the previous government to facilitate the Maoist entry to peaceful politics. The cases not withdrawn were of outright criminal nature. Furthermore, these cases pertained mostly to post conflict days. By withdrawing such cases now, the government has also released those under trial and convicts on criminal cases.

The alleged killers of Netra Bahadur Shahi, a NC district level leader of Humla, have been released. Similarly the killers of Kamal Adhikari, a Rastriya Janmorcha candidate in the last CA election in Banke have been released. The court case of journalist Birendra Shah murder has also been withdrawn. This clearly shows that the Maoist cadres are treated “above the law” and given immunity for any crime they may have committed.

It must be acknowledged that this culture of impunity prevailed to some extent even under the previous NC-led government. The administration then rightly or wrongly felt that a strong action against the Maoists may drive them back to the jungle and thus could threaten the peace process itself. Many of the atrocities of the earlier rebels were tolerated to bring the erstwhile rebels to the electoral process. Now, the situation is different. The Maoist are in the government and responsible for upholding law. But they themselves are protecting the criminals. Criminal acts are taking place with complicity of the state power. This fusion of state power with law violators and criminal groups could sound a death knell to the rule of law and democracy.

The peace process was initiated with the Maoist commitment to the rule of law and pluralism. But their continued failure to maintain law and order brings to question their commitment to democracy and multiparty politics. The internal power dynamics within their party, repeated revolutionary rhetoric from the leadership, and various internal circulars from the party chairman who is also the Prime Minister give enough ground to question their intentions. They have failed to return the seized properties to their rightful owners and their cadres are taking control of local development projects by using armed thugs and musclemen to capture the tender process.

According to the Agreement on the Monitoring of Management of Arms and Armies between the government and the Maoists on 28 Nov 2006, the top Maoist leaders not in the government were allowed to keep certain number of guards with small firearms for personal security. But, in the changed political context after the CA election with the Maoists themselves heading the government, a new agreement was signed by the seven parties including the Maoists which ruled out any security arrangement other than those provided by the state. But the Maoists are still maintaining the previous security system with weapons bearing UN stickers.

The near silence maintained by the UN organisations, even in the face of continued denial of right to property, use of state power to protect alleged murderers, news reports about the maintenance of parallel courts and ‘labour camps’ and impunity reaching its extreme, is rather intriguing. Incidents like the Ram Hari murder and the development afterwards, lack of daily roll call and the lack of effective confinement of the combatants inside the camps clearly point out ineffective management of arms and armies. It is unfortunate that the UN Secretary General’s Report on the assistance to Nepal’s peace process also has failed to highlight these grave issues which have direct bearing on the future of peace process in Nepal.

Dr Mahat is a CA member