Refugee Review Tribunal AUSTRALIA RRT RESEARCH RESPONSE Research Response Number: NPL17502 Country: Nepal Date: 2 September 2005 Keywords: Nepal – Maoists – Chitwan – State protection – Local government – Ward Chairmen This response was prepared by the Country Research Section of the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) after researching publicly accessible information currently available to the RRT within time constraints. This response is not, and does not purport to be, conclusive as to the merit of any particular claim to refugee status or asylum. Questions 1. Can you provide information on the activities of Maoists in Chitwan and the ability of the authorities to provide protection for individuals against threats from Maoists? 2. Do the Maoists have an office in Chitwan? Letter head paper or contact address? 3. What is a Ward and a Ward Chairman? 4. Is there evidence of the Maoists targeting members of Municipal councils or Ward Chairmen? RESPONSE 1. Can you provide information on the activities of Maoists in Chitwan and the ability of the authorities to provide protection for individuals against threats from Maoists? Activities A December 2002 Research Response provides information on Maoists in Chitwan suggesting it is a quiet area and they are mainly active in remote villages (RRT Country Research 2002 Research Response NPL17502, 24 December, question 1 – Attachment 1). A recent news item from the al Jazeera website refers to the Maoist-controlled district of Chitwan (‘Nepal blast triggers hunt for Maoists’ 2005, al Jazeera website, source: AFP, 6 June http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/9F7BE0A5-E320-4C5B-BD03- 7151D63A574F.htm - accessed 1 September 2005 - Attachment 2). The latest US Department of State travel warning on Nepal noted, “on June 6, 2005 Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) members detonated a landmine underneath a crowded bus in the Chitwan district, killing or injuring over a hundred people”. The report further stated: During announced road closures in the past, the Embassy received widespread reports of Maoists forcibly blocking major roads throughout the country, including roads to Tibet, India, Chitwan, Pokhara, and Jiri. During some closures, some districts were blockaded without warning. In December 2004, Maoists forcibly blocked all traffic coming into and out of the Kathmandu Valley (United States Department of State 2005, Travel Warning – Nepal, 24 June http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/tw/tw_927.html - Accessed 1 September 2005 – Attachment 3). Human Rights Watch reported the murder in May 2004 of Bhagwan Das Shrestha, chairman of the Chitwan District Monitoring Committee (Human Rights Watch 2005, Nepal: Maoist Rebel Abuses Continue, 20 May http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/05/20/nepal10990_txt.htm - Accessed 1 September 2005 Attachment 4). The May 2005 Human Rights Watch letter also stated: Last month, Maoist forces also carried out a spate of attacks on schools in the context of a two-week campaign for the closure of all private schools initiated on 14 April 2005. Among the schools targeted were a school in Nepalgunj, Banke district, on 17 April and another in Kalyanpur, Chitwan district on 21 April (Human Rights Watch 2005, Nepal: Maoist Rebel Abuses Continue, 20 May http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/05/20/nepal10990_txt.htm - Accessed 1 September 2005 Attachment 4). This bombing is also reported in a July 2005 Amnesty International report (Amnesty International 2005, Nepal: Children caught in the conflict, 26 July, p. 5 – Attachment 5). A January 2005 article in The Rising Nepal discusses the impact of Maoist attacks in the district, especially the temporary closing of government offices (Adhikari, Chandra Shekhar 2005, ‘Chitwan hit by translocation of govt offices’, The Rising Nepal, 5 January http://www.gorkhapatra.org.np/pageloader.php?file=2005/01/06//topstories/main8 - Accessed 1 September 2005 – Attachment 6). A July 2004 article on the One World South Asia website claims Maoist have gained control of the local court system “in some 50 villages of Chitwan district” noting , the "courts mainly deal with disputes regarding crop damage by cattle, stealing of goats or chicken and social evils" (Dubey, PC 2004, ‘Kangaroo Courts Hold Sway in Nepal Hinterland’, One World South Asia website, 29 July http://southasia.oneworld.net/article/view/90875/1/ - Accessed 1 September 2005 – Attachment 7). An earlier 2002 Amnesty International report claimed, “on 22 February 2002, five civilians, including an eight-year-old girl, were burned to death when Maoists stopped a night bus in Chitwan district and set it on fire with the passengers inside, apparently because the bus driver was not adhering to the Maoist bandh [strike] declared that day” (Amnesty International 2002, Nepal: A spiralling human rights crisis, 4 April, p. 40 - Attachment 8). Protection The following August 2005 report by Amnesty International provides this update of the situation in Nepal: The last few months have seen the