Nepal DemocracyWatch

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
PRESS RELEASE
News Flash

AI Index: �ASA 31/079/2002 �(Public)
News Service No: 242 �
24 December 2002

Amnesty International is extremely concerned for the safety of victims of human rights abuses who are being further persecuted by the military in Nepal.

Two young women, Tarnum and Tabsum Maniyar, were today pressurized by army officials from Chisapani army camp to retract information given to Amnesty International and other human rights organizations about their rape at the hands of army personnel in April 2002. �The army came to the girls' house with journalists, including a TV crew, and forced the girls to make a statement to the press retracting the rape allegations.

The case of the two girls featured in a Amnesty International report published on 19 December and in a BBC interview the same day. In its report Amnesty International also named army officers based at the Chisapani army camp who were implicated in the rape and who have been repeatedly accused of human rights violations.

In a message sent today to the Chief of Army Staff the organization urged the army to take immediate action to stop the intimidation of these girls and prevent further human rights violations in the area.

"Amnesty International urges the authorities to investigate the allegations and suspend those allegedly responsible while the investigation is ongoing. We appeal to the Prime Minister, who is also the defence minister, to take immediate steps to protect the girls and their family," the organization said.

Amnesty International has already brought these cases to the attention of the army on 6th November 2002 but it is not known if any action has been taken.

Public Document
****************************************
For more information please call Amnesty International's press office in London, UK, on +44 20 7413 5566
Amnesty International, 1 Easton St., London WC1X 0DW. �web: http://www.amnesty.org

For latest human rights news view http://news.amnesty.org

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL PRESS RELEASE

AI Index: �ASA 31/076/2002 �(Public)
News Service No: 237 �
Embargo Date: 19 December 2002 06:00 GMT

More than 4,366 people have been killed in the conflict in Nepal since the breakdown of talks between the Communist Party of Nepal (CPN-Maoist) and the government in November 2001. A new report published today by Amnesty International "Nepal: a deepening human rights crisis" (ASA31/072/2002) reveals that nearly half of the victims of the 'people's war' �were civilians targeted for their real or perceived support to the CPN-Maoist; others were Maoists deliberately killed after they were taken prisoner or killed instead of being arrested.

The report also highlights that at least 66 people are reported to have 'disappeared' in the last year, after being taken into custody by the security forces. The total number of 'disappearances' reported to the organization in the context of the 'people's war' is over 200. This makes Nepal the country with the third highest number of 'disappearances' reported worldwide in the last four years.
�
"Human rights abuses have reached unprecedented levels since the army was called out and the security forces given new powers," Amnesty International said today.
�
"It is clear that the authorities in Nepal lack the willingness to remedy the situation and tackle the endemic impunity in the country. There is an urgent need for international assistance to provide increased human rights protection and create a law enforcement system capable of addressing reports of human rights violations with greater transparency and accountability," Amnesty International continued.

In the report -- which will be submitted to members of the �United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva in 2003 -- Amnesty International calls for the establishment in Nepal of an office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, to include international human rights monitors and to assist the Nepalese government in strengthening systems for the investigation and indictment of perpetrators of human rights violations.

Maoist forces have also been responsible for a number of human rights violations including the killing of an estimated 800 civilians considered 'enemies of the revolution', hostage taking for ransom, torturing of people taken captive and the deliberate killing of members of the security forces after they were taken captive. The Maoists have also been responsible for recruiting children into their army.

In one incident around 300 Maoists dragged all male villagers above age 15 from their homes at Sumshergunj, Banke district on 9 July 2002. Around 25 people were beaten with clubs, rifle butts and spears and accused of handing over two Maoists to the police who earlier that day had attacked one of the villagers. Two men, Moti Lal Tamauli and Sohan Yadav Ahil died on the spot. Several others were severely wounded.

Recruitment of children by the Maoists has been reported on a regular basis. Amnesty International has evidence of how children were trained in the use of arms. One 14 year old girl explained how arms training took place during the night by torch light and how during the day, she and other children attended classes.

