The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) has expressed grave concerns at reports that a bomb exploded on school premises in the remote mid-western district of Dailekh during the School Leaving Certificate exams on Friday morning.

Reports say a number of students were reported to have been injured by the explosion.

In a statement issued Friday evening, the UNICEF recalled that the UN System had made previous appeals to all parties to the Nepal conflict to “respect examination sites as safe and peaceful areas where there are no disturbances.” Bombing and any other acts of violence on school premises are to be condemned, the statement said.

Under international humanitarian law, parties to an armed conflict must not target or endanger schools. The UN System had said in its statement on February 2 this year, “In order to function as effective places of education, schools need to be safe, left free from conflict and not politicised.”

UNICEF has again reiterated the call of the UN System in Nepal for all parties to remember the needs and rights of children and to keep schools out of the conflict.

Rights groups have also condemned the Maoist act of causing explosions targeting the examination center this morning.

Saying that Nepal’s anti-terrorism law, the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Ordinance (TADO), is in violation of the country’s human rights obligations, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) has strongly recommended the Nepal government not to renew the Ordinance.

“TADO is fundamentally flawed and should not be renewed. The application of this Ordinance is creating more violence and making the armed conflict more difficult to resolve,” said Nicholas Howen, ICJ Secretary-General, in a statement issued on Friday.

“If it is considered necessary to have anti-terrorist legislation it should be developed through a democratic legislative process and be in line with Nepal’s Constitution and international obligations,” said Nicholas Howen.

TADO has been re-promulgated every six months since it first came into force in October 2004, replacing the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Control and Punishment) Act (TADA) of 2002. The TADO was amended when it was most recently re-promulgated in October 2005.

”It is widely recognised that the TADO provides a semblance of legal cover for human rights violations carried out by the Government including arbitrary detention, violations of fair trial standards and provides immunity for security forces and government officials when they commit violations,” the ICJ said.

With fewer safeguards TADO has provided an environment under which detainees have been tortured and extra-judicially executed. The ICJ and other human rights organisations have documented cases of human rights violation committed under TADO, the statement added.

“By not renewing TADO, the (Nepal) government would be giving a sign that it takes seriously the impact of the Ordinance on the people of Nepal,” said Nicholas Howen.

Despite criticism from national and international human rights organisations and the UN Office of High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) the TADO (Article 9), still authorises government officials to preventively detain individuals without charge for up to one year. TADO detainees do not have any access to judicial review and are often held for far longer than the one-year.

“This kind of administrative detention without the right to an effective judicial remedy to challenge the lawfulness of the deprivation of liberty is a clear violation of the Article 9 (4) of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Principle 32 of the UN Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment. The ICJ considers that this kind of detention amounts to arbitrary detention,” the statement said.

Nicholas Howen recalled that, “under international law administrative detention must remain an exceptional measure, be strictly time-limited and be subject to frequent and regular judicial supervision”.

The October 2005 TADO also erodes the right to a fair trial that is guaranteed by the Constitution and by Article 14 of ICCPR. Article 15 of the TADO allows the Government to constitute special courts and all trials to take placed in closed hearings in contradiction with international standards. TADO’s provisions on trial procedures also fail to guarantee the right of defence. Article 17 of the TADO, shifts the burden of proof, in specific instances, onto the accused violating the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty by the court.

“The ICJ is gravely concerned that under Article 15 all cases under TADO should be heard in closed session,” said Nicholas Howen. “While international law provides that trials may be held in closed session if necessary to protect national security, the necessity must be assessed by the court in every individual case. The ICJ is also gravely concerned that the TADO erodes the principle of presumption of innocence”.

TADO provides that government officials cannot be prosecuted for any “work performed in good faith”. Such a legal immunity clause will perpetuate impunity for human rights violations committed in the course of security operations and will lead to a cycle of human rights violations. This clause will not only further entrench the prevailing culture of impunity within the security forces in Nepal but will also exacerbate the political conflict, the ICJ said.

On Friday 24 March, the Supreme Court ruling, in the case related to the constitutionality of preventative detention article of TADO, did not assess the compatibility of TADO with international law when reading out the judgment.. “This ruling cannot be used as legal justification for the renewal of TADO,” said Nicholas Howen of the ICJ.

