Rajya Sabha MP, Dr. Sudharshana Natchiappan visiting Jaffna on 27 October, with a team of ‘international parliamentarians’ was pointedly asked by Jaffna media, if he is part of the Delhi agenda in ‘colour washing’ the Rajapaksa regime, neat and clean. A difficult task, with other reports getting on the public domain.
A working visit to Sri Lanka by three Malaysian MPs, Datuk Johari Abdul (Sungai Petani), Suadara Manoharan (Teluk Intan) and Senator S. Ramakrishnan with two other activist from 1 June to 6 June 2011, produced a report titled, Report On Fact Finding Trip To Sri Lanka, released in Kuala Lampur, after their return from this working visit. The report, a long peep into post war North-East, two years after the war concluded, was a wholly adverse exposure and this one short quote from the report has plenty of concerned observations summed up in it.
“Our many talks and meetings with the various categories of people, support the conclusion that there is an attempt by the Sri Lankan government to inflict maximum social damage on the Tamils. Even if there is no more LTTE threat or resurgence, the government wants to keep this threat alive to justify the military presence everywhere in the North. Although the war is over, the conflict is not and civilians who may not have any part in the war, are being punished severely.”
Across the Palk Strait, a Fact Finding Team (FFT), comprising of four Delhi activists, Bela Bhatia, Ravi Hemadri, Sukumar Muralidharan and Vrinda Grover, spent over three weeks in the Indian part of the Kashmir valley in October 2010, meeting different groups, individuals, victims of security attacks, close relations of the killed, administrators and security officers. Returning to Delhi and releasing their report on the visit titled, Four Months the Kashmir Valley Will Never Forget, they issued a media statement that very candidly noted:
“The special security laws in force in Kashmir, continue to fuel a culture of impunity. Even in the rare cases when local authorities show the political will to pursue the perpetrators of gross human rights abuses, these efforts swiftly get lost in the labyrinth of the legal process, which are rendered more complicated by the effect of special security laws.”
The US State Department Country Reports on Human Rights for 2010, talk of South Asian countries excluding Bhutan having serious issues of human rights violations, carried over to year 2011, from last year – 2010. In Pakistan and Sri Lanka the reports say, security forces have been acting independently, without reporting to civilian authorities. In India the issue of custodial killings is continuing. (from blogsite SouthAsiaSpeaks)
Following all those reports, comes the Commonwealth Report compiled by the 11-member eminent persons group drawn from civil society in member countries, set up after the last summit in Port of Spain in 2009. The report has 106 recommendations including one to establish a monitoring group for member countries on human rights, democracy and rule of law.
World’s largest democracy and Sri Lanka’s neighbourly big brother India, saw its government immediately following the Sri Lankan regime in rejecting this proposal. The Indian regime based itself on the argument that as members of the UN, they are open for monitoring by UN agencies including the UN Human Rights Council and thus need no other “intruder” into their internal affairs. In fact the present Sri Lankan regime goes even further, saying the UN Human Rights Council too should not intervene in internal investigations, referring to accusations on war crimes.
In end April 2010, these same government leaders as Heads of States shot down another proposal to have a regional Human Rights Mechanism, not so much from an intruder, but from a SAARC Head of State. At the 16th Summit of SAARC Heads of States in Bhutan, the Maldivian President Mohamed Nasheed addressing the Summit for the first time, said: “…we all face challenges consolidating democracy and strengthening human rights. I believe SAARC should consider establishing a regional human rights mechanism, similar to the one being developed for the ASEAN region. This mechanism could help States promote and protect rights and freedoms in their jurisdiction. It could ensure that international human rights laws are observed and implemented by SAARC members. And such a mechanism could help people in our region develop a common understanding of universal human rights issues and perspectives.”
This proposal on democracy and human rights, was not only ignored by the major players at the SAARC Summit, but was not even taken seriously by any media. Not even by the Indian media. Though President Nasheed believes monitoring human rights “could help people in our region,” the governing heads of the supposed democracies with long traditions of holding elections under democratic constitutions, are against any collective monitoring of their deeds, in their own countries.
The most important issue is, the Commonwealth proposal for monitoring of human rights, democracy and rule of law comes from the civil society representatives who sat as an eminent group. Except for that extremely rare gem that came from the Maldivian President, no government, o regime in this region would back such a call. Monitoring is therefore opposed by elite groups of men who run the states, as political leaders, deciding policy and legislation. Their only legitimacy and authority in rejecting this proposal for monitoring human rights, democracy and rule of law, is that they have been “elected” for governing the countries they represent. Their urgent reason to oppose such monitoring is that human rights violations occur under their discretion and not otherwise. All break down of rule of law and restrictions on democracy, are their responsibilities, but not their mandate.
What they thus fear is their past and what they hold for the future. What are their track records in the past few years, if their future governing is to be assessed? In India, outside the wailing and bleeding Kashmir valley under tyrannical occupation by the ‘Centre,’ there is Lalgarh, Chhattisgarh, Mizoram, Nagaland with a long ‘Red Belt’ that’s getting bloodier each day under Delhi rule. Delhi is only interested in natural resources in this area and not the people. Impunity and deaths in police custody, fake encounters in killing innocents, are therefore all too common, with Kashmir recording the highest number of Habeas Corpus cases to date with no judicial redress.
This Delhi regime, is now held responsible for massive fraud and corruption, even the ‘Clean’ Dr. Manmohan Singh as PM, is being accused of complicity. It has its political ally the DMK riddled with leadership crisis owing to corruption and thrown out of power in Tamil Nadu. The Indian corporate big guns, influential media anchors and the State authorities are seen involved in mega corruption and fraud never heard of in post independent India, that even hold the judiciary suspect. Mind you, Delhi is emerging as this region’s big and intimidating power as well.
In Sri Lanka, the case is no better. Heavy corruption is the order of the day. The elected government has been hijacked by a family, on constitutional power vested with the presidency. Constitution itself is tampered for extension of power. A military that went through a 30 year war, was provided with a coercive, racist political leadership by this Rajapaksa regime that allowed complete freedom in fighting a ruthless, savage war against the LTTE acknowledged, recognised and banned as a “terrorist organisation” in over 35 countries. The regime leadership is now left with serious accusations on war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Despite claims of economic growth with “Cabral” type numbers, distribution of wealth has seen a drastic growth in inequality with Western Province centring Colombo claiming over 53per cent as of now. Though the national figure for unemployment is berated as 4.3 per cent, unemployment among 15 – 24 year category that actually seeks employment after formal education is over 18 per cent, while MP Sumanthiran says it is touching 30, per cent in the North.
Tabling the second situation report in parliament on 21 October, 2011 on North-East life, MP Sumanthiran claims everything in North-East is being taken over by the military and in plain language, he accuses the regime of total neglect of livelihood, of allowing the military to intrude into private and public life in the North, violating all civilised norms and law of the country. And the law of the country is being brutally tinkered with the PTA given life and policing and judiciary not accepted and seen as independent any more in society.
What is there in Pakistan, perhaps is everything here in SL and in India put together and more. In Pakistan, the question is who rules. Is it the elected government or the economically powerful military that dictates politics? Bangladesh has its own racial clashes and an arrogant military the elected, but again a corrupt government is left to deal with, a nation struggling with democracy. Nepal, after a hard fought Maoist insurgency, is still fighting to get its feet on a constitutionally structured democracy.
This whole region is beset, not with a people’s will to live a democratic life respecting human rights and rule of law, but crooked and warped regimes using procedural democracies to reign over its people. These regimes collaborate across borders and their intelligence agencies work in tandem, on the pretext they work to eradicate ‘insurgency’ or ‘terrorism.’ For all such cross border co-ordination and collaboration in restricting functional democracies and erecting growing military regimes, they raise two huge hoardings that read as “eradication of global terrorism after New York 9/11 and Mumbai 26/11.” While regimes gang up across borders against their own people, the civil society platforms and forums have failed to take up the cue and rally regional people’s power. They have to date failed to recognise the necessity in giving President Nasheed’s suggestion to have a regional mechanism to monitor human rights in the region and they are yet to give heed to the Commonwealth proposal for a monitoring mechanism on human rights, democracy and rule of law. Civil society leaders restricting themselves to local and sectoral issues, have also failed the people in the region. They have allowed sinister regimes to dictate over people’s lives and that’s how we live today. “Tomorrow” is left to be discussed.
http://www.thesundayleader.lk/2011/10/30/%E2%80%98big-and-small%E2%80%99-brothers-gang-up-against-people%E2%80%99s-rights/
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Accountability vs. Impunity vis-à-vis Prosecution
Raj Kumar Siwakoti
Societies emerging after repressive regimes, atrocities or armed conflict often confront with the problem of how to deal with the legacy of past human rights abuses. What is the best possible mechanism to bring about stability and democracy in the aftermath of such hostilities? How can perpetrators and victims live peacefully side by side? These questions obviously pose a political, economic, legal and moral dilemma for the Nepali society. In order to address these questions, a range of strategies need to be considered.
There are many existing laws with similar provisions that make prosecution difficult. The existing criminal justice system of Nepal addresses conventional crimes such as theft, robbery, drugs smuggling and murder; however, none of them address the need to investigate and prosecute serious violations under international law. This has resulted in the inability to bring into the justice system those perpetrators involved in serious crimes against humanity such as unlawful killing, torture, disappearance and rape.
Legislation
Similarly, for the purpose of prosecution, it is necessary to explore whether the existing legal and judicial framework is capable of investigating and prosecuting these serious violations. The upcoming legislation such as the draft of the Criminal Code, proposed TRC and Disappearance Bill criminalising torture and disappearance need to create a robust and comprehensive system for investigating and prosecuting allegations of serious human rights violations.
Complaints of abuse by the security forces and UCPN-M were routine in the past, but the cycle of impunity was never investigated. There is lack of an adequate legal framework for prosecution in Nepal. Some laws themselves have created a hurdle in investigating and prosecuting incidents of serious human rights violation.
The trend of political criminalisation and withdrawal of criminal cases are some of the major causes contributing to increased impunity and placing obstacles to prosecution. Over the years, the government has withdrawn several cases of criminals involved in serious crimes such as theft, robbery, drug smuggling and trafficking. No action has been taken against perpetrators of Jana Andolan I and II indicated by the Mallik Commission and Rayamajhi Commission respectively.
Against this backdrop, there is a risk of perpetrators identified by the TRC and Disappearance Commission receiving amnesty. This trend is closely associated with the impunity to perpetrators, and it provides a firm ground for amnesty in the future to human rights violators of the past.
The government has the duty to enforce law. It has to ensure punishment to the culprit and justice to the victims. Politicisation of crimes challenges the administration of justice and implementation of law. Withdrawal of cases relating to homicide is in a way protecting both the crime and the criminal. It is unfortunate that Nepalese politics has turned into a factory that produces criminals. In this way, the criminalisation of politics and politicisation of crime only encourage impunity and decreased accountability.
National and international human rights communities over the years have been raising the issue of impunity, as a result of which there has been political consensus to address crimes against humanity. Therefore, in order to develop lasting peace and a meaningful democracy based on the respect for human rights, human dignity and the rule of law, it is important that Nepal address the culture of impunity.
The domestic mechanism for securing accountability has virtually collapsed due to widespread impunity. The other attributing factors are knowledge gap, lack of political will as well as inadequate legislative framework and institutional support mechanisms.
Serious violation of human rights is closely associated with the current peace process. This process cannot advance effectively till we bring the perpetrators of the past to the justice system. The reconciliation process will go smoothly when we adequately address the issue of justice and reparation for the victims. Facts about extra-judicial killings, violence, disappearance, torture and rape should be unveiled. Nepal cannot have a fresh start without addressing these problems.
Impunity continues for perpetrators of human rights abuses during the conflict - no cases have been tried before a civilian court for criminal accountability. Survivors of sexual violence reported that the police refused to file their complaint. Yet, no significant measure has been taken to deal with the past as the state of impunity is the major impediment. Indifference towards this can rather contribute to expanding impunity. Lack of accountability for the past violations emboldens those who seek to use violence to impose their criminal and political agenda today. Impunity contributes substantially to the lack of rule of law and reconciliation and peace process.
Prosecution
While analysing the present scenario of Nepal, the prosecution initiative is very fragile. A successful prosecution in high-profile cases of conflict or post-conflict violence could have a substantial impact on the political dynamics, bolster confidence in the capacity and willingness of Nepal’s rule of law institutions, and deter groups that advocate the use of violence. Immediate progress in a few emblematic cases would signify a shift in policy by the government towards the issue of impunity, and show the political actors that there are consequences to resorting to violence.
(The author is secretary general of FOHRID, Human Rights and Democratic Forum)
http://www.gorkhapatra.org.np/rising.detail.php?article_id=57596&cat_id=7
Societies emerging after repressive regimes, atrocities or armed conflict often confront with the problem of how to deal with the legacy of past human rights abuses. What is the best possible mechanism to bring about stability and democracy in the aftermath of such hostilities? How can perpetrators and victims live peacefully side by side? These questions obviously pose a political, economic, legal and moral dilemma for the Nepali society. In order to address these questions, a range of strategies need to be considered.
There are many existing laws with similar provisions that make prosecution difficult. The existing criminal justice system of Nepal addresses conventional crimes such as theft, robbery, drugs smuggling and murder; however, none of them address the need to investigate and prosecute serious violations under international law. This has resulted in the inability to bring into the justice system those perpetrators involved in serious crimes against humanity such as unlawful killing, torture, disappearance and rape.
Legislation
Similarly, for the purpose of prosecution, it is necessary to explore whether the existing legal and judicial framework is capable of investigating and prosecuting these serious violations. The upcoming legislation such as the draft of the Criminal Code, proposed TRC and Disappearance Bill criminalising torture and disappearance need to create a robust and comprehensive system for investigating and prosecuting allegations of serious human rights violations.
Complaints of abuse by the security forces and UCPN-M were routine in the past, but the cycle of impunity was never investigated. There is lack of an adequate legal framework for prosecution in Nepal. Some laws themselves have created a hurdle in investigating and prosecuting incidents of serious human rights violation.
The trend of political criminalisation and withdrawal of criminal cases are some of the major causes contributing to increased impunity and placing obstacles to prosecution. Over the years, the government has withdrawn several cases of criminals involved in serious crimes such as theft, robbery, drug smuggling and trafficking. No action has been taken against perpetrators of Jana Andolan I and II indicated by the Mallik Commission and Rayamajhi Commission respectively.
Against this backdrop, there is a risk of perpetrators identified by the TRC and Disappearance Commission receiving amnesty. This trend is closely associated with the impunity to perpetrators, and it provides a firm ground for amnesty in the future to human rights violators of the past.
The government has the duty to enforce law. It has to ensure punishment to the culprit and justice to the victims. Politicisation of crimes challenges the administration of justice and implementation of law. Withdrawal of cases relating to homicide is in a way protecting both the crime and the criminal. It is unfortunate that Nepalese politics has turned into a factory that produces criminals. In this way, the criminalisation of politics and politicisation of crime only encourage impunity and decreased accountability.
National and international human rights communities over the years have been raising the issue of impunity, as a result of which there has been political consensus to address crimes against humanity. Therefore, in order to develop lasting peace and a meaningful democracy based on the respect for human rights, human dignity and the rule of law, it is important that Nepal address the culture of impunity.
The domestic mechanism for securing accountability has virtually collapsed due to widespread impunity. The other attributing factors are knowledge gap, lack of political will as well as inadequate legislative framework and institutional support mechanisms.
Serious violation of human rights is closely associated with the current peace process. This process cannot advance effectively till we bring the perpetrators of the past to the justice system. The reconciliation process will go smoothly when we adequately address the issue of justice and reparation for the victims. Facts about extra-judicial killings, violence, disappearance, torture and rape should be unveiled. Nepal cannot have a fresh start without addressing these problems.
