Peace processes consist of multiple actors and tracks. Track One diplomacy refers to official negotiations between conflict parties. Track Two involves unofficial interactions between influential actors from civil society. Track Three covers grassroots conflict resolution. Nepali IDPs are never invited and accepted as a part of any of these three tracks. The challenge is to combine different tracks and to ensure harmonization.
Nepal’s more than 200000 internally displaced persons are always excluded from peace process. Excluding IDPs from peacemaking and post-conflict reconstruction means that the issues of greatest interest to them –resettlement, rebuilding of basic social services, clearance of landmines and security sector reform- are often ignored by the armed combatants participating in the talks and being a key part of transitional government. Sidelining of IDPs means that they often view peace processes as belonging to armed combatants, not to themselves. They thus will not serve as a countervailing force to press combatants to meet their commitments.
In the absence of IDPs in the peace talk table, too often maniacal combatants claim to represent the disempowered people in peace negotiations. Frequently their demand is for amnesty for all crimes that they, their supporters and the opposite side committed during the armed conflict. Such amnesties too often mean that men with guns forgive other men with guns for crimes committed against powerless civilians. Amnesties can put a cynical cancer in the center of a peace process, ignore IDP rights for compensation, and property restitution and undercut rule of law and justice after the guns go silent.
Premature return of displaced persons in the absence of security and sustainability has led to re-displacement/new displacement and further instability in Nepal. IDPs themselves are best positioned to know when it is wise and safe to return. They know what they need in terms of assistance packages, training opportunities, transport and rebuilding of basic social services.
There are three specific reasons why welcoming IDPs a key actor in peace process;
- Continued cycle of displacement and re-displacement;
KTM-centered Nepal’s peace process is unable to address the causes behind displacement and other consequences of conflict in Nepal. This has resulted into more complex conflict dynamics and emergence of other conflict parties. People at grass root level have not tasted the menu of peace table. State has spent millions of rupees to return the displaced populations without addressing the issues of security and livelihood options after return. Besides, government’s unwillingness to address the agreements done between the state and the agitating groups have led to surface the ethnic and other types of frustrations leading to new type of displacement and re-displacement.
- Unresolved issue of land in peace process.
Land holds very crucial importance in Maoist insurgency. Seized lands during armed conflict are still not returned to the owners in spite of the commitment of Maoist party in several agreements with other political parties and the Nepali government including Comprehensive Peace Accord (CPA). Not only that, Maoists are still engaged in capturing the public and private land and property which is adding more challenges to the peace process to move on right track.
- Politicization of IDPs in Nepal;
Maximum numbers of IDPs in Nepal are directly affiliated with different political parties mainly Nepali Congress and CPN-UML. IDPs related committees are led by these political cadres of Nepali Congress or CPN-UML. Maoist’s cadres at grass root level look at them as ‘class enemy’. There is not any significant change in the perception of Maoist cadres even after the formation of Maoist-led government.
Similarly, the family members of killed and disappeared during insurgency in Nepal are politically and emotionally led by the Maoist. When NC or CPN-UML led the relevant ministry, they focused more on assistance to IDPs and ignored the family members of killed and disappeared during insurgency. And now the Maoist is leading the relevant ministry, they are expected to focus more on the killed and disappeared family members. As the result of this, the gap between IDPs and other victims of conflict is increasing and absence of any effort for reconciliation between them will create more complex scenario for peace process to sustain at community level.
Due to the deteriorating security situation at rural areas of Nepal, a lot numbers of IDPs have affiliated with different armed groups, especially in Terai. These are mainly two types of displaced persons; one who is accused of being perpetrator and the other who needs security after return.
The lack of local pressure to include IDPs in these processes means that the international community must often take the lead to ensure their participation. We need not be diffident when advocating IDP engagement in the face of claims that we are meddling in internal affairs. Today internal disputes invariably represent threats to international peace and security as waves of instability flow easily across borders. Today’s IDP is tomorrow’s actors of violence and insecure areas within a country can be breeding ground for arms, smuggling, and training site for terrorists/revolutionaries.
Conclusion
It is critical that peace process/agreements clarify the political, legal and humanitarian obligations of government towards IDPs and clarify roles and responsibilities in relation to durable solution. Displacement issues also need mainstreaming in the peace building phase, when it is especially important to provide security; solve property related problems; encourage reconciliation; undertake post-conflict reconstruction and ensure a political transition to an effective and legitimate government. The followings are the key issues that need to be addressed;
- Who should speak on behalf of IDPs?
Those who present themselves as the leaders in IDP committees may not be innocent victims but perpetrators of violence during insurgency. But the question is if the CPN-Maoist can be forgiven for all killings and displacement and disappearances, why can an IDP not be forgiven for their involvement as perpetrators? Either make a mechanism for making criteria for forgiveness/amnesty or let’s start a new beginning for a brighter and more peaceful future forgetting what happened in the past.
- How can IDPs be empowered to contribute to peace negotiations?
Typically IDPs from marginalized groups such as Dalits and Madheshi, lack the skills and platform to participate in negotiations. Training for their participation is essential, and must take place early and in a culturally appropriate manner. Likewise, women’s issues seldom make news. Issues of displaced elders, women, and children need to be identified and addressed as well as the women and children are the most affected by the cycle of displacement.
- When is IDP engagement most important?
Issues such as compensation for displacement, accountability and restoration of land
rights are particularly tense, and can disrupt fragile peace processes if introduced too early and without much homework.
- How can IDP engagement facilitate post-conflict civil society?
Innovative programs to use IDPs as planner, implementers and beneficiaries of resettlement and reconstruction programs can help strengthen civil society.
The international community must all reiterate that IDPs are not only victims of conflict but an essential piece of the puzzle in making and sustaining peace. Peace process should benefit from their knowledge of local conditions, their power to generate civil society support for agreements, their willingness to return and rebuild stable societies, and their commitment to the future of their societies. In the pursuit of peace, we should make them part of the solution, not part of the problem.
Rakesh Ranjan
