Strife

The Academic Blog of the Department of War Studies, King's College London

You are here: Home / Archives for Prachi Aryal

Prachi Aryal

Justice Delayed is Justice Denied

by

by Prachi Aryal

A Nepali man looks at photographs of disappeared persons displayed by human rights activists. Credits: Niranjan Shrestha

While Nepalese government representatives were addressing the Universal Periodic Review of Nepal’s Human Rights Records, Ganga Maya Adhikari began another hunger strike to demand justice for her son, Krishna Prasad Adhikari, who was killed during the Maoist conflict. Her son was kidnapped, tortured, and murdered by the Maoists in 2004. Adhikari has staged multiple hunger strikes since 2013, demanding the persecution of the perpetrators. Her husband, Nanda Prasad Adhikari died in 2014, succumbing, after 329 days, to his own hunger strike. His body remains in the mortuary, as the family has refused to perform last rites until justice has been served. The story of the Adhikari family is just one amongst the many thousands whose quest for justice has been quashed by a culture of impunity.

Nepal witnessed a decade long civil conflict from 1996-2006, fought between joint security forces and Maoist rebels. The period was marked by widespread human rights violations, including forced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, arrests, rapes, and torture, committed by both the warring parties. The conflict left over 15,000 dead and over 1,300 remain missing.

The Comprehensive Peace Accord (CPA), signed in 2006 to bring an end to the conflict, was a ray of hope for the victims, as it came with a promise of accountability and justice. The accord adopted a gradual approach of disarming and demobilizing the Maoist rebels whilst integrating some of them into the national army and political process. However, 15 years later, the CPA has failed to uphold its promises, with thousands of victims still struggling for justice.

Under the CPA, investigative commissions were established to uncover the truth about the human rights violations that occurred during the conflict. After years of delay, the process was formally started in 2014 with the introduction of the Transitional Justice Act, which authorized the creation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and Commission of Investigation on Enforced Disappeared Persons (CIEDP). However, the final version of the Act – that was signed into law – differed substantially from the versions agreed upon by government with the victims and the human rights groups, as it contained blanket amnesty for perpetrators of human rights violations.

Despite the Supreme Court of Nepal in 2015 ruling that this provision of amnesty was unconstitutional the government of Nepal has failed to amend the act. In 2020, the Supreme Court rejected a petition by the government of Nepal to reverse its verdict and restated its previous ruling that the act be amended. The government has yet to uphold the ruling. The government has attempted to amend the act in close coordination with Colombian transitional justice experts. The bill has attempted to build on the ‘restorative justice’ idea of the Columbian process however, it seems unlikely that the victims will agree to it as it remains far from the mandate suggested by the Supreme Court and allows political parties the freedom to reduce the severity of the sentences given to perpetrators.

The CIEDP and TRC’s term was extended by the government until the 15th of July 15 year, it is therefore unlikely that all 2,506 complaints of disappearances and 63,718 cases submitted to the truth commission will be investigated. To date the commissions have not recommended any cases for prosecution and the victims have not received any update on the status of the disappeared.

A recent figure released by the National Human Rights Commission of Nepal states that, among the cases of violation investigated by the commission, 779 (65.16 %) were committed by the state, 287 (24.03 %) by the Maoists, and 38 (3.19 %) by both the parties. With the changing political scenario and the dominance of the United Communist Party of Nepal, the power of the commissions has diminished as yesterday’s perpetrators are now leaders. The culture of impunity is reflected by the election of Agni Sapkota as the speaker of the House of Representatives despite him facing a charge for murder.

Another challenge faced in the transitional justice process comes from the Nepalese Army, which maintains a position that Civil Courts cannot try Army Personnel. Human Rights advocates assert that this continued failure of the transitional phase is a direct result of perpetrator-led political maneuvering. Om Astha Rai, postulates in Yesterday’s enemies, today’s comrades, the delayed process is because the current political landscape includes perpetrators of human rights abuses who have consistently blocked and impeached processes of accountability .