Impunity continues for perpetrators of human rights abuses during the conflict - no cases have been tried before a civilian court for criminal accountability. Survivors of sexual violence reported that the police refused to file their complaint. Yet, no significant measure has been taken to deal with the past as the state of impunity is the major impediment. Indifference towards this can rather contribute to expanding impunity. Lack of accountability for the past violations emboldens those who seek to use violence to impose their criminal and political agenda today. Impunity contributes substantially to the lack of rule of law and reconciliation and peace process.
Prosecution
While analysing the present scenario of Nepal, the prosecution initiative is very fragile. A successful prosecution in high-profile cases of conflict or post-conflict violence could have a substantial impact on the political dynamics, bolster confidence in the capacity and willingness of Nepal’s rule of law institutions, and deter groups that advocate the use of violence. Immediate progress in a few emblematic cases would signify a shift in policy by the government towards the issue of impunity, and show the political actors that there are consequences to resorting to violence.
(The author is secretary general of FOHRID, Human Rights and Democratic Forum)
http://www.gorkhapatra.org.np/rising.detail.php?article_id=57596&cat_id=7
NEPAL: Ensure fair trial and protection to child torture victim
October 20, 2011
A Joint Statement by the Asian Human Rights Commission and the Center for Victims of Torture-Nepal
As Lapka Tamang’s torture case will be heard on October 24, 2011 in Dulikhel District Court, Kavre, the Center for Victims of Torture-Nepal (CVICT) and the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) expect the hearing will take place according to the norms of a free and fair trial, and that the victim will be provided protection against any coercion attempts to change his testimony.
Eleven-year-old Lapka Tamang was tortured in custody of the Pachuwarghat police station on November 16, 2010, while being questioned about a lost ring. In our urgent appeal on his case (AHRC-UAC-010-2011: The torturers of an 11-year-old child must be brought to justice) we reported that Lapka was tortured for one hour. Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI) Purushottam Shrestha, alias Mashushan Shrestha reportedly asked him to crouch down and used a plastic pipe to beat his back five to six times. His soles were beaten 20 to 25 times. Lapka also reported that Police Constable Bhishma Kumar Thapa applied electric shocks behind his right ear. The police threatened the 11-year-old with death if he refused to confess to the theft of the ring, or talked to anyone about the torture, leading to Lapka eventually signing a letter of confession. The police then coerced his father to pay Rs 19,000 to the owner of the lost ring.
Only upon returning home that evening did Lapka's father come to know his son had been tortured. A medical examination conducted on November 19 concluded that Lapka’s injuries were consistent with the history provided, and the age of the injuries consistent with the alleged time of infliction. The report also concluded that there was evidence that "falanga", one of the most common methods of torture in detention, was inflicted on the victim.
The father filed a case against the two alleged perpetrators in Dhulikhel District Court under the Children Act, 1992. Article 7 of the Children Act makes torture of children under 16 years a criminal offence punishable with up to one year imprisonment and/or a fine up to Rs 5000, a punishment in no way commensurable to the seriousness of the offence, which is nothing short of a violation of a child’s basic human rights.
During the last hearing, the victim was threatened by one of the alleged perpetrators, Bhishma Kumar Thapa, who told Lapka’s lawyer that ASI Shresta was the only one to have inflicted torture on the victim and that he himself, had just put electric wires behind the victim’s ear, without the current. He further threateningly said that he would make Lapka say he had not tortured him, by whatever means. This is not the first time the victim was threatened: immediately after the case was filed, the victim received threats from the police to drop the case. When informed of these threats, the District Police Office refused to intervene, saying that it was not the duty of the police to protect the victim any more.
Threats to victims and the absence of any witness protection mechanisms have barred thousands of individuals from accessing justice, and have stoked the impunity prevalent for perpetrators. Without granting protection to victims and witnesses of human rights abuse, a fair judicial process remains nothing more than wishful thinking.
This lack of protection and the correlating impunity is one of the reasons torture against children remains alarmingly high in Nepal. A recent report by Advocacy Forum found that 32.8 percent of the juvenile detainees interviewed, reported torture or ill-treatment from January to June 20111. Nepal continues to torture its children while the judicial system remains incapable of holding the perpetrators accountable.
Although torture against children was outlawed in Nepal nearly two decades ago, not a single perpetrator has been convicted under article 7 of the Children Act so far. While the country's judiciary has generally supported progress in the field of human rights protection, it has been slow in initiating momentum in the fight against torture and has, at best, lukewarmly implemented legal provisions introducing a minimal degree of accountability for torture perpetrators. To illustrate, the Torture Compensation Act, 1996 provides for departmental sanctions in cases where torture is found to have been applied. While the court has on numerous occasions found that torture has been applied and granted compensation to the victims, occasions in which it has ordered action against the perpetrators have been scant.
It is now time for the judiciary to initiate a reversal of that trend and uphold the principles entrenched in the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights. It should send a long-awaited signal that uniforms do not protect their wearers from the reach of the law, and that justice will no longer turn a blind eye to torture.
For this to take place, victims of torture must be guaranteed an effective right to a fair trial. We are therefore calling for particular measures to ensure the physical protection of Lapka and his family in the days preceding the judgement, to create the conditions of a fair trial with no party having undue influence or the capacity to interrupt the due course of justice.
The AHRC and CVICT take this opportunity to urge the government to expedite the process of criminalisation of torture by adopting sanctions proportionate to the gravity of the offence, and in line with internationally accepted human rights standards.
----
1. Torture Briefing-Prevention of Torture in Nepal-January to June 2010, Advocacy Forum Nepal, available online at: http://www.advocacyforum.org/downloads/pdf/publications/briefing-jan-to-june-2011.pdf
A Joint Statement by the Asian Human Rights Commission and the Center for Victims of Torture-Nepal
As Lapka Tamang’s torture case will be heard on October 24, 2011 in Dulikhel District Court, Kavre, the Center for Victims of Torture-Nepal (CVICT) and the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) expect the hearing will take place according to the norms of a free and fair trial, and that the victim will be provided protection against any coercion attempts to change his testimony.
Eleven-year-old Lapka Tamang was tortured in custody of the Pachuwarghat police station on November 16, 2010, while being questioned about a lost ring. In our urgent appeal on his case (AHRC-UAC-010-2011: The torturers of an 11-year-old child must be brought to justice) we reported that Lapka was tortured for one hour. Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI) Purushottam Shrestha, alias Mashushan Shrestha reportedly asked him to crouch down and used a plastic pipe to beat his back five to six times. His soles were beaten 20 to 25 times. Lapka also reported that Police Constable Bhishma Kumar Thapa applied electric shocks behind his right ear. The police threatened the 11-year-old with death if he refused to confess to the theft of the ring, or talked to anyone about the torture, leading to Lapka eventually signing a letter of confession. The police then coerced his father to pay Rs 19,000 to the owner of the lost ring.
Only upon returning home that evening did Lapka's father come to know his son had been tortured. A medical examination conducted on November 19 concluded that Lapka’s injuries were consistent with the history provided, and the age of the injuries consistent with the alleged time of infliction. The report also concluded that there was evidence that "falanga", one of the most common methods of torture in detention, was inflicted on the victim.
The father filed a case against the two alleged perpetrators in Dhulikhel District Court under the Children Act, 1992. Article 7 of the Children Act makes torture of children under 16 years a criminal offence punishable with up to one year imprisonment and/or a fine up to Rs 5000, a punishment in no way commensurable to the seriousness of the offence, which is nothing short of a violation of a child’s basic human rights.
During the last hearing, the victim was threatened by one of the alleged perpetrators, Bhishma Kumar Thapa, who told Lapka’s lawyer that ASI Shresta was the only one to have inflicted torture on the victim and that he himself, had just put electric wires behind the victim’s ear, without the current. He further threateningly said that he would make Lapka say he had not tortured him, by whatever means. This is not the first time the victim was threatened: immediately after the case was filed, the victim received threats from the police to drop the case. When informed of these threats, the District Police Office refused to intervene, saying that it was not the duty of the police to protect the victim any more.
Threats to victims and the absence of any witness protection mechanisms have barred thousands of individuals from accessing justice, and have stoked the impunity prevalent for perpetrators. Without granting protection to victims and witnesses of human rights abuse, a fair judicial process remains nothing more than wishful thinking.
This lack of protection and the correlating impunity is one of the reasons torture against children remains alarmingly high in Nepal. A recent report by Advocacy Forum found that 32.8 percent of the juvenile detainees interviewed, reported torture or ill-treatment from January to June 20111. Nepal continues to torture its children while the judicial system remains incapable of holding the perpetrators accountable.
Although torture against children was outlawed in Nepal nearly two decades ago, not a single perpetrator has been convicted under article 7 of the Children Act so far. While the country's judiciary has generally supported progress in the field of human rights protection, it has been slow in initiating momentum in the fight against torture and has, at best, lukewarmly implemented legal provisions introducing a minimal degree of accountability for torture perpetrators. To illustrate, the Torture Compensation Act, 1996 provides for departmental sanctions in cases where torture is found to have been applied. While the court has on numerous occasions found that torture has been applied and granted compensation to the victims, occasions in which it has ordered action against the perpetrators have been scant.
It is now time for the judiciary to initiate a reversal of that trend and uphold the principles entrenched in the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights. It should send a long-awaited signal that uniforms do not protect their wearers from the reach of the law, and that justice will no longer turn a blind eye to torture.
For this to take place, victims of torture must be guaranteed an effective right to a fair trial. We are therefore calling for particular measures to ensure the physical protection of Lapka and his family in the days preceding the judgement, to create the conditions of a fair trial with no party having undue influence or the capacity to interrupt the due course of justice.
The AHRC and CVICT take this opportunity to urge the government to expedite the process of criminalisation of torture by adopting sanctions proportionate to the gravity of the offence, and in line with internationally accepted human rights standards.
----
1. Torture Briefing-Prevention of Torture in Nepal-January to June 2010, Advocacy Forum Nepal, available online at: http://www.advocacyforum.org/downloads/pdf/publications/briefing-jan-to-june-2011.pdf
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
सरकारले पीडा सुनेन ः द्वन्दपीडित
विमल खतिवडा
पर्वत, कार्तिक १ -
सशस्त्र द्वन्द्वका बेला सहादातप्राप्त प्रहरीका परिवारले सरकारले उपेक्षा गरेको आरोप लगाएका छन् ।
५६ औं प्रहरी दिवसको अवसरमा जिल्ला प्रहरी कार्यालयमा आयोजित श्रद्धाञ्जल्ाी सभामा सोमबार भेला भएका पीडित परिवारले द्वन्द्वमा देशका लागि परिवारका सदस्यले अकालमा ज्यान गुमाए पनि कुनै मूल्यांकन नभएको दुःखेसो पोखे ।
लमजुङमा विद्युतीय धरापमा परी ज्यान गुमाएका शंकरपोखरीका प्रहरी जवान रामप्रसाद लामगादेकी श्रीमती मेनकाले अहिलेसम्म सरकारबाट केही सहयोग नपाएको गुनासो गरिन् । 'श्रीमान् बितेको आज १२ वर्ष भयोे,' उनले भनिन्, 'तर मासिक ४ हजार रुपैयाँ पेन्सन बाहेक केही पाइएको छैन ।' उनले एउटा छोरालाई पढाउँदैमा पेन्सनको रकम सकिने बताइन् । 'सरकारले केही नदिए पनि यत्रो वर्ष मजदुरी गरेर सास अल्झाइयो,' उनले भनिन्, 'तर श्रीमान्को रगतको मूल्यांकन हुनुपर्छ ।' उनले सामान्य रूपमा ज्यान गुमाउनेलाई सहिद घोषणा गरिए पनि देश र जनताका लागि ज्यान बलिदान गर्नेलाई सहिद घोषणा नगर्दा भने मन रोएर आउने बताइन् ।
कार्यक्रममा उपस्थित पीडित परिवारले रुँदै ज्यान गुमाउनेलाई सम्भिmए । 'के गर्नु फूलको गुच्छा टिप्ने बित्तिकै उहांँको सम्झना आयो,' आर्थरकी भीमकुमारी पौडेलले भनिन्, 'त्यही भएर मन थाम्नै सकिनँ, कार्यक्रममै भक्कानिएर रुन थालंेछु ।' उनी रुँदा कार्यक्रमस्थल केही छिन भावविह्वल बन्यो । उनका श्रीमान् डिलबहादुरको २०६० सालमा म्याग्दी भिडन्तमा मृत्यु भएपछि परिवार ज्याला मजदुरी गरी जीवन निर्वाह गर्न बाध्य छ । 'चार हजार पेन्सनले पालिने घरमा पांँच जना छौं,' उनले भनिन्, 'छोराछोरी पनि पढाउनैपर्यो, त्यही भएर रोगी भए पनि बिहान-बेलुका ज्याला मजदुरीको काम गर्न बाध्य छु ।' उनले श्रीमान्को मृत्यु भएदेखि मुटुको रोगी भएकाले औषधीमा मात्र मासिक ५ हजार रुपैयाँ खर्च हुन्छ । 'श्रीमान्ले छातीमा गोली थापेर ज्यान गुमाए पनि के भयो र ?,' उनले भनिन्, 'न त सरकारले हाम्रा लागि नै केही गर्यो न त दलका नेताले देश र जनताका लागि केही गरे ।'
उनले श्रीमान्को सम्मान गर्न सालिक निर्माण गरी सहिद घोषणा गर्नुपर्ने र छोराछोरीलाई निःशुल्क पढाउने व्यवस्था मिलाउनुपर्ने बताइन् । 'म त मुटुको बिरामी छु, कहिले के हुने हो थाहा छैन,' उनले पीडा सुनाउदै भनिन्, 'त्यही भएर सरकारसँग छोराछोरी पढाउने व्यवस्था मिलाइदिन आग्रह गर्छु ।' उनका २ छोरी र १ छोरा छन् ।
सहभागी सबैले देशमा शान्ति ल्याउन अहोरात्र खटिएका प्रहरीले देशका नाममा ज्यान दिए पनि उनीहरूको सपना पूरा गर्न कोही लागिनपरेकोमा दुःख लागेको बताए । 'हामी जस्ता हजारौं महिला विधवा बनेर लोकतन्त्र आएको हो,' अर्की पीडित पार्वती गुरुङले भनिन्, 'तर, लोकतन्त्रले हामीलाई के दियो ? उल्टै पीडा मात्र ।'
उनले सत्तामा पुगेकाहरूले अल्पायुमै विधवा बनेका महिलाहरूको भावनको सम्मान गर्न नसकेको बताइन् । पीडितहरूले घरको मूली बितेसँगै चाडबाड मनाउन छाडेको र खुसियाली पनि खोसिएको बताए ।
उनीहरूले काठमाडौंमा केन्दि्रत प्रहरीका परिवारलाई दिइने सेवासुविधालाई गाउँं तहसम्म पुर्याउन माग गरे ।
प्रकाशित मिति: २०६८ कार्तिक २ ०९:४७
http://www.ekantipur.com/kantipur/news/news-detail.php?news_id=254506
पर्वत, कार्तिक १ -
सशस्त्र द्वन्द्वका बेला सहादातप्राप्त प्रहरीका परिवारले सरकारले उपेक्षा गरेको आरोप लगाएका छन् ।
५६ औं प्रहरी दिवसको अवसरमा जिल्ला प्रहरी कार्यालयमा आयोजित श्रद्धाञ्जल्ाी सभामा सोमबार भेला भएका पीडित परिवारले द्वन्द्वमा देशका लागि परिवारका सदस्यले अकालमा ज्यान गुमाए पनि कुनै मूल्यांकन नभएको दुःखेसो पोखे ।
लमजुङमा विद्युतीय धरापमा परी ज्यान गुमाएका शंकरपोखरीका प्रहरी जवान रामप्रसाद लामगादेकी श्रीमती मेनकाले अहिलेसम्म सरकारबाट केही सहयोग नपाएको गुनासो गरिन् । 'श्रीमान् बितेको आज १२ वर्ष भयोे,' उनले भनिन्, 'तर मासिक ४ हजार रुपैयाँ पेन्सन बाहेक केही पाइएको छैन ।' उनले एउटा छोरालाई पढाउँदैमा पेन्सनको रकम सकिने बताइन् । 'सरकारले केही नदिए पनि यत्रो वर्ष मजदुरी गरेर सास अल्झाइयो,' उनले भनिन्, 'तर श्रीमान्को रगतको मूल्यांकन हुनुपर्छ ।' उनले सामान्य रूपमा ज्यान गुमाउनेलाई सहिद घोषणा गरिए पनि देश र जनताका लागि ज्यान बलिदान गर्नेलाई सहिद घोषणा नगर्दा भने मन रोएर आउने बताइन् ।
कार्यक्रममा उपस्थित पीडित परिवारले रुँदै ज्यान गुमाउनेलाई सम्भिmए । 'के गर्नु फूलको गुच्छा टिप्ने बित्तिकै उहांँको सम्झना आयो,' आर्थरकी भीमकुमारी पौडेलले भनिन्, 'त्यही भएर मन थाम्नै सकिनँ, कार्यक्रममै भक्कानिएर रुन थालंेछु ।' उनी रुँदा कार्यक्रमस्थल केही छिन भावविह्वल बन्यो । उनका श्रीमान् डिलबहादुरको २०६० सालमा म्याग्दी भिडन्तमा मृत्यु भएपछि परिवार ज्याला मजदुरी गरी जीवन निर्वाह गर्न बाध्य छ । 'चार हजार पेन्सनले पालिने घरमा पांँच जना छौं,' उनले भनिन्, 'छोराछोरी पनि पढाउनैपर्यो, त्यही भएर रोगी भए पनि बिहान-बेलुका ज्याला मजदुरीको काम गर्न बाध्य छु ।' उनले श्रीमान्को मृत्यु भएदेखि मुटुको रोगी भएकाले औषधीमा मात्र मासिक ५ हजार रुपैयाँ खर्च हुन्छ । 'श्रीमान्ले छातीमा गोली थापेर ज्यान गुमाए पनि के भयो र ?,' उनले भनिन्, 'न त सरकारले हाम्रा लागि नै केही गर्यो न त दलका नेताले देश र जनताका लागि केही गरे ।'
उनले श्रीमान्को सम्मान गर्न सालिक निर्माण गरी सहिद घोषणा गर्नुपर्ने र छोराछोरीलाई निःशुल्क पढाउने व्यवस्था मिलाउनुपर्ने बताइन् । 'म त मुटुको बिरामी छु, कहिले के हुने हो थाहा छैन,' उनले पीडा सुनाउदै भनिन्, 'त्यही भएर सरकारसँग छोराछोरी पढाउने व्यवस्था मिलाइदिन आग्रह गर्छु ।' उनका २ छोरी र १ छोरा छन् ।
सहभागी सबैले देशमा शान्ति ल्याउन अहोरात्र खटिएका प्रहरीले देशका नाममा ज्यान दिए पनि उनीहरूको सपना पूरा गर्न कोही लागिनपरेकोमा दुःख लागेको बताए । 'हामी जस्ता हजारौं महिला विधवा बनेर लोकतन्त्र आएको हो,' अर्की पीडित पार्वती गुरुङले भनिन्, 'तर, लोकतन्त्रले हामीलाई के दियो ? उल्टै पीडा मात्र ।'
उनले सत्तामा पुगेकाहरूले अल्पायुमै विधवा बनेका महिलाहरूको भावनको सम्मान गर्न नसकेको बताइन् । पीडितहरूले घरको मूली बितेसँगै चाडबाड मनाउन छाडेको र खुसियाली पनि खोसिएको बताए ।
उनीहरूले काठमाडौंमा केन्दि्रत प्रहरीका परिवारलाई दिइने सेवासुविधालाई गाउँं तहसम्म पुर्याउन माग गरे ।
प्रकाशित मिति: २०६८ कार्तिक २ ०९:४७
http://www.ekantipur.com/kantipur/news/news-detail.php?news_id=254506
Judiciary as much to blame as parties for withdrawal of cases
Without a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, there will never be peace in this country, says Kedar Nath Upadhyay, Chairperson of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Kamal Sigdel and Gyanu Adhikari spoke with Upadhyay yesterday to discuss Prabhu Sah, who has since resigned as minister for land reforms, the culture of impunity, political parties’ withdrawal of court cases pressed against party workers and the perils of non-existent transitional justice mechanisms.
