Dedicated to Daniel Pearl

म भन्थँे- १३ वर्ष ।

माओवादी लेख्थे- १६ वर्ष ।

कति कक्षामा पढ्छेस् ?

म भन्थेँ- चार कक्षामा ।

माओवादी लेख्थे- छ कक्षामा ।

तेरी आमाले तँलाई अपहरण गरेको भनेर पत्रकारलाई भनिछ, तेरी आमालाई कसले उचालेको ?

म भन्थेँ- खै मलाई त कसैले पनि उचालेजस्तो लाग्दैन । आमाले आफ्नो वास्तविकता सुनाउनुभएको होला ।

माओवादीे लेख्थे- उदय र किशोरले उचालेको हुनुपर्छ ।

टेलिभिजनका लागि दृश्य कैद गर्न तेर्सिएको क्यामेरासामु माओवादीलाई उनीहरूकै कब्जामा रहँदा दिएको उल्लिखित बयान जस्ताको तस्तै भनिरहँदा तीन सातासम्मको मानसिक र शारीरिक यातना सम्झेर ममता दवाडी छिनछिनमा गला अवरुद्ध पारिरहन्थिन् । माओवादीको कब्जाबाट उम्केकै दिन सञ्चारकर्मीसामु तीन साता यस्ता बनावटी व्यवहार थुपै्र सहनुपरेको धाराप्रवाह सुनाउँदै गइन् उनी । 

माओवादी जिल्ला सेक्रेटरी लोकप्रसाद बञ्जरा ‘अक्कल’ ले गोरखा विरेञ्चोकस्थित रत्नराज्य माविमा चार कक्षामा पढ्दै गरेकी ममता अपहरण भएको समाचार सार्वजनिक भएपछि सञ्चारकर्मीलाईर् ममताले भनेभन्दा झूटो विवरण सुनाएका थिए । ममताले राजीखुसीले दिएको भन्दै सुनाएको विवरण झूटा थियो भन्ने हामीले त्यतिबेला नै पत्ता लगाएका थियौं । त्यतिबेलासम्म माओवादी ममतालाई अपहरण गरेको स्वीकार्दैनथे । यातना दिएको त झन् अस्वीकार गर्ने नै भए । उनीहरू भन्थे-’उनी आफ्नै इच्छाले विद्रोह गरेर माओवादीमा लागेकी हुन् ।’

ममताको अपहरण पनि झुक्याएरै भएको थियो । शोभा लामिछाने -सरिता) ले चप्पल किनेर ल्याइदिन्छु भनेर उनलाई लगेकी थिइन् । चप्पल विरेञ्चोकमा किन्न ममताले आग्रह गरेकी थिइन् । शोभाले यहाँ होइन, गोरखामा किनेर भोलि र्फकने भन्दै सदरमुकाम पुर्‍याइन् । छेपेटार जाने बसमा चढेपछि घर छेउमा ओर्लन खोज्दा दिएनन् । ‘त्यहाँ ओर्लन नदिएपछि मात्रै मैले अपहरण भएको थाहा पाएँ’, ममताले भनिन्- ‘त्यसपछि १५ जना जनसेनाले घेरेर मलाई छेपेटार हुँदै खोप्लाङतिर लगे ।’

नातेदारले लगेकाले फर्काइदिने आशामा ममताकी आमा जूनमायाले नौ दिन कुरिन् । अनि सञ्चारमाध्यममार्फत छोरीको खबर सार्वजनिक गरिन् । पछि माओवादी नेतृत्वले समाचार गल्ती भएको र ममतालाई अपहरण नगरेको जिकिर गर्‍यो । ममता भागेर आएपछि उनीहरूको भनाइ झूटो सावित भएको छ ।

छोरी अपहरण भएपछि उनको खोजीमा आमा निकै भौंतारिएकी थिइन् । उनले माओवादीको खप्की खानुपरेको थियो । उनको घरमा गएर पनि माओवादीले बारम्बार धम्की दिए ।

