कान्तिपुर संवाददाता http://www.kantipuronline.com/kolnepalinews.php?&nid=132939 (Note that this piece of news shows the betrayal of the national reconciliation policy by former Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba).
काठमाडौं, पुस १६, 2064 - नेपाली कांग्रेसका नेताहरूले अब पार्टर्ीी मुलुकमा संघीय लोकतान्त्रिक गणतन्त्रका लागि राष्ट्रिय एकता र मेलमिलाप गर्ने बताएका छन् । मेलमिलाप दिवसका अवसरमा सोमबार मुलुकका विभिन्न भागमा पार्टर्ीी मेलमिलाप कार्यक्रम आयोजना गरेको थियो ।
पार्टर्ीी वरिष्ठ नेता शेरबहादुर देउवाले राजास“गको अबको मेलमिलाप केवल गणतन्त्रका लागि मात्र हुने बताएका छन् । देउवाले भैरहवामा पत्रकार भेटघाट गर्दै 'बीपीले चाहेको राजासहितको प्रजातन्त्रजस्तै आफूले बनाउन खोज्दा राजाले स्वीकार नगरेको' उल्लेख गर्दै भने- 'अब कुनै पनि हालतमा गणतन्त्रबाहेक मेलमिलाप हु“दैन ।' अहिलेको राष्ट्रिय मेलमिलापको उद्देश्य गणतान्त्रिक लोकतन्त्र हुन पुगेको उनले बताए । 'मैले राजासहितको प्रजातन्त्रका लागि प्रयास गर्दा शाही कांग्रेसको आरोप लाग्यो,' उनले भने- 'पहिलाको र अहिलेको राष्ट्रिय मेलमिलापको उद्देश्य आकाश- पातालको फरक छ ।'
त्यसैगरी पार्टर्ीी कार्यवाहक सभापति सुशील कोइरालाले आफ्नो शक्तिशाली पार्टर्ीीएकाले यसलाई समाप्त पार्न वामपन्थीहरू लागिरहेकोे आरोप लगाएका छन् । विगतमा राजा पनि कांग्रेस सिध्याउन लागेको तर कांग्रेसको गाउ“-गाउ“मा 'नेर्टवर्क' भएको र जनताले माया गर्ने भएकाले उनीहरूको योजना सफल हुन नसक्ने बताए ।
लमजुङमा कार्यकर्ता भेलालाई सम्बोधन गर्दै कोइरालाले 'कांग्रेस सिध्याउन पहिला राजावादी र दरबार र अहिले वामपन्थीहरू लागेको' उनले आरोप लगाए ।
तर्राईका सशस्त्र व्रि्रोही समूहहरूस“ग सरकारले विश्वस्त सूत्रमार्फ सर्म्पर्कको प्रक्रिया अघि बढाएको शान्ति तथा पुनःस्थापनामन्त्री रामचन्द्र पौडेलले बताएका छन् । मोरङमा पत्रकारहरूस“ग कुरा गर्दै मधेसी जनअधिकार फोरमस“ग वार्ताका क्रममा अध्यक्ष उपेन्द्र यादवले आफूहरूस“ग वार्ता गरी माग पूरा गरे ज्वाला सिंह र गोइतको समूह शान्तिपर्ूण्ा बाटोमा आउने बताएको उल्लेख गरे । उनले भने- 'तर उहा“हरूको समस्या जस्ताको तस्तै रह्यो ।' महामन्त्री विमलेन्द्र निधिले संविधानसभाको सफल निर्वाचनबाटै मधेसी जनताको अधिकार प्राप्त हुने विचार व्यक्त गर्दै सप्तरीमा एक विचार गोष्ठीलाई सम्बोधन गर्दै भने- 'संघीय शासन गणतन्त्र र लोकतान्त्रिक व्यवस्थाका लागि आफ्नो अधिकार प्रयोग गर्नुपर्छ ।'
आत्मनिर्ण्र्ााो अधिकार प्रयोगले मात्र जनता र्सार्वभौमसत्ता सम्पन्न हुन सक्ने दाबी गर्दै उनले भने- 'संविधानसभा निर्वाचनमा भाग नलिनु भनेको आफ्नो आत्मनिर्ण्र्ााो अधिकारलाई रोक्नु हो ।' निधिले संघीयता, गणतन्त्र, स्वायत्तता लोकतान्त्रिक व्यवस्था चाहने सबैबीच एकता र मेलमिलापको आवश्यकता रहेको बताए । वार्ताको आह्वान गरेको सरकारप्रति विश्वास नभए आफू वार्ताका लागि पहल गर्ने प्रतिबद्धता व्यक्त गर्दै निधिले हिंसाको बाटोबाट राजनीतिक अभीष्ट कहिल्यै पूरा हुन सक्दैन । उनले मधेसको आन्दोलनलाई मर्यादित बनाउन साम्प्रदायिकताको भावना त्याग्न आग्रह गरे ।
अर्का महामन्त्री डा. रामवरण यादवले पनि मधेसका सबै माग सरकारले सम्बोधन गरेको र त्यसलाई संविधानसभा चुनावले संस्थागत गर्ने बताए । सरकारले केही गरेन भन्नु राजनीतिक
बेइमानी भएको औंल्याउ“दै उनले मलंगवामा भने- 'आन्दोलनरत समूहको ९९ प्रतिशत माग पूरा भएको छ, बा“की संविधानसभाको निर्वाचनले पूरा गर्नेछ ।'
संघीय प्रणाली, जनसंख्याको आधारमा क्षेत्र निर्धारण, सरकारका सबै अंगमा समानुपातिक प्रतिनिधित्वजस्ता उपलब्धि लोकतन्त्रका कारण प्राप्त भएको उल्लेख गर्दै यादवले राजनीतिक उपलब्धिलाई संस्थागत गर्न संविधानसभाको चुनावलाई सफल पार्न सबै जुट्नर्ुपर्ने बताए ।
सहमहामन्त्री तथा प्रवक्ता अर्जुननरसिंह केसीले तर्राईमा जातीय सद्भाव र मेलमिलाप कायम राख्न सक्रिय भूमिका खेल्न कार्यकर्तालाई वीरगन्जमा आग्रह गरे ।
त्यसैगरी अर्थमन्त्री रामशरण महतले लोकतन्त्रलाई विखण्डनकारी
तत्त्वबाट खतरा भएको बताउ“दै विखण्डनकारी शक्तिलाई परास्त गर्न राष्ट्रवादी तथा लोकतन्त्रवादी शक्ति एक हुनुपर्ने धारणा महोत्तरीको जलेश्वरमा व्यक्त गरे ।
सहिद रामनारायण मिश्रले आफ्नो जीवनको अन्तिम कालमा भनेको 'नेपालको राष्ट्रिय चरित्र भनेको यहा“को विविधता हो र यो नै नेपालको विशेषता हो' लाई स्मरण गर्दै महतले कांग्रेसमा जति मधेसीले नेतृत्व गर्ने अवसर अन्य कुनै दलमा नपाएको दाबी गरे ।
त्यसैगरी केन्द्रीय सदस्य डा. मिनेन्द्र रिजालले कलैयामा राष्ट्र संकटको घडीमा रहेकाले नागरिकले आफ्नो कर्तव्य भुल्न नहुने बताए ।
Posted on: 2007-12-31 21:01:56
Monday, December 31, 2007
32nd National Unity and Reconciliation Day being marked
http://www.kantipuronline.com/kolnews.php?nid=132892
Kantipur Report KATHMANDU, Dec 31 2007 - The 32nd National Unity and Reconciliation Day is being celebrated on Monday.
The first elected Prime Minister and the NC founder leader late B P Koirala and his colleague late Ganesh Man Singh had returned to Nepal from exile in India with a policy of national reconciliation on December 30, 1976.
Nepali Congress, since then, has been celebrating the day as National Unity and Reconciliation Day.
Most of the democratic NC leaders were exiled in December 1960, after the then King Mahendra staged a coup by seizing democratic powers. The NC intensified their protests against tyrannical regime from India after their lives in Nepal became difficult. Leaders like BP Koirala and Ganesh Man Singh had returned to the country putting their lives at stake with the policy of unity and reconciliation.
Likewise, various sister wings of the NC are celebrating the 32nd National Unity and Reconciliation Day by organizing various programs across the nation.
On the occasion, the women wing of the NC is organising a tea reception in the capital. PM and the party president Girija Prasad Koirala is also scheduled to attend the program.
Meanwhile, Kathmandu Congress is celebrating the occasion at Sundarijal, where late BP Koirala was jailed.
Similarly, the student wing of NC is organising a conference at International Convention Center at New Baneshwar.
Issuing a press statement, NC senior leader Sher Bahadur Deuba expressed a need of unity and reconciliation among the democratic powers for holding the Constituent Assembly polls and for lasting peace. Likewise, acting president Sushil Koirala appealed to all to move ahead taking into account the reconciliation and unity policy of late BP Koirala.
Posted on: 2007-12-31 02:15:03 (Server Time)
Kantipur Report KATHMANDU, Dec 31 2007 - The 32nd National Unity and Reconciliation Day is being celebrated on Monday.
The first elected Prime Minister and the NC founder leader late B P Koirala and his colleague late Ganesh Man Singh had returned to Nepal from exile in India with a policy of national reconciliation on December 30, 1976.
Nepali Congress, since then, has been celebrating the day as National Unity and Reconciliation Day.
Most of the democratic NC leaders were exiled in December 1960, after the then King Mahendra staged a coup by seizing democratic powers. The NC intensified their protests against tyrannical regime from India after their lives in Nepal became difficult. Leaders like BP Koirala and Ganesh Man Singh had returned to the country putting their lives at stake with the policy of unity and reconciliation.
Likewise, various sister wings of the NC are celebrating the 32nd National Unity and Reconciliation Day by organizing various programs across the nation.
On the occasion, the women wing of the NC is organising a tea reception in the capital. PM and the party president Girija Prasad Koirala is also scheduled to attend the program.
Meanwhile, Kathmandu Congress is celebrating the occasion at Sundarijal, where late BP Koirala was jailed.
Similarly, the student wing of NC is organising a conference at International Convention Center at New Baneshwar.
Issuing a press statement, NC senior leader Sher Bahadur Deuba expressed a need of unity and reconciliation among the democratic powers for holding the Constituent Assembly polls and for lasting peace. Likewise, acting president Sushil Koirala appealed to all to move ahead taking into account the reconciliation and unity policy of late BP Koirala.
Posted on: 2007-12-31 02:15:03 (Server Time)
BP Koirala : The King? Yes, if ….
The 94th BP Jayanti is being observed across the country and abroad on Monday. Bishweshwar Prasad Koirala (1914-1982), popularly known as “BP”, was the first democratically elected prime minister of the country. He is also one of the founder of the democratic movement in Nepal, BP, however, could not become the Prime Minister for more than 18 months despite a landslide victory for the Nepali Congress in 1959 elections.
