Interview with Charan Prasai and Rudra Khadka

Charan Prasai has worked for over twenty years as a leading human rights activist in Nepal. Formerly the chairperson of Amnesty International Nepal and the Human Rights Organization of Nepal (HURON), he currently acts as Coordinator for the sub-committee that has monitored human rights since the cease-fire.

Rudra Khadka is a correspondent for the weekly Nepalese magazine Samay and former writer for Kantipur. He covers conflicts, social history, and human rights in Nepal.

At the invitation of Amnesty International Japan (AIJ), Prasai and Khadka visited Japan as guest speakers of the annual AIJ speaking tour between Oct. 30th and Nov. 18th, 2006. They were interviewed by Chris Salzberg at the head office of AIJ in Tokyo, Japan, on Nov. 17th. AIJ volunteer Hanako Tokita also participated in the interview and photographed the interviewees.

---

Introductions

CS: I just want to ask you first, how has your experience been so far in Japan on the speaking tour? What has the response been to your talks?

CP: I think it was really positive. This speaking tour was one of the success stories in our lives. The AI volunteers have really worked very hard to put things together. Everything was just in place, on time, people were there. There was a very good turnover, good publicity in the different places.

The other thing is everything in Japan is beautiful! That's what I got after this speaking tour.

CS: People who will read this interview probably don't know about HURON, can you talk a little bit about this group and how it came about, how it started?

CP: HURON is one of the oldest organizations in Nepal, established at the time of the Panchayat regime. The Panchayat regime was an autocratic regime, initiated by King Mahendra after he ousted the popularly elected government in 1959. In that Panchayat era, there were many eminent people, politicians, civil society people, their parties were banned, it was a one party system, nobody was allowed to form a party or work within a party system.

There was a group of people from all over the country, they came together and they founded a human rights organization, called the Human Rights Organization of Nepal (HURON). The objectives of the organization were to restore democracy and human rights in the country, so that you would have freedom of speech, freedom of movement, and so that political freedom would prevail in the country.

It is quite surprising to us now that Dr. Baburam Bhattari, who is the second Maoist leader now, he was a founder and executive member of this group. The present spokesperson and one of the leading Maoist negotiation team leaders, Krishna Bahadur Mahara, was also one of the founders, vice president in the Rolpa District of Nepal. Many politicians who are the key players in this country now - even from the communist party - were the founders of this organization. And the eminent civil society leaders, who are still leading the country in the civil society movement, they were also founders of this organization.

One of the objectives of HURON was to restore democracy and human rights in the country, and to fight against the autocratic regime. And from that time, this organization continued its struggle, before democracy and after the restoration of democracy also. It had many campaigns, touching on all human rights issues. At the time of the drafting of the constitution in 1990, this organization also gave a positive input, to push for a human rights agenda in the new constitution.

Situation for human rights activists and journalists

CS: You have been working in human rights for a long time, can you talk about what the situation is like for human rights activists in Nepal?

CP: Human rights activists have not been popular in the eyes of the government, even in the periods of rule by democratic governments. Right now, of course, the government is trying to be more friendly, but they are not so happy. They don't want us to talk much about human rights violations because they think that it will derail the peace process.

However we are always pushing the government as well as the Maoists to make human rights a central point for the peace process. We are also urging the main stakeholders of these political parties to, in the future, exercise democracy on the ground of human rights. Because previously what we believe is that human rights were not taken as a priority by the government. They thought that when they achieved democracy, everything was achieved. The people have their political rights, they can exercise their political rights. People vote for them, at least once in five years, and they get re-elected, and they've got leverage to do whatever they want to.

But after they get elected, people are ignored. The human rights abuses, the violations committed by the police, the security forces, in the rural areas outside the district headquarters, were being ignored by the governments. People were suffering, people had a lot of problems, and they didn't know what to do. They didn't know where to complain, when the government itself was violating human rights.

CS: So do you see this changing in the future?

CP: Yes, we want to push this kind of thing. This kind of thing shouldn't happen. If one person's rights are violated, there should be no excuses, whether it is a small violation, or intimidation, or torture. There should be no compromises in human rights violations.