How does NHRC view Prabhu Sah’s implication in the murder of Kashinath Tiwari?
NHRC has asked the government for details on Prabhu Sah’s case. We’re monitoring the case. There are questions—things like why did the government lawyer drop the case against Sah? He is also a minister at the moment, so it becomes a moral question. The Minister should help conduct an impartial investigation by abstaining from a position of power.
In another case, Balkrishna Dhungel of the Maoist party was convicted by the Supreme Court for a murder committed during the conflict but he now walks free. What’s NHRC’s position?
Dhungel’s case, apparently, is going to the president for pardon. There’s a serious defect in our constitution, a legacy of the old system of governance. That defect allows for the presidential pardon without any legal criteria whatsoever. This is a very arbitrary and controversial power and a constitutional flaw. There should be judicious, justifiable grounds for pardon, something that appeals to reasonable conscience.
Constitutionally, the pardon, if it comes, will be legitimate under the current constitution?
Yes, the present constitution allows for that kind of pardon. There can be a moral question but no question of legality. From the human rights perspective, this is not good. It will heighten impunity. They say it’s a political offence but it’s not. A political offence is to raise arms against the state, to attack the state’s installation, to recruit people against the state, spread terror — that’s political offence. But if you abduct an individual in the middle of night, torture and kill him or her for not paying up, they are criminal offences.
The Maoists had set up people’s court, and used them to pass judgments. Does that grant a political nature to the conflict-era crimes committed by them?
First, is their judgment recorded? Does it show that they admitted evidences? In any case, for us, the main document that guides us regarding the crimes committed in that period is the Comprehensive Peace Accord. It has national and international legitimacy. The UN, government, and all major parties, all seven of them (SPA), were parties to it. But the present political agreement that grants amnesties for conflict-era crimes is not legitimate.
You mean the clause in the four-point agreement between the Maoists and the Samyukta Loktantrik Madhesi Morcha regarding amnesty and withdrawal of cases against party members?
Yes, I’m talking about that particular clause. There’s an unethical provision that says once we form the government we’ll repeal all the cases that were brought against us during the rebellion or the revolution in Madhes. They don’t qualify what kind of cases will be repealed. They also don’t say they’ll form a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) to examine the cases. The purpose of the agreement was not to establish peace in the country, unlike the CPA. The motive of this unethical and illegitimate agreement was to form a government. The clause to grant amnesty and withdraw the cases goes against international standards. Usually, a transitional justice mechanism is established to sort out whether or not the case is political. These parties are themselves doing the work of that mechanism.
The CPA said that mechanism will be formed within six months of the signing of the CPA. It’s been years and that severely eroded the rule of law.
Those mechanisms should have been formed indeed. They’d have fast tracked cases against politicians, say Prachanda or Baburam, and withdrawn the cases against them. But instead of forming the mechanisms, the parties themselves withdrew the cases.
Is it too late for those mechanisms?
They can still form them. But most of the cases against people belonging to political parties, especially the Maoists, are already withdrawn.
But can’t the TRC be retroactive?
It can be. It can be given the authority to look at cases that are withdrawn as well. But the draft bill on TRC does not give the mechanism that authority. I want to say to the political parties, we must discuss the legitimacy of withdrawing cases. This is an interim constitution, is it not? The governments under this constitution are interim governments.
But look at the kind of decisions they’re taking—absolving their people from any crimes.
The things that should’ve been done through the mechanisms that meet international standards, the government did by itself — we’re innocent, our people are innocent, that’s our truth and reconciliation! Along with TRC,
they should’ve established a hybrid court comprising of people who understand international criminal justice process and also understand the Nepali context. Existing court cannot handle transitional justice. It needs different mechanisms.
Rather than not have a TRC at all, isn’t it better to have at least a TRC, such as one purposed in a bill at the parliament but opposed by the civil society?
You need legitimacy. A weak TRC won’t have international legitimacy. If you mean by weak TRC one that only has the authority to establish facts, you’d need impartial people for that. If you install a person from a party there, he or she will try to protect people belonging to his or her party, someone like the present Attorney General, for example (he laughs).
What are the prospects for having a full-fledged TRC?
With due regard to Baburamji’s popularity, the kind of things the people in this government are saying — that the four-point agreement should be followed for peace and constitution — are highly problematic. Who will be held accountable if the illegitimate and unethical clauses in the agreement are implemented but we still don’t have peace and constitution? Will he be accountable? Without the TRC, even if you make the constitution and conclude the peace process, you won’t have any peace. Such constitution will hold no meaning. Rule of law won’t be established. Impunity will persist. The feeling of revenge will persist — especially between the families of police, Army and rebels who were killed.
But isn’t going back to conflict-era crimes re-opening old wounds? Isn’t there a possibility that it’ll create more conflicts?
The wound haven’t healed. They’re rotting — filled with puss. Unless you take this puss out, there won’t be peace. Feelings like “I didn’t get relief, I was displaced, my folks were killed by them but nothing happened to them, my family member disappeared by them”, they won’t just go away.
You carried out the exhumations in Dhanusha despite the government’s reservations. Can’t NHRC continue with similar bold work?
Today, when we ask the Army to talk to us, they say it’s the job of TRC. We can’t go to the barracks and start exhumations. The Army won’t send their people even to the court when the court requests them. I want to go back to the withdrawals of cases because it is so important. Technically, the government cannot withdraw cases without the courts’ consent. The courts should look into international human rights law and norms before withdrawing the cases. Nepal has accepted these laws and norms. Ignorance of law is no excuse for the judges. They are also accountable. Unfortunately, nobody has highlighted these things. The lawyer community should have gone for public litigation.
But the 500-odd cases withdrawn by successive governments post-2006 were carried with the court’s permission?
Yes, but the government has not been transparent on the withdrawals. To claim that we allow the withdrawals because the government asked for it is not good enough.
So you hold the judiciary equally accountable for these withdrawals?
Indeed, the judiciary should weigh whether the government’s request is reasonable.
http://www.ekantipur.com/2011/10/17/oped/monday-interview/342310.html
How does NHRC view Prabhu Sah’s implication in the murder of Kashinath Tiwari?
NHRC has asked the government for details on Prabhu Sah’s case. We’re monitoring the case. There are questions—things like why did the government lawyer drop the case against Sah? He is also a minister at the moment, so it becomes a moral question. The Minister should help conduct an impartial investigation by abstaining from a position of power.
In another case, Balkrishna Dhungel of the Maoist party was convicted by the Supreme Court for a murder committed during the conflict but he now walks free. What’s NHRC’s position?
Dhungel’s case, apparently, is going to the president for pardon. There’s a serious defect in our constitution, a legacy of the old system of governance. That defect allows for the presidential pardon without any legal criteria whatsoever. This is a very arbitrary and controversial power and a constitutional flaw. There should be judicious, justifiable grounds for pardon, something that appeals to reasonable conscience.
Constitutionally, the pardon, if it comes, will be legitimate under the current constitution?
Yes, the present constitution allows for that kind of pardon. There can be a moral question but no question of legality. From the human rights perspective, this is not good. It will heighten impunity. They say it’s a political offence but it’s not. A political offence is to raise arms against the state, to attack the state’s installation, to recruit people against the state, spread terror — that’s political offence. But if you abduct an individual in the middle of night, torture and kill him or her for not paying up, they are criminal offences.
The Maoists had set up people’s court, and used them to pass judgments. Does that grant a political nature to the conflict-era crimes committed by them?
First, is their judgment recorded? Does it show that they admitted evidences? In any case, for us, the main document that guides us regarding the crimes committed in that period is the Comprehensive Peace Accord. It has national and international legitimacy. The UN, government, and all major parties, all seven of them (SPA), were parties to it. But the present political agreement that grants amnesties for conflict-era crimes is not legitimate.
You mean the clause in the four-point agreement between the Maoists and the Samyukta Loktantrik Madhesi Morcha regarding amnesty and withdrawal of cases against party members?
Yes, I’m talking about that particular clause. There’s an unethical provision that says once we form the government we’ll repeal all the cases that were brought against us during the rebellion or the revolution in Madhes. They don’t qualify what kind of cases will be repealed. They also don’t say they’ll form a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) to examine the cases. The purpose of the agreement was not to establish peace in the country, unlike the CPA. The motive of this unethical and illegitimate agreement was to form a government. The clause to grant amnesty and withdraw the cases goes against international standards. Usually, a transitional justice mechanism is established to sort out whether or not the case is political. These parties are themselves doing the work of that mechanism.
The CPA said that mechanism will be formed within six months of the signing of the CPA. It’s been years and that severely eroded the rule of law.
Those mechanisms should have been formed indeed. They’d have fast tracked cases against politicians, say Prachanda or Baburam, and withdrawn the cases against them. But instead of forming the mechanisms, the parties themselves withdrew the cases.
Is it too late for those mechanisms?
They can still form them. But most of the cases against people belonging to political parties, especially the Maoists, are already withdrawn.
But can’t the TRC be retroactive?
It can be. It can be given the authority to look at cases that are withdrawn as well. But the draft bill on TRC does not give the mechanism that authority. I want to say to the political parties, we must discuss the legitimacy of withdrawing cases. This is an interim constitution, is it not? The governments under this constitution are interim governments.
But look at the kind of decisions they’re taking—absolving their people from any crimes.
The things that should’ve been done through the mechanisms that meet international standards, the government did by itself — we’re innocent, our people are innocent, that’s our truth and reconciliation! Along with TRC,
they should’ve established a hybrid court comprising of people who understand international criminal justice process and also understand the Nepali context. Existing court cannot handle transitional justice. It needs different mechanisms.
Rather than not have a TRC at all, isn’t it better to have at least a TRC, such as one purposed in a bill at the parliament but opposed by the civil society?
You need legitimacy. A weak TRC won’t have international legitimacy. If you mean by weak TRC one that only has the authority to establish facts, you’d need impartial people for that. If you install a person from a party there, he or she will try to protect people belonging to his or her party, someone like the present Attorney General, for example (he laughs).
What are the prospects for having a full-fledged TRC?
With due regard to Baburamji’s popularity, the kind of things the people in this government are saying — that the four-point agreement should be followed for peace and constitution — are highly problematic. Who will be held accountable if the illegitimate and unethical clauses in the agreement are implemented but we still don’t have peace and constitution? Will he be accountable? Without the TRC, even if you make the constitution and conclude the peace process, you won’t have any peace. Such constitution will hold no meaning. Rule of law won’t be established. Impunity will persist. The feeling of revenge will persist — especially between the families of police, Army and rebels who were killed.
But isn’t going back to conflict-era crimes re-opening old wounds? Isn’t there a possibility that it’ll create more conflicts?
The wound haven’t healed. They’re rotting — filled with puss. Unless you take this puss out, there won’t be peace. Feelings like “I didn’t get relief, I was displaced, my folks were killed by them but nothing happened to them, my family member disappeared by them”, they won’t just go away.
You carried out the exhumations in Dhanusha despite the government’s reservations. Can’t NHRC continue with similar bold work?
Today, when we ask the Army to talk to us, they say it’s the job of TRC. We can’t go to the barracks and start exhumations. The Army won’t send their people even to the court when the court requests them. I want to go back to the withdrawals of cases because it is so important. Technically, the government cannot withdraw cases without the courts’ consent. The courts should look into international human rights law and norms before withdrawing the cases. Nepal has accepted these laws and norms. Ignorance of law is no excuse for the judges. They are also accountable. Unfortunately, nobody has highlighted these things. The lawyer community should have gone for public litigation.
But the 500-odd cases withdrawn by successive governments post-2006 were carried with the court’s permission?
Yes, but the government has not been transparent on the withdrawals. To claim that we allow the withdrawals because the government asked for it is not good enough.
