In 2022, the Madhesh provincial government provided Rs100,000 to each family that lost members in different movements in the region, including the Maoist insurgency.

Two years later, in 2024, another government in the province handed over Rs300,000 per family to the families of “martyrs” from the Madhesh uprisings. This year, the government has moved ahead with a plan to cover health insurance premiums for 1,080 families of “martyrs” from different Madhesh movements and the insurgency.

But the families of victims of enforced disappearances, torture and sexual violence have continuously been left out of the relief programme. “These programmes are politically motivated, with little attention paid to addressing victims’ needs. This is also proven by the trend of distributing cheques from the hands of CPN (Moaist Centre) chairperson or chiefs of other parties,” Uday Sah, whose father was abducted by the state security forces in December 2001 never to be found again, told the Post. “The disparity is only adding to the victims’ suffering.”

He said their repeated requests to the provincial government to cover all the victims in the relief package have gone unheeded.

The problem is not particular to the Madhesh Province. All provinces have been implementing relief programmes without concrete plans and consultations with stakeholders.

In the fiscal year 2019-20, the Bagmati Province rolled out a Rs50 million relief programme targeting conflict victims. However, not even half of the money could be spent as the programme was designed without consulting possible beneficiaries.

“The government allocates budgets for knitting and sewing or goat farming and buffalo farming while the victims have very different needs,” said Suman Adhikari, founding chairperson of the Conflict Victims’ Common Platform (CVCP) explaining why such programmes are ineffective. “But even getting funds for these purposes is long and complicated.”

After a gap of a few years, the Bagmati government has allocated Rs3 million to support those who were disabled during the insurgency and to provide skills training for income generation. Asked how they can include all the victims in the relief programme, Suraj Chandra Lamichhane, provincial minister for internal affairs and law, said, “It’s true that we cannot accommodate everyone this time. The budget was already ready when I took charge,” he said. “I will try to expand it in the upcoming budget.”

While the provincial relief programmes have been criticised for being ineffective, victims also claim party cadres are benefitting the most. “Accessing such relief packages is not possible if you are not a party cadre,” said Chandrakala Uprety, a victim from Banke. “Even I, who is so active in rights advocacy, often learn about several such programmes only after they are over. There is disparity at the ward level, municipality level, provincial level and at the federal level.”

Experts with long experience working with the victims, say the relief programmes at all levels of governments are implemented sans homework and without assessing victims’ needs. “Billions of rupees have been spent on relief by all tiers of governments, but victims remain dissatisfied. These programmes could have been far more effective if they were designed through proper consultations,” said Mandira Sharma, senior international legal advisor to the International Commission of Jurists.

The distribution of relief packages started soon after the peace process began with the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Accord. The Relief and Rehabilitation Unit under the then Peace and Reconstruction Ministry distributed billions of rupees based on recommendations from local peace committees. The central government, before federalism came into force, also distributed big amounts mainly targeting the families of the deceased and those forcibly disappeared.

Later, the provincial and the local governments started different programmes. “The relief [reparative] programme should be rolled out in a coordinated manner by three tiers of the government, to ensure equal treatment for victims living in different parts of the country,” she said. “For this, a broader reparative policy needs to be designed, with meaningful participation of victim communities. It should be needs-based not imposed.”

Although the federal government has long been working on the policy, it is yet to enforce it. In order to facilitate the government and ensure that victims’ voices are heard, the CVCP, in 2018, prepared an advocacy paper listing out major reparative needs.

These included provisions for legal aid and free legal services, community-based programmes to mitigate threats and fears faced by conflict victims, promote a sense of protection against further human rights abuses, and public acknowledgment and recognition of conflict victims and harms they suffered.

Among other demands, it also listed public apologies from those involved in the insurgency, the construction of memorials, parks, lawns, roads, schools, museums and gardens at central, provincial, district and local levels as well as naming them after conflict victims, plus marking a national day for dignity and memory of the conflict and conflict victims on the anniversary of the signing of the CPA.

“Any programme that doesn’t serve the needs of victims is useless. Different victims have different reparative needs. For that, victims’ participation in policy making is a must,” said Bikash Basnet, programme manager at Advocacy Forum Nepal.