POWER PLAY

After a month long research into Nepal’s incarceration system, many questions remain unanswered. The unjust and unsustainable system is under constant change due to the short contracts and weak criminal justice system. This leads to each prison to operate in their own terms. In theory, the Department of Prison Management, under the Ministry of Home Affairs oversees the prisons in Nepal with the aid of Chief District Officers that manage local prison matters, such as granting approval to visitors and NGO programs inside prisons. [1]

The Department of Prison Management, police officers and guards have surprisingly little control inside the prisons. Nepal is one of the few countries that have implemented an internal administration system managed by prisoners themselves. [2] This system consists of a leader (Naike) who has “helpers” [3] (Chaukidar), and together they manage businesses inside the prison such as a grocery shop, tea shop and other activities such as, a barber or sewing. [4] It seems like there is no country wide procedure to select determine which prisoners will act in these positions. We encountered contrasting selection processes, in one jail, the prisoners themselves chose their leader, while in another, the jailer appointed the leader based on their behavior and leadership skills. The leaders have significantly more freedom compared to the rest of the prisoners; we saw several leaders step outside of the prison bars, supposedly to shop for groceries.

The uneven power roles assigned to prisoners immediately reminded us of the famous psychology study, the Stanford Prison Experiment, conducted by Philip Zimbardo. This study illustrated how assigned roles of social power can shape individuals behavior; civilians who were labelled as guards showed aggressions towards the civilians who acted as prisoners. [5] (link)

A former prisoner shared,

“I was bitten by a Naike… but we had to tolerate it because if we spoke against the leader then we would be transferred to another prison far away. It would have been even harder for anyone to visit me - if someone was to visit.” [6]

Her comment gave us reason to question why none of the prisoners whom we interviewed spoke badly about their leaders. Maybe there was nothing bad to say or maybe they were afraid of the consequences. Her negative outlook on the leaders was heightened when she said that the first thing that should change within the prison system was to give “counseling and training to the prison leaders and police officers” so that they would know how to lead and behave. [7]

This power hierarchy seems to infiltrate many aspects of the prisoners’ existence while in prison. In speaking with Reshma, [8] another ex-prisoner, she shares that “you can trust nobody” in prison. [9] She speaks of having learned to be cautious with each interaction in prison, always expecting an ulterior motive. According to Reshma, prisoners are only nice to the ones with resources, “to get money, and for selfish purposes.” Our conversation with Ranamagar revealed that “the ones with resources” are almost exclusively the Naikes. [10]

With their unique employment opportunities, Naikes are able to earn significantly more while behind bars than other inmates. [11] These so called unique employment opportunities appear to differ from prison to prison. In our interviews with various NGOs accustomed to working within the prison system, we heard some describe the position as being paid, and others state that the additional responsibilities helped reduce the prisoners’ sentence. Beyond their official income, Naikes are known to abuse their additional access to each of the prisoners’ resources of whom they “lead”. To bring one such example to life, many of our visits to prison were accompanied by NGO founder Indira Ranamagar, who brought in fruits, toothbrushes, soap and more to give to the prisoners. [12] In doing so, she emphasized the importance of handing the items directly to the prisoners instead of leaving them with the guards outside, explaining that rather than distributing the goods to the intended prisoners, it’s common for the guards and Naikes to take the resources for themselves. We heard stories of Naikes taking everything from food brought in by families for their loved ones, to the additional stipend given by the government for festival times. In order to receive the resources prisoners should have the right to, former prisoner Reshma tells us they have to be friends with the Naikes. 

Despite the tensions inherent to this internally managed prison system, we saw prisons also serve as spaces of solidarity for some. In contrast to Reshma’s descriptions of isolation, we saw some prisoners taking comfort from one another; arms linked as they walked, hands interlaced. [13] Most surprising, were the interactions observed between the Guards and prisoners. We observed what appeared to be symbiotic relationships between the Naikes and guards; pouring over gossip magazines sitting side by side and chatting with one-another, we saw guards link arms with the prisoners as they walked in synchronization, guards braiding an inmate’s hair, and an inmate teaching a guard English. One young guard at a jail in the Kathmandu valley stated “I was scared before coming here, but now they feel like friends. We drink tea, talk, and hang out together.” 

It’s puzzling how a lack of infrastructure and resources has left a space for friendships to flourish between the guards and prisoners. Important to remember, however is the guards’ ultimate responsibility to guard the prisoners, and keep them in. The single line item in the job description of a guard is the very thing they seem to find to be the most difficult part of their job. Speaking to this, one guard says “we trust them (the prisoners) like a friend,” and another guard adds that “it’s difficult to punish them sometimes.” [14] In 2016, the Prison Management Procedure put in place by the Government of Nepal specified and added additional duties for security personnels in regards to the internal prison administration. The additional rules and regulations were put in place after multiple jail officials and police officers were found in illegal activities, such as helping prisoners to escape. [15]

The intricacies of prison management seem to have many implications, both positive and negative.