emergence of vigilante mob violence – apparently encouraged by the state - which has spread terror among local communities. The establishment of "retaliation committees" in certain districts appears to be part of a wider strategy by the authorities to develop "village defence forces" – armed groups of local people to help fight the Maoists (Amnesty International 2005, ‘Nepal: Fractured country, shattered lives’, August, p. 16 – Attachment 9). The report does not mention Chitwan but profiles the activities of Maoists in six districts, including Nawalparasi, the district adjacent to Chitwan: In one district, Nawalparasi, Amnesty International obtained compelling evidence that new recruits to such groups are being trained by the army in military barracks. The establishment of such forces was initially suggested by the government in 2003 but not openly implemented at the time. The report details the emergence of Village Defence Forces since early 2005 in response to the inability of the authorities to provide protection: There is mounting evidence that, rather than resulting in an improved human rights situation, the creation of the village defence forces has led to a sharp deterioration. Numerous incidents, particularly in Kapilvastu and Nawalparasi districts from February to April 2005, testify to the intensification of the conflict. It is now abundantly clear that the Maoists regard the village defence forces and even those working more loosely as village guards (often under duress), as legitimate targets. For example, in Kapilvastu it was reported that Maoists had circulated pamphlets earlier this year, informing the local population that they would not be harmed if they gave up all village defence force activity (Amnesty International 2005, ‘Nepal: Fractured country, shattered lives’, August, p. 16 – Attachment 9). More alarmingly, an International Crisis Group report raises the spectre of unrestrained personal attacks: Villagers armed by the government could easily label personal or political enemies as Maoist sympathisers and take advantage of the lawless environment to pursue their own agendas. The elimination of remaining neutral space would force the population to choose one side or the other; quite possibly they would be targeted by both. As the BBC concluded: "Maoist violence and misdirected counter-violence are taking on a frightening life of their own. And the king's government is encouraging the vigilantes" (International Crisis Group 2005, Nepal: Dealing with a Human Rights Crisis, Crisis Group Asia Report N°94, 24 March, p.11- Attachment 10). 2. Do the Maoists have an office in Chitwan? Letter head paper or contact address? No record of a contact address or office for the Maoist was found in Chitwan in the sources consulted. The only reference to a Maoist office refers to the Kathmandu office and this appeared to be closed as at the date of publication of this report: The BBC reported a later Nepal News article of 20 July 2003, stating that the Maoist had closed their contact office in Kathmandu (UK Home Office 2004, Nepal Assessment, April, para. 6.32 – Attachment 11). The UK Home Office’s Nepal Assessment, provided some useful information on Nepali documentation in general, as well as some specific information on ‘claimed’ Maoist documents: 6.51 In October 2001, the Nepali Times, an English-language paper in Nepal, ran an exposé of asylum scams running in European countries and Australia. … 6.52 On fraudulent documentation, the article runs:- “Asylum seekers are typically armed with documents to "prove" their claims. Some have Maoist photo IDs (in English), others have supposed threats spelled out on what appears to be Maoist party stationery. Still others have warrants on police letter heads that say the person in question is being sought for killing civilians. Many also have with them front-page stories from obscure district newspapers speaking of threats to their lives. (We received a copy of one such paper with a page 1 story detailing the threats to the life of an asylum seeker, but we couldn't find a copy of the newspaper.)” [10b] 6.53 In dealings with the F&CO on verifying documentation, the following general information was offered by Kathmandu on 12 March 2002: “Our experience has shown that on average it takes about 2 months to have checks/verifications done. However, it can take more depending on the remoteness of the district where the checks need to be sent to. Most of the Government Offices outside the capital have no fax machine. Moreover the postal system in Nepal is very poor. We frequently receive request for checks from UK on newspaper articles and documents produced by police i.e. arrest warrants. So far there has not been one of these documents has proven to be genuine. It is difficult to check newspaper reports, very few (if any) appear in the better known/circulated papers. Most appear in obscure publication that may only exist for one or two issues. Most of these papers do not have proper contact address nor telephone numbers. We also receive documents produced by the Nepal Communist Party (Maoists), Nepal.