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.