CS: And can I ask you, what is it like, what is the situation like for journalists in Nepal, especially recently, before the April revolution?

RK: Before the April movement, it was very difficult for journalists. They were attacked from both sides, by the army and by the Maoists. After the April movement, things improved. Journalists are not threatened any more. But we have work to do. We want to change the Journalism Act. We have suffered as a result of this Act. Previously, the King's government used the Act in order to dominate journalists. So we have to change it, but this government also doesn't want to change it.

Political history of Nepal/Maoists

CS: Can you give your perspective on what factors lead to the emergence of the Maoists as a political force in Nepal?

CP: Previously the Maoists were one of the political forces in the mainstream of the political arena of Nepal. In 1990, after the restoration of democracy, they were called the United People's Front. They participated in the first general elections and secured nine seats in the parliament; they were the third largest party in the parliament. That was the first entry of the Maoists. Prominent leaders like Baburam Bhattari and Prachanda, they didn't participate, but there were other leaders. Like Krishna Bahadur Mahara, who is one of the spokespersons, he was also one of the members of the parliament at that time.

And in the next election, they lost all the seats. From that day, the United People's Front split. One group chose to become the armed revolution, the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), and the other remained as the United People's Front, still in this government also. They are one of the seven political parties.

Up until recently, the people didn't really accept the Maoists' ideology at all. But after the King's takeover, on the first of February (2005), the Maoists, on the call of civil society and political parties, declared a unilateral cease-fire on September 3rd, 2005. And civil society founded a Civil Society Monitoring Committee, which HURON was also involved in initiating. That civil society monitoring committee was supported by the Maoists and the seven political parties as well. Its objective was to bring the peace process on track, and also stop the King's army from shooting the unarmed Maoists, or the Maoists who are not fighting.

And in fact it worked. After the 3 months unilateral cease-fire, they extended it one more month. And at that time, the seven political parties and the Maoists came together and underwent this 12-point understanding in Delhi. That was the turning point for the Maoists, as a political party in Nepal. With that 12-point understanding, they accepted to have a multi-party democratic system, to abide by international human rights norms and values, and also the democratic principles. They became a political force, joined hands with the seven political parties. People respected that 12-point political understanding and acknowledged them as a political force, which they were not before. That was the crucial factor that brought change in Nepal.

Media coverage of the April movement

CS: In April of this year, you were detained with many other activists. King Gyanendra made a statement on April 21st saying that he was giving back power to the people, and the international community, including the media, seemed very happy with this result. You and these other activists had written a statement, in which you stated that: "We civil-society detainees, kept at the Duwakot armed police barracks, believe that your governments' welcoming response to the address by King Gyanendra on Friday 21 April 2006 was based on a misperception of Nepali political reality and a misreading of the address itself." Can you talk about the situation you and other activists faced and the contrast with the picture that was portrayed by mass media at that time?

CP: This statement, it was so difficult to get out at that time. But we managed to do it. In fact, at that time, when the King made the statement that he was giving back power to the people and he is inviting the 7 political parties to form the government, it was welcomed by the international community, including the donors, and the supporters of Nepal as well as media personnel. They took it as a very positive statement, because after the big movement that was made, which had resulted in many casualties and many killed, it seemed that King Gyanendra had given up his rule to the people. That was the misconception that people had at that time.

But we could see the conspiracy behind it. The King would get to play the same role as he did in the past, after he made Sher Bahadur Deuba the prime minister. Sher Bahadur Deuba, the last time also, he was made the prime minister, but it was again similar to the call that the King made in April. We could see that he was trying to take the political string in his hand, and again wanted the political leaders to come to him.

We were very much worried whether the political parties, the leaders, they would also be misled by this statement by the King. So immediately we thought that something should go out, we should tell the media people, the international community, the political parties that this is not what we wanted. And we got it through.

There was a lot of debate about whether we should put out this statement. But people thought that, well, let us take one of the entry points to get the power from the King. This may be one of the only entry points; if we lose it, we might lose everything. Losing that chance was not acceptable, because that was not the will of the people at that time. We thought that we should take the risk to get a better power agreement, so this statement came out.

And I think it worked. The political parties they also understood. And the international community as well.

