Reports in the Panipokhari-friendly press indicate that Christina Rocca expressed her concerns about the instances of human rights violations in Nepal during her visit here last week.

Nepal's ruling class knows that the contradiction between what you preach and what you practice is an inalienable part of power politics. So it's quite unlikely that anyone at the Bhadrakali headquarters of the Royal Nepalese Army quizzed the high-profile guest from Foggy Bottom about Washington's own standards on human rights.

The very concept of human rights is alien to a milieu where women are considered untouchable for some of the time, and some men-to say nothing of their women-are treated as pariah for all of the time. The constitution prohibits such institutionalised inequality, but that means very little in a society where traditions are considered more sacrosanct than the provisions of the written constitution.

Cow milk may be more useful, but for caste-Hindu Nepalis with sacred threads, cow urine is no less sacred. This is the mind-set that often makes us forget the difference between symbols and substance. That explains the hoo-ha over human rights when democratic governance itself remains suspended in the country. It's extremely difficult, if not impossible, to ensure human rights when the country is being governed by a non-representative executive.

It's not just the executive functions, even legislation seems to have fallen prey to what has come to be termed the "Musharrafship" of present-day Nepal. Named after a neighbouring general who pioneered the concept, Musharrafship is a form of veiled dictatorship where a civilian government formed by an absolute ruler runs the country.

In this approach of ruling by the consent of collaborators, direct coercion is considered too crude. It relies instead on the ability of the middle-classes to self-regulate when made aware of the consequences of non-cooperation. Musharrafship permits polite noises about the role of free-press and the importance of human rights as long as the intellectual elite doesn't raise fundamental questions about the legitimacy of the regime. Even though we need to do a lot to catch up with Pakistan, the ruling classes of Nepal seem to be forging ahead nonetheless. After October the Four, rule by ordinance has become the order of the day here.

According to the constitution, an ordinance can be promulgated if circumstances exist which render it "necessary" for the king to take immediate action. But Subhas Nembang, a noted legal eagle and popular UML leader, says that all the "necessity" that recently promulgated ordinances show is a pre-condition-both the Houses of Parliament are currently not in session.

The government hasn't been able to explain the misfortune that would have befallen had laws about royal household expenses not been amended by a hastily drawn up ordinance. When a government gets addicted to rule by decree, it's very difficult to get it to accept the reality that any act made without the consent (expressed through popularly elected representatives) of the ruled is an imposition. All such laws contravene democratic principle, and by implication, constitute violation of human rights by the government.

Donor agencies preaching human rights to suitably attentive activists in Kathmandu are engaged in a fail-safe game-you can't go wrong when you are converting the already-converted. But these sermons have very little relevance at the grassroots where neither the Maoist militia nor the security forces are under any obligation to exercise restraint.

By repeatedly stressing the Great Helmsman's dictum that the "revolution is not a tea party", Maoist leadership has clearly shown that it has no intention of abjuring the politics of violence just because some kind in the heart, but soft in the head human rights activists want it to opt for a negotiated settlement. The security forces, on the other hand, can no more rely on the threat of counter-violence alone. It is forced to adopt even more violent methods to retain its monopoly on organised violence. The prospect for citizen's human rights in such a surcharged atmosphere is rather bleak to say the least.

Madam Rocca came, she said what she had to say, and she left. The onus of ensuring even a modicum of human dignity and fundamental rights for the common people of the country continues to fall upon the shoulders of the mainstream political parties. Donors and their collaborators may not like the ways of the mass-based political leaders, but it's those very politicians who will have to face the Maoist insurgency and state counter-insurgency on their own once the high-priests of human rights have finished their cocktails and left.

When ossified institutions take over the administration on the pretext of insuring order representative government is often the first casualty. Denial of human rights automatically follows, since the very purpose of restoration of peace is a declaration of war.

The existence of a representative government is a fundamental pre-condition to restoring peace. It's a banal repetition of a self-evident truth, but nevertheless worth re-emphasising: democratic rights and human rights are inextricably intertwined. It's impossible to have one without the other.