There can be no doubt that a democratic system is best suited for the development of Nepal as a nation.

Nepal is dear to all of us. Many of us gathered here today call it home or have profound interest and love for the Nepal and its people. A special thanks is due to all of you for supporting the endeavour of the Nepalis to return to democracy and peace. Your interest and efforts have helped us to garner international support towards re-establishing democracy, rule of law and human rights in Nepal. Thank you and please continue to root for your Nepali sisters and brothers in this arduous journey to restore peace, human rights and democracy.

Before going on to share my viewpoints on the way forward for our nation, I would like to mention a few key historical points. Nepal’s national construct is almost as old as that of the United States. Of these 237 years of being one nation, the Nepali people have spent more than 60 years struggling to establish a democratic system within its borders. We have had two short periods in the last 60 years where democratic rule prevailed; first from 1951 to 1961 and the second from 1990 to 2005. It is in these two relatively short periods of time that there were maximum efforts to improve the quality of life of the ordinary people. There can be no doubt that a democratic system is best suited for the development of Nepal as a nation.

The second point is the fact that the traditional forces of the palace have always conspired against the people and political parties to retain absolute power. Our recent history has witnessed this twice in the last six decades. The monarchy is an old and feudal institution with deep roots and access to resources which it has always used to further its own ambitions. Late King Birendra must be considered an anomaly in a lineage of dictatorial kings. He was a king who had made his peace with democracy and sovereignty of the people while other traditional elements of the palace did not.

A third fact is that Nepal’s most recent experience with democracy was a period which may have seen instability but it was also a period which was marked by experience in reforming governance and trying to deepen the democratic exercise. It is the trend among Nepali intelligentsia to lay all evils at the door of politicians and of the royalists to blame the democratic system and justify the royal takeover. It is a fact that all nascent democracies are marked by in-fighting and instability and this is part of the maturing of the system. If you turn the pages of history to the times right after the establishment of democracy in the United States you may find it not so dissimilar. I am not trying to defend political parties and leaders with this statement but I feel the need to point this fact out to this audience.

Nepal made significant economic strides during its recent encounter with democracy .There were achievements in vital statistics in all major sectors from education and health to drinking water, sanitation, road construction, communication network, hydro-power development, overall economic growth, poverty reduction, exports, and increase in foreign exchange reserve. Urban and modern sector of the economy was almost taking off at the turn of new century. However, the growth of the rural and informal economy as well as the agriculture sector was quite sluggish.

Political reform to include the traditionally excluded was also slow to be realized by the political parties across the spectrum. The Maoists took advantage of this fertile ground to feed their insurgency.

Now let’s share some facts which provide direction to the future of our nation. One key fact we can not overlook is the relative youth of our population. Most Nepalis are young – in fact almost 60 per cent of our population is under 25 years of age. Their hopes and aspirations are for a democratic and prosperous Nepal where all their diversities are acknowledged and valued. The women of our nation have become increasingly aware of their rights and are more vocal, visible and active than in any time in our history. The disadvantaged and excluded groups shackled by centuries of feudalism and casteism are now vigorously seeking to shed those burdens and live a life of pride and dignity. All these trends are the outcome of our most recent exercise with democracy. The genie is out of the bottle – so to speak – awareness of rights has reached every corner of our difficult and beautiful land and that can not be changed. It will not be changed.

Our beautiful country’s difficult terrain and scattered settlement patterns present tremendous challenges for development. It is not that all consecutive governments during the brief period of democracy did not rise up to it. Serious reform exercises were undertaken to improve governance and ensure improved fiscal health of the nation. Key issues kept under wraps during the undemocratic Panchayat era were identified and vocalized and many key social and economic development indicators changed in the positive direction as a result. However, the impact could not be felt as extensively as it should have been. But no one can be a miracle worker in so short a period of time. Extreme elements of first the left and then the right took advantage of people’s increasing expectation and of the limited availability of resources to respond to aspirations to discredit the democratic system and create the ensuing tri-partite conflict.