घटना सार्वजनिक भएपछि गोरखा आएको संयुक्त राष्ट्रसंघीय मानवअधिकार उच्चायुक्त कार्यालयका प्रतिनिधिले ममताको वास्तविक अवस्था बुझिदिन आग्रह गरेका थिए । त्यसपछि माओवादीले ममताको आमालाई भेट्न दिने बतायो । गत साउन २९ गते भच्चेकमा भेट्न दिने बताएका थिए । उनीहरूले त्यसदिन ममतालाई अर्कै ठाउँमा पुर्‍याए । ममता कब्ज्ााबाट फुत्केर हाम्रो सम्पर्कमा आइसकेपछि सेक्रेटरी अक्कलसित कुरा गर्न माओवादी कार्यालयमा गएका थियौं । उनी कब्जाबाट भागिसकेपछि माओवादीले ममतालाईर् छाडिदिएको बहाना बनाउन प्रयास गर्दै रहेछन् । अक्कललाई खोज्दा एक माओवादी कार्यकर्ताले ममतालाई छाड्ने भनेर लिन जानुभएको छ भनेका थिए । माओवादी कब्जाबाट फुत्केर हाम्रो सम्पर्कमा आएको बताउँदै क्यामेरामा ममताको फोटो देखाएपछि उनले कुरा छले- ‘यसबाट तत्काल फोटो पि्रन्ट गर्न मिल्छ ?’ अहिले ममताले कब्जाबाट फुत्केपछि उनले सार्वजनिक गरेको कुरालाई समेत उनीहरूले बनावटी भन्दै प्रचार गरिरहेका छन् ।

यो एउटा प्रतिनिधि घटना हो । सर्वसाधारणलाई दुःख दिएका उदाहरण धेरै छन् । चाहे त्यो चन्दाको होस् वा अपहरण । बृहत् गणतान्त्रिक मोर्चामा सहभागी गराएको भन्दै अहिले पनि बालबालिकालाई सैन्य तालिम दिएको अभियानबाट र्फकेकाहरू बताउँछन् । उनीहरूको जनमिलिसियामा सबै कलिला बालबालिका देखिन्छन् । उनीहरूले ती सबैलाई ममतालाई जस्तै रेडिमेड कुरा गर्न सिकाएका रहेछन् ।

Following the traumatic assault members of the three families have been forced to take refuge with their relatives.

The rebels targeted three houses belonging to Sukai Yadav, Sovai Yadav and Chinilal Yadav. Sukai Yadav’s mother Gulab Yadav and his son Bhola Yadav along with Sukai himself, Sovai and Chinilal have sustained injuries in the attack.

Sukai Yadav’s situation is critical, and he has been transferred to the Zonal Hospital, Butwal after preliminary treatment at Bhim Hospital in Bhairahawa.

According to the locals, the three families were attacked by Kancha Kahar, Jogendra Pathak, Sarveshwor Pathak, Chhedi Chamar, Jokhu Kahar, Ram Awadh Mallah, Girish Mallah, Chhotu Kahar.

The group of assailants looted 10 quintals of rice, wheat, two television sets, five cycles, Rs 20,000 in cash and more than six tolas of sliver.

Prisoners’ rights advocates are understandably worried about an advisory panel’s recommendation that the government overhaul the rules for testing drugs on prison inmates. The advocates fear a return to the medieval situation of just 30 years ago, when inmates were often subjected to dangerous and unethical experimental procedures. Some were infamously exposed to radioactive, carcinogenic and hallucinogenic chemicals at the Holmesburg prison in Philadelphia.

This shameful history makes it imperative that any change in testing policies be accompanied by oversight regulations far stronger than those now in existence. That said, a new report from the Institute of Medicine offers a possible outline for moving toward a system of testing that could benefit both the population as a whole and prison inmates, who tend to be among the sickest, most disease-prone people in society.

The report calls for greatly expanding the protections given to subjects of medical research who are imprisoned or under other forms of correctional supervision. It also calls on the government to strengthen federal oversight of these kinds of studies and to rewrite a set a vague regulations that don’t actually protect the rights of medical research subjects within the corrections system.

The new arrangement would minimize inmate risk by limiting drug trials to the final, therapeutic stage, after researchers have already determined that drugs look safe and potentially effective. Instead of loading up studies with captive subjects, as was commonly done in the past, prison inmates would not be permitted to make up more than half of the subjects of a test.