So you hold the judiciary equally accountable for these withdrawals?
Indeed, the judiciary should weigh whether the government’s request is reasonable.
http://www.ekantipur.com/2011/10/17/oped/monday-interview/342310.html
Monday, October 17, 2011
उज्जन हत्याकाण्डमा सभासद् ढुंगेल किन मुछिए ?
Monday, 17 October 2011 09:58 नागरिक
विनिता दाहाल, काठमाडौं, असोज ३०- धान कुट्ने मिलमा आउजाउ गर्दागर्दै देखभेट भएका उज्जनकुमार श्रेष्ठ र रेनुका पौडेलको केही समयमै गहिरो प्रेम बस्यो।
हँसिलो अनुहार, अग्लो र खँदिलो ज्यान भएका श्रेष्ठसँग रेनुका आफ्नो जीवन खुसीखुसी बित्नेमा ढुक्क थिइन्। श्रेष्ठ थरकै पहिलो पत्नी घरमा हुँदाहुँदै रेनुकालाई नभित्र्याई उज्जन रहन सकेनन्। रेनुका आफ्नो प्रेमलाई घरले नस्विकार्नेमा पक्का थिइन्। त्यसैले, माइतीलाई थाहै नदिई पोकोपुन्तुरो बोकेर उज्जनकी दोस्रो पत्नीका रूपमा जिन्दगी बिताउन उनी तयार भइन्।
दोस्रो बुहारी भए पनि रेनुकाले घरका सबै सदस्यको मन जितेकी थिइन्। तर, आठ महिनापछि माइतीतर्फबाट 'प्रेम विवाहकै कारण' यस्तो घटना भयो, जसले उनको घरका तीनजनालाई मृत्युको मुखमा मात्र पुर्याएन, आज १३ वर्षपछि पनि त्यसको घाउ झन्झन् बल्झँदै छ।
....
पहिलो शोक
२०५५ असार १०।
ओखलढुंगा-७, तार्केबारी।
बिहान ३ बजे।
उज्जन मस्त निद्रामै थिए। घरमा काम गर्ने दुईजना भरिया थीरबहादुर खत्री र रामबहादुर श्रेष्ठले उनलाई छिटो उठ्न भने।
गाउँमा हाट लाग्ने दिन आउँदै थियो। उनीहरू त्यसलाई चाहिने सामान किन्न जाने तयारीमा थिए। तर, उज्जनलाई उठाउन एक घन्टा लाग्यो।
'अहिल्यै नहिँड्ने भए हामी जाँदैनौं,' भरियाहरूले अड्डी कसेपछि उज्जन आँखा मिच्दै उठे।
साढे चार बजे टर्च बालेर तीनैजना लिखे खोलाको तिरैतिर धोबीडाँडा बजारतिर लागे।
घरबाट झन्डै ४५ मिनेट ओरालो झरेपछि खहरेखोला आइपुग्यो। परबाट आएको टर्चको प्रकाश आँखैमा परेपछि उज्जन झस्किए। दायाँबायाँ हेरे। खेतको गरामाथि केही हुल मानिस ढुंगाको आडमा लुकेर बसेको देखे।
'तिमीहरू भाग,' ढुंगापछाडिबाट आवाज आयो।
उज्जनसँग आएका दुई भरिया अलि पछाडि सरे।
हुलमा थिए रेनुकाका दाजु डोरबहादुर र थलबहादुर, बालकृष्ण ढुंगेल, पुष्कर गौतम र अरू केही सहयोगी।
उज्जनको हंसले ठाउँ छाड्यो। उनले केही सोच्नै भ्याएका थिएनन्, टाउकोमा गोली पड्कियो। उनी रन्थनिँदै तल्लो खेतमा झरे। आलीका ससाना ढुंगा उनको रगतले रगताम्मे भयो।
उनको त्यहीँ प्राण गयो।
सबै मिलेर उज्जनको लास कोसीमा बगाइदिए।
घटना भएको एक महिनापछि दुई भरियाले अदालतमा बयान दिए : 'रेनुकाका दाइ र बालकृष्ण ढुंगेलले उज्जनलाई मार्ने योजनाअनुसार हामीलाई उज्यालो नहुँदै खोलाको तिरैतिर ल्याउनू भनेका थिए। हामीले त्यसै गर्यौं। पुष्करले टर्च बाले। बालकृष्णले गोली हाने।'
यही बयानका आधारमा सर्वोच्चले ढुंगेललाई सर्वस्वसहित जन्मकैदको फैसला गर्यो।
सुरुदेखि नै प्रहरीको नजरमा फरार मानिएका पुष्कर घटनापछि भागेर काठमाडौं आए। उनलाई मतियार भनिए पनि 'फरार रहेकाले पक्राउ परेपछि जुनसुकै बेला चल्ने गरी' उनको मुद्दा जिल्ला अदालतमै मुल्तबी राखियो। अझै त्यो ओखलढुंगा जिल्ला अदालतमा मुल्तबीमै छ।
घटनापछिको एक दशक पुष्कर खुलेआम काठमाडौंमा 'स्तम्भकार'का रूपमा पत्रकारिता गरेर बसे, तर प्रहरीले उनलाई पक्राउ गरेन। २०६४ सालतिर उच्च शिक्षाका लागि बेलायतमा राजनीतिशास्त्र र अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय सम्बन्ध पढ्न गए। करिब एक वर्षअघि उनी काठमाडौं आएका थिए, तैपनि पक्राउ परेनन्। अहिले भारतको नयाँदिल्लीमा बस्छन्।
घटनालगत्तै थुना परेका रेनुकाका दाइ र भरियाहरू जिल्ला अदालतको फैसलापछि सजाय भोगेर थुनामुक्त भए।
'मेरो भाइ (उज्जन) को लास अझै भेटिएको छैन।'
१३ वर्षदेखि न्यायको लडाइँ लडिरहेकी उज्जनकी दिदी सावित्री श्रेष्ठले आइतबार बिहान राजधानीको लाजिम्पाटस्थित घरमा उनको निर्मम हत्या सम्झँदै नागरिकसँग भनिन्, 'हामीले लास देख्दै नदेखी प्रहरीको आदेशमा काजकिरिया गर्यौं।'
...
दोस्रो शोक
उज्जनको हत्यालगत्तै माओवादीले प्रहरीमा उजुरी नगर्न धम्की दिएको थियो। तर, भाइको हत्याले रन्थनिएका दाजु गणेशकुमारले प्रहरीमा जाहेरी दिए। त्यसैलाई निहुँ बनाएर हत्यामा मुछिएका ढुंगेलले गणेशलाई पनि मार्ने धम्की दिँदै भाषण गर्दै हिँडेको सावित्रीले बताइन्।
माओवादीको खुलेआम धम्की सुरु भएपछि सावित्रीले दाइ गणेशलाई काठमाडौं बोलाइन्। एउटा भाइ भर्खरै गुमाएकी उनलाई दाजु पनि गुम्ला भन्ने पिर थियो। बहिनीको सुझावअनुसार गणेश खेतीपातीको चटारो श्रीमती र छोरीको जिम्मा लगाएर काठमाडौं आए। पछि श्रीमती बिरामी परिन्। सावित्रीले उनलाई पनि उपचार गर्न काठमाडौं ल्याइन्।
वृद्ध आमाबाबु र छोराछोरीमात्रै भएको घरमा गणेशकुमार चार वर्षपछि २०५९ मंसिरमा फर्के, धान भिœयाउन। उनी अझै ढुंगेलको निसानाभित्रै थिए।
२०५९, मंसिर ६ गते।
दिउँसो गणेशकुमारकी छोरी रन्जनामात्रै घरमा थिइन्। ६ जना केटा घरभित्र छिरे। गणेशबारे सोधखोज गरे। छोरीले 'बा खेतमा छन्' भन्दै खेततिर इसारा गरिन्।
रन्जनाले देखाएबमोजिम उनीहरू खेतमा गए, तर खेतालाहरूको हुलमा गणेशकुमारलाई चिन्न सकेनन्। उनीहरू फेरि घर फर्किए।
'हामीले भेटेनौं, तिमी नै लगेर देखाइदेऊ,' उनीहरूको आसयबाट अन्जान १४ वर्षकी रन्जना बाटो देखाउन अघि सरिन्।
उनले खेतमा पुगेर खेतालाहरूको हुलमा बुवालाई चिनाउनुमात्र के थियो, आँखै अगाडि गोली पड्कियो। बुवा खेतमै ढले। रगतपच्छे लास देखेर रन्जना त्यहीँ बेहोस भइन्।
घटनालगत्तै जेठा दाइले गणेशकुमारलाई मार्नेविरुद्ध किटानी जाहेरी दिँदा पनि प्रहरीले अझै मुद्दा दर्ता गरेको छैन।
यता हत्याराहरूलाई बाटो देखाउँदै खेतसम्म पुर्याएकोमा रन्जना आफूलाई नै 'दोषी' ठान्न थालिन्। उनको मन भित्रभित्रै खिइँदै गयो। 'मैले ठाउँ नदेखाइदिएको भए बुवालाई केही हुँदैन थियो,' उनी सधैं सावित्रीसँग यही भन्दै छट्पटाउँथिन्, 'त्यस्तो थाहा भएको भए म तिनीहरूलाई डाँडापारीको खेत देखाइदिन्थेँ।'
उनको पीडा देखेर सावित्रीले काठमाडौं नै ल्याइन्। 'काठमाडौं आएपछि पनि सधैं बुवा भएकै ठाउँमा जान्छु भन्थी,' सावित्रीले सम्भि्कन्।
उनका अनुसार ढुंगेलले नै गणेशकुमारलाई गोली हान्न लगाएको सर्वत्र चर्चा थियो। पहिले उनैले मार्ने धम्की दिएकाले सबैको शंका उनीमाथि गयो। तर, पुष्टि गर्ने आधार थिएन।
'पुष्टि भए पनि के गर्ने? सर्वोच्चले त्यत्रो फैसला गर्दा त मेरो भाइका हत्यारा (बालकृष्ण ढुंगेल) खुलेआम सभासद् भएर हिँडिरहेको छ,' उनले आक्रोश पोखिन्, 'पुष्कर त झनै काठमाडौंमै डुली हिँड्दा पनि प्रहरीले पक्राउ गरेन। मुद्दा अझै जिल्ला अदालतमा अलपत्र छ।'
उज्जनको हत्यामा टर्च बालेर गोली हान् भन्ने पुष्करलाई उनले एक वर्षअघि काठमाडौंको चक्रपथमा देखेकी थिइन्। त्यतिबेला 'प्रहरीलाई भनेर मुद्दा अगाडि बढाउन सकिन्छ' भन्ने उनलाई थाहा थिएन। उनी अब पुष्करविरुद्धको मुद्दा पनि अघि बढाउने सोचमा छिन्।
'मेरा भाइका सबै आरोपीले सजाय पाऊन्। त्यसपछि मात्रै हामी न्यायको सास फेर्न सक्छौं,' उनले भनिन्।
....
तेस्रो शोक
उज्जन र गणेशकुमारको हत्यारालाई सजाय दिलाउन सावित्री लगायत परिवारका सबै प्रहरीसँग भिडिरहेका थिए, यसैबीच अपराधबोधले रन्जना झन्झन् गल्दै गइन्।
त्यही वर्ष उनी एसएसलीमा फेल भइन्। मन बहलाउन सावित्रीले रन्जनालाई जिरीको प्राविधिक स्कुलमा पढ्न पठाइन्। त्यहाँ पास भएर आए पनि बुवासँगको वियोगको पीडाले उनलाई छोडेन।
र, अपराधबोधबाट छुट्कारा पाउन २०६३ मा आफ्नै गलामा पासो लगाएर आत्महत्या गरिन्।
एकपछि अर्को वियोगले गाँजेपछि ओखलढुंगामा रहेका आमाले छिनछिनमा होस गुमाउन थालिन्। माओवादीबाट तारन्तार आइरहेको धम्कीले उनीहरूलाई गाउँमै बसिरहने वातावरण पनि भएन।
उज्जनका वृद्ध आमाबा दुवै काठमाडौं झरे।
'आमा खाटमै बेहोसजस्तो भइरहने,' सावित्रीले गहभरि आँसु पार्दै भनिन्, 'घरको भान्छाबाटै दाइलाई गोली हानेको ठाउँ देखिन्थ्यो। त्यही सहन नसकेजस्तो लागेर हामीले सबै परिवारलाई काठमाडौं झिकायौं।'
अहिले ८१ वर्षीय बुवा र ७८ वर्षीया आमा आफ्नो थातथलो छाडेर काठमाडौंमा छोराहरूको वियोगमा छट्पटाइरहेका छन्।
गाउँमा भएका कपडा पसल, अन्न र तेल पेल्ने मिल, जग्गा सबै माओवादीले कब्जा गरिसके। घरको छानो बम पड्काएर उडाइदिए।
पाँच वर्षदेखि परिवारको कोही त्यहाँ जान सकेको छैन।
....
उज्जनकै हत्या गणेशकुमार र रन्जनाको मृत्युको कारण बन्यो। गोली पड्काउने बालकृष्ण ढुंगेल नै भएको ठहर गर्दै ओखलढुंगा जिल्ला अदालतले २०६१ वैशाख २८ गते सर्वस्वसहित जन्मकैदको फैसला सुनायो।
तर, करिब आठ वर्ष जेल बसेपछि बालकृष्णलाई पुनरावेदन अदालत राजविराजले २०६३ असार ११ मा सफाइ दियो। त्यतिञ्जेल पुर्पक्षका लागि थुनामा रहेका ढुंगेल थुनामुक्त भएलगत्तै माओवादी पार्टीमा सक्रिय भएर लागे।
संविधानसभा चुनाव आउँदासम्म उनले उज्जन र त्यसपछि गणेशकुमारको हत्या र उनीहरूको घरजग्गा कब्जालाई आधार बनाएर भाषण गर्दै हिँडेको सावित्रीले बताइन्। 'डरधम्कीकै बलमा ढुंगेलले ओखलढुंगा क्षेत्र नम्बर २ बाट (प्रत्यक्षमा) चुनाव जिते,' उनको प्रश्न छ, 'यही हो विधिको शासन?'
सेनाको जागिर छाडेर बसिरहेका ढुंगेल उज्जनको हत्यालगत्तै माओवादीमा प्रवेश गरेको सावित्रीको भनाइ छ। तल्लो जातसँग रेनुकाले बिहे गरेको व्यक्तिगत रिसिबीले उज्जनको हत्या गरिएको थियो। तर, ढुंगेल यसलाई राजनीतिक मुद्दाको खोल ओडाएर चोखिन खोजेका छन्। पार्टीले पनि उनलाई चोख्याउने गरी सार्वजनिक अभिव्यक्ति दिइरहेको छ।
'यो घटनामा मेरो कुनै संलग्नता छैन। शान्ति र संविधान भाँड्न खोज्ने डलर खेती गर्दै हिँडेकाहरूले रचेको खेल हो यो,' उनले आइतबार नागरिकसँग भने, 'विशुद्ध राजनीतिक घटनालाई प्रेम विवाहको नाटक गर्दै सामाजिक अपराधीकरण गरेर माओवादी पार्टीलाई बदनाम गर्न खोजिएको छ।'
उनले घटनाका मुख्य योजनाकार पुष्कर भए पनि आफूलाई फसाउन खोजेको बताए। 'म अनाहक उज्जनकै हत्या अभियोगमा ८ वर्ष जेल बसेँ। त्यतिबेला प्रहरीले दिएको यातनाले अहिले मेरो दाहिने मिर्गौला काम नगर्ने भएको छ,' उनले भने, 'त्यही मुद्दामा एक दिन पनि थुनामा नपरेको पुष्कर काठमाडौंमा खुलेआम हिँड्दा पनि कसैले पक्राउ गरेन। साँच्चै हत्यारालाई थुन्ने हो भने पुष्करको मुद्दा जिल्ला अदालतबाट ब्युँताउनुपर्छ।'
....