The Commander of the Armed Services told Amnesty International in September 2002 that it is the army's mission to 'disarm and defeat the Maoists'. Army commanders said that civilians who give shelter, food or money to the armed Maoists are also Maoists themselves. The fact that much of this 'assistance' is given under threat from the Maoists was not fully recognised. Many of the victims of killings by the security forces are such civilians.
�
Torture by the army, �Armed Police Force (APF) and police is reported almost daily. The APF which was established in 2001, has been increasingly cited in allegations of torture. The army systematically held people blindfolded and handcuffed for days, weeks or even months. Torture methods included rape, falanga (beatings on the soles of the feet), electric shocks, belana (rolling a weighted stick along the prisoner's thighs causing muscle damage), and beating with iron rods covered in plastic and mock executions.

According to official figures released in August 2002, 9,900 'Maoists' had been arrested of whom 1,722 remained in custody. Most arrests and initial period of detentions take place outside any legal framework, especially when suspects are held in army custody. The army denies holding detainees beyond the legally permitted period of 24 hours specified in the Army Act. However, there is overwhelming evidence of people being held for long periods incommunicado in army barracks.

"Impunity is the single most destructive factor affecting the human rights situation. Members of the security forces feel entirely shielded from outside scrutiny for their actions. The heaviest sanction they face is an internal inquiry," Amnesty International said.

"It is time everyone is held to account for their actions, in Nepal."


Public Document
****************************************
For more information please call Amnesty International's press office in London, UK, on +44 20 7413 5566 or 5650. For a copy of the full report, please visit our website or email imassage@amnesty.org.

Amnesty International, 1 Easton St., London WC1X 0DW. �web: http://www.amnesty.org

For latest human rights news view http://news.amnesty.org

It is well known that the murder of innocent civilians by the security forces continued to intensify throughout the State of Emergency (November 2001-August 2002), and that there has been no sign of abatement since the Emergency was formally lifted. It has also become clear since its full mobilization in November 2001, that the previously untested Royal Nepal Army can match or even surpass the notorious Nepal Police atrocity-for-atrocity when it comes to the abuse of citizens.

Intimidation of surviving villagers, like that which occured in Gwalichaur, Baglung (see 12 December reports), is common. The burying or burning of bodies without post-mortem is also common. The combination of fear and intimidation, disappearance of evidence, staging of fake encounter sites, all exacerbated by the remoteness of many of the scenes of atrocities, make it difficult to for human rights investigators to compile full evidential cases. Nevertheless, such evidence is mounting.

Although a much vaunted "Human Rights Cell" has been established within the Royal Nepal Army, it has yet to show any signs of life. Its function thus far appears to be purely for propaganda purposes - something that can be pointed to by foreign arms providers to try to stifle any domestic opposition to the provision of arms to a force that tortures and kills civilians with impunity.

Many of the most throughly documented cases involve reprisal rampages in the vicinity of a Maoist attack. In such reprisals the army goes out and kills whoever it finds in the vicinity. The massacre in Gwalichaur Baglung (12 December reports) is a typical example. The available evidence shows that another equally, or perhaps even more common, type of atrocity committed by the army is to gun down villagers who commit the crime of gathering together, or anyone who looks suspicious to a roving army patrol. The killings in Beluwa, Dang (see December 12 reports) are a typical example of the first kind. The killings in Kahule, Hetauda (see 14 December reports) are a typical example of the second kind.

The following report involves yet another kind of abuse of the power and responsibility that devolve onto those who are armed by the state to protect citizens: blatant abuse of firepower to settle personal scores. Human rights workers have documented a number of cases of this kind. Villagers throughout the country tell of many more. Just how common such cases are is unknown. Unfortunately, there is no reason to assume they are rare.

The type of cover-up perpetrated in the account of this event that was broadcast by the government media is, moreover, common to all the above mentioned kinds of atrocities, and makes clear that no government report of "terrorists killed in an encounter" can be considered reliable without independent investigation and verification.

_____________

During the week of 4 December, 2002, Nepal Television carried the following news report:

"A terrorist by the name of Bijay Karki was killed in an armed clash with security forces in the Budhi Khola jungle situated on the border of Itahari Municipality".

Jana Astha Saptahik comments on this report in its 11 December 2002 issue:

It is a principle of the government media that anyone killed by an army or police bullet must be labelled a "terrorist" and the place of the event must be called a "jungle". There can be no grosser example of this than the report on the killing of Bijay Karki. First of all, there is no jungle at Budhi Khola. There's not even a single tree to be found there. Second, Karki did not die in an "armed clash" with security forces. Third, he was not a "terrorist".

