"There was no reason for the police to shoot at all. We were just demonstrating on the streets, when all of a sudden, bullets began raining down on us." Thus described Ram Chandra Maharjan the events at his hilltop hometown of Kirtipur in Kathmandu Valley during the 1990 People's Movement. Maharjan's account is among the hundreds of depositions before the three-member Mallik Commission constituted in 1990 soon after the success of the Movement, to investigate instances of criminal acts by the state during the 49-day-long pro-democracy agitation.
As in other countries that suddenly emerged from authoritarianism to democracy, the free but shaky governments of Nepal since 1990 have failed to take action against those who criminally suppressed opponents of the erstwhile Panchayat system. In their version of events to the Commission, all those incriminated shifted responsibility citing that they were only acting under orders. Policemen named their superiors, who, in turn, passed the buck on to the Home Ministry and the notorious "National Resistance Committee", constituted of hotshots of the Panchayat regime to oppose the People's Movement. On its part, the Committee pleaded that it too was following instructions from the 'higher authorities'. In those days of absolute monarchy, 'higher authorities' could only mean the king, and there the exercise of identifying those responsible faltered.
The Commission submitted its report to the interim government formed immediately after the restoration of democracy. The government, a coalition of the Nepali Congress, the communists and royalists, however, decided not to take action against police personnel implicated in the Mallik report. The government's argument was that such action may affect the general elections it was mandated to conduct. All it did, therefore, was seize the passports of politicians implicated and send the report to the Attorney General.
The Mallik report had recommended strong action against those implicated. The then Attorney General, however, was of the opinion that no action could be taken as evidence against individuals was lacking. This was a view that generated heated debate in the country at that time, and the head of the Commission, Justice Janardhan Mallik, himself protested that the report contained enough proof for prosecution. But the matter did not go further, and despite assurances by governments of all hues since then, there has been no attempt to implement the recommendations.