सर्वोच्चले जिल्लाको फैसला २०६६ पुस १९ गते सदर गरे पनि त्यो गुपचुपै रह्यो। फैसलाको पूर्णपाठ आएपछि मात्र सावित्रीका परिवारले यसको जानकारी पाए।
'पूरै माओवादी पार्टी र उसैले नेतृत्व गरेको अहिलेको सरकार ढुंगेललाई उन्मुक्ति दिने अभियानमा लागेको छ,' सावित्री गुनासो गर्छिन्।
बाबुराम भट्टराई प्रधानमन्त्री भएकै दिन सावित्रीले मनमनै सोचेकी थिइन्, 'आशाको दियो अब माओवादी नेताहरूले निभाउनेछन्। बालकृष्ण ढुंगेललाई आममाफी दिने निर्णय गर्छन्।'
उनले ढुंगेलमाथि भएको फैसला 'कार्यान्वयन गराउनू' भन्दै तत्कालीन प्रधानमन्त्री माधवकुमार नेपाल र झलनाथ खनालकहाँ हारगुहार गरेकी थिइन्। 'उहाँहरूले 'हामीलाई पनि बालकृष्णको मुद्दामा जसरी भए पनि आममाफी दिन माओवादीले धम्की दिएको छ' भनेर लाचारी देखाउनुभयो,' उनले भनिन्, 'अब माओवादीकै सरकार हुँदा के नै गर्लान् र?'
आफ्ना भाइका हत्यारा ढुंगेल खुलेआम सभासद् भएर हिँडिरहेको भन्दै उनले सर्वोच्च अदालतमा फैसला कार्यान्वयनको माग गर्दै रिट हालिन्। रिटको सुनुवाइ गर्दै सर्वोच्चले ढुंगेलको फैसला कार्यान्वयन गर्न कुनै रोकतोक नभएको फैसला सुनायो। त्यसपछि झन् ढुंगेललाई आममाफी दिने कुरा माओवादीभित्र चर्कियो।
दसैंको पूर्णिमाको दिन प्रधानमन्त्री भट्टराई उपस्थित चियापान कार्यक्रममा सावित्री पनि पुगेकी थिइन्। तर उनले प्रधानमन्त्रीसँग भेटेर कुरा गर्न चाहिनन्।
'के निरर्थक प्रयास गरिरहनू?' उनले भनिन्, 'माओवादीको आसय मैले बुझिसकेँ।'
अब उनको एउटै आस छ, राष्ट्रपति। यही विषय लिएर राष्ट्रपतिलाई भेट्दा सकारात्मक जवाफ पाएको सावित्रीले बताइन्। तर, मन्त्रिपरिषद्ले नै निर्णय गरेपछि राष्ट्रपतिले केही गर्न नसक्ने कुरा सुनेपछि उनी फेरि झस्किएकी छन्।
यसबीच उनले धेरै माओवादी धम्की भोगिसकिन्। ढुंगेलकै दबाबका कारण वर्षौंदेखि मुद्दा हेरिरहेका उनका वकिलहरूले पनि हात झिकिसके। तर उनी थाकेकी छैनन्।
'शोकलाई शक्तिमा बदलेर डाँडापारिका घाम भएका बाबुआमाले प्रत्येक दिन भोगेको मानसिक पीडाका लागि लडिरहन्छु,' उनको प्रण छ।
'धेरै गरे मलाई पनि मार्लान्। परिवारका तीनजना मरिसके, अब मलाई मर्न डर छैन। हत्याराले नेपालबाट सफाइ पाए भने म अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय अदालत गुहार्छु।'
http://www.nagariknews.com/news-highlights/139-highlights/32247-2011-10-17-04-18-05.html
विनिता दाहाल, काठमाडौं, असोज ३०- धान कुट्ने मिलमा आउजाउ गर्दागर्दै देखभेट भएका उज्जनकुमार श्रेष्ठ र रेनुका पौडेलको केही समयमै गहिरो प्रेम बस्यो।
हँसिलो अनुहार, अग्लो र खँदिलो ज्यान भएका श्रेष्ठसँग रेनुका आफ्नो जीवन खुसीखुसी बित्नेमा ढुक्क थिइन्। श्रेष्ठ थरकै पहिलो पत्नी घरमा हुँदाहुँदै रेनुकालाई नभित्र्याई उज्जन रहन सकेनन्। रेनुका आफ्नो प्रेमलाई घरले नस्विकार्नेमा पक्का थिइन्। त्यसैले, माइतीलाई थाहै नदिई पोकोपुन्तुरो बोकेर उज्जनकी दोस्रो पत्नीका रूपमा जिन्दगी बिताउन उनी तयार भइन्।
दोस्रो बुहारी भए पनि रेनुकाले घरका सबै सदस्यको मन जितेकी थिइन्। तर, आठ महिनापछि माइतीतर्फबाट 'प्रेम विवाहकै कारण' यस्तो घटना भयो, जसले उनको घरका तीनजनालाई मृत्युको मुखमा मात्र पुर्याएन, आज १३ वर्षपछि पनि त्यसको घाउ झन्झन् बल्झँदै छ।
....
पहिलो शोक
२०५५ असार १०।
ओखलढुंगा-७, तार्केबारी।
बिहान ३ बजे।
उज्जन मस्त निद्रामै थिए। घरमा काम गर्ने दुईजना भरिया थीरबहादुर खत्री र रामबहादुर श्रेष्ठले उनलाई छिटो उठ्न भने।
गाउँमा हाट लाग्ने दिन आउँदै थियो। उनीहरू त्यसलाई चाहिने सामान किन्न जाने तयारीमा थिए। तर, उज्जनलाई उठाउन एक घन्टा लाग्यो।
'अहिल्यै नहिँड्ने भए हामी जाँदैनौं,' भरियाहरूले अड्डी कसेपछि उज्जन आँखा मिच्दै उठे।
साढे चार बजे टर्च बालेर तीनैजना लिखे खोलाको तिरैतिर धोबीडाँडा बजारतिर लागे।
घरबाट झन्डै ४५ मिनेट ओरालो झरेपछि खहरेखोला आइपुग्यो। परबाट आएको टर्चको प्रकाश आँखैमा परेपछि उज्जन झस्किए। दायाँबायाँ हेरे। खेतको गरामाथि केही हुल मानिस ढुंगाको आडमा लुकेर बसेको देखे।
'तिमीहरू भाग,' ढुंगापछाडिबाट आवाज आयो।
उज्जनसँग आएका दुई भरिया अलि पछाडि सरे।
हुलमा थिए रेनुकाका दाजु डोरबहादुर र थलबहादुर, बालकृष्ण ढुंगेल, पुष्कर गौतम र अरू केही सहयोगी।
उज्जनको हंसले ठाउँ छाड्यो। उनले केही सोच्नै भ्याएका थिएनन्, टाउकोमा गोली पड्कियो। उनी रन्थनिँदै तल्लो खेतमा झरे। आलीका ससाना ढुंगा उनको रगतले रगताम्मे भयो।
उनको त्यहीँ प्राण गयो।
सबै मिलेर उज्जनको लास कोसीमा बगाइदिए।
घटना भएको एक महिनापछि दुई भरियाले अदालतमा बयान दिए : 'रेनुकाका दाइ र बालकृष्ण ढुंगेलले उज्जनलाई मार्ने योजनाअनुसार हामीलाई उज्यालो नहुँदै खोलाको तिरैतिर ल्याउनू भनेका थिए। हामीले त्यसै गर्यौं। पुष्करले टर्च बाले। बालकृष्णले गोली हाने।'
यही बयानका आधारमा सर्वोच्चले ढुंगेललाई सर्वस्वसहित जन्मकैदको फैसला गर्यो।
सुरुदेखि नै प्रहरीको नजरमा फरार मानिएका पुष्कर घटनापछि भागेर काठमाडौं आए। उनलाई मतियार भनिए पनि 'फरार रहेकाले पक्राउ परेपछि जुनसुकै बेला चल्ने गरी' उनको मुद्दा जिल्ला अदालतमै मुल्तबी राखियो। अझै त्यो ओखलढुंगा जिल्ला अदालतमा मुल्तबीमै छ।
घटनापछिको एक दशक पुष्कर खुलेआम काठमाडौंमा 'स्तम्भकार'का रूपमा पत्रकारिता गरेर बसे, तर प्रहरीले उनलाई पक्राउ गरेन। २०६४ सालतिर उच्च शिक्षाका लागि बेलायतमा राजनीतिशास्त्र र अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय सम्बन्ध पढ्न गए। करिब एक वर्षअघि उनी काठमाडौं आएका थिए, तैपनि पक्राउ परेनन्। अहिले भारतको नयाँदिल्लीमा बस्छन्।
घटनालगत्तै थुना परेका रेनुकाका दाइ र भरियाहरू जिल्ला अदालतको फैसलापछि सजाय भोगेर थुनामुक्त भए।
'मेरो भाइ (उज्जन) को लास अझै भेटिएको छैन।'
१३ वर्षदेखि न्यायको लडाइँ लडिरहेकी उज्जनकी दिदी सावित्री श्रेष्ठले आइतबार बिहान राजधानीको लाजिम्पाटस्थित घरमा उनको निर्मम हत्या सम्झँदै नागरिकसँग भनिन्, 'हामीले लास देख्दै नदेखी प्रहरीको आदेशमा काजकिरिया गर्यौं।'
...
दोस्रो शोक
उज्जनको हत्यालगत्तै माओवादीले प्रहरीमा उजुरी नगर्न धम्की दिएको थियो। तर, भाइको हत्याले रन्थनिएका दाजु गणेशकुमारले प्रहरीमा जाहेरी दिए। त्यसैलाई निहुँ बनाएर हत्यामा मुछिएका ढुंगेलले गणेशलाई पनि मार्ने धम्की दिँदै भाषण गर्दै हिँडेको सावित्रीले बताइन्।
माओवादीको खुलेआम धम्की सुरु भएपछि सावित्रीले दाइ गणेशलाई काठमाडौं बोलाइन्। एउटा भाइ भर्खरै गुमाएकी उनलाई दाजु पनि गुम्ला भन्ने पिर थियो। बहिनीको सुझावअनुसार गणेश खेतीपातीको चटारो श्रीमती र छोरीको जिम्मा लगाएर काठमाडौं आए। पछि श्रीमती बिरामी परिन्। सावित्रीले उनलाई पनि उपचार गर्न काठमाडौं ल्याइन्।
वृद्ध आमाबाबु र छोराछोरीमात्रै भएको घरमा गणेशकुमार चार वर्षपछि २०५९ मंसिरमा फर्के, धान भिœयाउन। उनी अझै ढुंगेलको निसानाभित्रै थिए।
२०५९, मंसिर ६ गते।
दिउँसो गणेशकुमारकी छोरी रन्जनामात्रै घरमा थिइन्। ६ जना केटा घरभित्र छिरे। गणेशबारे सोधखोज गरे। छोरीले 'बा खेतमा छन्' भन्दै खेततिर इसारा गरिन्।
रन्जनाले देखाएबमोजिम उनीहरू खेतमा गए, तर खेतालाहरूको हुलमा गणेशकुमारलाई चिन्न सकेनन्। उनीहरू फेरि घर फर्किए।
'हामीले भेटेनौं, तिमी नै लगेर देखाइदेऊ,' उनीहरूको आसयबाट अन्जान १४ वर्षकी रन्जना बाटो देखाउन अघि सरिन्।
उनले खेतमा पुगेर खेतालाहरूको हुलमा बुवालाई चिनाउनुमात्र के थियो, आँखै अगाडि गोली पड्कियो। बुवा खेतमै ढले। रगतपच्छे लास देखेर रन्जना त्यहीँ बेहोस भइन्।
घटनालगत्तै जेठा दाइले गणेशकुमारलाई मार्नेविरुद्ध किटानी जाहेरी दिँदा पनि प्रहरीले अझै मुद्दा दर्ता गरेको छैन।
यता हत्याराहरूलाई बाटो देखाउँदै खेतसम्म पुर्याएकोमा रन्जना आफूलाई नै 'दोषी' ठान्न थालिन्। उनको मन भित्रभित्रै खिइँदै गयो। 'मैले ठाउँ नदेखाइदिएको भए बुवालाई केही हुँदैन थियो,' उनी सधैं सावित्रीसँग यही भन्दै छट्पटाउँथिन्, 'त्यस्तो थाहा भएको भए म तिनीहरूलाई डाँडापारीको खेत देखाइदिन्थेँ।'
उनको पीडा देखेर सावित्रीले काठमाडौं नै ल्याइन्। 'काठमाडौं आएपछि पनि सधैं बुवा भएकै ठाउँमा जान्छु भन्थी,' सावित्रीले सम्भि्कन्।
उनका अनुसार ढुंगेलले नै गणेशकुमारलाई गोली हान्न लगाएको सर्वत्र चर्चा थियो। पहिले उनैले मार्ने धम्की दिएकाले सबैको शंका उनीमाथि गयो। तर, पुष्टि गर्ने आधार थिएन।
'पुष्टि भए पनि के गर्ने? सर्वोच्चले त्यत्रो फैसला गर्दा त मेरो भाइका हत्यारा (बालकृष्ण ढुंगेल) खुलेआम सभासद् भएर हिँडिरहेको छ,' उनले आक्रोश पोखिन्, 'पुष्कर त झनै काठमाडौंमै डुली हिँड्दा पनि प्रहरीले पक्राउ गरेन। मुद्दा अझै जिल्ला अदालतमा अलपत्र छ।'
उज्जनको हत्यामा टर्च बालेर गोली हान् भन्ने पुष्करलाई उनले एक वर्षअघि काठमाडौंको चक्रपथमा देखेकी थिइन्। त्यतिबेला 'प्रहरीलाई भनेर मुद्दा अगाडि बढाउन सकिन्छ' भन्ने उनलाई थाहा थिएन। उनी अब पुष्करविरुद्धको मुद्दा पनि अघि बढाउने सोचमा छिन्।
'मेरा भाइका सबै आरोपीले सजाय पाऊन्। त्यसपछि मात्रै हामी न्यायको सास फेर्न सक्छौं,' उनले भनिन्।
....
तेस्रो शोक
उज्जन र गणेशकुमारको हत्यारालाई सजाय दिलाउन सावित्री लगायत परिवारका सबै प्रहरीसँग भिडिरहेका थिए, यसैबीच अपराधबोधले रन्जना झन्झन् गल्दै गइन्।
त्यही वर्ष उनी एसएसलीमा फेल भइन्। मन बहलाउन सावित्रीले रन्जनालाई जिरीको प्राविधिक स्कुलमा पढ्न पठाइन्। त्यहाँ पास भएर आए पनि बुवासँगको वियोगको पीडाले उनलाई छोडेन।
र, अपराधबोधबाट छुट्कारा पाउन २०६३ मा आफ्नै गलामा पासो लगाएर आत्महत्या गरिन्।
एकपछि अर्को वियोगले गाँजेपछि ओखलढुंगामा रहेका आमाले छिनछिनमा होस गुमाउन थालिन्। माओवादीबाट तारन्तार आइरहेको धम्कीले उनीहरूलाई गाउँमै बसिरहने वातावरण पनि भएन।
उज्जनका वृद्ध आमाबा दुवै काठमाडौं झरे।
'आमा खाटमै बेहोसजस्तो भइरहने,' सावित्रीले गहभरि आँसु पार्दै भनिन्, 'घरको भान्छाबाटै दाइलाई गोली हानेको ठाउँ देखिन्थ्यो। त्यही सहन नसकेजस्तो लागेर हामीले सबै परिवारलाई काठमाडौं झिकायौं।'
अहिले ८१ वर्षीय बुवा र ७८ वर्षीया आमा आफ्नो थातथलो छाडेर काठमाडौंमा छोराहरूको वियोगमा छट्पटाइरहेका छन्।
गाउँमा भएका कपडा पसल, अन्न र तेल पेल्ने मिल, जग्गा सबै माओवादीले कब्जा गरिसके। घरको छानो बम पड्काएर उडाइदिए।
पाँच वर्षदेखि परिवारको कोही त्यहाँ जान सकेको छैन।
....