Karki, who was from a very poor family in Dangihat, had come to Itahari to work as a labourer. On Tuesday the 3rd of December (17 Mangsir, 2059) he worked all day at the Arun Press in Itahari. After finishing work he was heading to the settlement of landless people situated across the Budhi Khola (river) where he was staying with relatives. According to a reliable local source, Bijay Karki was no terrorist. He was a hardworking son supporting his extremely poor family; an innocent young man whom the army targetted on purpose. What actually occurred was this:

After finishing work, 19 year-old Bijay Karki was walking along out of Itahari chatting with a female friend. After a solider in civil dress verbally harrassed the young woman, Bijay Karki and the soldier got into an argument. The argument escalated into a physical fight.

When he found himself shown up by Karki in the fight, the soldier went to a phone and called for a patrol. The patrol came and shot Karki in the thigh. He died while being taken for treatment. Another young man from the same landless labourers' settlement was also shot and is in serious condition.

After they had shot two of the young men of the settlement without any justification, and killed one, in order to terrorize the settlement into silence, the army embarked on a search campaign. A number of youth from the settlement were arrested and have been incarcerated in various Ilaka police stations in Morang and Sunsari Districts.

On 27 November 2002 (11 Mangsir 2059), five Tamang boys were murdered by the army as they returned home from the 3 day ceremony observing the last rites of an elderly relative. The case has come to notice in the press only because the families had the courage to file charges and a compensation claim with the district administration in Bidur.

In its 12 December report on this atrocity, the English language Kathmandu Post notes in passing that the Defense Ministry had originally described the murders as yet another case of "terrorists killed in an enounter" (a claim it has not yet rescinded). But by failing to quote the Defense Ministry's description in full, as well as the statement of the army men on the spot, it leaves out the strong indications that the army and Defense Ministry intentionally engaged in a cover-up. Even the Kathmandu Post's sister publication, Kantipur, does not point out that the evidence points to an intentional cover-up, though it provides a fuller account.

On 29 November, two days after the murders, the Defense Ministry released the following account to the press:

"Some individuals were engaging in suspicious activities in Kahule Ilaka, perimeter Ilaka to a temporary army security base. Since they continued to move toward the security base, five suspicious individuals were killed in an action by the security sentry." [an Ilaka is an administrative unit larger than a Village Development Committee and smaller than a District. It is a large territory with typically thousands of residents]

What were those "suspicious activities" that warranted shooting to death on the spot? We now know that they were:
i) walking home on a major pathway
ii) carrying torches to see in the dark, the common means of lighting the way for the poor majority in the country side

Besides omission of these crucial facts about what the army defines as "suspicious activities" warranting death without investigation, the Defense Ministry press release also fails to inform readers that the "security base" was so very temporary that village residents (like the murdered boys) who had been away for a few days, did not even know it was there.

The news reports do not indicate whether the army's temporary camp was close to where the boys were murdered or not. In the charges filed by relatives, the boys are described as having been killed by a search patrol, which raises the further question of whether they were anywhere near the "temporary security base" or not. These facts and questions, along with many others, have come out only because the families laid charges with the district administration. That is, the army kept silent about this atrocity as it has remained silent about every other atrocity committed by its forces.

What really happened has many true descriptions, all of them appalling and unacceptable:

- the cold-blooded murder by the "security" forces of five schoolboys
- the cold-blooded murder of the young labour force of desparately poor families
- the cold-blooded murder of five Tamang, one of the minority groups that has suffered the severest oppression at the hands of the Nepali state since its inception
- the mutilation of at least three of those murdered
- yet another operationalization of the "shoot first" policy that has resulted in so many innocent civilians being murdered by the security forces
- another operationalization of the "bury-the-evidence" policy that has allowed the government to lie about so many of these cases and call them "terrorists killed in an encounter"
- the treatment, with deadly consequences, of anyone outside after dark as therefore, by definition a "terrorist"
- a cover-up of this atrocity by the military

The known details are as follows:

On the night of 27 November, 2002, fifteen to twenty local residents returned from a Ghewa ceremony (Tamang last rites) that was held for Purko Tamang at Gumbodanda in Ward No. 4 of Kahule VDC. As they reached closer to home, smaller groups split off to take the paths to their own houses. The five victims of the army were together on one of the main roads in the area, and were murdered at a place called Brutam or Brutamgo.