The monarchy is an old and feudal institution with deep roots and access to resources which it has always used to further its own ambitions.
The conflict originally initiated by the CPN Maoist has caused tremendous loss of life and property to our already resource-poor nation. It has retarded our economic and social growth and it has caused able-bodied youth to flee the nation for security and economic reasons. This cost will be increasingly felt in the future. Added to this, the royal takeover by King Gyanendra has further compounded the crisis.

The February 1, 2005 royal take-over has not only brought the hard-won democracy to an end but also pushed Nepal into a path of more violence and chaos. Recognizing the gravity of the situation, our party Nepali Congress (Democratic) along with other six parliamentary political parties agreed upon the Common Agreement and Commitments (CUC) in April 2005. We believe that this agreement forms the only viable way out of the current political crisis in our country. Some of the salient features of this agreement are:

·Formation of a government of all party consensus following the reinstatement of the Third House of Representatives;

·Peaceful resolution of the Maoist problem through dialogue;

·Progressive and democratic restructuring of the state structure to lay a solid foundation for social, political, economic inclusion; and

·Resolution of the constitutional questions through an appropriate measure including election to the constituent assembly so as to reaffirm people’s sovereignty and supremacy.

I attach great importance to the unity of the seven-party alliance. I consider this agreement a dependable basis for people’s nonviolent movement to restore lasting peace and re-establish democracy in Nepal.

Every one of our parties has lost cadres and leaders to the guns of the Maoists; thousands of friends and supporters have been displaced by the conflict. But we felt the need to rise above our own interests for the greater interest of the nation.
Only a negotiated settlement with the Maoists will serve to establish lasting peace and a functioning democracy. Without a negotiated settlement this conflict could take longer than a decade to be resolved. There can be no military resolution to this issue. Violence will mean further colossal loss in terms of both human and physical capital and missed opportunity for nation building. It was in recognition of this fact that the seven political parties entered into an alliance between themselves and then into an understanding with the Maoists – even though it was not easy for us. Every one of our parties has lost cadres and leaders to the guns of the Maoists; thousands of friends and supporters have been displaced by the conflict. But we felt the need to rise above our own interests for the greater interest of the nation.

Our seven party alliance is trying to convince the Maoists that peaceful mobilisation of the masses will have a far reaching impact in establishing peace and democracy while continuation of an armed insurgency would only give an excuse to the King’s regime to suppress democracy and human rights. The 12-point understanding is an outcome of this realization. Let me tell you all in the words of President Kennedy that “we are not negotiating out of fear, but we would not fear to negotiate” for greater good.

The seven-party alliance sets great store by the continued support of the Bush government to the democratic and peaceful aspirations of the Nepali people. We have all been greatly encouraged by the statements made in favour of democracy by the US government from time to time. I feel especially encouraged by President George W. Bush’s statement which said “America will stand with the allies of freedom to support democratic movements in the word”. I also agree with President Bush when he says “the only force powerful enough to stop the rise of tyranny and terror and replace hatred with hope is the force of human freedom”.

We are conscious of the concern expressed in some quarters that democratic parties should have no truck with the armed and violent Maoists. But there has to be a starting point for the peace process. The Maoists’ have expressed commitment for peaceful and negotiated settlement. We in the seven-party alliance feel the olive branch being extended has to be given a benefit of doubt and we as democratic forces have a tremendous responsibility to translate peace into reality. If we do not encourage them in this mission, it will have failed our people and their aspiration for peace.

The Nepalese Army must be made to realize that they receive their pay from the taxpayer’s money and their loyalty is first to the nation and the people. An army which wishes to modernize must also re-orient their attitude and behaviour to suit the call of the times and the aspirations of the people.
The 12-point Understanding with the Maoists is still work-in-progress. There are still a number of issues that needs to be clarified to develop this understanding into solid foundation for resolving the conflict and establishing an inclusive democracy. For this, the Maoists should be willing to fully and honestly implement all the provisions of this Understanding. They should further re- assure the national and international community that they are willing to come into the process that fully honors and accepts the core principles of non-violence and liberal democracy by renouncing violence and laying down arms. We are encouraged when President Bush said that India and America agree “that the Maoists should abandon violence, and that the King should reach out to the political parties to restore democratic institutions.”