CS: You made a very strong statement, you said: "In such an evolution" - evolution of the political process - "we see no role for King Gyanendra other than a mute spectator." Do you think that is the situation now?

CP: Yes we wanted that, and it has come true!

Media blackout in Nepal

CS: In the western media, the protests in April were described as having been organized by political parties and the Maoists, but can you talk about your experience of how the protests started, who was involved, and what role the media played?

CP: The media in fact played a very positive role. When Gyanendra took over the first target of attack was the media. The other targets were the human rights community and the civil society people. In the beginning, King Gyanendra wanted to close everything: the communications, the news, and the FM radios, which were very popular at that time. He ordered to stop all the news from the FM radios. However the news, the media, they protested, they staged a rally, but that didn't work. So they went to the court. I think the court played quite a good role in this process. It had no ground to stop the media - the FM radio - from providing news. The court who played a good role to give media the leverage to continue to deliver news.

In fact I also had my own experience. When the King took over, I was in Palpa, in the Western part of Nepal. Suddenly we heard that the King had taken up power, so we rushed to the nearest airport, but everything was blocked. No airplane was flying. Nothing. All the airplanes, the transportation, the mobile phones, everything was closed. So I went to Sunauli, near the border of India. The border was not totally sealed. So I went there, and from there I called Amnesty International London.

And they were so surprised! They said that you are the first caller from Nepal! Because they had no news, all news was blocked, BBC was blocked, CNN was blocked, everything was blocked.

I wanted to hear news about Nepal. And they said, well look, we can listen to the BBC, and they related what was happening in Nepal through the BBC that they had access to. They asked me whether I felt in risk or not, that if I felt in risk they would do whatever they could from their end to try to help.

I thanked them for the gesture and said that I would go back to my home, that I'll be fine there. My family was there. My daughter was in Bombay, I contacted her there, and I told her that I was safe, and not to worry.

And after I came back to Kathmandu, after two or three days, the airport was open. There were no signals, you just had to see whether the plane was coming - because all these towers were closed. We had to watch for the plane coming, and we had to rush, like catching the bus. There was no news about whether the plane would come or not.

When I arrived in Kathmandu, there was one popular weekly newspaper, it interviewed me about the new royal takeover. And I spoke very openly, I told them that this is not good, that they have destroyed democracy. I didn't believe this scheme would bring democracy. From the perspective of human rights, it was not good at all, the peace program had been stopped.

He wanted to publish the next day. But he couldn't because the army was staying in his office. And he called me, he said I can't publish because the army is staying here, and they wanted him to publish in a positive manner. And I said that no, don't do that.

Next week again he could not publish because the army was still there. And then the third week, suddenly he published it! And he called me, and he said that he was able to publish because the army had just gone out! In the evening he called, and he said that are you okay, have you not been arrested? He was also so scared. The editor of the newspaper was asked by someone from the local district administration office, why did you publish? And he said that he had nothing to do with that, it was the person who spoke and published that, you can talk to him.

CS: So was this what the atmosphere was like between February 2005 and April 2006?

CP: Yes, it was a time of emergency. Everything was banned at that time. The emergency was lifted in April, with the international pressure. Before that time, people were really scared of staging demonstrations. The political parties really didn't know what to do because they were also so scared, they had faced the brutality of the King in 1959 also. They were in exile for so long, out of country, in 1959. They were very scared, so they didn't stage demonstrations at that time. So we civil society people, we gathered together, and on the tenth of July, we decided to stage a demonstration.

CS: This is the tenth of July, 2005?

CP: 2005, yes. So that was one of the civil society movements that created tempo in the country, and gave energy to the political parties to stage demonstrations. The political parties at that time were not that popular, that's why the King took over so easily. These democratic rulers, they didn't really pay attention to the people, human rights were not respected, there was so much corruption. So they were not regarded as very honest and sincere people. And they were also not geared to stage demonstrations.

But people started to come, the political parties also started to demonstrate. We didn't know what our fate would be after we were arrested, in that demonstration. 26 people at that time were arrested. Many renown civil society people were arrested. We really didn't know what would happen to us, whether we'd be taken into detention for a long time, or whether we would be disappeared, or whatever. However, it was quite fortunate that we were released the next day.

