Women survivors of Nepal’s decade-long internal conflict are increasingly shaping the country’s transitional justice process, as advocacy efforts led by survivors push for accountability, legal reform, and recognition of conflict-related sexual violence.

The conflict between government forces and Maoist insurgents from 1996 to 2006 left at least 13,000 people dead and more than 1,300 missing, according to United Nations estimates. Women were among those most affected, facing arbitrary detention, torture, rape, forced displacement, and other violations, while also playing significant roles as combatants and political actors.

Devi Khadka, a former member of Nepal’s Constituent Assembly and a prominent women’s rights activist, is among those who have transformed personal trauma into sustained advocacy. Detained at the age of 17, she was tortured and subjected to gang rape by police who accused her of aiding her brother, a Maoist activist.

Reflecting on her experience, Khadka said a lack of understanding about trauma at the time shaped her response. “I didn’t understand why I suffered this,” she said, describing how she later joined the Maoist movement during a period marked by psychological distress and a desire to confront her circumstances.

Years later, the public disclosure of her rape by Maoist leaders compounded the trauma, exposing her to further harm and reinforcing the challenges faced by survivors in seeking dignity and privacy.The 2006 Comprehensive Peace Agreement formally ended the conflict and initiated Nepal’s transition toward democratic governance. Transitional justice mechanisms, including the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the Commission of Investigation on Enforced Disappeared Persons, were established to investigate violations and promote reconciliation.

However, progress has been slow, and transitional justice remains one of the agreement’s unresolved commitments.Women survivors have faced systemic barriers in accessing justice, including stigma, social exclusion, and institutional limitations. Many lost family members who were primary earners, leaving them to assume economic responsibilities while also dealing with long-term psychological and physical impacts of violence.

Official data underscores the extent of underreporting. Of more than 63,000 complaints filed with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, only 314 were classified as cases of sexual violence prior to legal reforms in 2024. Analysts attribute this gap to fear of retaliation, social stigma, and a lack of trust in institutions.

In response, Khadka and a group of survivors established Aparajit, meaning “the Undefeated,” a network aimed at supporting victims and advocating for systemic change. The organization has facilitated access to medical and legal services while promoting collective action among survivors.Khadka said the initiative initially faced resistance and accusations of undermining national reputation.

However, support from media organizations helped bring visibility to the issue, enabling the movement to expand and gain broader recognition.Advocacy efforts have contributed to tangible legal reforms. In August 2024, Nepal amended its transitional justice law to address longstanding gaps in the treatment of sexual violence cases.

The revised legislation includes provisions to classify sexual violence more comprehensively, remove statutes of limitation, and ensure that serious crimes are not subject to sentence commutation.Khadka said previous legal definitions were inadequate, narrowly interpreting rape and excluding various forms of sexual violence. “We brought up almost 75 percent of cases where the victim herself doesn’t call it sexual violence, and society doesn’t either,” she said, highlighting the need for broader recognition of such crimes.

The amended law also reopened the process for filing complaints, allowing survivors who had previously been unable or unwilling to come forward to seek redress. These changes reflect a shift toward a more inclusive and survivor-centered approach, though implementation challenges remain.At the international level, Khadka and other survivors have engaged with United Nations platforms to advocate for reforms.

Speaking at a Human Rights Council panel in Geneva in September 2025, she emphasized the importance of including survivors in designing justice mechanisms.“Especially in the case of sexual violence… it should be done with the involvement of the survivors themselves,” she said, noting that legal frameworks often fail to capture the lived realities of victims.

UN Human Rights has supported Nepal’s transitional justice process through technical assistance, policy advice, and engagement with government institutions, civil society, and victims’ groups. The organization has emphasized the need for a victim-centered approach that aligns with international legal standards and addresses root causes of conflict.

Efforts also focus on integrating gender considerations into justice mechanisms. The UN’s Women’s Rights and Gender Section has worked to highlight issues such as gender-based violence and women’s participation in post-conflict governance, aiming to ensure that survivors’ experiences inform policy decisions.Khadka said international support has been critical in advancing reforms and amplifying survivor voices.