Furthermore, the victims are wary of the transitional justice mechanisms as they offer no victim-protection or safety to them. Many victims claim that the transitional justice process is elite-led as it is centered around the metropolitan cities, away from rural Nepal; the battlefield of the ten year long conflict.

An effective transitional justice system requires strong legal foundations consistent with international law and standards, and the political will to address the demands of victims of the conflict, but in the case of Nepal, it is marred by political maneuvering aimed at evading accountability. The culture of impunity and failure to uphold the rule of law will alienate the victims of the wartime conflict and create a fragile state where the respect for rule of law is eroded. With perpetrators continuing to dominate the political landscape justice remains distant for wartime victims.

The peace process heralded by the signing of CPA has now lasted longer than the war, as the country remains mired in transition, without substantial progress. The perpetrators of crime are elected as members of the government while victims like Ganga Maya Adhikari are left to fight an endless battle for justice.

 

Prachi Aryal is a MA student in the Department of War Studies at King’s College London. Her research interest is inclined towards Gender, Human Rights, and Cross border conflicts in transitioning nations and how visuals from conflict zones play a role in communicating the realities of conflict to the broader world. She completed her BA in Journalism from the University of Delhi, India.

Galwan Gaffes: Turbulent Times for the Sino-Indian Relationship?

by

By Prachi Aryal

India and China have been involved in regular skirmishes alongside their disputed border (Al Jazeera)

On June 15, 2020, Indian and Chinese troops were involved in an unexpected hand to hand combat in Galwan valley, resulting in at least 20 casualties. This confrontation doubtless has its roots in the 3,500km unmarked and disputed border shared by the two nations, that since the birth of both countries has been the site of successive minor clashes The Galwan valley incident marks a break with these more reserved skirmishes as it’s the first since 1975 that has resulted in loss of life. It has subsequently led to the deployment of thousands of soldiers by both sides, raising concerns of an unintentional war.

Galwan valley, in India’s Ladakh region, lies along the western sector of the Line of Actual Control (a line separating Indian and Chinese territory) and close to Aksai Chin, a disputed area claimed by India but controlled by China. Shivshankar Menon, former Security Adviser of India has warned that the militarization by either side of the border is troubling for the Asian region as it opens the possibility of a fully-fledged war between the two nuclear armed nations.

Speculation surrounding the clash suggests several micro-causes but underlying each are the powers’ competing strategic goals. Strategists assert that India’s growing economic development and global diplomatic influence have become impediments for their Chinese counterpart, thus the move to intrude into Indian territory was China’s attempt to disrupt the status quo in the region.

Experts assert that China’s strategy of modern conquest is that of fait accompli, a calculated risk to establish dominance by seizing small territories. This strategy often leaves the victim with few viable options to restore the previous status quo. Fait accomplis, allow unilateral gains of power and changes to the existing state of affairs; reminiscent, therefore, of China’s actions in the Aksai Chin, Spartly Islands in South China Sea, Doklam and the skirmishes with India.

The 15 June clash accentuates not just the strategic tensions but the more fundamental problems in the Sino-India relationship. China’s continued military assistance to Pakistan and the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) initiative, on disputed territory claimed by India, has created an environment of mistrust between the two nations. Similarly, India’s opposition to the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), coupled with historically sour relations stemming from India granting sanctuary to the Dalai Lama, has intensified bilateral tensions.

Many reports claim that the clash was triggered by India’s construction of the Darbuk-Shyok-Daulat Beg Oldi (DSDBO) road in the Ladakh region, which would give India the upper hand in accessing the Daulat Beg Oldi airstrip, thereby paving the way for easy transportation of troops and material during conflicts. Indeed, the occurrence of skirmishes and clashes have usually mirrored the construction of infrastructure around the disputed region. Both the countries view such projects as being imbued with strategic and tactical motives, leading to exacerbated skirmishes.

The growing public discontent surrounding India’s response to the situation in Ladakh poses a strategic difficulty for the government in New Delhi. Chinese retreat is unlikely as it has adopted a fait accompli strategy of land grabs with the purpose of intimidating and coercing nearby rivals in order to establish itself as a regional hegemon. India’s traditional approach of quiet diplomacy, whilst working to soothe domestic public sentiments, will provide China the space to continue with such land grabs. With limited military options, and an increased need to address public discontent surrounding the government’s inaction, India finds itself in a strategic quagmire. Its move to ban Chinese mobile phone applications, citing national security interests, is unlikely to have any effect on China’s position on the border.