The peace process

CS: OK, so quickly, we should talk about the Peace process. Can you say something about this recent agreement, between the Maoists and the SPA [Seven Party Alliance]?

CP: This eighth of November agreement between the seven political parties and the Maoists is a historic event in Nepal. It is marked as a miracle day. The delay of this agreement was due to the issue of the monarchy, as well as the arms management. There was a big debate. The UN was called in to observe and supervise the arms management.

It was not resolved because the government didn't want to disarm the army. And the Maoists, they didn't want to dissociate their arms from their people's army, because they felt a threat from the Royal army, the army which is loyal to the King. He may rise his head any time, and eliminate the Maoists.

So that was a big debate and issue that was being discussed. On the eighth of November, I think this complex issue was resolved in a very simple manner. Regarding whether the King's fate should be decided by the constituent assembly elections, or by the referendum, or by writing in the interim constitution as a republic state, was also a major topic of debate.

CS: There was one party, the United Marxist-Leninists (UML), who are still against the current decision, right?

CP: Yes, right. They made a note of dissent. The Maoists wanted to declare Nepal a republic state, and to remove the King from this interim constitution. The UML and the other communist parties wanted to decide the fate of the King by a referendum at the time of the constituent assembly elections. And the Nepali Congress wanted to decide by constituent assembly elections, put in the first agenda of the constituent assembly elections.

Ultimately they decided to determine the state of the monarchy from the first meeting of the constituent elections assembly, by a simple majority. Not by two-thirds, but by a simple majority.

The arms management issue has also been resolved. Now there is a balance between both the armies. The armies, who have had their weapons locked in the store, will have the key with them. However, there will be close monitoring from the UN, by the alarm system in the lock, and there will be also the camera in this store, where the arms, ammunition is kept. But the key of the lock will be with the respective armies, either the Maoist army or the Nepal government army.

Also one of the major decisions that was made was to form a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, like in South Africa, as well as a Commission for the Disappeared.

A new constitution

CS: So the other thing is the constitution. This is a very big issue, and this is also discussed in the peace agreement. I just want to ask you, what elements of the 1990 constitution would you like to protect, and which ones would you hope are amended? What do you think are the key issues?

RK: Personally I think it should be changed, really changed. You know, if you look at the Nepali constitution of 1990, it gave more power to the King and the government, so it should be totally changed. The government should be more progressive, more changeable.

We don't need to include the monarchy in there. The government should be more responsible for the people. But before the government was similar, it was the parliamentarians. We have to change this. We have to change our relationship with the international community as well. The government of Nepal is always accommodating Indian and U.S. interests.

CS: On that topic, many people are saying Nepal needs to change its monarchy, but there is also Article 126 of the existing constitution, which should in principle protect Nepali resources. If you look at what has happened in Iraq, U.S. influence is very connected to what resources you have. Nepal has massive hydropower resources, and also oil resources which have not been tapped yet. As a foreigner looking on Nepal now, the issue of resources seems to be quite a major one.

There have been meetings, just a few weeks ago, between U.S. and Indian corporate leaders and certain regulators at the NEA (Nepal Energy Authority) and many Nepalese energy groups. And they have offered massive hydropower projects: Karnali-Chisapani, Pancheshwar, and Arun III, for example. So these big dam projects have again become open, available mainly for Indian companies. This is a big big issue, and yet as far as I know the press is not covering it. In the context of the constitution, it seems to me that this is a rather key issue.

RK: Exactly you're absolutely right, yes.

HT: All these big deals were actually in the western part of Nepal, where the Maoists have the most influence in the country. Prachanda was also invited to go to all these meetings recently, so it seems like maybe come kind of deal was made.

CS: Today, for example, Prachanda is going to a meeting in India, called "India: The Next Superpower?," which will feature Jack Straw, Rudolph Giuliani, and many other famous political figures. Prachanda was, before, a kind of rebel leader and nobody would talk to him. Now he is going to this big big meeting, and he has made statements, only two weeks ago, in which he said he wanted "to give profits to the capitalists" and also said that he and his party "are not fighting for socialism." His party leader also said that the Maoists were "not against globalization and economic liberalization or free market economy," this kind of thing. So something is changing, very fast.