King Mahendra staged a coup and overthrew his government. B.P. spent rest of his life in prison or exile. But, he was never tried of calling for the restoration of democracy in the country. He returned to the country from exile on 1976 with a policy of national reconciliation. But, he was arrested by the royal regime and put behind the bars.
BP had founded Nepali National Congress in 1947, which became the Nepali Congress in 1951. Koirala had led the armed revolution of 1951 to overthrow the more than century old Rana oligarchy. BP had passed away due to throat cancer on July 21, 1982 in Kathmandu. Around half a million people attended his funeral procession.
He was not only a charismatic political leader, he was also one of the well-versed and thoughtful writers of Nepalese literature. He has written a lot of short stories and novels, and some poems.
Now, when Nepal is in transition period, some thougt and ideas from BP Koirala may be the guideline sources of future . Here is the piece of Interview that can help to understand the then BP’s thought on monarchy and King.
Published in Weekly “Sunday” Calcutta, December 4, 1977
Even as the India Prime Minister, Mr. Morarji Desai, prepares to go to Nepal on December 9, political currents in that country have quickened. King Birendra a recently called a conference of all heads of Panchayats at which the Panchayat system, which governs Nepal, came in for some criticism. B. P. Koirala charismatic leader of the Nepali Congress, who was given a tearful send-off by JP in Patna has returned home to face trial and, if convicted, death. Four other leaders of different political Parties in Nepal recently issued a statement calling for Constitutional monarchy. SUNDAY examines the changes that seem inevitable. BHOLA CHATTERJEE interviewed B. P. KOIRALA just before he went back to Nepal.
BC: What is your assessment of the current political situation in Nepal?
BP : I think there is a wind of change in this part of the world. I have been emphasizing this fact. That a wind of change is also blowing there–I will not say a wind, but, breeze is blowing. The first indication of this came when the King released me on parole to go to the United States for treatment and took the chance that I may not return to Nepal. That is an indication of a small breeze of change that is blowing in our part of the world. Then there has been the release of some political prisoners in Nepal. That is also indicative of breeze of change that is blowing. I am returning in the expectation that my efforts at reconciliation will be successful. I do not think that the King, by releasing me on parole, has done so only on humanitarian grounds; it was a great political gesture also. I hope that after my return things will move towards greater political liberalization and a greater spirit of reconciliation. We feel that politics of confrontation will lead the country nowhere.
BC: The logic of the current political situation in Nepal suggests that there is little scope for politics of confrontation. What is your opinion?
BP: We returned to Nepal last year knowing full well that there were serious charges pending against us. We felt that new developments were likely to take place in South Asia. If we were to play a role, as Nepal ha to play a role, it must first of all be united as a nation. That is why we went there and placed ourselves at the disposal of the King. We took that risk in the interest of national reconciliation. I have to work for that objective. If Nepal has a future, if Nepal has a destiny, if Nepal has to prosper, if Nepal is not to remain only as a museum piece tucked away in the folds of Himalayas, then Nepal must first be united as nation. That unity can only be achieved through the development of democratic institutions in which the people have vested interests.
BC: You have been arraigned on charges some of which, if proved, carry the maximum penalty. Doesn’t that worry you?
BP: I have to keep faith with the King-I have told the King that I would come back and face trial. And then I have to keep faith with my people. There are large number of political prisoners who are facing similar charges. So I think my place is with them. I am once again placing myself at the disposal of the King. He can make use of me for the purpose of reconciliation. This is an opportunity and I am taking a personal risk. But when the stakes are so high, one should not be impeded by personal considerations. I have great faith in the future of our country. If the country has no future, then all the struggles that we have faced so long, all the sacrifices the people have made would have been in vain. But I have faith in my country, I believe that Nepal can play an effective role in this part of the world. This is the time when we have got to be united. I feel that the King is also conscious of the fact that Nepal has to play a role. If I get an opportunity to meet the King I will impress upon him that unity can be achieved through a democratic process by involving the people both in the formulation of policy and in its implementation. The people must be informed of the development processes, economic and political, and then alone Nepal would be on the move. I think at my age if I could achieve that it would be the last service that I can render to the nation.
BC: What were the considerations that influenced you in coming to the decision to go back to Nepal in December, 1976, much as you apprehended that you would be arrested?
BP: I had the feeling, an almost animal instinct, that things were developing very fast in south Asia. We thought that unless we were united as a nation we could not play an effective role in the new situation that was developing in South Asia. That is why we went back. Some people feel that because Mrs. Indira Gandhi made it difficult for us to live in India we went back to Nepal-that is a peripheral consideration. The main consideration was, and that was the statement I made on the eve of my return to Nepal, that we must strive for national unity because Nepal has to play a role in South Asia.
BC: What do you think could provide a basis for the resolution of Nepal’s political problems?
BP: I do not want to anticipate what the King would do. I am keeping this question to be discussed with the King, I can only say that I will try my level best to come to some understanding with the King. How, on what basis or what will be the modality of it, is not proper for me to discuss just at present.
BC: I think in the given context the institution of monarchy has a role to play in Nepal, whatever the system of polity might be. What is your opinion? And what role do yon visualize for yourself?
BP: About monarchy we are very clear-we want constitutional monarchy. Nepal has been a traditional monarchy, but there have been different phases of monarchy. At one time, there were two monarchs-one was living in Delhi, another was sitting on the throne. And for one hundred and four years the monarch was virtually a prisoner, an exalted prisoner. I was a prisoner in the ordinary prison and he was a prisoner in the palace. It is not enough to ask whether I want monarchy or not. You must be definite about what type of monarch you want.
Remembering B. P. Koirala [ 2007-7-23 ]
Editorial - http://www.gorkhapatra.org.np/content.php?nid=23577
The nation remembered the 26th death anniversary of Bisweswor Prasad (B. P.) Koirala, the late Nepali Congress leader and the first elected prime minister of Nepal, the other day. B. P. Kiorala, during and after his life, is known to be synonymous with democracy. In fact, late Koirala represents the entire history of the democratic movement in Nepal.
The Nepali Congress, still the largest political force in Nepal, is giving continuity to his political ideology of democratic socialism as the party's principle. Even today, Nepali Congress leaders make all its decisions considering the political thoughts propounded by late Koirala. Most of the leaders of the Nepali congress relate to the importance of national reconciliation that Koirala propounded while giving up his exiled life in India in 1977 following the annexation of Sikkim with India. He was a patriotic democratic leader with a clear-cut vision on the type of political, social and economic model a democratic Nepal should follow. He never compromised with any force that went against his political ideologies of democratic socialism. This is one of the reasons why he never forged an alliance with the communists during his 35 years of active political life.
"Communism is also socialism, but it lacks democracy, and if you add democracy in communism, it would be democratic socialism," Koirala propounded. He dreamed of a democratic Nepal where each farming household would own a house to live in, a small piece of farmland, a pair of oxen to plough the land and a few cows to supply the children with nutritious food. However, he did not have the time to materialise his political, social and economic programmes because of the royal coup in 1960 that nipped democracy in its bud. However, during his short tenure of 18 months as the first elected prime minister of Nepal, he introduced a number of reforms in the political and social sectors. Today everyone, including the communists who were against his political ideology during his life, agree that B. P. was the only statesman ever born in Nepal. An active member of the international socialist movement, Koirala was an acclaimed democratic leader of the Third World.
A staunch nationalist, he was the first South Asian Prime Minister to recognise Israel as an independent nation even when India was hesitant to do so. Though he led the two major political movements in 1951 and 1980, he could not realise his dream. Now when the nation is heading towards the CA elections, for which Koirala had launched a political movement some 52 years ago, the relevance of his policies of national reconciliation and others have increased. We will be paying late Koirala the greatest tribute only if we work together to create a new Nepal as dreamt by late Koirala.
KP Bhattarai's Statement
http://www.nepalnews.com/contents/2007/englishweekly/spotlight/sep/sep14/national1.php VOL. 27, NO. 5, September 14, 2007 (Bhadra 28 2064 B.S.)
The country is passing through an unprecedented crisis. Any such crisis will demand collective wisdom and dedication on the part of the people so that it does not sweep away everything that makes Nepal. Political parties, especially the Nepali Congress, have equally crucial role to play as the true representative of the people as well as the country. As a founding member of NC, I am proud to state that our party has always stood in favor of nationalism, independence and democracy against all odds right from the day it was founded.
Late BP Koirala, Ganesh Man Singh came back to Nepal from India in 1976 ending the 8-year-old exile with the call for national reconciliation. They were clear in their minds that a prolonged difference between the King and the democratic forces will weaken the Nepali nationalism, independence and democracy. Besides, it will also weaken great economic opportunities. Policy of National Reconciliation and spirit it represented is valid even today as it was before. I have no doubt that this will remain valid for quite some time to come.
Let us not destroy our history and legacy which generations together have built. Now it is high time to remember again that the monarchy truly acted as a unifying symbol of diverse religious, cultural, ethnic and political groups in a truly democratic set up. Nepal's transition needs a safe landing, which is possible only through unity and reconciliation.
Politics of hatred and denial dictated by undemocratic desires of rebels will only sow the seeds of disintegration of country and it is our responsibility to defeat those desires together.
Let us be guided by our lessons of the past and collective thoughts for future and not by anything else including republicanism.
September 9, 2007
The country is passing through an unprecedented crisis. Any such crisis will demand collective wisdom and dedication on the part of the people so that it does not sweep away everything that makes Nepal. Political parties, especially the Nepali Congress, have equally crucial role to play as the true representative of the people as well as the country. As a founding member of NC, I am proud to state that our party has always stood in favor of nationalism, independence and democracy against all odds right from the day it was founded.
Late BP Koirala, Ganesh Man Singh came back to Nepal from India in 1976 ending the 8-year-old exile with the call for national reconciliation. They were clear in their minds that a prolonged difference between the King and the democratic forces will weaken the Nepali nationalism, independence and democracy. Besides, it will also weaken great economic opportunities. Policy of National Reconciliation and spirit it represented is valid even today as it was before. I have no doubt that this will remain valid for quite some time to come.
Let us not destroy our history and legacy which generations together have built. Now it is high time to remember again that the monarchy truly acted as a unifying symbol of diverse religious, cultural, ethnic and political groups in a truly democratic set up. Nepal's transition needs a safe landing, which is possible only through unity and reconciliation.
Politics of hatred and denial dictated by undemocratic desires of rebels will only sow the seeds of disintegration of country and it is our responsibility to defeat those desires together.
Let us be guided by our lessons of the past and collective thoughts for future and not by anything else including republicanism.