Regular border skirmishes are fundamentally products of slapdash colonial cartography which imposed arbitrary and contested borders between the two nations. The Indian External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar has made repeated public statements reiterating that the only viable way of restoring Sino-India ties is by disengaging and de-escalating the military situation in the LAC (Line of Actual Control)LAC (Line of Actual Control) The regular cross-border clashes are contrary to the Wuhan spirit championed by the two nations, who had agreed to significant economic cooperation for development in the South Asian region.

China’s resort to military trespassing in the Galwan, as on 15 June, has created an atmosphere of mistrust and antagonism with its Indian neighbour. The frozen diplomatic talks compounded with China’s unchanged position and its fait accompli strategies of land grabbing are likely to create a geopolitical and strategic crisis in the Asian region. Sino-India relations in the future are likely to see mixed elements of conflict and cooperation as each side is driven, by their strategic objectives, to ever more aggressive actions. It is possible that, without a clear demarcation of the border, skirmishes like these can create destabilizing consequences for the Asian region.

Editor’s Note: There have been a number of recent events since the time this article was finalized for publication that impact this topic and region. The information contained in this article was current as of January 2021.

Prachi Aryal is a MA student in the Department of War Studies at King’s College London. Her research interest is inclined towards Gender, Human Rights, and Cross border conflicts in transitioning nations and how visuals from conflict zones play a role in communicating the realities of conflict to the broader world. She completed her BA in Journalism from the University of Delhi, India.

Article 370’s Revocation: Integrating or Alienating Kashmir?

by

by Prachi Aryal

There has been heavy military deployment in Kashmir in order to contain protests following the revocation of Article 370 (Image credit: Dar Yasin)

“Agar firdaus bar roo-e zameen ast, Hameen ast-o hameen ast-o hameen ast…”

“If there is a heaven on earth, it’s here, it’s here…”

- Amīr Khusrau (1253–1325), Indian poet on Kashmir

The land of Kashmir, often portrayed as heaven on earth, finds itself marred in a conflict between India and Pakistan, two countries that share a colonial past. The end of British Colonial control of the Indian subcontinent, in August 1947, led to the formation of India and Pakistan. In the aftermath of the partition, the many former princely states which had persisted under British suzerainty were left to decide which country to join. The state of Jammu and Kashmir, which lies in the northern mountainous region was seen as a strategically important area by both new-born states who each wanted it incorporated within their territory. The ruler of Kashmir, Maharaja Hari Singh, chose to remain independent.

The bloody saga which ensued through the partition and the infiltration by tribal militants posed a great threat to the state of Kashmir. The state, in a severe political dilemma, was required to take urgent action, leading to a request to the Indian state for military help. After multiple deliberations, the Instrument of Accession (IoA) was signed in October 1947 by Maharaja Singh and the Indian state in return for military help, thereby integrating Kashmir into India. The IoA stated that the Dominion of India would have control of the state in three major areas – defence, communications, and foreign affairs.

Nevertheless, the claim on Kashmiri land continued to be debated between India and Pakistan with specific counterclaims that the IoA was a farce. Nonetheless, negotiations between Kashmiri representatives and India led to the creation of Article 370 - which granted special autonomous status to the state of Kashmir in the Indian Constitution. While this legislation was being laid down, the state of Kashmir faced constant threats from tribal invaders who had their bases in Pakistan. Against the backdrop of large scale massacres that the nation had just witnessed, India decided not to resort to military actions and took the issue to the United Nations, following the advice of Lord Mountbatten, the last Viceroy of India,

The UN responded in January 1948 by passing Resolution 39 establishing the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan. In April of the same year, the Security Council decided to increase the power of the UNCIP under Resolution 47 to facilitate mediation between India and Pakistan. The resolution called upon the countries to withdraw their troops, after which point the UN would establish a temporary plebiscite administration in Kashmir, which would then carry out a fair and impartial plebiscite deciding the accession or autonomy of the state. Both the countries eventually agreed upon a ceasefire and a Line of Control (LOC) came into effect in January 1949, demarcating the territorial lines between the nations. Despite resolution 47, the failure to hold a plebiscite resulted in a divided rule over the region.

