Surya Prasad Dhungel, who recently resigned as a member of the National Human Rights Commission, has been active in the fields of law, constitutionalism, and human rights for a long time. He has served as a legal/constitutional advisor to the President and constitutional projects.

Similarly, he has also worked as a human rights and legal advisor in the United Nations offices (Cambodia and Liberia). He provided expert opinion on behalf of the government for the development of a 10-point agreement between Gen-G and the government. Durga Dulal and Jaisingh Mahara interviewed Dhungel for Kantipur Daily.

Three months after the protests on 23 and 24 Bhadra, an agreement has been reached between the government and Gen-G. Why has the agreement been reached now that should have been reached around 27 Bhadra?

This agreement should probably have been reached when the government was formed on 27 Bhadra. I also hold the same opinion. But perhaps Gen-G has now realized that an agreement should be reached. In any case, it does not seem like it was too late or that it should not have been done. Although it was late, it has done the work of legitimizing and documenting the Gen-G movement. Even though three months have passed, the government still has three months left. During this period, it should also prepare for the elections.

We should also cooperate with the work of the Commission of Inquiry. The government is obliged to arrest the political leadership and make them give statements even if they do not come to give statements to the Commission. Because the Commission is obliged to give a report. In the background of all this, the agreement between the government and Gen-G has become even more relevant. Because of what has happened now, the government that comes after the election can implement the agreement with Gen-G. There are grounds for the future government to accept it.

I also got the opportunity to make some suggestions on the agreement that has been reached between the government and Gen-G. We, especially Raju Chapagain and I, have only played a role in making that document an internationally accepted document. All the issues contained therein are the feelings and thoughts of Gen-G. I have looked at it from two sides.

First, let's look at the Commission of Inquiry. When it was initially formed, that commission was called a high-level commission, and some 'mandates' were also given. It is working accordingly. It was given a 'mandate' in five points. Looking at that 'mandate', we could not find transitional justice clearly. It is laid out broadly, but it should be specified in such cases. We had suggested adding some 'mandates' and making it more specific. It has also been found to be made accordingly.

Second, the issues of the constitution and the issues raised by Zen-G have been documented. Whatever the complaints or demands of Zen-G were, that is in the agreement. The agreement has opened the way for those who should be held accountable to be held accountable by listening to them.

In the past, the government could not hold its subordinate bodies accountable to the work and trust of the people. That is why the 'frustration' that occurred turned into an uprising. But who was in charge of security on the 23rd? Why did he give the order to shoot? Why was the movement not addressed with less force or with less damage? How did the situation of being shot in the forehead, chest and other parts come about that day? Who is the person responsible for this? Why has he not been arrested or even taken any symbolic action? Such questions have been raised by Gen-G. There is no work to hold those responsible accountable.

The way force has been used, it does not seem to be in line with the general principle of using force in protests. We have been reading that security forces are trained to shoot below the knee. But why were shots fired only in the upper body during the Gen-G protest? The security forces should have initially warned during the protest, fired water cannons, tear gas, and fired rubber bullets. That did not happen.

Is the then Prime Minister or the Home Minister responsible for this? Or, the head of the security forces or the CDO? Nothing has happened to them so far. Do they not have to take responsibility or are they not accountable? There is no question of making them accountable here. The commission is even struggling to take a statement. The then Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli has been openly saying that he will not accept the commission or even give a statement. This agreement was reached at a time when Gen-G is questioning the government as to why the then Prime Minister and Home Minister were not arrested.

You said that the next government will also accept and implement this agreement. Is there any concrete basis and reason for this?

I said before, I am also in favor of this agreement being formed when the government is formed. But at that time, the situation was such that nothing could be done in this regard. The army had to mediate in the work from the president to forming the government. No one knew where the parties were. There were many groups of Gen-G. They were also not on a concrete 'roadmap' of what to do. When it was unified and came to one place, Gen-G also realized that an agreement should be made. The government also did. This is the reason why the agreement was made after three months. There was liquidity everywhere at that time. This agreement should be taken as having been made as the environment gradually matured.

The Election Commission does not have all the structures and foundations ready. For example, in Japan, elections are held within a month. We have been preparing for 6 months. A regular government should be given after 21 Falgun. Everyone should cooperate, realizing that it is necessary for the country. If the country can hold elections within three months, the country can also stay on a 'track'. If the government is to be changed without holding elections now, the country will not take any course. The Supreme Court must also take care of this. If the Supreme Court were to restore the parliament, it would go beyond the 'mandate' of the movement. Who will take responsibility for the risks posed by changing the government without holding elections? 