उज्जनकै हत्या गणेशकुमार र रन्जनाको मृत्युको कारण बन्यो। गोली पड्काउने बालकृष्ण ढुंगेल नै भएको ठहर गर्दै ओखलढुंगा जिल्ला अदालतले २०६१ वैशाख २८ गते सर्वस्वसहित जन्मकैदको फैसला सुनायो।
तर, करिब आठ वर्ष जेल बसेपछि बालकृष्णलाई पुनरावेदन अदालत राजविराजले २०६३ असार ११ मा सफाइ दियो। त्यतिञ्जेल पुर्पक्षका लागि थुनामा रहेका ढुंगेल थुनामुक्त भएलगत्तै माओवादी पार्टीमा सक्रिय भएर लागे।
संविधानसभा चुनाव आउँदासम्म उनले उज्जन र त्यसपछि गणेशकुमारको हत्या र उनीहरूको घरजग्गा कब्जालाई आधार बनाएर भाषण गर्दै हिँडेको सावित्रीले बताइन्। 'डरधम्कीकै बलमा ढुंगेलले ओखलढुंगा क्षेत्र नम्बर २ बाट (प्रत्यक्षमा) चुनाव जिते,' उनको प्रश्न छ, 'यही हो विधिको शासन?'
सेनाको जागिर छाडेर बसिरहेका ढुंगेल उज्जनको हत्यालगत्तै माओवादीमा प्रवेश गरेको सावित्रीको भनाइ छ। तल्लो जातसँग रेनुकाले बिहे गरेको व्यक्तिगत रिसिबीले उज्जनको हत्या गरिएको थियो। तर, ढुंगेल यसलाई राजनीतिक मुद्दाको खोल ओडाएर चोखिन खोजेका छन्। पार्टीले पनि उनलाई चोख्याउने गरी सार्वजनिक अभिव्यक्ति दिइरहेको छ।
'यो घटनामा मेरो कुनै संलग्नता छैन। शान्ति र संविधान भाँड्न खोज्ने डलर खेती गर्दै हिँडेकाहरूले रचेको खेल हो यो,' उनले आइतबार नागरिकसँग भने, 'विशुद्ध राजनीतिक घटनालाई प्रेम विवाहको नाटक गर्दै सामाजिक अपराधीकरण गरेर माओवादी पार्टीलाई बदनाम गर्न खोजिएको छ।'
उनले घटनाका मुख्य योजनाकार पुष्कर भए पनि आफूलाई फसाउन खोजेको बताए। 'म अनाहक उज्जनकै हत्या अभियोगमा ८ वर्ष जेल बसेँ। त्यतिबेला प्रहरीले दिएको यातनाले अहिले मेरो दाहिने मिर्गौला काम नगर्ने भएको छ,' उनले भने, 'त्यही मुद्दामा एक दिन पनि थुनामा नपरेको पुष्कर काठमाडौंमा खुलेआम हिँड्दा पनि कसैले पक्राउ गरेन। साँच्चै हत्यारालाई थुन्ने हो भने पुष्करको मुद्दा जिल्ला अदालतबाट ब्युँताउनुपर्छ।'
....
सर्वोच्चले जिल्लाको फैसला २०६६ पुस १९ गते सदर गरे पनि त्यो गुपचुपै रह्यो। फैसलाको पूर्णपाठ आएपछि मात्र सावित्रीका परिवारले यसको जानकारी पाए।
'पूरै माओवादी पार्टी र उसैले नेतृत्व गरेको अहिलेको सरकार ढुंगेललाई उन्मुक्ति दिने अभियानमा लागेको छ,' सावित्री गुनासो गर्छिन्।
बाबुराम भट्टराई प्रधानमन्त्री भएकै दिन सावित्रीले मनमनै सोचेकी थिइन्, 'आशाको दियो अब माओवादी नेताहरूले निभाउनेछन्। बालकृष्ण ढुंगेललाई आममाफी दिने निर्णय गर्छन्।'
उनले ढुंगेलमाथि भएको फैसला 'कार्यान्वयन गराउनू' भन्दै तत्कालीन प्रधानमन्त्री माधवकुमार नेपाल र झलनाथ खनालकहाँ हारगुहार गरेकी थिइन्। 'उहाँहरूले 'हामीलाई पनि बालकृष्णको मुद्दामा जसरी भए पनि आममाफी दिन माओवादीले धम्की दिएको छ' भनेर लाचारी देखाउनुभयो,' उनले भनिन्, 'अब माओवादीकै सरकार हुँदा के नै गर्लान् र?'
आफ्ना भाइका हत्यारा ढुंगेल खुलेआम सभासद् भएर हिँडिरहेको भन्दै उनले सर्वोच्च अदालतमा फैसला कार्यान्वयनको माग गर्दै रिट हालिन्। रिटको सुनुवाइ गर्दै सर्वोच्चले ढुंगेलको फैसला कार्यान्वयन गर्न कुनै रोकतोक नभएको फैसला सुनायो। त्यसपछि झन् ढुंगेललाई आममाफी दिने कुरा माओवादीभित्र चर्कियो।
दसैंको पूर्णिमाको दिन प्रधानमन्त्री भट्टराई उपस्थित चियापान कार्यक्रममा सावित्री पनि पुगेकी थिइन्। तर उनले प्रधानमन्त्रीसँग भेटेर कुरा गर्न चाहिनन्।
'के निरर्थक प्रयास गरिरहनू?' उनले भनिन्, 'माओवादीको आसय मैले बुझिसकेँ।'
अब उनको एउटै आस छ, राष्ट्रपति। यही विषय लिएर राष्ट्रपतिलाई भेट्दा सकारात्मक जवाफ पाएको सावित्रीले बताइन्। तर, मन्त्रिपरिषद्ले नै निर्णय गरेपछि राष्ट्रपतिले केही गर्न नसक्ने कुरा सुनेपछि उनी फेरि झस्किएकी छन्।
यसबीच उनले धेरै माओवादी धम्की भोगिसकिन्। ढुंगेलकै दबाबका कारण वर्षौंदेखि मुद्दा हेरिरहेका उनका वकिलहरूले पनि हात झिकिसके। तर उनी थाकेकी छैनन्।
'शोकलाई शक्तिमा बदलेर डाँडापारिका घाम भएका बाबुआमाले प्रत्येक दिन भोगेको मानसिक पीडाका लागि लडिरहन्छु,' उनको प्रण छ।
'धेरै गरे मलाई पनि मार्लान्। परिवारका तीनजना मरिसके, अब मलाई मर्न डर छैन। हत्याराले नेपालबाट सफाइ पाए भने म अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय अदालत गुहार्छु।'
http://www.nagariknews.com/news-highlights/139-highlights/32247-2011-10-17-04-18-05.html
Friday, October 14, 2011
Forgotten Doramba, Nagarik
More than eight years have passed since the Doramba massacre which led to the collapse of the Maoist ceasefire with the government. Twenty-one Maoists were executed by the army after they were captured in Doramba on 17 August 2003, at a time when peace talks were going on in Hapure of Dang. Acting on a tip-off, a team led by Major Ram Mani Pokharel surrounded the house of Yubraj Moktan, a local teacher at Doramba in Ramechhap district killing two people instantly, capturing 19 others who were executed one by one later.
Every year, party leaders make promises of justice to the families of those killed. But these have been empty promises. They have got neither compensation nor justice. Suntali Tamang, Moktan's wife, says that she has got nothing except the Rs 225,000 as compensation for the murder of her husband and son. Mayadevi Tamang, who lost her husband in the massacre, also hasn't got anything more than Rs 125,000.
The families had hoped that at least the perpetrators would be punished and they would be delivered justice after the Maoist came to government. After all, they did not die in combat. Perhaps if they had fought back they would have survived, but they thought the army would not kill them because a ceasefire was in effect. This time too, the Maoists are in power but it seems very unlikely that they would investigate the case or punish the accused in the army.
Family members have demanded the Maoist leadership to disclose what kind of actions were taken action against the guilty. It is due to sacrifices made by many cadre like these that the Maoists got into power.
http://www.nepalitimes.com/issue/2011/10/15/FromtheNepaliPress/18623
Every year, party leaders make promises of justice to the families of those killed. But these have been empty promises. They have got neither compensation nor justice. Suntali Tamang, Moktan's wife, says that she has got nothing except the Rs 225,000 as compensation for the murder of her husband and son. Mayadevi Tamang, who lost her husband in the massacre, also hasn't got anything more than Rs 125,000.
The families had hoped that at least the perpetrators would be punished and they would be delivered justice after the Maoist came to government. After all, they did not die in combat. Perhaps if they had fought back they would have survived, but they thought the army would not kill them because a ceasefire was in effect. This time too, the Maoists are in power but it seems very unlikely that they would investigate the case or punish the accused in the army.
Family members have demanded the Maoist leadership to disclose what kind of actions were taken action against the guilty. It is due to sacrifices made by many cadre like these that the Maoists got into power.
http://www.nepalitimes.com/issue/2011/10/15/FromtheNepaliPress/18623
Immunity from impunity
For an atheist party that supposedly thinks religion is the opiate of the masses, the Maoist-led government sure took this year's Dasain festival seriously. No sooner had we emerged from one holiday, we are plunging straight into another one, Chhat. This means the Madhesi half of the coalition is soon going into its own prolonged hibernation. And with Tihar coming in the way, don't expect much besides slogans on peace-building and constitution-drafting.
But there is one activity the government led by Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai has been deadly serious about: pardoning party faithful accused of crimes and forgiving those involved in excesses during the war. This is not surprising since the main point of the four-point agreement that installed Bhattarai in power was a general amnesty clause.
But the singlemindedness with which Bhattarai is pursuing this agenda threatens to undermine all the stage-managed populism his spin masters have set up for him since he took office.
The public perception is still that Prime Minister Bhattarai is an upright and intelligent man. But he can't remain the only good apple when the rest of the barrel is filled with rotten ones. In fact, the stench is now getting so unbearable that it will sooner or later taint the prime minister himself unless he stops giving excuses, passing the buck.
Soon after assuming office Prime Minister Bhattarai appointed his crony, Mukti Pradhan, as attorney general. Pradhan immediately, and publicly, said his intention was to dismiss all cases of gross human rights violations against Maoist cadre, and to pardon those convicted of such crimes. Carrying on from that, Bhattarai nearly got the cabinet meeting before Dasain to recommend a pending presidential pardon for Maoist lawmaker Balkrishna Dhungel who last year was convicted and sentenced to a 20-year jail term for the murder of Ujjan Kumar Shrestha in Okhaldhunga during the war. The state never made any move to apprehend Dhungel.
Bhattarai also brought in another loyalist, Prabhu Sah, as land reform minister in the cabinet. Sah and his assistant, Siyaram Kuswaha, have been accused of being involved in the murder of Hindu youth leader Kashinath Tiwari in Birganj last year. Police now believe there is enough evidence to take the two to court. Earlier moves by the relatives of the victim to seek justice had failed because of political pressure. But now that there is a professional and honest police chief in Parsa, the case is moving. Sah's Maoist supporters have reacted the only way they know how: by taking to the streets and declaring an indefinite shutdown in Gaur. The state counsel in this case appears to have been under direct instruction of Attorney General Pradhan to remove the minister from the charge-sheet.
None of this, of course, surprises anyone. This is the way the justice system has always worked in this country. Political pressure has always been brought to bear to exonerate criminals under the protection of establishment bigwigs. But this is prime minister of whom we expected more.
If the rot at the top is not stopped, it will be a signal to everyone down the line that it's ok to murder, loot, extort, and take a bribe. If he remains silent when surrounded by crooks, the prime minister will also be seen as a crook.
We understand Baburam Bhattarai has his hands full. There is an unrealistically high public expectation on him to deliver. He has unenviable challenges on every front. But by sanctioning impunity and protecting criminals in his party and cabinet, he is making his own job immensely more difficult.
http://www.nepalitimes.com/issue/2011/10/14/Editorial/18612
But there is one activity the government led by Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai has been deadly serious about: pardoning party faithful accused of crimes and forgiving those involved in excesses during the war. This is not surprising since the main point of the four-point agreement that installed Bhattarai in power was a general amnesty clause.
But the singlemindedness with which Bhattarai is pursuing this agenda threatens to undermine all the stage-managed populism his spin masters have set up for him since he took office.
The public perception is still that Prime Minister Bhattarai is an upright and intelligent man. But he can't remain the only good apple when the rest of the barrel is filled with rotten ones. In fact, the stench is now getting so unbearable that it will sooner or later taint the prime minister himself unless he stops giving excuses, passing the buck.
Soon after assuming office Prime Minister Bhattarai appointed his crony, Mukti Pradhan, as attorney general. Pradhan immediately, and publicly, said his intention was to dismiss all cases of gross human rights violations against Maoist cadre, and to pardon those convicted of such crimes. Carrying on from that, Bhattarai nearly got the cabinet meeting before Dasain to recommend a pending presidential pardon for Maoist lawmaker Balkrishna Dhungel who last year was convicted and sentenced to a 20-year jail term for the murder of Ujjan Kumar Shrestha in Okhaldhunga during the war. The state never made any move to apprehend Dhungel.
Bhattarai also brought in another loyalist, Prabhu Sah, as land reform minister in the cabinet. Sah and his assistant, Siyaram Kuswaha, have been accused of being involved in the murder of Hindu youth leader Kashinath Tiwari in Birganj last year. Police now believe there is enough evidence to take the two to court. Earlier moves by the relatives of the victim to seek justice had failed because of political pressure. But now that there is a professional and honest police chief in Parsa, the case is moving. Sah's Maoist supporters have reacted the only way they know how: by taking to the streets and declaring an indefinite shutdown in Gaur. The state counsel in this case appears to have been under direct instruction of Attorney General Pradhan to remove the minister from the charge-sheet.
None of this, of course, surprises anyone. This is the way the justice system has always worked in this country. Political pressure has always been brought to bear to exonerate criminals under the protection of establishment bigwigs. But this is prime minister of whom we expected more.
If the rot at the top is not stopped, it will be a signal to everyone down the line that it's ok to murder, loot, extort, and take a bribe. If he remains silent when surrounded by crooks, the prime minister will also be seen as a crook.
We understand Baburam Bhattarai has his hands full. There is an unrealistically high public expectation on him to deliver. He has unenviable challenges on every front. But by sanctioning impunity and protecting criminals in his party and cabinet, he is making his own job immensely more difficult.
http://www.nepalitimes.com/issue/2011/10/14/Editorial/18612
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
बालकृष्ण ढुंगेललाई कारागार !
Tuesday, 04 October 2011 12:47 कनकमणि दीक्षित
प्रधानमन्त्री बाबुराम भट्टराईको मन्त्रिपरिषद्ले असोज १५ गते ज्यानमुद्दा सजाय पाएका एकजना अपराधीलाई माफी दिने निर्र्णय गरेको खबर छापाहरूबाट सर्वत्र आयो। उक्त निर्र्णय भइनसकेको पुष्टि भए पनि यो सम्भावित घटनाको नागरिक निगरानी हुन भने जरुरी देखिएको छ, किनभने वर्तमान सरकारको मनसाय ज्यादतीकर्ता र पीडकहरूलाई आममाफी दिने नै देखिन्छ।
जताबाट र जसरी भए पनि पीडकलाई छुटकारा दिन तल्लीन शक्तिलाई नेपाल एउटा खुला र सभ्य समाज भएको जानकारी दिनु परेको छ, जहाँ कानुनी शासनलाई निमिट्यान्न पार्न त्यति सजिलो छैन।
असार २०५५मा ओखलढुंगामा भएको एउटा हत्याको फौज्दारी अभियोगमा सर्वोच्च अदालतले बालकृष्ण ढुंगेललाई दोषी ठहर गरेर जन्मकैद सुनाएको थियो। ढुंगेल माओवादी सभासद हुन्, जो अदालतको निर्देशन विपरीत कारागारमा नभई संविधान सभाको गरिमामय परिसर भित्र-बाहिर गरिरहेछन्। सबै सत्तारूढ प्रतिपक्षी पार्टीका सदस्य तथा कानुनविद् सभामुख सुभासचन्द्र नेम्वाङ स्वयं कसरी एउटा ज्यानकान्डमा साबित भएको अपराधीलाई आँखैै अगाडि ओहोरदोहोर गरिरहेको मात्र होइन, नागरिकलाई मुलुकको मूल कानुन दिने ठाउँमा देख्न सकिरहेका होलान्! यो आफैंमा उदेकलाग्दो कुरा छ। के हामीलाई मानिसको अमानवीय मृत्यु र हत्याले छुन छाडेको हो? के मुलुकलाई जंगली अवस्थामा फिर्ता लैजान चाहने मानिसहरूको अभिष्ट पुरा भइसकेको हो?