September 9, 2007
KRISHNA PRASAD BHATTARAI - A Lone Vopice of Conscience
Former prime minister and founder of Nepali Congress Krishna Prasad Bhattarai shows moral courage by solidly backing national reconciliation
http://www.nepalnews.com/contents/2007/englishweekly/spotlight/sep/sep14/national1.php
By KESHAB POUDEL
Although the founding member of Nepali Congress and former prime minister Krishna Prasad Bhattarai is out of political mainstream, a political statement issued by him defending B.P. Koirala's national reconciliation being as relevant as ever generated ripples in Nepali politics. The response came from left to right and leaders of his centrist party also reacted – showing that his statement in defense of BP's view counted.
Despite organizing nationwide program to mark 94th birth anniversary of legendary leader BP Koirala by two factions of Nepali Congress - which are in the process of unification by dumping BP's ideology and political stand - the political debates centered around Bhattarai.
Prime minister Girija Prasad Koirala, under whose direction party's central committee prepared an election manifesto to go for federal republic, avoided all formal programs organized to mark the birth anniversary of BP but he showed his weakness towards his legendary brother and mentor BP Koirala. Addressing an international conference in the capital, prime minister Koirala, who dumped political stand of his legendary brother, remembered BP as a pioneer of tree plantation.
"BP Koirala is pioneer in idea of nature conservation. This is the reason he promoted the cause to plant trees," said Koirala, speaking at a program on environment conservation.
Although Congress founder member Bhattarai, who is at his last leg of life, has hardly spoken about BP's national reconciliation, this time when BP's ideals of national reconciliation is under a serious threat, Bhattarai has demonstrated his courage by opposing his party's new proposal to go for republic.
Although a strong group including Koirala's daughter Sujata Koirala, Sunil Kumar Bhandari had opposed the party's decision to dump BP's stand on monarchy, their opinion did not count as much as Bhattarai's statement. "As BP said, the country still has utility of monarchy," said Sujata. “Declaring republic will not guarantee democracy. There is majority in Nepali Congress who are in favor of my stand."
Issuing his statement on the eve of 94th birth anniversary of BP Koirala, octogenarian leader Bhattarai stressed the need for national unity to safeguard Nepali nationalism, independence and democracy.
"Let us be guided by our lessons of the past and collective thoughts for future and not by any thing else including republicanism," he said.
"Late BP Koirala and Ganesh Man Singh came back to Nepal from India in 1976 ending their eight year long exile with the call for national reconciliation. They were clear in their minds that a prolonged difference between the King and democratic forces will weaken the Nepali nationalism, independence and democracy. Besides it will also weaken great economic opportunities. Policy of national reconciliation and spirit it represented is valid even today as it was before. I have no doubt that this will remain valid for quite some time to come."
"Let us not destroy our history and legacy, which generations together have built," said Bhattarai.
As it was expected, Bhattarai's statement generated a new wave in country's politics." It is an outdated statement and against the wish of the people," said CPN-UML general secretary Madhav Kumar Nepal.
Nepali Congress leaders, too, reacted against the statement. "We were shocked to read Bhattarai's statement. Kishunji should have issued the statement fully understanding its consequences,” said Nepali Congress leader Dr. Shekhar Koirala. Congress leaders of republican fold Sushil Koirala, Ram Chandra Poudel and Narahari Acharya termed Bhattarai's statement as outmoded.
Whatever one can say, Bhattarai's statement has political meaning. "It is a highly conscious, highly moral statement of octogenarian political leader from sick bed. A step towards a wrong direction can spoil the whole achievements of life. Similarly, a right step at the right moment can immortalize a man in the pages of history," said a political analyst. "The opinion which Krishna Prasad Bhattarai has expressed at this stage is neither influenced by the temptation for power nor out of vengeance against anybody. He fought for the country and democracy, which again has been reaffirmed by his statement.”
Stating that Nepal's current transition needs a "safe landing, which is possible only through unity and reconciliation," Bhattarai said, "Now it is high time to remember again that the monarchy truly acted as a unifying symbol of diverse religious, cultural, ethnic and political groups in a truly democratic set up."
Bhattarai was with BP Koirala during his eight year long political detention from 1960 to 1968. After he was released from jail, BP went to India for medical check up and got involved with a new possibility for fighting for the restoration of democracy in Nepal for almost another eight years in exile.
"After termination of Vietnam War, BP visualized the South Asia being merged as a 'Zone in Turmoil.' Bifurcation of Pakistan into two and annexation of Sikkim by India had alarmed BP Koirala much regarding the future of Nepal also. After a serious analysis of situation, he made a decision to come back to Nepal and face any kind of repercussion for his past rebellion acts," said the analyst.
BP Koirala was put into jail for some time but political situation took a new turn. King Birendra put the party less Panchayat system into the referendum and he stared assuming a role of an arbiter between two contesting political alternatives.
"Though the Panchayat system was approved by the verdict of 54 percent of the voters, but the minority in favor of multi party system was not neglected. Slowly and gradually, the political system was heading towards peaceful and constitutional accommodation of all the political forces. But, the transition was hindered by mysterious machination and a situation of confrontation was brought into play," said the analyst.
It was the wisdom and tolerance of King Birendra who conceded power to the people and enhanced his acceptability and stature as high as any monarch of democratic societies.
Francis G. Hutchins, teacher of King Birendra, in his book Democratizing Monarchy, writes "as the great Shah ruler, Birendra seems certain to be remembered as a pivotal figure in the history of Nepal.”
"At this critical juncture of history, all those contribution of a noble visionary politician like BP Koirala and wise and tolerant monarch like King Birendra are at a critical stake. There was nobody in the present day politics of stature of Krishna Prasad. Bhattarai who could vibrate the nation by his moral and conscious appeal compared to the contribution of his whole life. This one statement at this critical period of this country may be considered as superseding all his previous contribution," said the analyst.
"Bhattarai, a person of high political image, neither has family nor his own abode for living. He is passing his days with the help of some dedicated sympathizers. What Bhattarai has said is neither a lust for power nor a vanity or vengeance against any. He has stirred a political opinion which may be recalled all the time by the posterity in Nepal," said the analyst.
At a time when Nepal has been passing through a very critical phase of its history, BP's national reconciliation is more relevant now than in the past as there is a need for reconciliation among all the country's forces including monarchy to bring back Nepal in the right track from present chaos. This is what Bhattarai's statement is all about.
“Before B.P.’s death, in his last public meeting B.P. had expressed anguish over the populist mode of he politicians calling himself Lone Brihaspati- that means a lone voice of conscience. On the same spiritual level, his political colleague K.P. Bhattarai has again appeared as a long person of conscience among the politician of the country,” said the analyst.
http://www.nepalnews.com/contents/2007/englishweekly/spotlight/sep/sep14/national1.php
By KESHAB POUDEL
Although the founding member of Nepali Congress and former prime minister Krishna Prasad Bhattarai is out of political mainstream, a political statement issued by him defending B.P. Koirala's national reconciliation being as relevant as ever generated ripples in Nepali politics. The response came from left to right and leaders of his centrist party also reacted – showing that his statement in defense of BP's view counted.
Despite organizing nationwide program to mark 94th birth anniversary of legendary leader BP Koirala by two factions of Nepali Congress - which are in the process of unification by dumping BP's ideology and political stand - the political debates centered around Bhattarai.
Prime minister Girija Prasad Koirala, under whose direction party's central committee prepared an election manifesto to go for federal republic, avoided all formal programs organized to mark the birth anniversary of BP but he showed his weakness towards his legendary brother and mentor BP Koirala. Addressing an international conference in the capital, prime minister Koirala, who dumped political stand of his legendary brother, remembered BP as a pioneer of tree plantation.
"BP Koirala is pioneer in idea of nature conservation. This is the reason he promoted the cause to plant trees," said Koirala, speaking at a program on environment conservation.
Although Congress founder member Bhattarai, who is at his last leg of life, has hardly spoken about BP's national reconciliation, this time when BP's ideals of national reconciliation is under a serious threat, Bhattarai has demonstrated his courage by opposing his party's new proposal to go for republic.
Although a strong group including Koirala's daughter Sujata Koirala, Sunil Kumar Bhandari had opposed the party's decision to dump BP's stand on monarchy, their opinion did not count as much as Bhattarai's statement. "As BP said, the country still has utility of monarchy," said Sujata. “Declaring republic will not guarantee democracy. There is majority in Nepali Congress who are in favor of my stand."
Issuing his statement on the eve of 94th birth anniversary of BP Koirala, octogenarian leader Bhattarai stressed the need for national unity to safeguard Nepali nationalism, independence and democracy.
"Let us be guided by our lessons of the past and collective thoughts for future and not by any thing else including republicanism," he said.
"Late BP Koirala and Ganesh Man Singh came back to Nepal from India in 1976 ending their eight year long exile with the call for national reconciliation. They were clear in their minds that a prolonged difference between the King and democratic forces will weaken the Nepali nationalism, independence and democracy. Besides it will also weaken great economic opportunities. Policy of national reconciliation and spirit it represented is valid even today as it was before. I have no doubt that this will remain valid for quite some time to come."
"Let us not destroy our history and legacy, which generations together have built," said Bhattarai.
As it was expected, Bhattarai's statement generated a new wave in country's politics." It is an outdated statement and against the wish of the people," said CPN-UML general secretary Madhav Kumar Nepal.
Nepali Congress leaders, too, reacted against the statement. "We were shocked to read Bhattarai's statement. Kishunji should have issued the statement fully understanding its consequences,” said Nepali Congress leader Dr. Shekhar Koirala. Congress leaders of republican fold Sushil Koirala, Ram Chandra Poudel and Narahari Acharya termed Bhattarai's statement as outmoded.
Whatever one can say, Bhattarai's statement has political meaning. "It is a highly conscious, highly moral statement of octogenarian political leader from sick bed. A step towards a wrong direction can spoil the whole achievements of life. Similarly, a right step at the right moment can immortalize a man in the pages of history," said a political analyst. "The opinion which Krishna Prasad Bhattarai has expressed at this stage is neither influenced by the temptation for power nor out of vengeance against anybody. He fought for the country and democracy, which again has been reaffirmed by his statement.”
Stating that Nepal's current transition needs a "safe landing, which is possible only through unity and reconciliation," Bhattarai said, "Now it is high time to remember again that the monarchy truly acted as a unifying symbol of diverse religious, cultural, ethnic and political groups in a truly democratic set up."
Bhattarai was with BP Koirala during his eight year long political detention from 1960 to 1968. After he was released from jail, BP went to India for medical check up and got involved with a new possibility for fighting for the restoration of democracy in Nepal for almost another eight years in exile.