My party and I have always been committed to the process of resolving the violent conflict through dialogue and negotiation. My commitment to a negotiated settlement is based on facts and recommendations that I proposed for resolving this crisis during my tenure as the chair of the High Level Peace Committee commissioned by then Prime Minister Krishna P. Bhattarai in 2000. Based on the wide ranging consultations with people of different walks of life and also our “informal” links with the Maoist leadership, we proposed a number of measures for the political resolution of the problem. Some of those recommendations still hold value for approaching a peaceful resolution to the on-going violent conflict.

Later in 2001, as soon as I became Prime Minister and even prior to taking oath of office, I declared ceasefire and initiated peace negotiation with the Maoists. After three rounds of peace talks that lasted for about five months, the Maoists unilaterally walked away from the negotiation process and resumed their violent campaign. As a Prime Minister of the country, I was left with no option but to invoke a state of emergency in the country according to constitutional provisions to protect the lives of innocent civilians and mobilize national security to counter violence and exert pressure to bring the Maoist back to the peace process. Just as the Maoists were beginning to feel the pressure of the counter-offensive and showed indications to re-start peace negotiations, King Gyanendra removed me from the elected office of the Prime Minister unconstitutionally in October 2002.

After failing to bring major political parties to government and failure of a second round of peace talks with the Maoists and further deepening of the crisis, King Gyanendra was forced to re-instate me as Prime Minister in May 2004. Recognizing the gravity of the situation and honoring the call of duty for the last elected Prime Minister of the country to restore peace and hold General Elections I accepted and formed a four-party coalition government. Our four parties together enjoyed the support of more than two-thirds of the elected members of the last House of Representatives. This was a sincere endeavor on my part to bring together the democratic forces and the constitutional monarchy to re-establish peace and build the nation. During this tenure we formed a High Level Peace Committee and Secretariat under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister to resume the peace negotiation. I have always been committed to peaceful resolution of the violent conflict on the basis of the universally accepted principles of democracy and people’s sovereignty and supremacy. However, though the government was serious and sincere to initiate dialogue, the Maoist leadership did not unfortunately respond.

That the King was also not serious about resolving the conflict became clear when he seized absolute power imposed direct autocratic rule on February 1, 2005 after he removed me from the office of Prime Minister and illegally detained all political leaders for more than three months. I feel sad to state that that our sincere effort to build a strong partnership between multi-party democracy and constitutional monarchy was aborted by this drastic step of the monarch. However, I have no regrets for having made that effort.

The intentions of the King to way lay the democratic system were further revealed by the formation of the Royal Commission for the Control of Corruption (RCCC)– an extra-constitutional body with powers against basic principles of jurisprudence – even while another national body the Commission Against the Abuse of Authority was already established by an Act of Parliament. The RCCC was established with the express purpose of defaming political leaders. My stand against the RCCC and its unconstitutionality resulted in a nine and half month long illegal detention for me and my cabinet colleague. We were falsely indicted on ‘corruption’ charges on a project funded by the Asian Development Bank even after the ADB’s own independent commission found no foul-play in the award of a global tender for a drinking water project. I was freed on 14 February 2006 after the Supreme Court of Nepal declared it an unconstitutional body.

More important than our personal vindication is the fact that the Supreme Court has, in this landmark decision, reasserted the basic and fundamental principles of liberal democracy, people’s sovereignty and supremacy, rule of law and separation of the power. If one reads the court decision carefully, one is bound to reach the conclusion that the Supreme Court in no uncertain terms implies that the King’s current direct and autocratic regime is unconstitutional.

We are all gathered here today as Nepal is in deep crisis. The need of the day is to be analytical and flexible without compromising the basis principles of democracy, rule of law, sovereignty of the people and human rights. Accommodation of genuine demands, broadening of the democratic plank and serious attempts to include the excluded has be the direction of Nepal’s future democracy.

What can be the way forward to bring our nation back on track? That is the question upper most on our minds as we sit here and deliberate. On the level of intelligence and perception the answers are easy and even simplistic. It suffices to say all the three sides of the conflict – the king, the political parties and the Maoists– should sit down around a table, share their agendas, find commonalities and also the key differences, negotiate compromise and share the power. However, all of us know this is easier said than done. As the seven-party alliance and the Maoist have initiated a dialogue, there is some hope in that direction.