ढुंगेललाई माफी दिने सोच राख्नु पनि नागरिकमाथिको ज्यादती हो। हैन भने हामी अदालतको नामोनिसान नभएको समाज निर्माण गरौं, दण्डहीनताको राष्ट्रिय संस्कार बसालौ" अनि नागरिकहरू माथि बलमिच्याइ"को जीत भएको घोषणा गरौ" र एउटा दलको स्वार्थका लागि मानवीयताका सबै मूल्य-मान्यता तिलाञ्जली दिएर अगाडि बढौँ। कानुनी राजमा नागरिकको सुरक्षा हुन्छ, सामाजिक न्यायको प्रत्याभूति हुन्छ, तथा अर्थतन्त्र उँभो लाग्छ भन्ने कुरा बिर्सौं र एनेकपा (माओवादी)को साहस बेगरको नेतृत्वलाई 'हामीलाई शान्ति र न्याय चाहिँदैन, तपाईंहरूले नागरिकमाथि जे थुपारे पनि हुन्छ' भनिदिऊ"।
आइतबारको दिन
आइतबारको दिन मन्त्रिपरिषद बैठकले उक्त निर्र्णय गर्न-गर्न आँटेको बुझिन्छ। धन्न, सिंहदरबारबाट बालकृष्ण ढुंगेललाई माफी दिन भनेर राष्ट्रपति कार्यालयमा पत्र पुगेन। माओवादी दल तथा संयुक्त लोकतान्त्रिक मधेसी मोर्चाबीच भएको चारबुँदे सम्झौता अनुसार माफी दिने कुरा अगाडि सारिएको असत्य होइन। विशेषगरी एनेकपा (माओवादी) भित्र केही ज्यादतीकर्ता सदस्यहरूको ठूलो दबाब छ ताकि द्वन्द्वकालमा उनीहरूले रचेका विभत्स घटनाका लागि कानुन र न्यायले पच्छयाउन छाडोस्। माओवादी शीर्षस्थ नेताहरू समेत यस सन्दर्भमा लाचार देखिन्छन्। बाबुराम भट्टराई स्वयंले उक्त दबाब कति सामना गर्न सक्ने हुन्, भन्न गारो छ।
पूर्वविद्रोही दस्तामात्र होइन, सेना तथा पुलिसका ज्यादतीकर्ताहरू समत यतिबेला माओवादी-मधेसवादी गठबन्धन सरकारबाट ढुंगेललाई माफी दिने निर्र्णयको पर्खाइमा छन् ताकि मुलुकमा अक्षम्य अपराधलाई माफी गराउने नजिर नै बसोस्। अफसोच, प्रधानमन्त्री भट्टराईको वचनको पनि भरोसा रहेन। प्रधानमन्त्री हुनुलगत्तै उनले पार्टी कार्यालयमा पलँेटी कसेर अधिकारकर्मीहरूस"ग भलाकुसारी गर्दै चारबु"दे सहमतिबारे आश्वासन दिएका थिए, पीर नगर्नु भनेर। मात्र राजनीतिक मुद्दाको कुरा गरेको, अपराधी छुट्ने छैनन्, उनले भनेका थिए। अनि एक-दुइ दिनभित्रै द्वन्द्वकालमा माओवादी नेता कार्यकर्ताविरुद्ध लगिएका हरेक मुद्दा फिर्ता लिन र अदालतबाट दोषी ठहरिएकालाई आममाफी दिन उनले सर्वोच्चका बारका कनिष्ठ वकिल मुक्ति प्रधानलाई महान्यायाधिवक्ता बनाए। प्रधानले कुर्सीमा नबस्दै मुद्दा फिर्ता र आममाफीको फाइल अगाडि सारे। यसै दौरानमा ढुंगेललाई माफी दिने फाइल अब क्याबिनबाट छिराएर राष्ट्रपति कार्यालयतर्फ लग्न तैयार भएको प्रस्ट छ। आइतबार मात्र केही व्यवधानले त्यो रोकियो।
दसैंकै बेला यस्तो निर्र्णयको किन तयारी गरिएको? पत्रिका बन्द हुने बेला यो कुरा उठाइयो भने छुट्टीभरमै यो काण्ड पच्ला भन्ने आश पनि थियो होला कसैको। पत्रकार, नागरिक निगरानीकर्ता तथा अधिकारकर्मी आ-आफ्ना थातथलो फर्केका बेला यस्तो निर्र्णय अगाडि सार्नु गजबको रणनीति ठाने होलान् कसैले। निर्र्णय नलिए पनि ट्रायल बलुन छाडेर नागरिकहरूको आक्रोशको मापन गर्न हल्ला फैलाइएको पनि हुन सक्छ। त्यसो हो भने, दसैँ होस् वा तिहार या छठ, सरकारले सुन्ने गरी नागरिक आवाज उठ्नुपर्छ। पर्वका बेला पनि नागरिक सुतेका हुँदैनन्, गैरमानवीय, समाजघाती काम गरेमा शासकविरुद्ध जुनबेला पनि क्रियाशील हुन सक्छन् भन्ने जानकारी दिनै पर्छ। दसैंका बेला पारेर पारस शाहलाई युवराज घोषणा गर्दा ज्ञानेन्द्रमाथि थपिएको जनआक्रोश नबिसिर्नु नै बेस भन्ने पनि बताउनु पर्छ।
संयुक्त लोकतान्त्रिक मधेसी मोर्चालाई यतिखेर प्रश्न गर्नुपर्ने हुन्छ, किन माओवादीको आफ्नो पा"चबु"दे अवधारणा पत्रको २ र ३ मा रहेको घातक मुद्दा फिर्ता र आममाफीको सिफारिसलाई दुई पक्षबीचको चारबु"दे सहमतिमा समावेश गरियो? लामो लोकतान्त्रिक संघर्ष गरेका मधेसवादी नेताहरूले आफ्नो साख र गाम्भीर्यलाई किन यसरी तिलाञ्जली दिएको? के सत्तामा केही बेर बस्नकै लागि माओवादी दलको आत्मकेन्द्रित तथा न्याय र मानवीयता विरोधी मुद्दा फिर्ता र आममाफीको यो अभियानले मधेसी लगायत सम्पूर्ण नेपाली नागरिकको भविष्य कलंकित गर्दैन? 'जनयुद्ध'को अन्तिम चरणमा पीडकहरूबाट धेरै निर्दोष मधेसी नागरिक पनि मारिएका हुन्, तर पनि उन्मुक्ति दिने काम गर्ने? के त्यस्तो माफी दिने अधिकार त पीडित परिवारको मात्र हैन र? हो भने त्यो अधिकार राजनीतिक दलको हातमा कसरी गयो त?
भट्टराई 'मेरो दलभित्र ठूलो दबाब छ भन्दै' गुहार माग्दै हि"डिरहेका छन्। यस्तो संवेदनशील र सारा नागरिकको भविष्य भाँड्ने मामलामा कसैले उनको सहयोगमा उत्रन जरुरी छैन। अति घातक पाँचबुँदे अवधारणा पत्रको आधारमा किन उनलाई सरकार प्रमुख बन्न हतारो? प्रधानमन्त्री भैसकेपछि कम्तीमा शान्तिप्रेमी नागरिकको मुख हेरीकन, नाडी छामीकन उनले आफू नजिकका अपराधीभन्दा साधारण, निर्दोष नागरिकलाई माथि राख्न सक्नुपर्छ।
आममाफीको फाइल प्रधानमन्त्री कार्यालयले नै फिर्ता पठाउनु पर्छ, माथि ठूलो अक्षरमा 'अस्वीकृत' भन्ने छाप लगाएर। आफ्नो दलका विशुद्ध हिंस्रक अपराधिक तŒवले प्रहार गर्छन् र सरकार ढाल्न कोशिश गर्छन् भने उनले डराएर हिँड्नु भएन। संसारसामु आफूलाई फरक खालको नेता भनेर देखाउने तरिका त उनीलाई थाहा हुनु पर्ने हो। सभ्य समाजकै अस्तित्व धरापमा पर्ने प्रश्नमा प्रधानमन्त्री चिप्लने हो भनी शान्ति प्रक्रिया, राजकाज, आर्थिक विकास, विदेश नीति जस्ता विषयमा उनीबाट आश गर्न सक्ने सम्भावना कम रहन्छ।
एक एक पात्र
माओवादी कार्यकर्ता हु"दै सिंगो मुलुकको महान्यायाधिवक्ता बन्न पुगेका मुक्ति प्रधानको कुरा नगरौं, उनी त ज्यादती गर्नेलाई छुटकारा दिने 'जब डिस्त्रि्कप्सन' लिएर कार्यालय छिरेका हुन्। तर नियम-कानुन पालना गराउने अभिभारा बोकेका मन्त्रीको भने मुद्दा फिर्ता तथा आममाफीबारे राय के छ? गृहमन्त्री विजयकुमार गच्छदारबाट यो प्रश्नको जवाफ चाहिएको छ - कुन सैद्धान्तिक, दार्शनिक, ऐतिहासिक, मानवीय, प्रशासनिक आधारमा उनले आममाफीको निर्र्णयमा ल्याप्चे लगाउने हुन्? मन्त्री गच्छदारसहित मन्त्रीमण्डलका मधेसी सदस्यहरूले शान्तिप्रेमी नेपाली नागरिकलाई मुद्दा फिर्ता तथा आममाफीको सम्भावित निर्र्णय कसरी अर्थ्याउने विचार राखेका होलान्?
अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय मानवीयताको कानुन, तथा विभिन्न विदेशी नियोग र संयुक्त राष्ट्र संघका मानव अधिकारको उच्च आयुक्त सहितका अन्य निकाय- सबैले ज्यादतीकर्ता वा आरोपित विरुद्धको मुद्दा फिर्ता लिनु हुँदैन र अदालतबाट घोषित पीडक अपराधीलाई आममाफी दिनु हु"दैन भन्ने मान्यता राख्छन् भन्ने माओवादी नेतामध्ये धेरैलाई थाहा छ। अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय जगतले आफ्नो प्रधानमन्त्रीत्वको मूल्यांकन पनि यस विषयको भरमा गर्छन् भन्ने बाबुराम भट्टराईलाई राम्ररी थाहा छ। भट्टराईबाट ढुंगेललाई माफी सिफारिस गरेर मुलुककै शिर झुकाउने काम नहोस!
बालकृष्ण ढुंगेलको मामला माओवादी दलले 'टेस्ट केस' को रूपमा अघि सारेको भान हुन्छ, जसको मतियार संयुक्त लोकतान्त्रिक मधेसी मोर्चालाई बनाउन खोजिएको छ। यसमा 'सफल' हुन गए पीडकलाई माफी दिने सुनामी आउने छ, जो छेकेर रोक्न सकिने छैन। हत्या, नरसंहार, बेपत्ता र बलात्कारमा संलग्न राज्य पक्ष र विद्रोही पक्षका सबै पीडक आफू पनि छुटकारा पाइन्छ भनेर त्यो समयको व्यग्र प्रतीक्षामा छन्। आज अधिकांश यस्ता पीडक अझै पनि कारागार बाहिर नै छन्, तर न्याय प्रणालीलाई पछारेको पक्का हुने बित्तिकै उनीहरूको भोलिको ज्यादतीको सीमा रहने छैन।
आजका विभिन्न पात्रहरूको सन्दर्भमा केही कुरा यहाँ राख्न सकिन्छ। संवैधानिक राष्ट्रपतिको सामु ढुंगेललाई माफी दिने मन्त्रिपरिषद्को पत्र गयो भने पुनर्विचार र राय सल्लाहका लागि कागजात फिर्ता गर्न सकिन्छ। प्रधानमन्त्रीको हकमा नागरिकको ठूलो सद्भावका सामू उनले अलिकति साहस खर्च गर्नैपर्छ, आफूले अगुवाई गरेको 'जनयुद्ध' को परिणामको सामना त आफैंले गर्नुपर्यो।
बालकृष्ण ढुंगेलको हकमा प्रहरी सामु आत्मसमर्पण गरी सर्वोच्च अदालतको जेल-चलान आदेश पुरा गर्नुको विकल्प छैन। उनी अभियुक्त मात्र होइनन्, दोषी हुन्, मुलुकको सर्वोच्च न्यायालयको निर्र्णय अनुसार कर्तव्य ज्यानमुद्दा अन्तर्गत अपराधी हुन्। गृहमन्त्री विजयकुमार गच्छदारको जिम्मा भने पीडकलाई माफी दिन अग्रसर हुने होइन, यी फरार अपराधी ढुंगेललाई हिरासतमा लिन आफ्नो मातहतको प्रहरीबललाई आदेश दिनु हो।
अदालतले साबित गरेको पीडक हुन्- बालकृष्ण ढुंगेल जसले राजनीतिक नभई नितान्त पारिवारिक विद्वेशका कारण उज्जनकुमार श्रेष्ठको हत्या गरेकामा जन्मकैद सजाय पाएका हुन्। यसै सन्दर्भमा अदालतमा मुद्दा दायर गर्न गएका उनका दाइ पनि मारिए र दाइकी छोरीले आत्महत्या गरिन्। उज्जनकुमारकी दिदी सावित्री श्रेष्ठ तथा अन्य परिवारजन हुन् यस हत्या काण्डका पीडित पक्ष, जसले न्याय पर्खेको एक दशकभन्दा बढी भइसक्यो। तैपनि हरेस नखाई न्यायालय धाए परिवारजनले र हालै सर्वोच्च अदालतले प्रहरीलाई फेरि आदेश दिएको छ, 'बालकृष्ण ढुंगेललाई हिरासतमा लिन प्रहरीलाई कुनै कुराले रोकेको छैन' भन्दै।
प्रष्ट छ, द्वन्द्वकालका पीडक ज्यादतीकर्तालाई अदालतको कठघरामा उभ्याउने लडाइँ धेरै लामो हुनेछ। जब पीडितको सहयोगमा उत्रनु पर्ने सरकार प्रमुख, गृहमन्त्री लगायत सम्पूर्ण मन्त्रीमण्डल कर्तव्य ज्यान मुद्दामा दोषीसाबित अपराधीलाई छुटकारा दिने मनसाय राखेको देखिन थाल्दा लाग्छ, आम नागरिकले कसलाई गुहार्ने र कता जाने?
http://www.nagariknews.com/opinions/98-opinion/31888-2011-10-04-07-04-00.html
प्रधानमन्त्री बाबुराम भट्टराईको मन्त्रिपरिषद्ले असोज १५ गते ज्यानमुद्दा सजाय पाएका एकजना अपराधीलाई माफी दिने निर्र्णय गरेको खबर छापाहरूबाट सर्वत्र आयो। उक्त निर्र्णय भइनसकेको पुष्टि भए पनि यो सम्भावित घटनाको नागरिक निगरानी हुन भने जरुरी देखिएको छ, किनभने वर्तमान सरकारको मनसाय ज्यादतीकर्ता र पीडकहरूलाई आममाफी दिने नै देखिन्छ।
जताबाट र जसरी भए पनि पीडकलाई छुटकारा दिन तल्लीन शक्तिलाई नेपाल एउटा खुला र सभ्य समाज भएको जानकारी दिनु परेको छ, जहाँ कानुनी शासनलाई निमिट्यान्न पार्न त्यति सजिलो छैन।
असार २०५५मा ओखलढुंगामा भएको एउटा हत्याको फौज्दारी अभियोगमा सर्वोच्च अदालतले बालकृष्ण ढुंगेललाई दोषी ठहर गरेर जन्मकैद सुनाएको थियो। ढुंगेल माओवादी सभासद हुन्, जो अदालतको निर्देशन विपरीत कारागारमा नभई संविधान सभाको गरिमामय परिसर भित्र-बाहिर गरिरहेछन्। सबै सत्तारूढ प्रतिपक्षी पार्टीका सदस्य तथा कानुनविद् सभामुख सुभासचन्द्र नेम्वाङ स्वयं कसरी एउटा ज्यानकान्डमा साबित भएको अपराधीलाई आँखैै अगाडि ओहोरदोहोर गरिरहेको मात्र होइन, नागरिकलाई मुलुकको मूल कानुन दिने ठाउँमा देख्न सकिरहेका होलान्! यो आफैंमा उदेकलाग्दो कुरा छ। के हामीलाई मानिसको अमानवीय मृत्यु र हत्याले छुन छाडेको हो? के मुलुकलाई जंगली अवस्थामा फिर्ता लैजान चाहने मानिसहरूको अभिष्ट पुरा भइसकेको हो?