Representing more than 3,800 individuals in her network, she noted that access to global platforms has strengthened advocacy efforts and contributed to legislative progress.For many survivors, participation in these processes carries both practical and symbolic significance. Public testimony, particularly in the presence of state authorities, can serve as a form of recognition and validation, helping to restore dignity.

Khadka described this recognition as central to recovery. “If a person’s lived experience becomes untrue… then there is no meaning to a life,” she said, underscoring the role of acknowledgment in the pursuit of justice.Nepal’s experience reflects broader challenges in post-conflict societies, where balancing accountability, reconciliation, and institutional reform requires sustained political commitment and inclusive approaches.

The increasing involvement of women survivors in shaping policy marks a shift toward more participatory models of transitional justice.As reforms continue, the emphasis on survivor-led advocacy highlights the role of lived experience in addressing systemic gaps and advancing accountability within complex post-conflict environments.

In a formal communication dated 13 August 2025, UN Special Rapporteurs requested clarification from Islamabad following reports concerning the deaths of journalist and human rights advocate Abdul Latif Baloch and his son, Saif Baloch, as well as the arrest of civil society coordinator Gulzar Dost.

The experts said they were deeply concerned by allegations that the killings were linked to reprisals against Mr Baloch’s family. They called on authorities to ensure an “independent, impartial and transparent” investigation, warning that accountability was essential.

According to the letter, Abdul Latif Baloch was shot dead by unidentified armed men at his home in Mashkay, Awaran district, on 24 May 2025. His son Saif was reportedly detained by Pakistani military personnel on 28 February and subsequently disappeared. His body was recovered on 26 March, prompting fears of enforced disappearance and extrajudicial execution.

The communication also referred to Mr Baloch’s earlier detention and alleged torture by security agencies. It noted that his brother, Rasheed Ali Baloch, died in custody in 2011 – raising what the UN experts called a pattern of human rights abuses linked to security operations in Balochistan.

Concerns were also raised over the case of activist Gulzar Dost, coordinator of the Turbat Civil Society Forum. He was taken from his home on 6 July 2025 and charged under anti-terrorism laws despite the lack of an arrest warrant, the letter said. He was released on bail on 1 August, but UN experts argued the case illustrated how anti-terror legislation was being used to target human rights defenders.

The letter set out seven specific questions for the Pakistani government, including updates on investigations into the deaths of Abdul Latif, Saif and Rasheed Baloch, and clarification of the legal basis for Mr Dost’s arrest.

Pakistan, the experts said, remains bound by international obligations to safeguard the right to life, protect freedom of expression and ensure the safety of those defending human rights. They urged authorities to act swiftly in addressing the allegations.

The move comes amid accusations that members of the Brotherhood were planning attacks, with authorities citing national security concerns. Police forces surrounded and searched the headquarters of the Islamic Action Front, the political party affiliated with the Brotherhood, shortly after the announcement.

The Islamic Action Front had secured the largest number of seats in last year’s parliamentary elections, held in the shadow of mass protests across Jordan in response to the Israel-Hamas war.

Although the Muslim Brotherhood was officially banned a decade ago, a splinter faction was licensed, and the Islamic Action Front had continued operating with restrictions. It remains unclear how extensively the new ban will be implemented against the party and its affiliates.

In a statement, the Interior Ministry confirmed the designation of the Muslim Brotherhood as an illegal organization and announced a ban on all political activity connected to the group. Offices linked to the Brotherhood will be closed, and asset confiscation efforts will be intensified.

“It has been proven that members of the group operate in the dark and engage in activities that could destabilize the country,” the ministry stated. “Members of the dissolved Muslim Brotherhood have tampered with security and national unity, and disrupted security and public order.”

The ministry also alleged that the son of a Brotherhood leader was involved in attempts to manufacture and test explosives aimed at targeting security forces. No specific names or further details were disclosed.

Just last week, Jordanian authorities reported the arrest of 16 individuals accused of manufacturing short-range missiles, possessing explosives and automatic weapons, concealing a missile ready for use, and conducting illegal recruitment and training. The suspects were described as being part of “unlicensed groups,” a term widely interpreted to refer to the Muslim Brotherhood. The group has denied the allegations and reaffirmed its commitment to Jordan’s security.