The shots were heard by a herder staying at a nearby animal shed, but he was afraid to go and investigate. The shots were also heard by two other youths, Chandra and Sombahadur Tamang, who had earlier left the main path in order to see some women and girls safely home, and were on another path leading to their own houses at the time of the murders. Chandra Tamang reports, "Sombahadur and I hid in a ditch while the shooting was going on. When the shooting stopped we went home. But they were in a place we couldn't see from where we were, so at the time we didn't know anyone had been killed".

The first villagers knew of the atrocity was when army personnel showed up the next morning, and ordered them to get their digging implements and come bury some "terrorists" who had been shot the night before [a typical forced-labour practice these days]. Arriving at the site, to their horror, they found the corpses of their innocent sons. It was a gory scene. Besides the gun shot wounds to all five, Pariman Tamang's leg was cut off, Chandraman Tamang's arm was cut off, and Jitbahadur Tamang's stomach had been cut open and his intenstines had spilled out. Demanding an account of what had happened from the army men on the spot, the boys' relatives were told that:

"Boys carrying torches at night were seen. On the suspicion that they could be Maoist terrorists they were taken down and killed."

This description makes crystal clear what villagers and human rights investigators have been documenting for months and months: that the army will shoot down anyone it finds "suspicious", and it finds suspicious just about anyone it encounters in the countryside. It also makes crystal clear the policy of: no investigation before shooting; no investigation after killing. And the further policy that, dead-by-army-bullet = "terrorist killed in an encounter".

Who were these five "terrorists killed in an encounter"? They were:

Pariman Tamang, 17 year-old son of Singabahadur Tamang, a student in Class 5.

Jitbahadur Tamang, 19 year-old son of Sherbahadur Tamang, a student in Class 6. Sherbahadur was disabled in an accident while building a house a year and a half ago, and was reliant on the labour of his son. Survivor Chandra Tamang says, "Sherbahadur was already living hand to mouth every day".

Chandrabahadur Tamang, 16 year-old eldest son of Buddhibahadur Tamang, a student in Class 8. The family has 3 young daughters it must now somehow care for without the labour of their elder brother.

Chokta Tamang, 15 year-old son of Kami Tamang, a student in Class 7.

Kanchhaman Tamang, 14 year-old son of Yangar Tamang, a student in Class 4.

All five were close friends and relatives who lived near one another in the predominately Tamang village of Kahule. Chandrabahadur, Chokta and Kanchhaman lived in Kalachet Tol of Ward No. 4, while Jitbahadur and Pariman lived in Hatiya Tol of Ward No. 3.

Being unable to afford the expenses of last rites for all five at the same time despite pooling all their resources, this impoverished village has decided to perform their Ghewa ceremonies one after the other. Jitbahadur and Kanchhaman's rites were completed on Wednesday. Pariman's rites will be carried out next, followed by Chandrabahadur and Chokta.

Kaale Tamang, elder brother of the murdered Pariman, had this to say: "Forget relief, a government representative has not even shown up in the village to offer condolences".

Former Speaker of the House Dhamannath Dhungana has spoken out strongly in favour of the Constituent Assembly option for taking the country out of the present crisis.

Dhungana was speaking at a public forum on "The Human Rights Movement for Fundamental Freedoms" organised by Amnesty International, Nepal on 8 December, 2002 (22 Mangsir, 2059) to mark the 54th International Human Rights Day.

Dhungana argued that if the CPN(Maoist) lays aside arms and ends the bloodshed, it is the duty of all political parties, without making calculations of costs and benefits to themselves, to agree to a Constituent Assembly.

He went on to say that those who are trying to prevent a Constituent Assembly from taking place have no solutions to the present crisis and are only looking out for advantage to their own parties. But, Dhungana warned, "no one can stop the people from moving forward in the direction of a Constituent Assembly".

One of the drafters of the 1990 Constitution, and a widely respected voice for the best interests of the country, Dhungana was also signatory to a joint statement issued on Constitution Day (8 November) which condemned the royal takeover and called for restoration of sovereignty to the people.

That statement was signed by Bishwanath Upadhyaya, Damannath Dhungana and Nilamber Acharya, all drafters of the 1990 Constitution, as well as Dr. Krishna Kumar Pandey, Dr. Madhu Ghimire, Dr. Devendra Raj Pandey, Dr. Laxmi Narayan Prasad and Kulshekhar Sharma.

