Extracts of an interview with Sushil Pyakurel.

Shouldn't the NHRC talk about human rights violations by the Maoist side also?
We should be clear about the concept of rights before talking about human rights. The constitution, international treaties and contracts directs the activities of the government. If these obligations are not adhered to then the issue of violation of human rights comes up. People have the right to live in peace. Human rights are violated if these rights are encroached upon. Those who commit crimes are naturally violating human rights. The state should punish them in accordance with the law. The Maoists came with armed rebellion and should be viewed differently. It is the duty of the government to make the Maoists incapable violating human rights.

How come the NHRC raises counterattacks by security forces, but not when armed groups do so.
We only question whether such actions are taking place in accordance with the law. We have said that the Maoists violated the Geneva Convention in many places. So, we shouldn't be rapped everytime we draw attention to violations by the government. This is not a competition. Instead, the authorities should carry out self-assessments and find out why their actions are being criticised. The RNA should not view itself as a 'people's army'. It is the army that has the right to carry and purchase arms with taxpayers' money and so it has a moral duty to uphold the law and protect the public. But the Maoist army is not the same, it has deliberately put itself outside the purview of the law. So it may be a sign of inferior complexity to view rights violations by both sides from the same angle. In other words, the Maoists are anti-constitutional and illegal but the state security forces are legal. So, their all activities should be in accordance with the law. If the state goes for illegal actions, it will make the illegal activities of the Maoists look legal too. The NHRC asks legal institutions not to carry out illegal activities.