No research can ever be seen as legitimate without informed consent of the participating subjects. Critics of the new report argue that there can be no such thing as informed consent in the coercive environment of a prison. While acknowledging the seriousness of the problem, the report’s authors believe that it can be overcome — at least in some institutions and in some settings — by having careful independent boards oversee the process. If voluntary informed consent is not obtainable, the report said, the research should not be allowed to proceed.

The dismal state of medical care in many prisons also raises the possibility that inmates would rush to sign up for drug trials simply to get treatment for chronic problems. The report’s authors appear to have argued vigorously among themselves about whether drug testing should be permitted at institutions where health care is particularly poor. The answer should be no, in all but the rarest cases. Making sure inmates have decent medical care should be the first order of business.

The country should move slowly on this issue. The savage and dishonorable legacy of drug testing in prison makes it imperative that any change be carried out carefully, with maximum transparency and concern for inmate safety. That will require far more federal oversight than current law provides.

When Mercy Corps and other Western aid agencies reached this devastated village on the front line of the battle between Israel and Hezbollah with food and medicine, they quickly discovered they had a big problem: the United States.

That fact is nettlesome for the United States, not merely because it does not want Hezbollah to be strengthened even further after its war with Israel, but because it is eager to find and support a viable alternative to the militant group.

That will not be easy. Hezbollah has been the fastest and, without a doubt, most effective organization doling out aid to the shattered towns and villages of southern Lebanon. Aid groups like Mercy Corps — which generally work through local intermediaries — have sometimes struggled to find other ways of helping, and even then, they cannot be sure their aid is not going through Hezbollah.

“You can make a separation between what we do and Hezbollah,” said Khiam’s deputy mayor, Muhammed Abdullah, 45, who is organizing the local efforts, including donations of food and water from Mercy. “But of course there is coordination.”

On Mr. Abdullah’s desk is a paperweight with the logo of “Construction Jihad,” Hezbollah’s building company, and in his anteroom are two posters of Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, the Hezbollah leader.

Some villagers here say Hezbollah’s involvement is even less subtle.

“Unicef has been here, and Mercy Corps and other groups,” said Ahmad Zogby, 39, whose house was destroyed, along with that of his parents. “But everything coming in, Hezbollah puts an eye on it, makes sure it is all given out in the proper way. It is all in the hands of Hezbollah.”

Though Hezbollah is only one of many groups providing social services in Lebanon, its reputation for delivering those services honestly is unmatched, making it that much harder to circumvent. In nearby Nabatiye, for instance, Mercy Corps has begun working through the Jabbar Foundation, a nonprofit group run by Yaseen Jabbar, a wealthy member of Parliament.

But the mayor of Nabatiye, Mustapha Badreddine, 55, says he considers the foundation ineffective. For his own part, Mr. Badreddine says he does not belong to Hezbollah, but that he works with it because it is trustworthy, far more so than any other group in the area.

“You can’t say this money or aid is going to Hezbollah or not going to Hezbollah,” he said. “It is a matter of normal human contact.”

David Holdridge, Mercy Corps’s emergency coordinator for Lebanon, said he believed that the Jabbar Foundation has done excellent work, and noted that it has received money from Unicef, the State Department and other groups.

Mr. Holdridge also said the power of Hezbollah in Lebanese communities puts outside aid groups in a difficult position. The American government has not yet clarified its rules on giving aid and money in Lebanon, though more guidance is expected soon, he said.

At a briefing on Tuesday, William J. Garvelink, an official at the United States Agency for International Development, said the agency was waiting on proposals from aid groups involved in the area. He did not directly address the issue of conflicts in distributing aid.

For now, aid groups are forced to make difficult choices about how to work here, and with whom.

“We clearly cannot and would not have any contact with Hezbollah’s military wing, or its social services arm,” Mr. Holdridge said. “But can we work with people elected under its political banner? That is a gray area.”

Other international nonprofit groups receiving American government money are in a similar situation. “I think there are enough organizations and enough need here that it shouldn’t be a problem,” said Dr. Jeffrey Goodman, a medical adviser to the International Medical Corps, which gets some financing from A.I.D. “But there’s no question it’s a tricky situation.”

Aid groups have faced similar issues before — most notably in Gaza, where they are still awaiting a full definition of what “no contact” with terrorist organizations means, Mr. Holdridge said. The issue also arose in Darfur, where the Sudanese government is accused of helping to carry out the mass killings and displacement of civilians. (NY Times)