Like Dhungana's Human Rights Day declaration, the Constitution Day statement also contained a timely warning about the power of the people, this one directed at the palace and its backers:
"The people’s ire against parties’ leadership was used to take away their own authority. Such action today has created a rift between the monarchy and the people.... The belief that such action can escape public protest reflects the inability to realise the political maturity of the masses in these 12 years of democracy."

[This case is a good example of the kind of army rampage that has become typical whenever the security forces are attacked by the CPN(Maoist). After the attack, the army often goes on a rampage in the vicinity, killing innocent civilians who happen to live nearby, or who have the bad fortune to be passing through the area. The government then reports that so many terrorists were killed in a two-way armed clash (dohoro bidhant).

The cover-up of these massacres appears to take two different forms depending on the circumstances. When villagers are taken into custody and then killed, sometimes the army goes to the trouble of later staging a "fake encounter" to produce an alleged clash site. The killing of Kancha Dangol of Saraswati village was covered up in that way, among many others. But oftentimes, like in Baglung, it doesn't even bother to stage a fake encounter. When villagers are just shot down where they stand, right in the course of their work, then it is apparently more convenient just to label them terrorists and label the scene of the carnage as the "encounter site".]

Following the information given out by government sources, the press reported that on 11 November 2002 (25 Kartik, 2059) ten Maoists were killed in an armed clash in Gwalichaur VDC of Baglung District. At the same time the Defense Ministry issued a press release stating that a total of 17 terrorists were killed in armed clashes in Gwalichaur, and at various places in Jumla, Chitwan and Dhading districts. An investigation by the Human Rights and Peace Society (HRPS) has determined that it in fact 6 innocent civilians were killed in Gwalichaur. The HRPS report states that:

On 11 November 2002 (25 Kartik, 2059) at 9:30 am, an army patrol was caught in an ambush trap at Dare Gauda, a place on the edge of Khara Bazaar of Gwalichaur VDC, Baglung District. The patrol was heading from Bhimgiththe to Gwalichaur. Two soldiers were wounded in the explosion and one of them later died while undergoing treatment at Manipal Hospital in Pokhara.

After the explosion the patrol moved into nearby Khaliyan (a place for threshing rice paddy) and Khara Bazaar, firing indiscriminately. They killed 6 innocent civilians and wounded another 6.

Those killed by the army are: Chhabilal Gautam of Gwalichaur, a mute mentally retarded woman of Gwalichaur (name unknown), Bijaya Kumal from Neta Darling in Gulmi, Prakash Chuke of Khara Bazaar in Gwalichaur, Yubaraj Malla from Malarani Darling, also in Baglung, and a mule train driver of the dalit Vishwakarma caste (first name unknown) from Bowang, Baglung.

Those wounded are: Khimbahadur Jisi, Kami Kanchho and Pavitra Acharya, all of Gwalichaur, Narbahadur Sinjali and the young minor-aged son of Gajbahadur Gharti (name unknown), both of Bhimgiththe, and Bhimbahadur Kami of Bowang, Baglung.

After the explosion at Dare Gauda, a group of the army men went over to the hotel of Kudume Magar situated on the road to Burtibang, about 500 metres west of where the ambush took place. There they found Yubaraj Malla, a man from Malarani of Darling VDC who was ignorant of the whole affair. He was sitting drinking tea. The soldiers asked the hotel owner if he knew the man. When the hotel owner said that he didn't, the patrol immediately shot Yubaraj Malla to death.

The paddy threshing area (known as Khaliyan) and Khara Bazaar are about 600 metres east of the place of the ambush. The patrol moved toward these places, firing indiscriminately. As they moved along firing, they killed Chhabilal Gautam who was walking along the road carrying a load of firewood. It was here too, that they killed a mute, mentally retarded woman from Gwalichaur who happened to be in the path of their rampage, and Bijay Kumal who was threshing paddy.

Khara Bazaar lies to the southeast of the site of the explosion. Firing from the centre of Khara Bazaar, the army patrol killed Prakash Chuke as he tried to get inside his house to escape the flying bullets. The firing even reached across the Badhighat river to a spot known as Bagaaha where a Vishwakarma man from Bowang was driving a mule train along. He was killed on the spot.

The villagers report that all those killed were innocent civilians who laboured daily for their food. The army patrol fired indiscriminately from 9:30 until about 10:30 am.