"After termination of Vietnam War, BP visualized the South Asia being merged as a 'Zone in Turmoil.' Bifurcation of Pakistan into two and annexation of Sikkim by India had alarmed BP Koirala much regarding the future of Nepal also. After a serious analysis of situation, he made a decision to come back to Nepal and face any kind of repercussion for his past rebellion acts," said the analyst.
BP Koirala was put into jail for some time but political situation took a new turn. King Birendra put the party less Panchayat system into the referendum and he stared assuming a role of an arbiter between two contesting political alternatives.
"Though the Panchayat system was approved by the verdict of 54 percent of the voters, but the minority in favor of multi party system was not neglected. Slowly and gradually, the political system was heading towards peaceful and constitutional accommodation of all the political forces. But, the transition was hindered by mysterious machination and a situation of confrontation was brought into play," said the analyst.
It was the wisdom and tolerance of King Birendra who conceded power to the people and enhanced his acceptability and stature as high as any monarch of democratic societies.
Francis G. Hutchins, teacher of King Birendra, in his book Democratizing Monarchy, writes "as the great Shah ruler, Birendra seems certain to be remembered as a pivotal figure in the history of Nepal.”
"At this critical juncture of history, all those contribution of a noble visionary politician like BP Koirala and wise and tolerant monarch like King Birendra are at a critical stake. There was nobody in the present day politics of stature of Krishna Prasad. Bhattarai who could vibrate the nation by his moral and conscious appeal compared to the contribution of his whole life. This one statement at this critical period of this country may be considered as superseding all his previous contribution," said the analyst.
"Bhattarai, a person of high political image, neither has family nor his own abode for living. He is passing his days with the help of some dedicated sympathizers. What Bhattarai has said is neither a lust for power nor a vanity or vengeance against any. He has stirred a political opinion which may be recalled all the time by the posterity in Nepal," said the analyst.
At a time when Nepal has been passing through a very critical phase of its history, BP's national reconciliation is more relevant now than in the past as there is a need for reconciliation among all the country's forces including monarchy to bring back Nepal in the right track from present chaos. This is what Bhattarai's statement is all about.
“Before B.P.’s death, in his last public meeting B.P. had expressed anguish over the populist mode of he politicians calling himself Lone Brihaspati- that means a lone voice of conscience. On the same spiritual level, his political colleague K.P. Bhattarai has again appeared as a long person of conscience among the politician of the country,” said the analyst.
Nepal's Hard Reality - By KESHAB POUDEL
http://www.nepalnews.com/contents/2007/englishweekly/spotlight/sep/sep14/national1.php (Spotlight VOL. 27, NO. 5, September 14, 2007 (Bhadra 28 2064 B.S)
Sandwiched between two great powers of Asia, India and China, Nepal survives as an independent nation in a very small geographical space of Himalayas. For many, Nepal's survival as an independent nation is itself a mystery.
Boasting Nepal's bio-diversity, geographical and cultural diversity, Aban Marker Kabraji, regional director of IUCN, Asia, who came to attend the IUCN's international conference, expressed amazement at how Nepal has survived as an independent nation between Indian and China -two big powers of Asia.
For many friends of Nepal like Kabraji, Nepal's survival as an independent nation for more than two and half centuries in this most volatile zone is really an issue of huge interest. Whether it was in the period of unchallenged British colonial power or the powerful Chinese dynasties or in the modern time, Nepal's strength lied in its position of equilibrium.
King Prithvi Narayan Shah once aptly described his newly conquered Kingdom in the central Himalayas as "a root between two stones. "Even in his day - the mid 18th century - Nepal's most formidable problem in the formulation and implementation of foreign policy was the preservation of the country's independence in the face of the concurrent but separate threats posed by the newly emerging dominant power in northern India, the British East India Company, and a slowly and but steadily expanding Chinese presence in Tibet. Present-day Nepal thus perceives its critical geo-political situation in terms of a long tradition as a buffer state and with some deeply ingrained attitudes towards the policies and tactics required to maintain its political and cultural integrity," writes Leo E. Rose in his book Nepal Strategy for Survival
But, in fact, the presence of equally two big powers on both the sides of Nepal has ensured Nepal's independence. "Bravery of the people in different countries for their struggle for independence has been exemplary in record but that alone had not been able to ensure their independence. Many such countries of brave people have been brutally concurred and colonized. People in Nepal generally express their worries about the prospect of peace and as well as preservation of independence of this country. Except a rational logic, there is none to provide appropriate answer for this question," said an analyst.
Obviously, Nepal has a unique problem. "One has to see the nature of disturbance. If there are more than one sources of creating disturbances that could generally make persons worried. In Nepal's case, till now that is not the case. Whatever might have been the facts, or causes being used to get concessions, center of operation of destabilization till now appears to be the same. And that is now in everybody's knowledge. Though there is no leadership yet to get it exposed and to counter that effectively," said the analyst.
For that also there is a limit determined by the hard realities of the country which remained a safeguard of Nepal's existence and independence. " Nepal has gone through most heinous violent activities under a covert design for the past one decade. People suffered much, Nepal has lost much in terms of opportunities for development but none has been a gainer. The center of covert operation has been slowly and gradually exposed to even a layman in the streets in Kathmandu.”
After all what is that factor which helped Nepal endure so much to survive in its continuity of independence and what is that secret in the character of the people that any outsider is visibly impressed by the contagious innocent smiles in the faces of the people despite the hardships?
It may sound a fanatical expression of one’s national pride but, after all, it is a fact of life in Nepal. Considering all these peculiarities and the character of the people, one can be assured of the fact that Nepal will remain the same as a geo-political unit between two equally powerful neighbors though sometimes one of them may get wild and violent. It is not Nepal itself but its equally competent neighbors on their side to see from its security perspectives and deal with the other promptly and effectively.
"Some unnecessary damage has been done in the pursuit of narrow visions of some strategists, which were much valuable to Nepal from political as well as traditional and cultural viewpoint also. But, the hard core existence of the country can be undone at an unpredictably high price in terms of materials and manpower," said the analyst.
The hard realities of the country have determined the character of the people, too. Whether the King rules or baron rules, some basic qualities of life have always been preserved in a continuity of its independence. Like it was once said by English poet T.S Elliot in different context, whoever rules Nepal whether King's rules or Baron rules, Nepal's strength as well as challenge remains the similar.
I Will add here
(We are closer to seven years after the massacere in the Royal Palace a few lines from the Death in Cathedral by T.S. Elliot are relevant at this movement in Nepal.)
Sandwiched between two great powers of Asia, India and China, Nepal survives as an independent nation in a very small geographical space of Himalayas. For many, Nepal's survival as an independent nation is itself a mystery.
Boasting Nepal's bio-diversity, geographical and cultural diversity, Aban Marker Kabraji, regional director of IUCN, Asia, who came to attend the IUCN's international conference, expressed amazement at how Nepal has survived as an independent nation between Indian and China -two big powers of Asia.
For many friends of Nepal like Kabraji, Nepal's survival as an independent nation for more than two and half centuries in this most volatile zone is really an issue of huge interest. Whether it was in the period of unchallenged British colonial power or the powerful Chinese dynasties or in the modern time, Nepal's strength lied in its position of equilibrium.
King Prithvi Narayan Shah once aptly described his newly conquered Kingdom in the central Himalayas as "a root between two stones. "Even in his day - the mid 18th century - Nepal's most formidable problem in the formulation and implementation of foreign policy was the preservation of the country's independence in the face of the concurrent but separate threats posed by the newly emerging dominant power in northern India, the British East India Company, and a slowly and but steadily expanding Chinese presence in Tibet. Present-day Nepal thus perceives its critical geo-political situation in terms of a long tradition as a buffer state and with some deeply ingrained attitudes towards the policies and tactics required to maintain its political and cultural integrity," writes Leo E. Rose in his book Nepal Strategy for Survival
But, in fact, the presence of equally two big powers on both the sides of Nepal has ensured Nepal's independence. "Bravery of the people in different countries for their struggle for independence has been exemplary in record but that alone had not been able to ensure their independence. Many such countries of brave people have been brutally concurred and colonized. People in Nepal generally express their worries about the prospect of peace and as well as preservation of independence of this country. Except a rational logic, there is none to provide appropriate answer for this question," said an analyst.
Obviously, Nepal has a unique problem. "One has to see the nature of disturbance. If there are more than one sources of creating disturbances that could generally make persons worried. In Nepal's case, till now that is not the case. Whatever might have been the facts, or causes being used to get concessions, center of operation of destabilization till now appears to be the same. And that is now in everybody's knowledge. Though there is no leadership yet to get it exposed and to counter that effectively," said the analyst.
For that also there is a limit determined by the hard realities of the country which remained a safeguard of Nepal's existence and independence. " Nepal has gone through most heinous violent activities under a covert design for the past one decade. People suffered much, Nepal has lost much in terms of opportunities for development but none has been a gainer. The center of covert operation has been slowly and gradually exposed to even a layman in the streets in Kathmandu.”
After all what is that factor which helped Nepal endure so much to survive in its continuity of independence and what is that secret in the character of the people that any outsider is visibly impressed by the contagious innocent smiles in the faces of the people despite the hardships?
It may sound a fanatical expression of one’s national pride but, after all, it is a fact of life in Nepal. Considering all these peculiarities and the character of the people, one can be assured of the fact that Nepal will remain the same as a geo-political unit between two equally powerful neighbors though sometimes one of them may get wild and violent. It is not Nepal itself but its equally competent neighbors on their side to see from its security perspectives and deal with the other promptly and effectively.
"Some unnecessary damage has been done in the pursuit of narrow visions of some strategists, which were much valuable to Nepal from political as well as traditional and cultural viewpoint also. But, the hard core existence of the country can be undone at an unpredictably high price in terms of materials and manpower," said the analyst.
The hard realities of the country have determined the character of the people, too. Whether the King rules or baron rules, some basic qualities of life have always been preserved in a continuity of its independence. Like it was once said by English poet T.S Elliot in different context, whoever rules Nepal whether King's rules or Baron rules, Nepal's strength as well as challenge remains the similar.
I Will add here
(We are closer to seven years after the massacere in the Royal Palace a few lines from the Death in Cathedral by T.S. Elliot are relevant at this movement in Nepal.)
Prolonged political crisis can invite foreign interference - Sushil Koirala
http://www.telegraphnepal.com/news_det.php?news_id=2006
Sushil Koirala, vice president of Nepali Congress, has definitely carved out a solid niche for himself in Nepali political sphere. Koirala is also often held in high regard for his traits like honesty, softness and unambiguousness. In his interview with The Weekly Mirror, the influential congress leader shares his views on a host of issues pertaining to the current political scenario.
Excerpts:
What are the major factors hamstringing the much hyped unification of the two Congresses?