The Indian-administered area of Kashmir has been subject to internal violence ever since claims of a rigged election surfaced in 1987. An armed rebellion has existed against New Delhi’s rule in Kashmir, growing anti-India statements and a massive outcry for ‘azadi’ – freedom from Indian rule – have triggered stringent military reactions from the Indian state. In August 2019, the Hindu Nationalist government of Narendra Modi abrogated Article 370 against the will of large numbers of Kashmiri people. This move was claimed to be yet another step towards ‘integrating’ Kashmir into India, a six-decades long nationalist endeavour supported in particular by the Bharatiya Janata Party.

Following the revocation of the special status of Kashmir, the dream of freedom from India’s rule has become stronger (Image credit: Dar Yasin).

The government went on to divide the state of Kashmir into two centrally administered territories. Indian military forces operating in Kashmir are shielded by the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), which grants them immunity from human rights convictions, such as rape, extrajudicial killing and torture. Parallelly, the government is set to embark on a witch hunt of activists and journalists who raise their voices against the violence perpetrated by enforcing draconian anti-terrorism laws such as the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). Furthermore, critics claim that the government’s pseudo-secularism agenda has been furthered by the revocation of the article, where Hindu-nationalist policies are used to garner electoral votes.

Despite several concerns highlighted by the UN Human Rights Chief Michelle Bachelet and UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, any mediation on the issue of Kashmir has been blocked by India under claims that it is an internal issue, an exclusive concern of Indian sovereignty. Given the presence that India has in the international sphere, there have been little to no repercussions for the grave violations of human rights in the region. The lack of global attention due to restrictive anti-media practices alongside a rejection of third-party mediation has granted the government more leverage to continue unlawful activities. There have been mounting claims that the situation in Kashmir is getting worse by the day with Internet shutdowns, a government crackdown on media organisations and journalists, the arrest of political leaders and civilians many of them who are children.

Arundhati Roy, asserts that, ‘Indian Muslims have been effectively disenfranchised and are becoming the most vulnerable of people – a community without political representation.’ Critics claim that the government’s pseudo-secularism agenda has been furthered by the revocation of the article, where politics is used to secure votes. In the expansion of the Hindu Nation under Modi, international organisations have fallen victim, Amnesty International’s office in India was shut down following reprisal from the government over its coverage of human rights violations that occurred in Kashmir. This further erodes any ground for seeking justice or accountability for Kashmiris who have been subjected to various atrocities.

Since the revocation of article 370, civilians have been arbitrarily arrested and the valley remains in a state of siege with a stringent curfew. Meanwhile, the Indian government refutes claims of human rights violations, maintaining that this legislative move will pave the way for economic growth in the state. Inclusivity, however, remains a far-off dream for the people of Kashmir. Furthermore, the information ban and the detention of Kashmiri political leaders, civilians, and journalists outlines a rather meek prospect for the accountability of the Indian government.

The longstanding conflict has polarized the Kashmiris even further as they have been side-lined in political discussions and the decision on the fate of the valley of Kashmir is carried out by those who centrally rule the country. The aspirations of the Kashmiri people have been overlooked and they have been rendered voiceless with the revocation of the special status. The crisis requires the integration of Kashmiri people into the mainstream discussion, addressing their issues and concerns. The Indian government needs to be held accountable for its actions, decades of violence, and mass unnamed graves of Kashmiris if it wishes to truly integrate Kashmir and Kashmiris.

Prachi Aryal is a MA student in the Department of War Studies at King’s College London. Her research interest is inclined towards Gender, Human Rights, and Cross border conflicts in transitioning nations and how visuals from conflict zones play a role in communicating the realities of conflict to the broader world. She completed her BA in Journalism from the University of Delhi, India.