Among the wounded, ex-Indian Army Gurkha Khimbahadur Jisi was hit while tying up a bull in his own shed after using it to thresh paddy. The army arranged for his treatment at Manipal Hospital in Pokhara.

Narbahadur Sinjali and the young son of Gajbahadur Gharti were wounded when the members of the army patrol climbed up onto the roof of a house in Khara Bazaar and fired from there. They are being treated at their own expense at Tamghas, Gulmi.

Pavitra Acharya was wounded while sitting inside her own house. The army even destroyed a box of vacinnes that the Health Post or health workers had left for safekeeping in her house.

Kami Kanchho was wounded at the threshing area, Khaliyan, while Bhimbahadur Kami was wounded while driving a mule train. Among all the wounded, the army arranged treatment only for one, the ex-Indian army soldier Khimbahadur Jisi.

The security force holds that there was nothing wrong with their action, leaving no room for expecting that they will not carry out similar massacres in the future.

After murdering six and wounding six more, the army patrol gave orders for the corpses to be buried and then departed. The local people dug a pit and buried the dead. Three days later on the 14th of November Yubaraj Malla's family came and dug up his body and performed last rites (cremation). None of the bodies underwent a post-mortem.

On the previous day (13 November, 2002), the security force had returned to Khara Bazaar and called the local residents together. The army men stated that they were allowed to kill anyone they could see within 300 yards of the site of an ambush/explosion. They demanded of the villagers, "Is it our fault or the villagers?". After the terrorized villagers said that it was their own fault, the security force went away.

On Wednesday, 4 December 2002 (Mangsir 18, 2059) nine local youths who were celebrating a traditional Tharu festival were shot to death by an army patrol at Beluwa (Tharu Village) of Lakshmipur-3, Dang District.

When newspapers reported that innocents had been killed, the Defense Ministry denied and condemned the news reports. According to the Defense Ministry's counter-story, an army patrol carried out an action against "terrorists" in response to being attacked with socket bombs. The Defense Ministry stated that some individuals were killed during this action and socket bombs and "terrorist literature" were retrieved from the site. In addition, the army claimed, some workers related to a revolutionary organisation were taken into custody. However, an investigation by the Human Rights and Peace Society (HRPS) confirms the original accounts of journalists -- that innocent civilians were killed by the army. The HRPS reports that:

There is a traditional Tharu harvest festival called "Pendaya". On that day people traditionally go visiting at one another's houses, and drink locally brewed beer. Pendaya fell on 4 December (18 Mangsir) this year. The villagers of Beluwa (Tharu Village) of Lakshmipur-3 in Dang District were celebrating on a square of roadway delimited by Sakhiram's house to the east, Jhaggu Prasad's house to the west, Anil Chaudhari's house to the north and Jagat Ram's house to the south. While the young people of the village were gathered together in this space to celebrate their festival, at 7:30 pm on 4 December a security force patrol of about 200 soldiers arrived and killed 8 youths on the spot through indiscriminate firing.

Those killed were: 19 year old Heluram Chaudhari, 16 year old Sharad Chaudhari, 15 year old Buddhiram Chaudhari, 23 year old Indralal Chaudhari, 18 year old Dhundiraj Chaudhari, 16 year old Prithvinarayan Chaudhari, Binod Chaudhari and Ramprasad Chaudhari (ages unknown). 22 year old Asuri Chaudhari was also gunned down half an hour later in a separate incident.

The villagers described how the army attacked suddenly and without any notice, and pointed out that such a large security force, if it had wanted to, could easily have arrested everyone there. The villagers said that even though there was a curfew (from 7:00 pm till morning), it was cruel and barbaric to fire indiscriminately and kill innocent people celebrating a festival.

The dead were all simple labourers, struggling to support their families. 19 year old Heluram Chaudhari worked as a waiter at the Super Lodge in Gorahi. 16 year old Sharad Chaudhari was a tenant farmer, working land for half of the harvest. His wife is 8 months pregnant. 15 year old Buddhiram Chaudhari, 18 year old Dhundiraj Chaudhari, Binod Chaudhari and Ramprasad Chaudhari all worked at the village brick factory. Dhundiraj was married just last Phalgun (February/March). His wife is pregnant. 23 year old Indralal Chaudhari had worked for the local office of CARE Nepal for the past 5 years. 16 year old Prithvinarayan was the only son of a peasant farmer family.

