Individual-Level Data on the Victims of Nepal’s Civil War, 1996–2006: A New Data Set

Abstract

This article introduces individual-level microdata on victims of violence in Nepal’s civil war (1996–2006). The data being presented in this study are unique in that they are a census—not a sample—of the known population of victims for which information could be collected. The unit of analysis is the individual victim, and the data provide information on: whether the victim was killed, injured, or disappeared; the districts and villages where they were targeted; their permanent home addresses; the circumstances of the attack (combat, extrajudicial, etc.); socioeconomic information; whether they had any affiliation to rebel groups or other political parties; identification of the perpetrator; and whether the victim was considered to be a government or Maoist informant. After describing the data, an application of the data is performed and some preliminary findings are discussed on the differences in targeting behavior between the government and the Maoist rebels.

KEYWORDS:

• armed conflict
• combat killing
• civilian target
• individual victims data
• mobility
• socioeconomic status

Notes

¹ See King, Keohane, and Verba (1994:30) on the levels of analysis problem.

² For details on Nepalese insurgency, see Lawoti and Pahari (2009).

³ INSEC documentations on victim are archived at http://www.insec.org.np/victim/. Many of these documents that are relevant in investigation of human rights and international humanitarian law violations during the insurgency are cross-referenced in the United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner’s Nepal Conflict Archive (http://nepalconflictreport.ohchr.org/).

⁴ Various methods of counting civilians casualties are discussed in a volume edited by Seybolt, Aronson, and Fischhoff (2013).

⁵ We use the 1949 Geneva Convention IV (Article 15.b) to define civilians as those who are not armed and engaged in fighting.

⁶ Information is based on conversations with INSEC research staff.

⁷ Stokke, Sissener, and Lama-Tamang (2003:26) suggested some potential biases in INSEC’s data collection process because INSEC’s district representatives belonged to a Hindu caste group. However, they recognized the fact that INSEC was the only organization collecting information, and this responsibility demanded highly qualified individuals with experience in collecting and documenting information.

⁸ Based on conversations with INSEC research staff.

⁹ The data also provide village- and ward-level information. Ward is the lower administrative unit in the village level government. See codebook for variables and how they are coded.

¹⁰ All dates are translated from Bikram Sambat (B.S.) to Gregorian calendar date (A.D.). The last day of the month is used for the missing day. The day and month at the end of the year are used for the missing day and month.

¹¹ Data on injuries may not capture those victims who sustained injuries from torture and physical intimidation.

¹² According to Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) data from Nepal’s 2001 population census, Bramin/Chettrey and Nepali-speaking population constituted 33.54% and 48.61% respectively (CBS 2001).

¹³ The World Bank (2013) estimated that 25.2% and 53.7% of Nepal’s populations live below the national poverty line and below $2 a day respectively. Most of the low economic status victims are likely to be below the $2 a day poverty line.

¹⁴ This variable does not provide information on those who were informers but not identified as victims.

¹⁵ As of 2012, the government provided some financial support to almost all surviving victims or their families: http://ictj.org/sites/default/files/ICTJ-Nepal-Reparations-2012-English.pdf.

¹⁶ Outcomes of violence resulted either in killing, sustained injuries, or disappearance.

Additional information

Funding

The Joan B. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies provided generous support in the form of a faculty research grant for this project.