However, what about the third piece of the puzzle – the King? How should we as a nation handle him? Some observers and commentators sate that there should be reconciliation between the ‘constitutional forces.’ – My question is – is the king constitutional any more? After February 1st 2005 he is no longer staying within the role prescribed by framework of the Constitution of democratic Nepal. The king must return to the role prescribed by the Constitution before dialogue. In fact the call of the youth for only a ceremonial role has been to be seriously discussed.

Another key question is about the Nepalese Army who has traditionally sworn loyalty to the kings of Nepal. The Nepalese army must be made to realize that they receive their pay from the taxpayer’s money and their loyalty is first to the nation and the people. The army has to be controlled by the Parliament. An army which wishes to modernize must also re-orient their attitude and behaviour to suit the call of the times and the aspirations of the people.

At present, of the three sides involved in the conflict, only the political parties have any legitimacy. They have submitted to the democratic will of the people in elections. The Maoists and the King have decided they know what is best for the people of Nepal; the political parties can not follow that path – the only legitimate basis for government is a Parliament of democratically elected representatives. A national election has to be conducted but by a multi-party government; the representation of the insurgents in such a government could ensure free and fair elections. A cease-fire would also be required to ensure genuine participation and ability to select democratically. Elections organized by the king’s stooges would result in a fiasco – just like the recently organized ‘local elections”.

As the resolution of the crisis in Nepal must be based on the restoration of the rule of law – it will require the restoration of a legally constituted legislative branch of the government. Therefore free and fair elections must be free of the influences of both the armies. The international community or a group of friendly countries could ensure this for Nepal.

The seven-party alliance is under no illusion about the intentions of the Maoists – just as they are under no illusions about the intentions of the Palace. One seeks to obtain power through illegal means, and the other has already done so. Negotiations with either force are not desirable but necessary for the sake of the country. Negotiations with the King can only be based on the premise that the King has no legal authority beyond the Constitution. Local and international observers must concede that both Maoists and the King are acting unconstitutionally and that, as defenders of the Constitution of democratic Nepal – only the parties have legitimacy to lead the country.

If there are to be negotiations with the Palace, negotiations with the Maoists must also take place simultaneously. To acknowledge only two out of the three forces competing for power in Nepal will result in continued conflict and destruction. Those condemning talks with the Maoists, on grounds they are not trustworthy and have not demonstrated their commitment to peace and negotiations in good faith, must accept the same problems apply to negotiations with the Palace.

The political parties need to be supported for reaching a resolution of the crisis in Nepal through simultaneous negotiations with the King and the Maoists- while recognizing that the political parties negotiate with mandate from the people of Nepal.

The political parties will regardless of the reaction of the King, press ahead with our campaign to restore democracy in Nepal through:

(i) Continued popular, peaceful mass agitation

(ii) Increase democracy within the political parties of the Alliance, making them more reflective of the wishes of the people

(iii) An expansion of the 7-party alliance to include clear statements concerning the past weaknesses of democratic governments in Nepal and points of agreement between the seven-parties on the political priorities for the future democratic government of the country, with details of major policies and the means and costs of their implementation.

We hope that the King and the Maoists will respond positively to these proposals and that we can move ahead together. But mostly we hope that the people from whom we derive our authority see in these proposal concrete steps that can lead to the rebirth of a free and democratic Nepal.

I would also like to request the US government to grant Temporary Protected Status to Nepali citizens so that they can legally stay here and work during this crisis in Nepal. Some of them do not have an option to go back. Further I also request the US Congress to pass a joint resolution against the undemocratic move of the King and for the restoration of democracy in Nepal. Last, but not the least, on behalf of the people and political parties of Nepal, I would like to thank the Senators and US Congressmen who have supported and will continue to support the cause of democracy in Nepal.

Excerpts of the speech delivered by former premier and President of Nepali Congress (Democratic), Sher Bahadur Deuba, at a seminar organized by the Columbia University, USA, on last Wednesday (Mar. 22).