“This marks a pivotal moment for Jordan,” said political analyst Amer Sabaileh. “The relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood has fundamentally changed and will not return to its previous state.”

Jordan, a key Western ally often regarded as an island of stability in the Middle East, shares borders with Israel, the West Bank, Syria, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. The kingdom hosts hundreds of thousands of refugees from regional conflicts and has long played a strategic role in the region’s geopolitics.

The Muslim Brotherhood, founded nearly 100 years ago in Egypt, has grown into a global network with branches across the Middle East. While its leaders insist they pursue Islamic governance through peaceful, democratic means, governments across the region — especially those with authoritarian leanings — have labeled the group a threat to national security.

Time and again, emotional appeals for street protests have been presented as the only recourse—akin to a one-size-fits-all remedy.

Last week, India’s Parliament passed the Waqf Amendment Bill, a piece of legislation aimed at reforming the management of Islamic charitable endowments known as Waqf properties. This move has sparked significant unease among Muslim organizations, civil society groups, and opposition political parties in the country. Despite appeals to India’s President, Droupadi Murmu, to withhold her approval, the bill has now been enacted into law.

Prominent political figures, including Muslim parliamentarians such as Asaduddin Owaisi of the All India Majlis-e-Ittehad Muslimeen, Mohammed Jawed of the Indian National Congress, and Amanatullah Khan, a Delhi legislator and chairman of the local Waqf Board from the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), have filed legal challenges in India’s Supreme Court, questioning the bill’s alignment with the nation’s constitution.

In contrast, Sanjay Raut, a member of parliament from Shiv Sena (UBT)—a regional political party—has indicated his party’s decision not to oppose the legislation, suggesting a divergence of views even among the government’s critics.

India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led central government defends the bill, asserting it is in the nation’s best interest. Key officials, including Kiren Rijiju, the Minister of Minority Affairs, and Amit Shah, the Minister of Home Affairs, have repeatedly emphasized that the law does not infringe on Muslim rights. Instead, they argue it seeks to improve the efficiency of Waqf Boards—bodies responsible for overseeing these endowments. The government has dismissed opposition claims that the bill undermines constitutional protections as baseless.

Nevertheless, a coalition of Muslim organizations, individuals, and opposition parties continues to argue that the legislation threatens the sanctity of mosques and graveyards managed under Waqf. Labeling it unconstitutional, these groups are mobilizing for nationwide protests, including large-scale sit-ins and street demonstrations, to demand the law’s repeal.

The Historical Context of Waqf Management

Before jumping to support calls for protests, it’s worth exploring the historical management of Waqf properties—endowments established under Islamic law for charitable purposes—since India’s independence in 1947. This moment of controversy offers a chance to reflect on how these assets, meant to serve religious and social welfare, have been handled over decades.

A 2011 report by the Sachar Committee, a government-appointed panel studying the socio-economic conditions of Indian Muslims, alongside data from the Central Waqf Council, revealed that over 50% of Waqf land in India is either encroached upon or tangled in legal disputes—a striking indicator of systemic mismanagement across regions and political regimes.

In Telangana, a southern Indian state never governed by the BJP, approximately 75% of Waqf land is reportedly encroached upon, with the figure rising to 82% in its capital, Hyderabad. This underscores that the problem transcends any single political party or central policy. These statistics challenge the narrative that the current uproar is solely a result of the national government’s actions and prompt scrutiny of the role local Waqf Boards and regional leaders played in allowing such widespread losses to occur.

The Gap Between Rhetoric and Results

For decades, the administration of Waqf properties—intended to fund education, healthcare, and welfare initiatives—has failed to deliver on its charitable promise. Despite controlling vast assets, the benefits to India’s Muslim community remain limited. This raises pressing questions about who has truly profited from Waqf properties since India’s independence, who bears responsibility for the encroachments, mismanagement, and misuse of these lands, and how many schools, hospitals, or welfare centers have been established using Waqf resources.