The Gen-G agreement envisages 6 commissions and mechanisms. It also states that there will be a separate permanent structure for corruption. Why was another commission envisaged when we already have a constitutional commission like the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority for this very work? Doesn't this create a problem in jurisdiction?

The commissions and mechanisms envisaged in this agreement cannot be understood as replacing the existing constitutional commissions and bodies. The work of the Authority is to be done by the Authority itself. That is why the work of the Money Laundering Department is to be done. The police are to investigate. But whatever the lessons and experiences of the past, the work of these commissions was not sufficient and effective. The Gen-G movement was based on this foundation. This is something that everyone has accepted.

This is why an additional supporting body has been conceived to support such commissions. The commissions and mechanisms according to this do not conflict with any existing body and commission, but rather cooperate. It should be balanced. This is also the reason why it is written at the beginning of this agreement that all the provisions in the constitution are accepted. The subject of the agreement does not affect any work in the constitution. That is why the preamble of the agreement says that it will work within the scope of the constitution.

The work of investigating corruption and making recommendations helps the authority. Since there is no parliament, there is no discussion in the parliament or ratification of the constitution by the parliament. Similarly, Gen-G may not know everything. Because they have taken a stand, some issues have been included in the agreement. Some work will be done after the new government comes. In the current situation, the government of the new mandate and the parliament come. It can work on it after extensive debate. This is just a 'framework'. Similarly, in every agreement, a document is created between the two parties through 'negotiations'. The agreement between Gen-G and the government is also a similar document. The agreement mentions the formation of a constitutional amendment task force. Will this be done by the current government or by the government that comes after the election? The issue of constitutional reform has been accepted and demanded by everyone, from political parties to Gen-G. It seems to be a common demand of all. Therefore, this government should start the work of constitutional reform. The government that comes after the election should recognize it. If this is the case, political parties can take this agenda with them in the elections to be held on 21 Falgun. The people can vote based on their agenda. The best option would be for the current government to form that task force and collect suggestions, and the new parliament and government to take ownership of it and go ahead with constitutional amendment. What happens if the interim government starts the work of constitutional reform but the regular government that comes after it does not accept it? That will not happen. This government will only take suggestions for constitutional amendment. It does not mean that the suggestions must be accepted. Of the suggestions, only the good ones that are in favor of the country and the people will be accepted. In my opinion, what we are doing now is to take suggestions for constitutional review. I do not think that this will cause much of a problem. If we do not agree to this, then isn't it rejecting what all of us and Gen-G are saying to reform the constitution? There are many demands within Gen-G as well.

Some have called for a direct executive prime minister, some have called for an executive president, some have said that there will be no MPs and ministers within this parliamentary system. In order to reach a conclusion among all of these, a Constitution Reform Commission is needed. It is universally accepted that constitutional amendment cannot be made until the next parliament comes. When Gen-G said that they accept the constitution, they were also ready to approve it from parliament.

Now is the time to start the debate and discussion on constitutional amendment. The commission will take suggestions and make a clear 'roadmap' on how to go about constitutional amendment, what are the problems in the constitution. That will become an issue for you, us, and the political parties going to the elections, and it will also be a basis for asking the people for votes. Therefore, it will also work to reduce the current crisis. It will help bring out the resentment in people through the debate on constitutional review.

Are you optimistic that elections will be held on time?

There is no alternative to elections. The country has only one option for a way out: elections. Political parties also have no option for elections. I have not seen that they will come back to power through any other option other than participating in new elections and getting elected. In other words, nothing else can be an alternative to elections in the current situation. The current government is only an interim government formed for the purpose of holding elections in a transitional system. The option of continuing it or forming a government of a similar nature is not a good one.

What will happen if elections are not held now, and the court also refuses to restore the parliament? That could be a situation beyond imagination. Where will the country go in that situation? What will our situation be? Ours is a country with not only internal but also geopolitical risks. And will we go towards another conflict again? Therefore, the political parties and their leaders who claim to lead the country should consider this question more seriously. They should have gone to the elections more responsibly and said that they will lead the country tomorrow. They should have supported Sushila Karki. Because they have a large number of cadres and mechanisms, which can easily create an environment for elections. For this, public media and social media should also play a role. Because people trust the content published by public media.