In terms of hydropower, they are talking about developing Arun III right now, but there were major protests against Arun III ten years ago. I don't know if you have any direct experience in any of these hydropower projects.

RK: I can give one example, from where I live, in Nepalgunj. There is one big river, the Rapti river. The Nepalese government tried before to make a hydropower project, three or four times. And the international community, I think the Saudi-Arabian government, they were ready to give Nepal a loan. But because of Indian pressure, they cancelled the loan. Now India is making its own hydropower project on this river. The river is in Nepal. India is making a hydropower project just outside of Nepal, near the border. By international law, India is not allowed to build it there, but they are making it anyway, very close along the border area.

CS: So it seems very clear that Nepalese politics is very much connected to Indian politics.

CP: Yes, when you come to this hydropower thing, I think it's very important to realize that if decisions are made in the centre of Nepal, in Kathmandu, which is maybe influenced by India, or the US, or China, things always turn out like this. So our main goal is establish a federalist type of system, a provincial type of system, where provinces have control over their own resources.

For example, in the Pancheshwar area, the hydropower project was decided by the Nepalese parliament, during the period of democratic rule, by a two-thirds majority, in accordance with Article 126 of the Constitution. At that time, the MPs of the region all voted against the deal. But the central rule was in favour of India.

That's why the concept of federalism is getting stronger and stronger. In a federalist system, the central leadership would not have influence over the issues that the people themselves should decide. The issue of federalism is a quite high priority for the new interim constitution.

Looking to the future: compensation, rehabilitation, reconciliation

HT: The day after the peace agreement, I was listening to BBC World Service. They were actually covering the peace agreement in Nepal extensively, considering it was right around the U.S. midterm elections. I think they paid quite a bit of attention to the peace process.

Do you expect the international media to play a certain role in the peace process in Nepal, and in what way?

CP: Yes, definitely, I think the media, especially the BBC, played a positive role. There was also the Indian media, which was not quite so positive. But BBC was positive, in a sense, because at the time of conflict, at the time of the King's takeover, the Maoist leaders were interviewed by the BBC. That gave them recognition, internationally, as a political force, rather than as a threat.

The U.S. was so dead against all terrorist groups, including the Nepal Maoists. They were trying to label the Maoists as a terrorist group. However in that context the BBC came and interviewed the Maoist leaders. That gave a good message to the international community, that the Maoists are not a terrorist force, that they are fighting with objectives, and issues, and of course, with some principles. It also gave a message to the international community that Nepal is a safe place for tourists to go.

So we want the same kind of role to be continued in the future as well, and also to see that the stories are not distorted. Sometimes when you don't catch the spirit, sometimes in the Nepalese context you try to say something, but if it is taken in another way, then it will be understood in a negative sense. We want the international community to project the positive part of the peace process.

There are various stages that we will have to go through, in the reparations process. There is the rehabilitation, compensation, reconciliation. In the April movement, there were 21 people who gave their lives. Their families were compensated by the present government, as a token of compensation, one million rupees each, about 15,000 American dollars. You can calculate the cost of more than 13,000 people, per family, per person.

And I am only talking about compensation. That is not the whole process of the rehabilitation work, because there are so many people, the displaced, who have to return to their homes, with their families, with honour and dignity. They have to have something to eat, to live, for at least one year because they won't have a new harvest for at least one more year. There are half a million people like that. You can also see other costs, like the enmity and hatred that has increased so much between people. This has spread so much. So there has to be reconciliation from the ground level.

It's not just money. People have to feel that now they are okay. That their perpetrators are punished. That now we can be friendly, we can work together. There are so many things that have to happen. And it will require a huge effort, and it will cost money, and resources, all these kinds of things.

So I think the international community, especially the international media, should also focus on these issues, not as just as token support, but as real support, support from the inner heart, for the peace process. It's not just that such-and-such country has given some amount of money. That won't help. You really have to commit from the heart, with sincerity. I think that kind of thing should be also projected by the international media, to give real support to the peace process in Nepal.