Furthermore, what actions were taken against those who exploited these endowments, and in what measurable ways has Waqf contributed to the economic advancement of Muslims? Calls for accountability and reform in Waqf management should have surfaced long ago. Instead, the same organizations now rallying for protests—many of which oversaw this decline—are accused of stirring emotions for political leverage.

Critics argue these self-proclaimed “guardians” of the Muslim community have historically mismanaged Waqf resources, often prioritizing personal or political gain over communal welfare.

The Myth of Wake-Up Calls

Much has been said about “wake-up calls” to galvanize India’s Muslim community. Yet, the reality suggests that community leaders and Waqf custodians were never dormant—they were simply focused elsewhere.

Many Waqf properties have been illegally occupied, with rents kept artificially low, allowing beneficiaries to exploit them for decades without oversight or adjustment. This pattern of neglect raises doubts about the sincerity of those now decrying the new law.

The Pattern of Response to Legislation

A recurring trend emerges in how certain groups react to laws perceived to affect Muslim interests in India. When the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and National Register of Citizens (NRC) were introduced—policies aimed at streamlining citizenship processes—similar fears were ignited, with claims that Muslims would be stripped of citizenship. Years after the CAA’s implementation, no widespread evidence of such disenfranchisement has emerged.

This history prompts questions about the opposition to the Waqf Amendment Bill: Are objections rooted in genuine threats to religious rights, or do they reflect an automatic resistance that ultimately serves political agendas rather than community well-being?

The Human Cost of Protest Without Protection

Time and again, emotional appeals for street protests have been presented as the only recourse—akin to a one-size-fits-all remedy.

During the CAA-NRC protests, fears of mass citizenship loss fueled widespread unrest. Yet, as Minister Kiren Rijiju noted during the Waqf bill debates, no Muslims have lost citizenship under CAA. Still, the fallout from such movements lingers: young Muslims arrested during protests against CAA, NRC, and earlier laws like the Triple Talaq ban often remain in jail, lacking legal or financial support from the groups that spurred them into action.

In Muzaffarnagar, a city in northern India, 24 Muslim youths faced legal notices simply for wearing black armbands as a symbolic dissent—not even a full protest—each required to post a ₹2 lakh (approximately $2,400 USD) bond. In Ahmedabad, a western Indian city, around 40 people were detained during demonstrations.

These cases highlight the risks to ordinary citizens when protests lack strategic planning, legal backing, or institutional support.

Before heeding new calls to protest, communities deserve to know whether organizers have secured proper permissions from authorities, are prepared to provide legal aid to those arrested, have a legal team in place, will accept responsibility for the outcomes, and will support the families of detainees financially and emotionally.

The Path Forward: Reform and Accountability

The current Waqf management system demands overhaul. Transparency, accountability, and effectiveness must take precedence over political maneuvering. Rather than blanket opposition, India’s Muslim community could benefit from demanding targeted amendments to problematic clauses in the bill instead of outright rejection, proposing governance models that balance religious autonomy with accountability, establishing independent oversight to track how Waqf resources serve the community, creating forums for community input into Waqf decisions, and developing long-term plans to leverage Waqf assets for education, healthcare, and economic growth.

From Reaction to Responsible Engagement

India’s Muslim community faces a pivotal choice. The current approach lacks strategy, unified leadership, negotiation, or internal reform—just a repetitive cycle of politicization until issues reach the courts. Continuing this pattern of protest and division is an option, but so is redirecting energy toward ensuring Waqf properties fulfill their charitable mission. The community must resist further manipulation.

For decades, Waqf assets have been plundered while leaders stood by. Now, as the government pushes for accountability, some of these same figures are accused of misleading the public once more.

True leadership goes beyond rallying crowds—it requires vision, strategy, and responsibility. By advocating for reforms that bring transparency and efficiency to Waqf management, the community can ensure these resources uplift its most vulnerable members and build enduring institutions for future generations.

The challenge is not merely whether to oppose a law, but how to ensure the sacred trust of Waqf serves its intended purpose: benefiting the community it was created to support.

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.