Controversy Surrounds Commission Report on 'Jyanji' Protests, Focusing Only on Day One Violence

Kathmandu. Various discussions are taking place regarding the report submitted by the commission led by Gauribahadur Karki, formed to investigate the incidents during the nationwide 'Jyanji' protests on Bhadra 23 and 24. Although the commission was tasked with identifying the facts and preparing a report for incidents on both Bhadra 23 and 24, serious questions are being raised about the impartiality of the commission and the implementation of the report itself, as it allegedly focused only on the events of Bhadra 23.

The commission has recommended filing criminal cases against the main responsible officials of Bhadra 23, including then-Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, Home Minister Ramesh Lekhak, Nepal Police Chief Chandrakuber Khapung, and Kathmandu District Chief District Officer Chhabi Rijal.

However, suspicion over the commission's intent and the report has grown after the commission seemingly 'ignored' the arson, vandalism, and looting that occurred nationwide on the 24th, citing a lack of evidence and time.

The Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), which is set to lead the new government, has remained silent regarding the report, while the CPN-UML, which led the previous government, appears angered. RSP leaders, who previously reacted on social media to even minor incidents, are silent about this report. Instead, they are trying to deflect by saying they will comment only after fully studying the report.

RSP leader and newly elected parliamentarian Yagyamani Neupane stated that it is too early to comment on the report. "I haven't had time to study the report completely. It is better to comment after studying it," Neupane told Ratopati. "Let's not comment in haste."

It should be recalled that the RSP had previously claimed ownership of the 'Jyanji' movement. Before the election, in a 7-point agreement with Balen Shah, the RSP had announced it would take ownership of the 'Jyanji' movement.

Meanwhile, UML leaders expressed anger over the publicly released report. Addressing party parliamentarians at the party office after taking the oath on Thursday, UML Chairman KP Sharma Oli stated that the formation of the Karki Commission was targeted against his party and government. Oli was angry that individuals who had already formed 'toxic' and 'prejudiced' opinions against his party in the media and public domain, and had already passed judgment, were selected for the commission even before it was formed.

He also commented that the recommendation to take action against him was laughable. He said, "The recommendation to investigate and file a case against the then-sitting Prime Minister under Sections 181 and 182 of the Muluki Criminal Code is completely baseless and laughable."

He argued that for Sections 181 and 182 to be applicable, the person must have been present at the scene, given orders from there, or shown direct negligence. He contended that applying these sections when the Prime Minister and Home Minister were not even present at the scene was legally inappropriate.

UML General Secretary Shankar Pokharel also questioned the impartiality of the commission after the report was made public through the media. He commented that the report confirmed what they had previously stated—that the Karki Commission would not conduct an impartial investigation into the movement of Bhadra 23 and 24.

"The Karki Commission's report itself confirms that the Karki Commission was not formed for an impartial investigation," General Secretary Pokharel wrote on social media. "It is clear that the Karki Commission and the General Election 082 were an attempt to give political and legal legitimacy to the impact created in Nepali society through an algorithm. The election results and the commission's report have come out accordingly."

General Secretary Pokharel also claimed that Nepali politics is moving towards a new turn with the election and the investigation commission's report.

Stating that a new force has emerged from a mixture of populism, anarchism, and opportunism through the use of algorithms, Pokharel said that the path ahead will not be easy, and both the nation and democracy will have to face challenges for some time.

"In such a situation, perhaps the prudent step is to give the new force and leadership an opportunity to work according to their vision and allow the people to evaluate them through direct experience," General Secretary Pokharel said regarding the new government. "But the truth is that populism, anarchism, and opportunism are not the way to solve today's challenges, nor are they a long-term alternative to ideological politics."

Not only Pokharel, but another UML leader, Gokul Baskota, also commented that the commission's report sought to push the destructive incidents of Bhadra 24 into oblivion. He commented that while the characters and tendencies that history has demanded answers from will have to answer in the dock, it cannot be 'one-sided'.

"Characters and tendencies that history has demanded answers from will certainly answer in the dock. But it cannot be one-sided," Baskota said. "And even if there are independent reasons for the incidents, they do not stand alone when they appear," former Minister Baskota wrote on social media. "Not only the cause, result, and effect, but the other side is also present. Although the Karki Commission tries to push the destruction of the 24th into oblivion, it is not possible."

Indeed, the commission's report has specifically named individuals to bring everyone from the then-Prime Minister to the security personnel deployed on the ground to the dock for criminal and departmental action regarding the repression on Bhadra 23, but it appears to be silent about those responsible for the events of the 24th.

The commission mysteriously acquitted those who caused destruction during the vandalism on Bhadra 24—when the highest pillars of the state such as Singha Durbar, Shital Niwas, and the Parliament Building were burning—citing 'lack of evidence'.

The commission's report raised serious moral and legal questions about the security forces' management of the demonstration at Maitighar-Baneshwor on Bhadra 23. The commission determined that the use of deadly weapons like guns against mostly unarmed protesters, the firing of metal bullets, and the failure to give effective warnings before using weapons constituted a 'blatant violation of the state's responsibility towards human rights'.

While the commission documented the heartbreaking fact that 76 people died in the 'Jyanji' movement, it used shameful language citing a 'lack of evidence' regarding the facts and evidence of Bhadra 24, even though they were abundant. The destruction on Bhadra 24 turned into chaos as a result of the anger over the 19 youths killed on Bhadra 23. However, the commission not only showed indifference in investigating this day but also seemed to normalize the arson, vandalism, and looting using petrol bombs and chemical substances on the nation's historical pillars like Singha Durbar, the Supreme Court, the President's Office, the Federal Parliament Building, and various business establishments.

Although the state's administrative, judicial, and managerial centers were intentionally attacked, the commission appears stingy in delivering justice. Nevertheless, the report admits that in some places, security personnel remained 'inactive' and in others, protesters were involved in destroying data centers, burning documents, and setting buildings on fire by throwing gas cylinders or petrol bombs, citing CCTV footage and eyewitness testimonies.

The report mentions that some political and personal vendetta seekers, along with criminals who escaped from prison and detainees released from custody, led the destruction. However, despite so much fact and evidence, the commission did not recommend action against any 'specific individual or group' involved in the destruction on Bhadra 24. Instead, while recommending action against the 'TOB Group' for inciting protesters, the commission remained silent towards hundreds of vandals.