Sushil Koirala: Nepali Congress is in favor of coalescing with the NC (Democratic) from the top level. But, the NC-D is insisting to go for the unity by staring amalgamation from the local level. So, the process is taking longer period than expected. Of course, there is no alternative to the unity between the two parties.
Is there any sort of mechanism in place to unite the parties at local level?
Sushil Koirala: Currently, we are not in position to forge the unity at grass-root level. We have agreed on uniting the parties at district level. So, homework is going on for developing an appropriate mechanism for unity at district level.
What will be the form of power sharing if the unification takes place at district level?
Sushil Koirala: Talks are going on regarding this subject. But, we are yet to reach a concrete conclusion. The NC is the mother organization and nobody should bargain hard for seats and leadership. The agreement we have reached so far is that all the present central committee members of the both parties will also be in the central committee after forming the single congress. Similarly, general convention representatives and general committee members of the both parities will remain intact.
How do you foresee the possibility of the unity before the general committee meeting of the NC?
Sushil Koirala: I strongly believe that the unification process should see the light of day before the general committee meeting. We are trying our best to make it happen at the earliest.
It is alleged that the NC has deviated from the policy of national reconciliation propounded by the late B.P Koirala after the NC’s central committee decided to go for a republic. How much truth is there in this allegation?
Sushil Koirala: I must say that the policy of national reconciliation proposed by B.P Koirala is still as relevant as it was then. But, the policy must be redefined in conjunction with the prevailing realities. We have six decade long painful experiences of trying to accommodate the institution of monarchy. But, the corollary of our compassion towards the institution of the monarchy was always deception. Against this backdrop, it is not insanity on the part of us to mull over the option of a republican set-up.
Some intellectuals argue that the institution of monarchy is sine-qua-non to preserve the national sovereignty in view of the geo-political reality of the country. What’s your view in this regard?
Sushil Koirala: The future of the monarchy depends on how it presents itself to people. It is crystal clear that only those monarchs who have not acted in synch with people’s aspirations are abolished. In our context, we gave several opportunities to the king to remain as ceremonial head but he himself stifled these opportunities by craving for more political power.
B.P Koirala came up with the policy of national reconciliation in order to ensure co-existence between the monarchy and the democratic forces even during the autocratic Panchayat regime. In this light, is it justifiable to remove the monarchy for his 15-month long rule?
Sushil Koirala: King Gyanendra unscrupulously seized the people’s executive power and imposed dictatorship in the country. He grossly neglected our repeated call for the national reconciliation. Such despotic tendencies of the king propelled people to react accordingly. The NC was adhering to the policy of ‘constitutional monarchy’ till the 11th general convention of the party. But, unfortunately, the king didn’t think it appropriate to correct his move even after the NC dropped the ‘constitutional monarchy’ from its protocol.
Don’t you think that the NC has treaded the footprints of the Maoists by quitting the original policy of the party?
Sushil Koirala: What should be well understood is that the agenda of the Constituent Assembly (CA) was first raised by the NC in 2007 B.S. But, the then king Tribhuwan hoodwinked us by withholding the CA polls after he ascended to the power. King Tribuwan had promised that he would hold CA elections but his son Mahendra unilaterally declared the constitution in a despotic manner. In the general elections held under the constitution in 2015 B.S, the NC got the two third majority and, subsequently, formed the government with B.P Koirala as the prime minister. But, unfortunately, king Mahendra dissolved the parliament and imprisoned B.P. Koirala, the first elected Prime Minister of the country, after 20 months of forming the democratic government. The very move of the king barred B.P Koirala to implement his plan and policy.
Is the policy of ‘National Reconciliation’ still relevant to Nepal?
Sushil Koirala: The relevance of Reconciliation will never fade away. We still hold the significance of national reconciliation in high regard. As such, we are attaching priority to the eight-party unity. With the royal palace massacre some five years back, the monarchy has somehow lost the people's faith in it.
B.P Koirala never shared the same platform for the political mobilization along with the leftist forces. But, you are now collaborating with the radical communists. Isn’t it something contradictory?
Sushil Koirala: It all depends on demands of situation. Democracy was restored in collaboration with the left parties in 2046 B.S. Girija babu himself used to list Male, Mashale and Mandale under the same category. But, he was compelled to be realistic and cooperate with the leftist forces during the April Uprising in 2006.
Girija babu has recently said that there is threat to Nepal’s independence. Who is he alluding to by saying so?
Sushil Koirala: If the existing anarchical situation continues to engulf the country, we may have to face danger to Nepal’s sovereignty sooner or later. We are sandwiched between the two mammoth neighbors. They have also their own security interests.
Instability in Nepal is sure to affect their respective security interests.
So, they are always cautious to ward off any factor that may emanate from the instability of Nepal jeopardizing their security interests.
India is alleged to have fanned up the rage of violence in the Terai region. What’s your comment in the regard?
Sushil Koirala: Outwardly, it seems so. India and Nepal share common open border. Many criminal gangs and armed groups of the Terai are said to be sheltered in India. But, we cannot point finger at Indian government without any solid proof.
Is it because of unnecessary foreign influence in decision-making process of the country that propelled the PM to say that nation’s sovereignty is at stake?
Sushil Koirala: I cannot say about whether the foreigners are interfering in the government’s decision making because I am not handling any portfolio in the government. Girija Babu should be asked as to what prompted him to make such a comment.
Some foreign ambassadors are frequently meeting the Prime Minister. Their pro-activeness seems more magnified when the nation has to take some important decision. Don’t you think the ambassadorial activities should be carried out through the foreign ministry?
Sushil Koirala: It’s the issue entirely related to the government. So, I prefer to keep silent on this issue.
Is it not important to regulate the border in view of the intensification of criminal activities in the country?
Sushil Koirala: Of course, yes. India has also showed its readiness to talk about the issue pertaining to the regulation of the border. Additionally, the southern neighbor is also taking the subject of abrogating or amending the Nepal-India Peace and Friendship Treaty 1950 in a serious manner.
What are the major factors that prompted Girija Babu to adopt republican posture?
Sushil Koirala: The mounting pressure of people has led us to opt for a republican system. We have leaned towards the notion of republicanism in order to comply ourselves with the changing people’s sentiments and aspirations.
A founder member of the NC K.P. Bhattarai came ahead to advocate for the continuation of the monarchy soon after your party decided to go republican. What is your opinion in this regard?
Sushil Koirala: The NC is a democratic party and it allows everybody to express his views. So, it is not sagacious to comment whether Bhattarai is right or wrong for supporting the monarchy.
It may be noted that out party leader Narahari Acharya even visited several districts with republican campaign before the NC embraced the republican policy.
What’s your personal standpoint about whether the monarchy should be retained or not?
Sushil Koirala: Being vice-president of the party, I am not in a position to say anything in this regard. As the general convention meeting of the party is scheduled to be held very soon, my personal opinion related to the monarchy can have serious impacts on the meeting. So, I don’t want to put my personal views on the issue at this moment.
The Maoists are vigorously raising their two fundamental demands- adoption of proportionate electoral system and declaring the nation a republic through the interim parliament. Is the NC ready to concede to these demands?
Sushil Koirala: The NC will not act as per the demands of the Maoists. We are in the politics based on consensus and their behaviors should not be inimical to the process of consensus building.
How severe will be the consequences if the EPA breaks down?
Sushil Koirala: Let’s not imagine what will happen if the EPA collapses. We are striving our best to shield the EPA from every possible disaster.
How important is it to hold the CA elections on November 22?
Sushil Koirala: The nation will be bound to face another civil war if we fail to hold the CA polls in November. Even India and China will be affected from the anarchy and disorder in Nepal which may eventually invite foreign intervention.
How logical is the argument that our neighboring countries want to see instability in Nepal so that they can expand their clout in the country?
Sushil Koirala: I don’t think the instability in Nepal will prove beneficial for our neighboring countries. What should be well construed is that the instability in Nepal will also trigger various anomalies in our neighboring countries.
2007-09-21 18:07:47
Sushil Koirala, vice president of Nepali Congress, has definitely carved out a solid niche for himself in Nepali political sphere. Koirala is also often held in high regard for his traits like honesty, softness and unambiguousness. In his interview with The Weekly Mirror, the influential congress leader shares his views on a host of issues pertaining to the current political scenario.
Excerpts:
What are the major factors hamstringing the much hyped unification of the two Congresses?
Sushil Koirala: Nepali Congress is in favor of coalescing with the NC (Democratic) from the top level. But, the NC-D is insisting to go for the unity by staring amalgamation from the local level. So, the process is taking longer period than expected. Of course, there is no alternative to the unity between the two parties.
Is there any sort of mechanism in place to unite the parties at local level?
Sushil Koirala: Currently, we are not in position to forge the unity at grass-root level. We have agreed on uniting the parties at district level. So, homework is going on for developing an appropriate mechanism for unity at district level.
What will be the form of power sharing if the unification takes place at district level?
Sushil Koirala: Talks are going on regarding this subject. But, we are yet to reach a concrete conclusion. The NC is the mother organization and nobody should bargain hard for seats and leadership. The agreement we have reached so far is that all the present central committee members of the both parties will also be in the central committee after forming the single congress. Similarly, general convention representatives and general committee members of the both parities will remain intact.
How do you foresee the possibility of the unity before the general committee meeting of the NC?
Sushil Koirala: I strongly believe that the unification process should see the light of day before the general committee meeting. We are trying our best to make it happen at the earliest.
It is alleged that the NC has deviated from the policy of national reconciliation propounded by the late B.P Koirala after the NC’s central committee decided to go for a republic. How much truth is there in this allegation?
Sushil Koirala: I must say that the policy of national reconciliation proposed by B.P Koirala is still as relevant as it was then. But, the policy must be redefined in conjunction with the prevailing realities. We have six decade long painful experiences of trying to accommodate the institution of monarchy. But, the corollary of our compassion towards the institution of the monarchy was always deception. Against this backdrop, it is not insanity on the part of us to mull over the option of a republican set-up.
Some intellectuals argue that the institution of monarchy is sine-qua-non to preserve the national sovereignty in view of the geo-political reality of the country. What’s your view in this regard?
Sushil Koirala: The future of the monarchy depends on how it presents itself to people. It is crystal clear that only those monarchs who have not acted in synch with people’s aspirations are abolished. In our context, we gave several opportunities to the king to remain as ceremonial head but he himself stifled these opportunities by craving for more political power.
B.P Koirala came up with the policy of national reconciliation in order to ensure co-existence between the monarchy and the democratic forces even during the autocratic Panchayat regime. In this light, is it justifiable to remove the monarchy for his 15-month long rule?
