Mukunda Kattel
The Comprehensive Peace Accord (CPA) of November 2006 ended a decade-long armed conflict and ushered Nepal in a new era of peacebuilding. It would be the era in which the drivers of the conflict, as well as its consequences, would be addressed taking the CPA as a normative yardstick. On 15 January 2007, the CPA became part of the Interim Constitution of Nepal. With it, peacebuilding, or the CPA implementation, became a constitutional duty of the nation.

Thirteen and a half years down the line, most of the CPA provisions have been implemented, some fully and some in part. There are a crucial few still lingering on, however. Socio-economic restructuring is one of them.

Prominent issue
The armed conflict, which the CPA aimed to transform, fed on many issues, which peacebuilding scholars would call ‘grievances.’ The most prominent of them was land. It is evident by the inclusion of land in the 3rd section of the CPA that aimed at ‘political, social and economic transformation and conflict management.’ Article 3.7 and 3.10 were devoted specifically to the question of land. The former provided for a ‘policy to introduce scientific land reform by ending feudal land ownership’ and the latter offered ‘to provide land and other economic’ resources to the landless and land-poor. These provisions were reflected, both in letter and spirit, in the Interim Constitution as part of state responsibilities and directive principles.

The Constitution of Nepal (2015) – written by the Constituent Assembly, elected as a marker of the beginning of a new chapter of constructive and collaborative politics that Nepal needed to implement the CPA, to speak in a narrow sense – guarantees every farmer ‘the right to have access to land for agro activities,’ including selection and protection of local seeds (Article 42.4) and provides for ‘scientific land reform’ to end ‘dual ownership of land’ in a manner that serves the interests of farmers (Article 51.e.1).

A cursory look at the 2017 election manifestos of three major political parties also suggest that they are committed to land reform. The joint manifesto of the then CPN (UML) and the Maoist Centre proclaimed to resolve all land-related problems through scientific land reforms. The Nepali Congress manifesto also made reference to scientific land reform as part its commitment to the modernisation of agriculture. The Federal Socialist Forum, Nepal promised that reports of all previous land commissions would be reviewed and scientific land reform would be implemented to benefit farmers.

The banal review is to remind all stakeholders of constitutional provisions and political promises vis-à-vis land reform. This is also to remind that without addressing the land question Nepal’s post-conflict peacebuilding will remain incomplete, and the progress that has been achieved over the years, which is known as ‘negative peace’ in a peacebuilding jargon, may risk collapsing into another cycle of violence. A recurred conflict will be costlier than the previous one if experience from around the world is any guide. The question of land reform must not be taken cosmetically.

Welcome move
On April 15, the Government of Nepal formed a land commission. It was a long-awaited development. The commission presents an opportunity to address one of the central issues that triggered the armed conflict and one that can give a sustainable foundation to the peace that has been achieved over the years.

The commission has been given two tasks: to provide land to the landless squatters, and regulate unplanned dwellings. It has all powers necessary to collect details about the land in question from local governments, summon individuals, develop a plan of action and, ultimately, decide on land distribution. It is an all-powerful commission in a literal sense.

The formation of the commission is not an act of mercy or benevolence. It is an obligation arising from the constitution, which the government as well as the opposition – who collectively negotiated the constitution – are bound to respect.

However, the reactions from the main opposition party were not encouraging. The priority of the day, the party said, was not the formation of the land commission, but the supply of relief to those affected by the lockdown. The Chief Whip of the party even likened the commission to the design crafted to create jobs for those loyal to the ruling party. This is an unfortunate indication that the main opposition is not in agreement to implement one of the pressing issues of the day. The party has, however, not presented politically rational arguments to justify its disagreement.

Some 25 per cent of Nepal’s population is estimated to be landless and land-poor. The land-less and land-poor are also voiceless and voice-poor. They cannot articulate freely because of the fear of repercussion of their voice. The subjugation and dependence meted out to them force them to surrender their voice even in the face of injustice.

Land is central to a life with dignity for the poor. It gives them identity in a form of land certificate, a permanent house, electricity connection and some space to plant a seed of their choice. These small things enhance their sense of independence, embolden their voice and empower them as a person that can think and react freely. A free-thinking individual is politically equal with anyone else. Political equality enhances one’s dignity. Political equality and dignity is what human rights is all about.

Access to land
Access to land is multi-purpose. It contributes to the establishment of a just society by doing away with injustices connected to land-deprivation and resultant socio-economic exclusion and marginalisation. Access to land also empowers one to claim basic human rights, such as freedom of expression and freedom to participate in social and political processes without let or hindrance. When venues of free expression and association are available, there will be no need for anyone to think of other forms of expression and association.

The land commission – and the process it will initiate – should thus be supported by everyone concerned with sustainable peace. Those concerned with the future of democracy should also be vigilant. Twenty-five percent of the population condemned to voicelessness does not augur well for democracy’s health. Land reform should no more be treated with complacency. Nor can it be subjected to petty politics any longer.

(A PhD on human rights and peace, Kattel is a human rights professional who writes on political and social issues)

source: Mukunda Kattel, risingnepaldaily, 29 April 2020