(Editor’s Note: Nepalis, wherever they live, as well as friends of Nepal around the globe are requested to contribute their views/opinions/recollections etc. on issues concerning present day Nepal to the Guest Column of Nepalnews. Length of the article should not be more than 1,000 words and may be edited for the purpose of clarity and space. Relevant photos as well as photo of the author may also be sent along with the article. Please send your write-ups to [email protected])

Two locals were killed and five others seriously injured when clashes erupted between armed robbers and the locals of Chetnagar, Dumariya Matiaun VDC, of Rautahat district, Tuesday night.

A group of around 60 dacoits surrounded the village and looted property worth over Rs 3.5 million: ornaments, cash and clothes among other valuables from over 100 houses, reports quoted locals as saying.

The dacoits beat up villagers, including women and children.

Kapilmuni Timilsina of Chetnagar was killed on the spot while his cousin, Pushpa Raj Timilsina, died en route to Birgunj for treatment, when dacoits fired indiscriminately.

All the five injured persons are in a critical condition, sources said.

The gang looted the houses of Shiv Prasad Poudel, Pralhad KC, Dul Prasad Timilsina, Padam Timilsina, Dipak Timilsina, Ram Bahadur Maske and Hari Timilsina, among others.

The locals also complained that though they informed security forces based at Chandranigahapur, Garuda and Gaur on time, they could not reach the incident site so the villagers were compelled to retaliate.

Notwithstanding the warning by the government to take strict measures to check the Kathmandu valley centred agitation announced by seven party alliance, leaders of the alliance have said they would take to the streets even if the government imposes curfew or resorts to stricter measures to foil the general strike scheduled on April 6 to 9.

Speaking at an interaction at Reporters’ Club acting president of Nepali Congress-democratic (NC-D) Gopal Man Shrestha said, “We are ready to bypass all obstructions, including curfew, in a peaceful way and conduct our declared protest programme.”

Stating that the general strike has been called by the seven parties, he assured, “It will be non-violent and Maoists will not infiltrate.”

The leaders, however, admitted that the Maoists will provide moral support to the seven parties’ programme.

They urged the Maoists to declare a unilateral ceasefire to ensure the success of the parties’ non-violent stir.

Bharat Mohan Adhikari of the CPN-UML said the parties are ready with a plan to make the general strike successful if the government imposes curfew. However he said, “I cannot disclose the plan right now.”

He further said that the parties would make the general strike successful with massive support from the people. He also urged Maoists to declare unilateral ceasefire to assist the alliance.

Joint General Secretary of Nepali Congress Dr Ram Saran Mahat dismissed Home Minister’s fear of Maoist infiltration in seven-party rally. “If the Maoist Special Task Forces are in Kathmandu, then why have they not been arrested?” he questioned. He added that the Maoists are only providing moral support to the parties’ agitation.

Pari Thapa of Janamorcha Nepal blamed the government of acting with defeated mentality. “Our programmes will be successful despite the government’s threats, and the democracy will be established,” said Thapa.

Meanwhile, the meeting of the central task force of the seven-party alliance took decisions on how the agitation will fan out in the days ahead.

The alliance has identified about 15 venues where the demonstrators will assemble on appointed days to avoid bloodshed and ensure that the demo is peaceful.

The Home minister has warned to take strict measures to check the mass meeting of the seven political parties saying Maoists would infiltrate in it.

The US embassy in Kathmandu has said the news report that the US is likely to resume arms supply is inaccurate.

Talking to Nepalnews Thursday morning, spokesman of the US embassy in Kathmandu, Robert Hugins, said the news report carried by Daily News and Analysis, an Indian news portal, is “inaccurate.” “Our embassy in New Delhi has also spoken to the reporter of the news portal and informed him that his story is inaccurate,” he added.

Mr. Hugins said the statement made by US Principal deputy assistant secretary for South and Central Asian affairs, Donald Camp, during his visit to Nepal early this month presented the accurate US position on the issue.

In its Wednesday edition, www.dnaindia.com quoted unnamed government sources of India as saying that the US was set on restoring military supplies to Nepal.

“The move is likely to make India angry,” the news report claimed.

India, the US and UK—major providers of arms assistance of Nepal—continue to stop their arms supply to Nepal in protest of the royal takeover of February 2005.