Sushil Koirala: King Gyanendra unscrupulously seized the people’s executive power and imposed dictatorship in the country. He grossly neglected our repeated call for the national reconciliation. Such despotic tendencies of the king propelled people to react accordingly. The NC was adhering to the policy of ‘constitutional monarchy’ till the 11th general convention of the party. But, unfortunately, the king didn’t think it appropriate to correct his move even after the NC dropped the ‘constitutional monarchy’ from its protocol.
Don’t you think that the NC has treaded the footprints of the Maoists by quitting the original policy of the party?
Sushil Koirala: What should be well understood is that the agenda of the Constituent Assembly (CA) was first raised by the NC in 2007 B.S. But, the then king Tribhuwan hoodwinked us by withholding the CA polls after he ascended to the power. King Tribuwan had promised that he would hold CA elections but his son Mahendra unilaterally declared the constitution in a despotic manner. In the general elections held under the constitution in 2015 B.S, the NC got the two third majority and, subsequently, formed the government with B.P Koirala as the prime minister. But, unfortunately, king Mahendra dissolved the parliament and imprisoned B.P. Koirala, the first elected Prime Minister of the country, after 20 months of forming the democratic government. The very move of the king barred B.P Koirala to implement his plan and policy.
Is the policy of ‘National Reconciliation’ still relevant to Nepal?
Sushil Koirala: The relevance of Reconciliation will never fade away. We still hold the significance of national reconciliation in high regard. As such, we are attaching priority to the eight-party unity. With the royal palace massacre some five years back, the monarchy has somehow lost the people's faith in it.
B.P Koirala never shared the same platform for the political mobilization along with the leftist forces. But, you are now collaborating with the radical communists. Isn’t it something contradictory?
Sushil Koirala: It all depends on demands of situation. Democracy was restored in collaboration with the left parties in 2046 B.S. Girija babu himself used to list Male, Mashale and Mandale under the same category. But, he was compelled to be realistic and cooperate with the leftist forces during the April Uprising in 2006.
Girija babu has recently said that there is threat to Nepal’s independence. Who is he alluding to by saying so?
Sushil Koirala: If the existing anarchical situation continues to engulf the country, we may have to face danger to Nepal’s sovereignty sooner or later. We are sandwiched between the two mammoth neighbors. They have also their own security interests.
Instability in Nepal is sure to affect their respective security interests.
So, they are always cautious to ward off any factor that may emanate from the instability of Nepal jeopardizing their security interests.
India is alleged to have fanned up the rage of violence in the Terai region. What’s your comment in the regard?
Sushil Koirala: Outwardly, it seems so. India and Nepal share common open border. Many criminal gangs and armed groups of the Terai are said to be sheltered in India. But, we cannot point finger at Indian government without any solid proof.
Is it because of unnecessary foreign influence in decision-making process of the country that propelled the PM to say that nation’s sovereignty is at stake?
Sushil Koirala: I cannot say about whether the foreigners are interfering in the government’s decision making because I am not handling any portfolio in the government. Girija Babu should be asked as to what prompted him to make such a comment.
Some foreign ambassadors are frequently meeting the Prime Minister. Their pro-activeness seems more magnified when the nation has to take some important decision. Don’t you think the ambassadorial activities should be carried out through the foreign ministry?
Sushil Koirala: It’s the issue entirely related to the government. So, I prefer to keep silent on this issue.
Is it not important to regulate the border in view of the intensification of criminal activities in the country?
Sushil Koirala: Of course, yes. India has also showed its readiness to talk about the issue pertaining to the regulation of the border. Additionally, the southern neighbor is also taking the subject of abrogating or amending the Nepal-India Peace and Friendship Treaty 1950 in a serious manner.
What are the major factors that prompted Girija Babu to adopt republican posture?
Sushil Koirala: The mounting pressure of people has led us to opt for a republican system. We have leaned towards the notion of republicanism in order to comply ourselves with the changing people’s sentiments and aspirations.
A founder member of the NC K.P. Bhattarai came ahead to advocate for the continuation of the monarchy soon after your party decided to go republican. What is your opinion in this regard?
Sushil Koirala: The NC is a democratic party and it allows everybody to express his views. So, it is not sagacious to comment whether Bhattarai is right or wrong for supporting the monarchy.
It may be noted that out party leader Narahari Acharya even visited several districts with republican campaign before the NC embraced the republican policy.
What’s your personal standpoint about whether the monarchy should be retained or not?
Sushil Koirala: Being vice-president of the party, I am not in a position to say anything in this regard. As the general convention meeting of the party is scheduled to be held very soon, my personal opinion related to the monarchy can have serious impacts on the meeting. So, I don’t want to put my personal views on the issue at this moment.
The Maoists are vigorously raising their two fundamental demands- adoption of proportionate electoral system and declaring the nation a republic through the interim parliament. Is the NC ready to concede to these demands?
Sushil Koirala: The NC will not act as per the demands of the Maoists. We are in the politics based on consensus and their behaviors should not be inimical to the process of consensus building.
How severe will be the consequences if the EPA breaks down?
Sushil Koirala: Let’s not imagine what will happen if the EPA collapses. We are striving our best to shield the EPA from every possible disaster.
How important is it to hold the CA elections on November 22?
Sushil Koirala: The nation will be bound to face another civil war if we fail to hold the CA polls in November. Even India and China will be affected from the anarchy and disorder in Nepal which may eventually invite foreign intervention.
How logical is the argument that our neighboring countries want to see instability in Nepal so that they can expand their clout in the country?
Sushil Koirala: I don’t think the instability in Nepal will prove beneficial for our neighboring countries. What should be well construed is that the instability in Nepal will also trigger various anomalies in our neighboring countries.
2007-09-21 18:07:47
“The Middle Way The Only Way” - Ganesh Raj Sharma
October 28 2005
http://www.nepalnews.com.np/contents/englishweekly/spotlight/2005/oct/oct28/national4.php
As Nepal’s political crisis deepens, extremism threatens to replace moderation. With political forces gearing up for the battle royale, it is a finish-or-be-finished confrontation not a live-and-let-live reconciliation that hits the headlines. But the majority has remained a silent spectator. Not many have braved the odds to vent the voice of the silent majority. Eminent lawyer and analyst GANESH RAJ SHARMA is one of the few who did it. In an interview to VIJAYA KUMAR PANDEY of the newly launched talk show “Frontline” on the Kantipur Television on Sunday, Sharma pointed out the hazards of the path the king and the major political parties have been treading on. Asking the two to reconcile with each other he quotes the legendary leader B.P. Koirala, “..there are other dangers to democracy more serious than monarchy (and that) .. there are dangers to monarchy more serious than democracy.” Follows the excerpts of a 30-minute interview with the scholar who enjoyed the confidence of Nepal’s first democratically elected Prime Minister B.P. Koirala as well as late King Birendra:
Nine months into the royal take-over, how do you assess the political situation?
I did not foresee extremism, then. Given the current global situation and the level of awareness in the country, it was simply impossible to go back to the Panchayat days. I believed that the king would finally have to follow the middle way.
You believed that the monarchy can not hang on to extremism for long.
Yes. The monarchy’s character does not allow this. Nepal's monarchy cannot afford the extremism for long for two reasons. One, this institution which is based on traditional values and beliefs functions under the popular consent. Two, it also depends on loyalty and obedience of the army, police and administration. So, it can not rely on only one of them. The monarchy cannot embark on a lonely journey on a single leg, while ignoring the popular support.
Can the monarchy side with extremism?
It cannot go along with extremism. In Nepal, monarchy and extremism are simply incompatible.
But extremism appears to be reaching its extreme. Don’t you think that the middle way has no future?
No, not at all. The middle way is crucially necessary to preserve the independence of the country and to bring about its transformation. The middle way is linked with the future of the country. The two cannot be separated otherwise, Nepal's independence will be jeopardized and the modernization weakened. Give it any name, national reconciliation, middle way or a mutual compromise, we simply can not do without it.
How do you see the situation in the last nine months? Has it deteriorated, improved or remained the same?
The situation has become complex. Personal egos and obduracy of political forces have prevailed. This has deepened mutual misunderstanding. On personal level, there may not be bad blood between the two forces, but this has not reflected in public. Yet, I believe that the situation has not gone out of control.
How many political forces are there in Nepali politics?
Six -- four internal and two external.
Who are the internal forces?
One, the monarchy. Two, the organized army. Three, the organized political parties. Four, the ordinary people. Known as a silent majority, the fourth force is decisive. This silent majority is not active all the time but it has a decisive role. It speaks up either during the election or in the rebellion. The two external forces are also important. Even super powers cannot bypass them and impose their will on Nepal on their own.
Who are the external forces?
The immediate neighbors -- India and China. They are there since the unification of Nepal by king Prithivi Narayan Shaha. Nepal still remains a yam between two boulders as explained by him more than two hundred years ago.
What about the other force – the Nepal Communist Party (Maoist)?
You have to find it within the six forces I mentioned. The Maoists have not established themselves as a separate force.
How can you say this when they have been making their presence felt across the country?
If outside force gives weapon, shelter and training to someone, it means that there is a very powerful force behind. One has to reckon with that force.
Isn’t it too simplistic an assessment?
I am convinced on my analysis.
So, you rule the Maoists out as a force.
I said that they are within the six forces that I mentioned earlier. They are not a separate force. You have to find them within the internal or external forces.
Is there any difference between the organized political parties and the silent majority?
There are certain common points of agreements and disagreements among the internal forces. One of the points of agreement is that none wants to see Nepal under foreign control and dictated to by foreign powers. All of them love the country’s independence. The dispute is over how much power one should have and how it is exercised. This is natural in any progressive society. Nepal is not an exception. Questions such as how much authority the king wants, whether the king should remain a mere spectator etc are decided by the silent majority. Once the silent majority decides, every one has to accept the verdict. It does speak up only occasionally -- but decisively. It speaks up either during the elections or the rebellion. Nepali politics would never have been turbulent had it remained within the gambit of the internal forces. Even international actors would have cared less.
Why did you identify monarchy and army as separate forces? Aren’t they one?
There is a difference between the king and the army. Unlike the army, the king has many responsibilities to take care of such as seeking the popular consent. The army is bound by own duty and discipline.
Don't you think that the army does not have a separate identity and that it is a part of the other force -- the monarchy?
We had the experience of army rule by Jung Bahadur Rana. He ruled the country on the strength of the army. The army had already shown its power, in the past.
You see the monarchy as a cushion between the army and the democratic aspirations of the people. Right?
Yes. Monarchy has own interest in it. Whether a person is liberal or conservative is not as important as to find out one’s interest. The king’s interest is attached to the popular consent. But he depends on the army on the question of independence and stability of the country. If monarch sees any threat from foreign forces, he will side with the army. To keep the army under his control, however, the monarch has to side with the people. Thus, the king has two windows. In case of crisis of nation's independence, the king will side with the army. In normal situation when he needs to control the army, the king will side with the people. This is quite evident here. Why did the king announce the elections? If he wanted to rule under the strength of the army, he would resort to repression. But it is not possible for him to ignore the popular force for long. This may be the reason why the king announced the elections.
