Examining victims and perpetrators in post-conflict Nepal
| Published date | 01 September 2017 |
| Author | Yvette Selim |
| DOI | 10.1177/0269758017710818 |
| Date | 01 September 2017 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Examining victims and
perpetrators in post-conflict
Nepal
Yvette Selim
University of Technology Sydney, Australia
Abstract
The transitional justice (TJ) agenda in Nepal has been largely circumscribed by TJ experts, brokers
and implementers. While participation provides avenues for victims, among others, to be involved
in TJ processes, many actors, including victims, will engage in participatory activities according to
their own interests. Yet, we must ask, who are considered victims? Who determines whether
someone is a victim and what implications, if any, does this determination have and what do victims
want? This article examines the ‘victim’ label in Nepal. I argue that victimhood is often connected
with state support. I also argue that the way TJ scholars and practitioners identify victims, based on
the harm caused, does not always align with the way community members perceive victimhood,
which is often based on suffering.
Keywords
Victims, everyday, local, post-conflict, Nepal, transitional justice
Introduction
The transitional justice (TJ) agenda in Nepal has been largely circumscribed by TJ experts, brokers
and implementers.
1
Participatory activities have provided avenues for some victims, among other
actors, to be involved in the TJ process (Selim, 2014). Yet, we must ask, who are considered
victims? Who determines whether someone is a victim and what implications, if any, does this
determination have and what do victims want?
This article reveals the different ways in which the ‘victim’ label is employed in post-conflict
Nepal. It addresses the victim/perpetrator binary that has been at the centre of TJ debates. While
this binary has been challenged and criticised by scholars and practitioners in other TJ processes,
Corresponding author:
Yvette Selim, Institute for Public Policy and Governance, University of Technology Sydney, PO Box 123 Broadway NSW,
2007, Australia.
Email: yvette.selim@uts.edu.au
International Review of Victimology
2017, Vol. 23(3) 275–301
ªThe Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0269758017710818
journals.sagepub.com/home/irv
this article offers the first in-depth, single case study of Nepal. I make three interrelated arguments.
First, it is argued that a strict division between victims and perpetrators does not reflect everyday
realities in Nepal. Second, victimhood is often connected with state support in Nepal. Third, the
way TJ experts, brokers and implementers identify victims, based on the harm caused, does not
always align with the way conflict-affected people and community members perceive victimhood,
which is often based on suffering. This research reveals that victims seek to satisfy everyday needs
and require support for long-term survival but, so too, do rural, poor Nepalis who were not directly
impacted by the conflict. This raises important scholarly and practical questions as to the extent to
which broader TJ debates engage with issues of development, marginalisation and the shortcom-
ings of the Nepali state (see Selim, forthcoming).
This article is based on field research, documentary analysis and subsequent informal conversa-
tions with TJ actors in Nepal. Field research was conducted in Nepal in 2012.
2
I conducted 125
semi-structured interviews with victims, huma n rights advocates, ex-combatants, Local Peace
Committee members, government and army personnel, NGO workers and UN representatives,
among others, across the five development regions in Nepal. The interviews usually took place in
people’s places of work and they usually ranged from 30 to 60 minutes in length.
Respondents were initially found through internet searches and a list of contacts provided to me
by two organisations in Nepal.
3
Victims were identified through victims’ groups, Local Peace
Committees, human rights organisations and NGOs, as well as by referral from other victims.
Respondents, particularly victim groups’ leaders and NGO workers, frequently shared with me the
stories of other victims they represented or knew. In one interview, the leader of a victims group
spoke for almost one hour telling me his and other victims’ stories, pausing only to give my
research assistant a chance to convey the stories to me. While this does not replace speaking
directly with victims it allowed me to hear about stories which are not necessarily reflected in the
number of interviews I conducted.
In line with grounded theory I undertook theoretical sampling. This requires sampling to fill out
and ascertain properties of a tentative category rather than achieve representativeness of the
population (Charmaz, 2004: 497). My sample size of 125 with a focus on various groups of people
helped to ensure that a range of relevant perspectives was gathered (see Arksey and Knight, 1999:
60).
4
It is by seeking the ‘greatest possible range’ that I was then able to weave the data ‘into a
more substantial theory’ (Alvesson and Sko¨ldberg, 2009: 28). As I began hearing similar view-
points from respondents within these groups I was able to determine that I was reaching theoretical
saturation. This occurs when new data do not lead to the emergence of new codes, relationships or
theoretical insights (Charmaz, 2006: 96; Gray, 2004: 340). In line with a constructivist grounded
theory approach, I have sought to enable respondents’ ‘accounts to retain a degree of visibility in
the text’ to show the connections between my data and the analytical findings (Mills et al., 2006).
In this article I employ the term ‘victim’ even though victim-survivor (or victim/survivor) has
emerged as an alternative term (see, for example Gready, 2011; Van der Merwe et al., 2009). There
are four reasons why I do not employ the term victim-survivor. First, the victim label is part of the
existing vocabulary in TJ that I seek to critically assess (see Charlesworth and Chinkin, 2000: 2).
Second, some ind ividuals label t hemselves as victim s, which indicate s that the label m ay well have
personal significance, so removing it from TJ vocabulary may disempower these people. A third
reason is that this term has material, institutional, symbolic and pragmatic implications. The fourth
and perhaps mostimportant reason is that while I agreethat the term victim-survivorprovides a more
nuanced view of victims and the spectrum thatthey occupy, throughout my researchit was not used
by victims themselves (nor by other actors) so, for this reason, and indeed for the sake of clarity, I
276 International Review of Victimology 23(3)
To continue reading
Request your trial