The indiscriminate firing by the security forces even hit a bull tied up in the shed of Bhojraj Chaudhari. The evidence of bullets having penetrated into the houses of the village is also clearly visible.

Among the dead, Prithvinarayan, Ramprasad and Indralal were shot in the stomach and head. The rest were all killed by one bullet through the temple. After a post-mortem at Gorahi hospital on 5 December, the corpses were turned over to the families.

The villagers report that none of those killed were involved with any political party. Their families remain in shock and grief, and wondering how they will survive without the labour of their sons.

On the night of the massacre, the security forces forced everyone out of some houses in the surrounding area, searched the premises and then let them go.

On the same night, at about 8:00 pm, 22 year old Asuri Chaudhari was killed by security forces in Gogli, also located in Ward. No. 3 of Lakshmipur VDC. As he was walking along the Lamahi-Ghorahi road on the way to a neighbour's house to celebrate Pendaya, he was shot to death by the security forces. Villagers heard him cry out before he was killed, "I'm not guilty. Don't kill me". The blood at the site can still be seen.

On Monday 9 December, 2002 (23 Mangsir 2059) the king-appointed cabinet approved the Civil Service (Second Amendment) Ordinance. This ordinance empowers the king-appointed government (i.e., the king) to appoint secretaries to the Village Development Committees. What does this mean and why is it happening?

The government press and the government-oppressed press will say that it is a "temporary measure" to ensure "functional democracy" to the people until elections can be held "at the earliest possible" (etc.). On the contrary:

1) In Nepali government circles it has long been pragmatic practice to approvingly repeat INGO rhetoric about the need for decentralization. More sincere has been the happy acceptance of massive debt (in the form of "aid") for the Nepali people in the name of decentralization programs. The extent of commitment to "empowering" local government was proven once and for all when local government was abolished altogether in July 2002.

2) The excuse for abolishing local government was that local elections could not be held. At that point the government was still declaring that national elections could and would be held in November. The step-by-step dismantling of elected government under the State of Emergency was, however, already well advanced. So the government (read palace and army) did not even feel obliged to come up with an explanation of why local elections would be impossible while a national election would be possible.

3) In fact, the law holds that if local elections cannot be held on time, the current local governments can continue in office for up to one year. This option was completely ignored, showing that there was absolutely no interest in representative government (or indeed "functional democratic government"), never mind a commitment to decentralization (as oposed to decentralization dollars).

4) Instead of extending the terms of the local officials whom the people had chosen, appointed (not elected) District Secretaries were charged with running all the affairs of the VDC's. An impossible task, and a situation that created an utter lack of services for most people in most VDC's.

5) Some donor agencies (European ones more than American ones) balked a little at this blatant eradication of electoral democracy. Especially ones that had a lot of money and public prestige invested in local governance initiatives. But the vast majority of them quickly got back in line to support the new regime. They expressed satisfaction with inconsequential noises about commitment to elections "at the earliest possible". Very likely they bowed to US and UK pressure, though it cannot be proven.

6) After the Royal takeover, the King had the Cabinet change its procedures so that all its decisions require his prior approval. Under this exemplary democratic process, the new Civil Service (Second Amendment) Ordinance has been passed. The Royal Democratic Process (RDP) goes like this:

i) the King informs the Cabinet of "our desire"
ii) the Cabinet duly deliberates and "decides" to do what the King desires
iii) the Cabinet checks with the palace to make sure their decision fully accords with the King's desire
iv) after Royal assent, they then send their ordinance to the King for: Royal Assent!
v) the Royal Democratic Process (RDP) is thus completed. All hail Gyanendra.

All this is accomplished, it is worth recalling, by a government that even by its own illegitimate mandate, has no authority to enact law or alter policy. It is ostensibly a caretaker (care of what and who?) government to get the country to elections "at the earliest possible".

However, putting royal appointees in place at the local level throughout the country, re-establishing panchayat-style rule, and generally making a mockery of the much professed "commitment to democracy", is not all that the new ordinance represents. It also appears to be a combat strategy on the development front of the war.

According to news reports, the Ordinance has been passed in order to appoint secretaries to 1270 VDC's that do not have functional local government. But in fact no VDC's (of which there are over 4000) have functional local government provided by the current state power -- the very power that abolished local government.

