Our professor, Dr. Iyer, had us think about how this J-term course in Nepal would be different than other peace building expeditions to Cambodia and Sierra Leone. Nepal is unique for several reasons, some being that parties freely admit some of the conditions for starting the conflict are still present, there was no clear winner, and the end of the war is still too near for anyone to get an historical perspective. For me, the interesting contrast is Nepal is in a transitional phase, with both parties involved in power-sharing.

Just yesterday some of us were discussing how the Pope had recently determined that limbo no longer exists for un-baptized babies, but yet the idea of limbo had been for most in the minds of distraught Catholic parents for over two millennia. I think Nepal is caught in a type of transitional limbo. The word itself brings about a neutral, almost bored connotation today but in Nepal it’s something more depressing. I’ve been quick to judge Nepali citizens for not taking action to rebuild their communities but why would they in such undetermined circumstances? No one can forecast what will happen in the next few months, let alone years. What farmer will start agriculture reform when the Maoists propose dramatic land redistribution? Why expand a business when there’s no government plans to upgrade roads or infrastructure that will help trade routes? It takes a lot of faith and bravery to begin peace building when you don’t know what conditions will arise tomorrow. We were fortunate to meet several human rights defenders and organizers who continue their work documenting and recording abuses even as some politicians throw around the idea of blanket amnesty. Their dedication to the ideals of truth and justice are truly inspirational. Now I’m curious as to what the proper amount of time for transition/interim governments should be in post-war countries. Too long and uncertainty, pleas for impunity rise; too short and the chance for a well though-out, stable transformation could be squandered.

I sat in Hotel Annapurna waiting for my ride to the airport. A middle-aged man walked into the lobby center and lit candles around a replica temple. I closed my eyes to better appreciate the burning incense. The smell reminded me of our visit to the Hindu holy site of Manakamana Temple. The sound of a horn brought my attention back to the man. He was playing some type of instrument for his Buddhist ritual. Clearly religion is an important social factor in Nepali life.

Religion has been used as a fuel for conflict in many countries, most recently Nigeria among others. This is not the case in Nepal, where Hindus, Buddhists and Muslims have generally been able to coexist peacefully. Of course the caste system has been an inhibiting factor in creating new relationships between the Nepalese after the “People’s War” but in general religion did not exacerbate the fighting. Now that a peace agreement has been signed I assumed religious leaders would band together to remind everyone of shared values and norms that promote peace but I didn’t see that either. Even though religion was always present during my visit to Nepal, I must admit I found it’s expression subdued. Passion for politics and the search for new ethnic identities seems to trump religious fervor. One of the reasons we heard for the war was frustration towards the monarchy and government for not listening to or respecting various peoples/regions and this frustration led to aggression. After the war it seems that passion to overthrow the monarchy has been channeled into the fractious political parties. In both religious and ideological wars, passion can create the conditions for great frustration when things don’t go your way. Now I wonder how workers on the ground can direct those passions into a constructive force for peacebuilding that will limit frustration instead of adding to it.