When we talk about the role of the political parties and the monarchy and any other forces, we need to understand their interests?
Yes. If you understand the king's interest, then you will know his intention.
What is the interest of the monarch?
His top most interest is the stability of the throne and the independence of the country.
If the country is unstable, the throne will not be secure. So, the king wants the stability of the country and the continuity of the throne. If these two face any threat, the king does not remain silent. He seeks support and help to safeguard the two interests. The king can not clash with people and grab power to fulfill the interest of others.
Do you mean that the king has concerns for the right of the people but his first interest is to make the throne secure?
If someone tries to rock the stability of the country and overthrow the throne, the king cannot remain silent spectator for the sake of the rights of the people. He will seek help from any forces against the power of people. It can not be a permanent step, though. Ultimately, he is compelled to speak the language of the people and see where the monarchy’s long-term interest lies.
Can’t a king fail to see the interest of the monarchy?
Yes he can, but at his own peril. That will be his foolishness.
Do you see king Gyanendra working against the interest of monarchy?
There had been actions that could harm the interest of monarchy. The king might have compulsions in taking such actions even at the cost of his popularity.
Following the February 1 take-over, don't you see that king Gyanendra is not concerned about the long-term interest of monarchy?
I agree that the immediate actions have not been in the interest of the institution of monarchy. At the same time, I would like to give the benefit of doubt to the king. He might have certain compulsions due to other forces. The monarchy is not that powerful to be able to reverse the tide of sea. There are other powerful actors as well. So I can not blame the king only, without taking into account the actions and reactions of other actors.
About the political parties. What are their interests?
To wield power through the people’s participation.
In an earlier interview, vice chairman of the council of ministers, Dr. Tulsi Giri, said that the dispute between the king and the parties is over the sharing of power...
He also mentioned the role of external forces. According to his own observation, there are not two players only – the king and the people. There are other players as well.
Do you agree that the dispute between the king and the people is over the exercise of power?
Yes.
That’s what Dr. Giri also said. That there can not be two power centers. He argues that the people’s power should be exercised through the institution of the monarchy not through the parties.
I do not buy that argument. When the king has been saying that the people are the supreme, why should one buy Giri’s argument. The king is clear in his statements that the people are the sources of power. In real sense, the representatives of the people are the allies of king. The monarch’s instrument to rule does not come from outside in an artificial manner. It must come from the people. Election is a means to choose such people. The king not only announced the municipal elections but he surprised by declaring parliamentary elections without even consulting his cabinet members I heard that this was not a cabinet decision. That’s why I strongly believe in the institution of monarchy. The point is: the interest of the king and that of his ministers are different. The king cannot rule the country by ignoring popular forces for long time. The present ministers do not have such compulsion.
So, the Nepalese monarch cannot afford to ignore popular political parties for a long period of time.
It cannot take such a risk. The monarchy understands this. Unfortunately, whether it is due to our incapability or the mischievous designs of others, the king and the political parties have not been able to mend the fences.
How do we understand the role of external forces?
Let me quote the late B.P.Koirala in this context. He wrote during his seven years in Sundarijal jail in the 1960s, that “there are other dangers to democracy more than monarchy and the king will also see that there are other dangers to monarchy more serious than democracy.” Our immediate neighbors may be friendly with us on most issues, but not on the question of their security. They attach more importance to their security than friendship with us. This applies to both China and India. To take the case of India, for instance, the Indian politicians may have been liberal towards us but security agencies such as army, intelligence agencies are not. This is the conflict within India vis-à-vis its relations with Nepal.
That may be the case, all right. But Nepal’s internal forces have also not been able to sort their differences out.
In the course of power sharing and tussle for the leadership, personal egos and ambitions do also intensify the conflict. There are forces which support and back one group against another. It was amidst this background that a new constitution was promulgated in 1990. King Birendra and the leaders of political parties agreed on the document. Suddenly, in 1996, when a sovereign parliament was functioning and sovereignty was being exercised by the government in accordance with this document, a foreign power begins arming and training a rebel group that does not believe in monarchy and parliamentary democracy. This is an open secret, but no-one dared to speak out.
But we have a long tradition of importing weapons from India, no?
It is not as simple as that. If you look at the history you will see that whenever a government in Nepal is deemed unfavorable, rebel groups are nurtured and weapons are supplied to them. If Maoists were not there, there would have been other armed groups today.
International forces would always be there. It is not unnatural for them to play their games. But should not the internal forces keep their house in order to minimize the influence of external forces? What should be the role of monarchy in this regard?
Yes, we need to realize that other forces will take advantage if we keep fighting. There is no denying that the king and the parties must reconcile. Both share a common interest, i.e. nationalism. But the internal forces have not been able to tell a real enemy from a true friend. B.P. Koirala, who braved odds to bring monarchy and people together, always remained an isolated lonely figure.
Is not it natural for external powers to poke their nose into our affairs when internal forces keep fighting?
But no-one seems to realize this. Instead, what we see is that red carpets are rolled out for the intruders. We have strained our relations so much that we are ready to offer bouquets to external players.
So, how do you think should the internal divisions be narrowed?
The onus of taking the initiative lies in the bigger and the taller figures. In an earlier interview, I had categorically said that the king had greater responsibility. At that time, I had expected the king to initiate two measures to resolve the present crisis. Either re-instate the dissolved parliament as a temporary way-out or call new elections for a permanent solution followed by moves to create an atmosphere conducive to the free and fair polls.
What should be the point of agreement for reconciliation?
For reconciliation, you don’t necessarily need flowery and poetic enunciations. You may even criticize each other, burn tires and heat up the battle on the street. But now that the king has announced elections you must take it as an achievement. If a conducive environment is created for the polls, you do not even talk to each other. If good works are being done, exchange of harsher statements will not matter. If rival politicians can come out of bitter hostilities seen during the elections and the parliamentary debate to get along and be friendly with each other as we have seen in the past, there is no reason why all political forces can not come together for the larger cause of the country. You must understand that what the parties want is power and the elections is the only ladder to reach the seat of power.
That’s what the political parties have been saying. That it is the parties not the king who have the right to rule in the 21st century.
I don’t think, any one has challenged this. There can be no debate at all. By announcing elections under the present constitution, the king has also accepted this. Three elected parliaments have already exercised that power under the constitution.
Are not pre-requisites required for elections?
Certainly, the election process has to go through a number of hurdles.
What is your prescription to cure the present ills?
Elections, as I said nine months ago. Following the royal announcement, a fresh debate has already kicked off in spite of the prevailing mutual mistrust among the political forces. Despite hurdles, we are much better off than many other countries such as Iraq, Cambodia and Afghanistan. Unlike them, we already have organized and tested political parties, a constitution and several other institutions in place. What is wrong in holding elections under the existing constitution? It would have been inexplicable, instead, if the constitution had been abrogated through the royal announcement.
How can the parties participate in the elections when almost all articles of the constitution have been made defunct?
I believe that all the political parties want is a conducive environment. If they are given a role in holding the elections, I doubt they will oppose the polls.
Do you mean that the king needs to move further to reach out to the parties?
If the king takes the political parties which contested elections in the past into confidence, the problems will easily resolve. That will give the elections the legitimacy and the credibility. The point is: the problem we have been facing is not internal. It has a crucial external element.
You are trying to blame others for all the mess that we are in. Don’t you agree that if the king and the parties worked together, other forces would not find any space to play a spoilsport here?
I have enough credible basis to back up my argument. If the king and the parties saw the common dangers from the outside, a reconciliation is very much possible. The two need to trust each other.
Don't you think that the king needs to take more initiatives in this regard?
Both the king and the political parties are on a trial today. If the political parties boycotted the elections on a wrong basis, they would end up in doldrums. If the people subscribed to the parties’ demand for a credible atmosphere, the king would be caught on the wrong foot despite the elections. So, there is a need to bring the king and the political parties together. Media and the civil society have a crucial role in this regard. Is it fair on our part to always provoke and divide them?
Some people argue that the present constitution is incomplete and that a new constitution is the only answer to the present crisis
Instead, it will only deepen the crisis and prolong the uncertainties. How long do you want to deprive the people the right to vote? At present, the choice is between the evils. We have to choose the lesser evil. The present constitution is the lesser evil. Political parties are the lesser evil. The king is the lesser evil. If you create an environment for the external forces to play here, that would be the bigger evil. Between the external forces on one hand and the king and the political parties on the other, I will choose the latter. In so far as the king and political parties are concerned, I don't need to choose, as they are complementary to each other.
If you are still asked to choose between the king and the parties?
What will you do if the army steps in? So, I don’t feel secure without the king. If the king leaves the country as Prince Sihanouk did in Cambodia, the military may step in. Whom would you look to rescue you in such an event?
But the army can come under the political parties.
The present modern army does not rely on thoughts alone – conservative or liberal. Its professional organization and skills compel it to seek its own role. Thus, we need to work to promote the commonalities of interest of the king and the parties. The king's interest lies in the stability in the nation. The political parties can not think of democracy sans the nation’s independence. When the king said that nationalism is a meeting point, it means that there is a common meeting point with the political parties.
How about the Maoists?
As I said earlier, they have to fit in either with the political parties, which would be more honorable and dignified for them, or with other powers which propelled them..
Do you mean that it is the responsibility of the king to create a conducive environment?
Yes, he needs to show more patience and courage than the political parties. Compared to the political parties, the king is on a bigger trial. He has to deal with our neighbors, manage internal peace and transfer the power to the people. So his wisdom, character, courage and restraints are on trial.
http://www.nepalnews.com.np/contents/englishweekly/spotlight/2005/oct/oct28/national4.php
As Nepal’s political crisis deepens, extremism threatens to replace moderation. With political forces gearing up for the battle royale, it is a finish-or-be-finished confrontation not a live-and-let-live reconciliation that hits the headlines. But the majority has remained a silent spectator. Not many have braved the odds to vent the voice of the silent majority. Eminent lawyer and analyst GANESH RAJ SHARMA is one of the few who did it. In an interview to VIJAYA KUMAR PANDEY of the newly launched talk show “Frontline” on the Kantipur Television on Sunday, Sharma pointed out the hazards of the path the king and the major political parties have been treading on. Asking the two to reconcile with each other he quotes the legendary leader B.P. Koirala, “..there are other dangers to democracy more serious than monarchy (and that) .. there are dangers to monarchy more serious than democracy.” Follows the excerpts of a 30-minute interview with the scholar who enjoyed the confidence of Nepal’s first democratically elected Prime Minister B.P. Koirala as well as late King Birendra:
Nine months into the royal take-over, how do you assess the political situation?