ढुंगेललाई माफी दिने सोच राख्नु पनि नागरिकमाथिको ज्यादती हो। हैन भने हामी अदालतको नामोनिसान नभएको समाज निर्माण गरौं, दण्डहीनताको राष्ट्रिय संस्कार बसालौ" अनि नागरिकहरू माथि बलमिच्याइ"को जीत भएको घोषणा गरौ" र एउटा दलको स्वार्थका लागि मानवीयताका सबै मूल्य-मान्यता तिलाञ्जली दिएर अगाडि बढौँ। कानुनी राजमा नागरिकको सुरक्षा हुन्छ, सामाजिक न्यायको प्रत्याभूति हुन्छ, तथा अर्थतन्त्र उँभो लाग्छ भन्ने कुरा बिर्सौं र एनेकपा (माओवादी)को साहस बेगरको नेतृत्वलाई 'हामीलाई शान्ति र न्याय चाहिँदैन, तपाईंहरूले नागरिकमाथि जे थुपारे पनि हुन्छ' भनिदिऊ"।
आइतबारको दिन
आइतबारको दिन मन्त्रिपरिषद बैठकले उक्त निर्र्णय गर्न-गर्न आँटेको बुझिन्छ। धन्न, सिंहदरबारबाट बालकृष्ण ढुंगेललाई माफी दिन भनेर राष्ट्रपति कार्यालयमा पत्र पुगेन। माओवादी दल तथा संयुक्त लोकतान्त्रिक मधेसी मोर्चाबीच भएको चारबुँदे सम्झौता अनुसार माफी दिने कुरा अगाडि सारिएको असत्य होइन। विशेषगरी एनेकपा (माओवादी) भित्र केही ज्यादतीकर्ता सदस्यहरूको ठूलो दबाब छ ताकि द्वन्द्वकालमा उनीहरूले रचेका विभत्स घटनाका लागि कानुन र न्यायले पच्छयाउन छाडोस्। माओवादी शीर्षस्थ नेताहरू समेत यस सन्दर्भमा लाचार देखिन्छन्। बाबुराम भट्टराई स्वयंले उक्त दबाब कति सामना गर्न सक्ने हुन्, भन्न गारो छ।
पूर्वविद्रोही दस्तामात्र होइन, सेना तथा पुलिसका ज्यादतीकर्ताहरू समत यतिबेला माओवादी-मधेसवादी गठबन्धन सरकारबाट ढुंगेललाई माफी दिने निर्र्णयको पर्खाइमा छन् ताकि मुलुकमा अक्षम्य अपराधलाई माफी गराउने नजिर नै बसोस्। अफसोच, प्रधानमन्त्री भट्टराईको वचनको पनि भरोसा रहेन। प्रधानमन्त्री हुनुलगत्तै उनले पार्टी कार्यालयमा पलँेटी कसेर अधिकारकर्मीहरूस"ग भलाकुसारी गर्दै चारबु"दे सहमतिबारे आश्वासन दिएका थिए, पीर नगर्नु भनेर। मात्र राजनीतिक मुद्दाको कुरा गरेको, अपराधी छुट्ने छैनन्, उनले भनेका थिए। अनि एक-दुइ दिनभित्रै द्वन्द्वकालमा माओवादी नेता कार्यकर्ताविरुद्ध लगिएका हरेक मुद्दा फिर्ता लिन र अदालतबाट दोषी ठहरिएकालाई आममाफी दिन उनले सर्वोच्चका बारका कनिष्ठ वकिल मुक्ति प्रधानलाई महान्यायाधिवक्ता बनाए। प्रधानले कुर्सीमा नबस्दै मुद्दा फिर्ता र आममाफीको फाइल अगाडि सारे। यसै दौरानमा ढुंगेललाई माफी दिने फाइल अब क्याबिनबाट छिराएर राष्ट्रपति कार्यालयतर्फ लग्न तैयार भएको प्रस्ट छ। आइतबार मात्र केही व्यवधानले त्यो रोकियो।
दसैंकै बेला यस्तो निर्र्णयको किन तयारी गरिएको? पत्रिका बन्द हुने बेला यो कुरा उठाइयो भने छुट्टीभरमै यो काण्ड पच्ला भन्ने आश पनि थियो होला कसैको। पत्रकार, नागरिक निगरानीकर्ता तथा अधिकारकर्मी आ-आफ्ना थातथलो फर्केका बेला यस्तो निर्र्णय अगाडि सार्नु गजबको रणनीति ठाने होलान् कसैले। निर्र्णय नलिए पनि ट्रायल बलुन छाडेर नागरिकहरूको आक्रोशको मापन गर्न हल्ला फैलाइएको पनि हुन सक्छ। त्यसो हो भने, दसैँ होस् वा तिहार या छठ, सरकारले सुन्ने गरी नागरिक आवाज उठ्नुपर्छ। पर्वका बेला पनि नागरिक सुतेका हुँदैनन्, गैरमानवीय, समाजघाती काम गरेमा शासकविरुद्ध जुनबेला पनि क्रियाशील हुन सक्छन् भन्ने जानकारी दिनै पर्छ। दसैंका बेला पारेर पारस शाहलाई युवराज घोषणा गर्दा ज्ञानेन्द्रमाथि थपिएको जनआक्रोश नबिसिर्नु नै बेस भन्ने पनि बताउनु पर्छ।
संयुक्त लोकतान्त्रिक मधेसी मोर्चालाई यतिखेर प्रश्न गर्नुपर्ने हुन्छ, किन माओवादीको आफ्नो पा"चबु"दे अवधारणा पत्रको २ र ३ मा रहेको घातक मुद्दा फिर्ता र आममाफीको सिफारिसलाई दुई पक्षबीचको चारबु"दे सहमतिमा समावेश गरियो? लामो लोकतान्त्रिक संघर्ष गरेका मधेसवादी नेताहरूले आफ्नो साख र गाम्भीर्यलाई किन यसरी तिलाञ्जली दिएको? के सत्तामा केही बेर बस्नकै लागि माओवादी दलको आत्मकेन्द्रित तथा न्याय र मानवीयता विरोधी मुद्दा फिर्ता र आममाफीको यो अभियानले मधेसी लगायत सम्पूर्ण नेपाली नागरिकको भविष्य कलंकित गर्दैन? 'जनयुद्ध'को अन्तिम चरणमा पीडकहरूबाट धेरै निर्दोष मधेसी नागरिक पनि मारिएका हुन्, तर पनि उन्मुक्ति दिने काम गर्ने? के त्यस्तो माफी दिने अधिकार त पीडित परिवारको मात्र हैन र? हो भने त्यो अधिकार राजनीतिक दलको हातमा कसरी गयो त?
भट्टराई 'मेरो दलभित्र ठूलो दबाब छ भन्दै' गुहार माग्दै हि"डिरहेका छन्। यस्तो संवेदनशील र सारा नागरिकको भविष्य भाँड्ने मामलामा कसैले उनको सहयोगमा उत्रन जरुरी छैन। अति घातक पाँचबुँदे अवधारणा पत्रको आधारमा किन उनलाई सरकार प्रमुख बन्न हतारो? प्रधानमन्त्री भैसकेपछि कम्तीमा शान्तिप्रेमी नागरिकको मुख हेरीकन, नाडी छामीकन उनले आफू नजिकका अपराधीभन्दा साधारण, निर्दोष नागरिकलाई माथि राख्न सक्नुपर्छ।
आममाफीको फाइल प्रधानमन्त्री कार्यालयले नै फिर्ता पठाउनु पर्छ, माथि ठूलो अक्षरमा 'अस्वीकृत' भन्ने छाप लगाएर। आफ्नो दलका विशुद्ध हिंस्रक अपराधिक तŒवले प्रहार गर्छन् र सरकार ढाल्न कोशिश गर्छन् भने उनले डराएर हिँड्नु भएन। संसारसामु आफूलाई फरक खालको नेता भनेर देखाउने तरिका त उनीलाई थाहा हुनु पर्ने हो। सभ्य समाजकै अस्तित्व धरापमा पर्ने प्रश्नमा प्रधानमन्त्री चिप्लने हो भनी शान्ति प्रक्रिया, राजकाज, आर्थिक विकास, विदेश नीति जस्ता विषयमा उनीबाट आश गर्न सक्ने सम्भावना कम रहन्छ।
एक एक पात्र
माओवादी कार्यकर्ता हु"दै सिंगो मुलुकको महान्यायाधिवक्ता बन्न पुगेका मुक्ति प्रधानको कुरा नगरौं, उनी त ज्यादती गर्नेलाई छुटकारा दिने 'जब डिस्त्रि्कप्सन' लिएर कार्यालय छिरेका हुन्। तर नियम-कानुन पालना गराउने अभिभारा बोकेका मन्त्रीको भने मुद्दा फिर्ता तथा आममाफीबारे राय के छ? गृहमन्त्री विजयकुमार गच्छदारबाट यो प्रश्नको जवाफ चाहिएको छ - कुन सैद्धान्तिक, दार्शनिक, ऐतिहासिक, मानवीय, प्रशासनिक आधारमा उनले आममाफीको निर्र्णयमा ल्याप्चे लगाउने हुन्? मन्त्री गच्छदारसहित मन्त्रीमण्डलका मधेसी सदस्यहरूले शान्तिप्रेमी नेपाली नागरिकलाई मुद्दा फिर्ता तथा आममाफीको सम्भावित निर्र्णय कसरी अर्थ्याउने विचार राखेका होलान्?
अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय मानवीयताको कानुन, तथा विभिन्न विदेशी नियोग र संयुक्त राष्ट्र संघका मानव अधिकारको उच्च आयुक्त सहितका अन्य निकाय- सबैले ज्यादतीकर्ता वा आरोपित विरुद्धको मुद्दा फिर्ता लिनु हुँदैन र अदालतबाट घोषित पीडक अपराधीलाई आममाफी दिनु हु"दैन भन्ने मान्यता राख्छन् भन्ने माओवादी नेतामध्ये धेरैलाई थाहा छ। अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय जगतले आफ्नो प्रधानमन्त्रीत्वको मूल्यांकन पनि यस विषयको भरमा गर्छन् भन्ने बाबुराम भट्टराईलाई राम्ररी थाहा छ। भट्टराईबाट ढुंगेललाई माफी सिफारिस गरेर मुलुककै शिर झुकाउने काम नहोस!
बालकृष्ण ढुंगेलको मामला माओवादी दलले 'टेस्ट केस' को रूपमा अघि सारेको भान हुन्छ, जसको मतियार संयुक्त लोकतान्त्रिक मधेसी मोर्चालाई बनाउन खोजिएको छ। यसमा 'सफल' हुन गए पीडकलाई माफी दिने सुनामी आउने छ, जो छेकेर रोक्न सकिने छैन। हत्या, नरसंहार, बेपत्ता र बलात्कारमा संलग्न राज्य पक्ष र विद्रोही पक्षका सबै पीडक आफू पनि छुटकारा पाइन्छ भनेर त्यो समयको व्यग्र प्रतीक्षामा छन्। आज अधिकांश यस्ता पीडक अझै पनि कारागार बाहिर नै छन्, तर न्याय प्रणालीलाई पछारेको पक्का हुने बित्तिकै उनीहरूको भोलिको ज्यादतीको सीमा रहने छैन।
आजका विभिन्न पात्रहरूको सन्दर्भमा केही कुरा यहाँ राख्न सकिन्छ। संवैधानिक राष्ट्रपतिको सामु ढुंगेललाई माफी दिने मन्त्रिपरिषद्को पत्र गयो भने पुनर्विचार र राय सल्लाहका लागि कागजात फिर्ता गर्न सकिन्छ। प्रधानमन्त्रीको हकमा नागरिकको ठूलो सद्भावका सामू उनले अलिकति साहस खर्च गर्नैपर्छ, आफूले अगुवाई गरेको 'जनयुद्ध' को परिणामको सामना त आफैंले गर्नुपर्यो।
बालकृष्ण ढुंगेलको हकमा प्रहरी सामु आत्मसमर्पण गरी सर्वोच्च अदालतको जेल-चलान आदेश पुरा गर्नुको विकल्प छैन। उनी अभियुक्त मात्र होइनन्, दोषी हुन्, मुलुकको सर्वोच्च न्यायालयको निर्र्णय अनुसार कर्तव्य ज्यानमुद्दा अन्तर्गत अपराधी हुन्। गृहमन्त्री विजयकुमार गच्छदारको जिम्मा भने पीडकलाई माफी दिन अग्रसर हुने होइन, यी फरार अपराधी ढुंगेललाई हिरासतमा लिन आफ्नो मातहतको प्रहरीबललाई आदेश दिनु हो।
अदालतले साबित गरेको पीडक हुन्- बालकृष्ण ढुंगेल जसले राजनीतिक नभई नितान्त पारिवारिक विद्वेशका कारण उज्जनकुमार श्रेष्ठको हत्या गरेकामा जन्मकैद सजाय पाएका हुन्। यसै सन्दर्भमा अदालतमा मुद्दा दायर गर्न गएका उनका दाइ पनि मारिए र दाइकी छोरीले आत्महत्या गरिन्। उज्जनकुमारकी दिदी सावित्री श्रेष्ठ तथा अन्य परिवारजन हुन् यस हत्या काण्डका पीडित पक्ष, जसले न्याय पर्खेको एक दशकभन्दा बढी भइसक्यो। तैपनि हरेस नखाई न्यायालय धाए परिवारजनले र हालै सर्वोच्च अदालतले प्रहरीलाई फेरि आदेश दिएको छ, 'बालकृष्ण ढुंगेललाई हिरासतमा लिन प्रहरीलाई कुनै कुराले रोकेको छैन' भन्दै।
प्रष्ट छ, द्वन्द्वकालका पीडक ज्यादतीकर्तालाई अदालतको कठघरामा उभ्याउने लडाइँ धेरै लामो हुनेछ। जब पीडितको सहयोगमा उत्रनु पर्ने सरकार प्रमुख, गृहमन्त्री लगायत सम्पूर्ण मन्त्रीमण्डल कर्तव्य ज्यान मुद्दामा दोषीसाबित अपराधीलाई छुटकारा दिने मनसाय राखेको देखिन थाल्दा लाग्छ, आम नागरिकले कसलाई गुहार्ने र कता जाने?
http://www.nagariknews.com/opinions/98-opinion/31888-2011-10-04-07-04-00.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)