“India and the US have recently begun to drastically differ over Nepal, especially on Maoists. The difference flows out of American view of Maoists as terrorists and India’s belief that the Nepali Maoists must be brought to the mainstream and should not be treated just as terrorists,” the news report said.

During his visit to Kathmandu early this month—just a week after the President George W. Bush’s visit to South Asia—Donald Camp flatly denied reports that the Bush administration was likely to resume arms supply to Nepal. “First, we can not have (that) kind of cooperation with Nepal since February 1 last year. We would like to see the return of the situation of pre-February 1 where we were contributors to the security assistance,” Camp told reporters at a press conference. “The second legal aspect is that the Leahy amendment prohibits financing security assistance to Nepal until Nepal has returned to democracy and certain conditions on human rights have been fulfilled.”

While a senior Indian official told Indian parliament recently that Nepal had requested India to resume its arms supply, the US officials have not said anything if they have also received similar requests.

The Reporters’ Club felicitated sports journalists for their hard work, dedication and effort towards Nepalese sports on Wednesday.

Those felicitated were Hemanta Kafle (NSJF Gen. Secretary and NJF Treasurer- Annapurna Post), Narayan Upadhyaya (The Rising Nepal), Niranjan Rajbansi (President of NSJF & Samacharpatra), Rajendra Gyawali (Kantipur), Chetan Pandey (Channel Nepal), Raju Silwal (NTV and BBC), Mukunda Dahal (Nepal 1) and Nabin Aryal (Samaya).

Deepak Bhattarai was presented with the ‘best youth journalist’ award.

In the meantime, Reporters’ Club awarded the Nepali media team that won the 4th friendly cricket match against the Indian Embassy. Indian Ambassador to Nepal Shiv Shankar Mukherjee gave away the prizes.

Reports say there have been clashes between security personnel and Maoist rebels at Hariwon of Sarlahi district in southern Nepal Thursday morning.

According to reports, clashes took place when Maoist rebels attacked a vehicle carrying security personnel that was heading to guard a SLC exam center at Sukedhara in the district Thursday morning.

Preliminary reports say a security personnel was killed and one more was injured during the clashes. Security sources said they have recovered a body of suspected rebel from the site of the encounter.

The Department of Public Relations (DPR) of the Royal Nepalese Army confirmed the incident but said it is still waiting for details.

In a separate incident, a group of security personnel on patrol is said to be “out of contact” after brief clashes with rebels at Karmaiya, bordering Sarlahi and Rautahat districts.

Details were not immediately available.

The Swiss government has invited representatives of His Majesty’s Government of Nepal, co-sponsors of the Item 19 Resolution 2005 and other interested states, UN and international experts as well as members of the Nepali civil society to a conference in Geneva next month (April 18).

“Its purpose is to engage in a dialogue with all relevant actors on the human rights situation in Nepal and to assess the extent to which the commitments and measures following the Resolution 2005 have had an impact on the situation,” said a statement issued by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) on Thursday. “Further, it will provide its participants with an opportunity to express their deep concern about continuous human rights violations and abuses committed by all parties to the conflict in Nepal,” the statement added.

The Swiss government has extended an invitation to, amongst others, His Majesty’s Government of Nepal, the National Human Rights Commission, the Advocacy Forum, Nepal Bar Association, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the International Commission of Jurists, the statement said.

The UN Commission on Human Rights had its annual session in Geneva from 13 to 27 March 2006. Due to the creation of the Human Rights Council, the Commission has not addressed substantial human rights matters, nor has it adopted specific country resolutions, the statement added.

Two security personnel and one Maoist were killed during clashes between security personnel and Maoist rebels at Bagmati checkpoint of Karmaiya, bordering Sarlahi and Rautahat districts in southern Nepal Thursday morning.

According to state run radio Nepal, one dead body of a Maoist was also recovered from the incident site.

Meanwhile, there have been clashes between security personnel and Maoist rebels at Hariwon of Sarlahi district in southern Nepal Thursday morning.

According to reports, clashes took place when Maoist rebels attacked a vehicle carrying security personnel that was heading to guard a SLC exam center at Sukedhara in the district Thursday morning.

The Directorate of Public Relations (DPR) of the Royal Nepalese Army confirmed the incident but said it is still waiting for details.