Let's say the government was unable to hold elections on 21 Falgun. There was no decision in the court case either. What is the situation after that?

When the President appointed Sushila Karki as the Prime Minister on 27 Bhadra, he specified that elections would be held on 21 Falgun. I think they should have been a little more flexible in that. My opinion is that the situation you have envisioned should not arise. If it does, the President himself should find a way out. Because even before, he himself had given a way out after consulting with political parties. In that case, the only option is to give a way out after consulting with political parties. We have been facing such crises many times. The first Constituent Assembly could not give a constitution.

The then Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai was removed from office. After that, we removed the obstacles and made the then Chief Justice Khilraj Regmi the Chairman of the Council of Ministers and concluded the elections. Even at that time, there were voices that the constitution had been violated. But after the election, it was accepted.

We should not go down this path as much as possible. We should give the Sushila Karki-led government some more time and then hold the election and start forming a new government from there. Even if Karki is thrown out and a government is formed under the leadership of Kalyan Shrestha or Cholendra Shumsher, as is being discussed now, saying that it is for crisis management, it is not acceptable. Even if the current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is kept, what will happen if other groups including Gen-G rebel? Such a government will also lead the country in the elections. It is not that it will not hold elections. And if elections are to be held, why look for other options? Isn't it beneficial to give the current government some time and complete the transition period quickly?

How do you view the incidents of 23 and 24 Bhadra? Were they separate or the same incident?

The security assessment in the incident on the 23rd seems to have been wrong. By the time the rally that started from Maitighar reached New Baneshwor, there was a large crowd and some 'action' had also started. The youth were participating in the protest in school uniforms. But the National Human Rights Commission's monitoring also showed that the police had put up a very weak 'barricade'.

How did the security 'barricade' placed on the road to the parliament building and in the restricted area get broken even when pushed by a small group? What this shows is that not only the government, but also the security agencies and the police clearly failed in their security assessment. There was also a lack of coordination and information between the security agencies. The police initially only estimated that there would be three to four thousand youth. Similarly, the government did not seem to have anticipated that there could be infiltration during the movement and that it could complicate the situation. This is probably why the then Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli has repeatedly claimed that there was infiltration and that anarchic groups entered the movement.

The police did not seem to have been able to collect any information about who had taken permission for the movement? Who entered the movement? Who was a protestor and who was not? Similarly, surprisingly, the then Prime Minister says that he was not given any information. He tries to evade the blame by blaming the institutions and bodies under him and saying that it was not his fault. On the 23rd, the government and the government's information mechanism were found to have failed. The state cannot have such a weak information mechanism. As a result, no one even knew about the plan for such destruction on the 24th. After the youth lost their lives on the 23rd, why couldn't the state bodies inform and predict that there might be retaliation on the 24th or that someone might plan to destroy in a planned manner in this anger?

The information mechanism was weak at that time, and there was no investigation by the state into where, who, and what preparations were made throughout the night!

I don't think the destruction took place without a plan. The way a large number of people came out on the streets on the morning of the 24th, and they were active in a planned manner, from burning people's houses to burning the Parliament Building, the President's Residence, the Prime Minister's Office, and the Supreme Court. Otherwise, there could not have been simultaneous destruction at police stations and government bodies across the country, carrying kerosene or other incendiary and vandalizing tools.

The government was left without information and in a state of need for investigation, and the security agencies also failed to play an effective role. It is no secret that people's homes were targeted, locations were searched, and then arson was committed. Not only individual homes, but everything from Hilton Hotel to Bhatbhateni Department Store was burned. Lawyers' houses and 'law firms' were also burned. Public media outlets, especially Kantipur Daily, were set on fire for fun.

In this way, houses from politicians to government offices were set on fire across the country. Courts across the country were burned. The kind of destruction that took place, including 'targeting' from the west to the east, cannot be said to have been planned or done out of passion. Of course, the inquiry commission will definitely draw some conclusions on this. The National Human Rights Commission will also definitely have something to say when it publishes a detailed report on this. But the way the destruction took place, it happened much faster and more rapidly than expected. It will take us 20 years to fully recover from this incident. Therefore, the high-level inquiry commission should look at the 23rd and 24th separately and submit a report. It seems that the 23rd movement was purely carried out by the Gen-G. The then Prime Minister has said that there was infiltration in that movement. Now, what is the truth in that, the inquiry commission will probably say when it makes its report public. But it should be said that the 24th is a direct effect of the 23rd.