Why, then, Royal appointees to oversee only 1270 VDC's? This is precisely the same number of VDC's that government-provided news has stated are not under government control. Precisely the number of VDC's, that is, where People's Councils elected under the parallel government declared by the CPN(Maoist) are acknowledged to have replaced the (non-existent, state-abolished) local government of the current state power.

In other words, the Ordinance Secretaries will be appointed only to the 1270 VDC's where there is a form of local governance, and not to the remaining thousands were there is none. Another milestone in Nepali democracy, Royal style.

These are, moreover, precisely the VDC's that are targeted by the counter-insurgency development plans of USAID, ADB and other major donors and lenders. Apparently the latest recipe for decentralized governance (or does this fall under that other popular development category, "good governance"?) is to directly appoint stooges for royal and imperial interests. So much more efficient than trying to get them elected.

Certainly the palace can be lauded for quickly achieving transparency, an elusive virtue that all the donors have demanded of successive Nepali governments for years. What could be more transparent than this mockery of democracy?

The Bush Doctrines, "unilateral aggression=defense", "elimination of rights=preservation of rights", and other equally stunning advancements in statecraft, have presented a grave challenge to other ruling elites around the world: How to display an equally nuanced understanding of democracy? Not to be outdone, the Nepal Monarchy has been hard at work.

First, all levels of elected government were handily eliminated, by the tried and true strategem of having one part dismiss another till only a small remnant required elimination by direct royal fiat. Next, in the name of preserving what had just been abolished, the king proclaimed his absolute sovereignty, reclaimed all executive powers and appointed a puppet government. Tireless in the difficult work of protecting democracy, with nary a pause for rest, the Monarchy immediately caused the puppet Cabinet to revise its own procedures so that all its decisions require the direct and express approval of the king.

"Democracy" thus protected against any renegade who might have slipped into the appointed government due to the efforts to make it appear populist, one might imagine a well-deserved rest was in order. As the continued labours of the Monarchy show, such a supposition greatly underestimates the depth of that dedication to the consolidation of democracy expressed in the Royal Proclamation of 4 October, and much praised by the Bush Administration and other democracy-loving governments around the world.

Determined to prove to any remaining cynical doubters that it will stop at nothing to protect and consolidate "democracy", on 29 November the Palace made its next move. Reviving and simultaneously amending a dormant Panchayat-era law, it has now taken upon itself the burdensome duty of sole responsibility for determining the Royal Family budget.

The Panchayat-era law included a pro forma provision for a committee headed by the Prime Minister to make recommendations on the appropriate level of financial support for the Royal comfort. Properly understanding that, in a 21st Century democracy in which transparency is a paramount value, deceptive provisions of that sort are not to be countenanced, with a flourish of the Royal pen, the king did away with it. The sole arbiter of the Royal Budget shall henceforth be the Royal "conscience".

What may be expected from the conscience of one of the wealthiest monarchies in the world with regard to the question of how much it should appropriate from one of the poorest populations in the world in order to ensure its luxurious standard of living?

Recent history shows that there was not a peep from the Royal conscience when the Deuba government, during its last desperate bid to retain Royal favour before its final remnants were dismissed, increased the Royal Family budget by 332% in the current fiscal budget. But of course that occurred before the King's conscience was fully awakened, an awakening that brought forth the breathtakingly bold, if not entirely original Shah Doctrine, "true democracy=absolute monarchy". Under this new dispensation we can surely expect a different kind of "conscience" on personal budgetary matters as in all things bearing on democracy.

The present tax-free annual allotment of Rs. 33,790,000 (USD$441,700) to the Royal Family is 2000 times (or 200,000%) larger than the per capita GNP of $220. Even before the Royal Family showed its commitment to national development priorities by going in for major population control in June of 2001, it was certainly not so much larger than the average Nepali family. Close extended family included, it is now just about the same size as a typical landless labourer's family.

One can only assume that the Royal conscience did not trust its appointees to bring the Royal Budget into accord with national standards, as befits a country whose monarch professes the prosperity of his subjects to be his greatest concern, and thus found it necessary to take unilateral control of that budget in order to do so itself.

Of course, the Monarchy is at least equally dedicated to eliminating the least vestige or hint of communism from Nepal, so we can confidently await a further ordinance to eliminate its insidious intrusion into the inner reaches of the even-now-consolidating and ever-fragile democracy, an intrusion so dangerously close to the Royals themselves: the provision of food and housing to the Royal Family by the state.