The Tinkune Report: One Standard for Rights and Accountability

Lucky Chand

The report made public by the National Human Rights Commission on the Tinkune incident of Chaitra 15, 2081, raises important questions about the responsibilities of both the state and the protesters. Along with recommending action against officials of the then District Security Committee and field commanders, the Commission has made clear that the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly are not unlimited. In a democracy, rights and accountability cannot be interpreted according to the convenience of one side or another; both must be assessed against the same legal standard.

The Commission has recommended action against then Chief District Officer Rishiram Tiwari, then Kathmandu Police Range chief Bishwo Adhikari, Superintendent of Police Apilraj Bohora, Armed Police Superintendent Shailesh Shrestha and other officials. The Commission concluded that preparations to maintain peace and security were ineffective and that necessary alternative strategies for crowd control were not adopted. Its recommendation calls for answers on how responsibility for security management is determined, from the officials issuing orders to the commanders deployed at the scene.

The report also recommends compensation for the families of Sabin Maharjan and journalist Suresh Rajak, who were killed by police gunfire; relief for the injured in accordance with established criteria; and an investigation into possible misuse of weapons in the shooting of Revika Khatri and Dinesh Khatri, who were returning home and were not taking part in the protest. Implementing these recommendations means more than providing relief to victims; it also requires an impartial investigation into the orders to use force, the circumstances and the consequences.

The Commission has also questioned Durga Prasai’s role and stated that the freedom to assemble and demonstrate peacefully is not absolute. This does not diminish the importance of that right. Reasonable regulation may be necessary to protect public order and the rights of others, but it must be based on clear laws, consistent standards and grounds that can withstand judicial scrutiny. The state must not be given vague powers to suppress criticism and protest in the name of preventing misinformation or hate speech.

The Commission’s observation that it was an error to permit groups with opposing ideologies to demonstrate at the same time and in a sensitive location also points to shortcomings in administrative planning. Designating locations for assemblies and marches may be useful, but such a policy must not become a means of denying citizens the right to protest. Assessing risks, coordinating with the groups involved and preparing security arrangements in advance are responsibilities of the authorities that grant permits.

The Commission’s recommendations are not a final court ruling and must not be presented as proof of the officials’ guilt. But the government cannot ignore them either. It should publicly explain which recommendations have been implemented, which have not, and why. Any potentially unlawful activity by protesters must be investigated; the use of force by security personnel must be examined with the same impartiality.

The state has a duty both to protect citizens’ rights and to ensure public safety. Both responsibilities must be guided by law, evidence and accountability. Only if the Tinkune incident is judicially resolved in accordance with these principles will the victims receive justice and the security agencies earn public trust.