Some aspects of the latest agreement have also been criticized. For example, it was said that the process of bringing those involved in the demolition on the 24th to justice will be obstructed and those who were arrested will be released. Doesn't this encourage impunity?

The Gen-Gs have claimed that the youth came to the streets on the 24th due to the incident on the 23rd and were involved in the burning out of anger. If they are not professional criminals and were involved there only because of anger, then it would be unfair to arrest and punish them. This is not like regular times. This is a transitional period of the movement. It should be addressed by the law accordingly. People who went to watch and just shouted slogans have also been arrested, and they have also been taken and detained and charged.

Similarly, there is a voice of the Gen-G youth that no action has been taken against anyone involved in the incident on the 23rd and that it was unfair to prosecute those involved in the vandalism on the 24th. To address their demands, we need to distinguish which crime is committed and based on what anger. Professional criminals, who have infiltrated the movement, cannot be given immunity. But those who participated in the movement cannot be imprisoned either.

Because if we institutionalize the Gen-G movement on the 23rd, then we must accept their demonstration in the same way. However, those with a criminal background cannot be forgiven. While prosecuting, we need to look at what criminal motives and tendencies they committed and what happened during the movement. On the other hand, if someone has participated in the Gen-G movement, he is very poor, and cannot even pay bail, then the Gen-G demands that the case be withdrawn without keeping him in jail. Therefore, crimes and movements should be categorized and the government should decide whether to withdraw the case or not.

The Commission of Inquiry has been given three months. That is about to end. In such a situation, will there be no problem in working when its mandate is reviewed?

There will definitely be no problem. The work of the Commission is to investigate the incidents of the 23rd and 24th and recommend the truth to the government. My understanding is that some 'mandates' have been added. The Council of Ministers has also decided to allow the Commission to work according to the additional mandate. The Commission's previous jurisdiction has not been added, it has been made more subject-focused. This makes the Commission easier.

Similarly, on one hand, there is the accusation of the youth that the attack on Gen-G has started and that the police are only focused on the incident of the 24th without doing anything to those involved in the incident of the 23rd. On the other hand, the government should focus on holding elections on time. For this, the morale of the security forces should be high. The government is obliged to go to the elections with the parties by encouraging them. The election is not complete without the parties. At the same time, the Gen-Gs are accusing that no action was taken in the incident of the 23rd, and that the government and the commission focused only on the 24th. The commission and the government are under pressure to crack down on this too.

You talked about the morale of the security personnel. There is less than three months left for the election scheduled for 21 Falgun. Have you seen the atmosphere for the election being formed?

I do not see an alternative to the election. If it is not possible within 21 Falgun, we should move forward with an all-party consensus under the leadership of Sushila Karki. Right now, the Election Commission, the parties and the government seem ready for the election. Now the security personnel will take care of the security. The government will start campaigning for the election by increasing their self-confidence and the security agencies will create a situation where they can vote without fear.

There are not many other agendas and interests except the election of the interim government. But some parties and their chairmen, especially UML chair KP Sharma Oli, have not been able to say that they have accepted the government. They have not stopped putting their feet on two stones by going to both the restoration of parliament and the election. Looking at it this way, will it be resolved if the court revives the parliament tomorrow? I see the danger of the problem worsening and another movement and rebellion.

The Gen-Gs rebelled, questioning the work done by the previous parliament. What is the point of re-establishing the same parliament now? How is it acceptable that more than 70 people have died? All of these things mean that Nepal will fall into further conflict. Therefore, the only option now is an election, and only after a fresh referendum can everyone's views be heard and addressed. Otherwise, we will have to endure one rebellion after another.

There is also criticism that the initiative taken by the Prime Minister for the election was not enough, right?

The Election Commission is responsible for initiating and discussing the election. The government is supposed to provide the necessary materials to the commission and do everything from preparation to execution. It seems that the government is doing its job. It is heard that the government has no shortage of security arrangements and resource availability. Existing laws for the election are in place. If necessary, the government can bring an ordinance. Mainly, the commission can call the parties and have an open dialogue. Neighbors support us in the election.