Public disgrace

Published On: March 15, 2017 12:45 AM NPT By: Republica  | @RepublicaNepal


Balkrishna Dhungel 
In 2004 the District Court, Okhaldhunga, had convicted Maoist leader Balkrishna Dhungel of killing Ujjain Shrestha in cold blood and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

Dhungel was then inexplicably freed in 2006 following a verdict of the Rajbiraj Appellate Court. But in 2010 the Supreme Court upheld the 2004 verdict and reinstated his life-imprisonment along with 
confiscation of his property. And yet Dhungel continues to walk as a free man—even though the Judgment Execution Directorate at the Supreme Court has repeatedly asked the police to arrest him.

Nepal Police has time and again declined to take him in citing ‘political pressure’. Interestingly, on Monday, 22 civil society organizations of his native Okhaldhunga district felicitated Dhungel for his “contribution to the society”. The organizers even questioned the verdict of the apex court and 
demanded ‘a fair judicial probe’ into Dhungel’s case, making a blatant mockery of rule of law in 
Nepal. The ease of his movement and now his felicitation also suggest high level of tolerance of criminals in the Nepali society and does not bode well for the health of Nepali democracy. 

Dhungel belongs to the party of prime minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal and it is not hard to guess that Dahal has been personally putting pressure on the police not to arrest him. Dahal and his party 
continue to insist that it is wrong of Nepali judiciary to adjudicate on conflict-era cases and that all such cases should be left to the two transitional justice bodies. The fear among Maoists of all stripes is that if one of their leaders is convicted for war crimes, then it could open the floodgates for similar prosecutions. Where they get it wrong is that Dhungel’s is not just any other war-time case. In fact, as the Supreme Court verdict makes it clear, Dhungel and his accomplices murdered Shrestha to settle a personal score and not as a part of the Maoist war. So there is no question of his conviction opening the path to convictions of more Maoist leaders on war crimes. Thus the argument that his case should also be handled by the transitional justice bodies is also not tenable; the two bodies have no jurisdiction over established cold-blooded crimes. These are lame excuses and the ruling Maoist party, which now vows to abide by democratic norms, is giving a very poor account of itself by protecting a convicted murderer. 

But perhaps the common citizens of the country are also to be partly blamed. Whenever something goes wrong, we are quick to point finger at political parties and their supposedly self-serving leaders. But surely, if we have certain rights as Nepali citizens we also have some responsibilities towards the society. One of our civic duties is to isolate criminals in our midst and put pressure for their prosecution. But some of us are instead facilitating them in the hope of material rewards in the future. Right connections, after all, are handy in our highly politicized society. Yet if this is the way common folks in Nepal start thinking, then we have no right to criticize our politicians, who, at the end of the day, are our own chosen representatives. 

Democracy works on the basis of an unwritten covenant between the rulers and the citizens that promotes certain (good) behaviors while discouraging certain (bad) ones. If this covenant breaks down then democracy itself will be imperiled. 


Leave A Comment