I did not foresee extremism, then. Given the current global situation and the level of awareness in the country, it was simply impossible to go back to the Panchayat days. I believed that the king would finally have to follow the middle way.
You believed that the monarchy can not hang on to extremism for long.
Yes. The monarchy’s character does not allow this. Nepal's monarchy cannot afford the extremism for long for two reasons. One, this institution which is based on traditional values and beliefs functions under the popular consent. Two, it also depends on loyalty and obedience of the army, police and administration. So, it can not rely on only one of them. The monarchy cannot embark on a lonely journey on a single leg, while ignoring the popular support.
Can the monarchy side with extremism?
It cannot go along with extremism. In Nepal, monarchy and extremism are simply incompatible.
But extremism appears to be reaching its extreme. Don’t you think that the middle way has no future?
No, not at all. The middle way is crucially necessary to preserve the independence of the country and to bring about its transformation. The middle way is linked with the future of the country. The two cannot be separated otherwise, Nepal's independence will be jeopardized and the modernization weakened. Give it any name, national reconciliation, middle way or a mutual compromise, we simply can not do without it.
How do you see the situation in the last nine months? Has it deteriorated, improved or remained the same?
The situation has become complex. Personal egos and obduracy of political forces have prevailed. This has deepened mutual misunderstanding. On personal level, there may not be bad blood between the two forces, but this has not reflected in public. Yet, I believe that the situation has not gone out of control.
How many political forces are there in Nepali politics?
Six -- four internal and two external.
Who are the internal forces?
One, the monarchy. Two, the organized army. Three, the organized political parties. Four, the ordinary people. Known as a silent majority, the fourth force is decisive. This silent majority is not active all the time but it has a decisive role. It speaks up either during the election or in the rebellion. The two external forces are also important. Even super powers cannot bypass them and impose their will on Nepal on their own.
Who are the external forces?
The immediate neighbors -- India and China. They are there since the unification of Nepal by king Prithivi Narayan Shaha. Nepal still remains a yam between two boulders as explained by him more than two hundred years ago.
What about the other force – the Nepal Communist Party (Maoist)?
You have to find it within the six forces I mentioned. The Maoists have not established themselves as a separate force.
How can you say this when they have been making their presence felt across the country?
If outside force gives weapon, shelter and training to someone, it means that there is a very powerful force behind. One has to reckon with that force.
Isn’t it too simplistic an assessment?
I am convinced on my analysis.
So, you rule the Maoists out as a force.
I said that they are within the six forces that I mentioned earlier. They are not a separate force. You have to find them within the internal or external forces.
Is there any difference between the organized political parties and the silent majority?
There are certain common points of agreements and disagreements among the internal forces. One of the points of agreement is that none wants to see Nepal under foreign control and dictated to by foreign powers. All of them love the country’s independence. The dispute is over how much power one should have and how it is exercised. This is natural in any progressive society. Nepal is not an exception. Questions such as how much authority the king wants, whether the king should remain a mere spectator etc are decided by the silent majority. Once the silent majority decides, every one has to accept the verdict. It does speak up only occasionally -- but decisively. It speaks up either during the elections or the rebellion. Nepali politics would never have been turbulent had it remained within the gambit of the internal forces. Even international actors would have cared less.
Why did you identify monarchy and army as separate forces? Aren’t they one?
There is a difference between the king and the army. Unlike the army, the king has many responsibilities to take care of such as seeking the popular consent. The army is bound by own duty and discipline.
Don't you think that the army does not have a separate identity and that it is a part of the other force -- the monarchy?
We had the experience of army rule by Jung Bahadur Rana. He ruled the country on the strength of the army. The army had already shown its power, in the past.
You see the monarchy as a cushion between the army and the democratic aspirations of the people. Right?
Yes. Monarchy has own interest in it. Whether a person is liberal or conservative is not as important as to find out one’s interest. The king’s interest is attached to the popular consent. But he depends on the army on the question of independence and stability of the country. If monarch sees any threat from foreign forces, he will side with the army. To keep the army under his control, however, the monarch has to side with the people. Thus, the king has two windows. In case of crisis of nation's independence, the king will side with the army. In normal situation when he needs to control the army, the king will side with the people. This is quite evident here. Why did the king announce the elections? If he wanted to rule under the strength of the army, he would resort to repression. But it is not possible for him to ignore the popular force for long. This may be the reason why the king announced the elections.
When we talk about the role of the political parties and the monarchy and any other forces, we need to understand their interests?
Yes. If you understand the king's interest, then you will know his intention.
What is the interest of the monarch?
His top most interest is the stability of the throne and the independence of the country.
If the country is unstable, the throne will not be secure. So, the king wants the stability of the country and the continuity of the throne. If these two face any threat, the king does not remain silent. He seeks support and help to safeguard the two interests. The king can not clash with people and grab power to fulfill the interest of others.
Do you mean that the king has concerns for the right of the people but his first interest is to make the throne secure?
If someone tries to rock the stability of the country and overthrow the throne, the king cannot remain silent spectator for the sake of the rights of the people. He will seek help from any forces against the power of people. It can not be a permanent step, though. Ultimately, he is compelled to speak the language of the people and see where the monarchy’s long-term interest lies.
Can’t a king fail to see the interest of the monarchy?
Yes he can, but at his own peril. That will be his foolishness.
Do you see king Gyanendra working against the interest of monarchy?
There had been actions that could harm the interest of monarchy. The king might have compulsions in taking such actions even at the cost of his popularity.
Following the February 1 take-over, don't you see that king Gyanendra is not concerned about the long-term interest of monarchy?
I agree that the immediate actions have not been in the interest of the institution of monarchy. At the same time, I would like to give the benefit of doubt to the king. He might have certain compulsions due to other forces. The monarchy is not that powerful to be able to reverse the tide of sea. There are other powerful actors as well. So I can not blame the king only, without taking into account the actions and reactions of other actors.
About the political parties. What are their interests?
To wield power through the people’s participation.
In an earlier interview, vice chairman of the council of ministers, Dr. Tulsi Giri, said that the dispute between the king and the parties is over the sharing of power...
He also mentioned the role of external forces. According to his own observation, there are not two players only – the king and the people. There are other players as well.
Do you agree that the dispute between the king and the people is over the exercise of power?
Yes.
That’s what Dr. Giri also said. That there can not be two power centers. He argues that the people’s power should be exercised through the institution of the monarchy not through the parties.
I do not buy that argument. When the king has been saying that the people are the supreme, why should one buy Giri’s argument. The king is clear in his statements that the people are the sources of power. In real sense, the representatives of the people are the allies of king. The monarch’s instrument to rule does not come from outside in an artificial manner. It must come from the people. Election is a means to choose such people. The king not only announced the municipal elections but he surprised by declaring parliamentary elections without even consulting his cabinet members I heard that this was not a cabinet decision. That’s why I strongly believe in the institution of monarchy. The point is: the interest of the king and that of his ministers are different. The king cannot rule the country by ignoring popular forces for long time. The present ministers do not have such compulsion.
So, the Nepalese monarch cannot afford to ignore popular political parties for a long period of time.
It cannot take such a risk. The monarchy understands this. Unfortunately, whether it is due to our incapability or the mischievous designs of others, the king and the political parties have not been able to mend the fences.
How do we understand the role of external forces?
Let me quote the late B.P.Koirala in this context. He wrote during his seven years in Sundarijal jail in the 1960s, that “there are other dangers to democracy more than monarchy and the king will also see that there are other dangers to monarchy more serious than democracy.” Our immediate neighbors may be friendly with us on most issues, but not on the question of their security. They attach more importance to their security than friendship with us. This applies to both China and India. To take the case of India, for instance, the Indian politicians may have been liberal towards us but security agencies such as army, intelligence agencies are not. This is the conflict within India vis-à-vis its relations with Nepal.
That may be the case, all right. But Nepal’s internal forces have also not been able to sort their differences out.
In the course of power sharing and tussle for the leadership, personal egos and ambitions do also intensify the conflict. There are forces which support and back one group against another. It was amidst this background that a new constitution was promulgated in 1990. King Birendra and the leaders of political parties agreed on the document. Suddenly, in 1996, when a sovereign parliament was functioning and sovereignty was being exercised by the government in accordance with this document, a foreign power begins arming and training a rebel group that does not believe in monarchy and parliamentary democracy. This is an open secret, but no-one dared to speak out.
But we have a long tradition of importing weapons from India, no?
It is not as simple as that. If you look at the history you will see that whenever a government in Nepal is deemed unfavorable, rebel groups are nurtured and weapons are supplied to them. If Maoists were not there, there would have been other armed groups today.
International forces would always be there. It is not unnatural for them to play their games. But should not the internal forces keep their house in order to minimize the influence of external forces? What should be the role of monarchy in this regard?
Yes, we need to realize that other forces will take advantage if we keep fighting. There is no denying that the king and the parties must reconcile. Both share a common interest, i.e. nationalism. But the internal forces have not been able to tell a real enemy from a true friend. B.P. Koirala, who braved odds to bring monarchy and people together, always remained an isolated lonely figure.
Is not it natural for external powers to poke their nose into our affairs when internal forces keep fighting?
But no-one seems to realize this. Instead, what we see is that red carpets are rolled out for the intruders. We have strained our relations so much that we are ready to offer bouquets to external players.
So, how do you think should the internal divisions be narrowed?
The onus of taking the initiative lies in the bigger and the taller figures. In an earlier interview, I had categorically said that the king had greater responsibility. At that time, I had expected the king to initiate two measures to resolve the present crisis. Either re-instate the dissolved parliament as a temporary way-out or call new elections for a permanent solution followed by moves to create an atmosphere conducive to the free and fair polls.
What should be the point of agreement for reconciliation?
For reconciliation, you don’t necessarily need flowery and poetic enunciations. You may even criticize each other, burn tires and heat up the battle on the street. But now that the king has announced elections you must take it as an achievement. If a conducive environment is created for the polls, you do not even talk to each other. If good works are being done, exchange of harsher statements will not matter. If rival politicians can come out of bitter hostilities seen during the elections and the parliamentary debate to get along and be friendly with each other as we have seen in the past, there is no reason why all political forces can not come together for the larger cause of the country. You must understand that what the parties want is power and the elections is the only ladder to reach the seat of power.
That’s what the political parties have been saying. That it is the parties not the king who have the right to rule in the 21st century.
I don’t think, any one has challenged this. There can be no debate at all. By announcing elections under the present constitution, the king has also accepted this. Three elected parliaments have already exercised that power under the constitution.
Are not pre-requisites required for elections?
Certainly, the election process has to go through a number of hurdles.
What is your prescription to cure the present ills?
Elections, as I said nine months ago. Following the royal announcement, a fresh debate has already kicked off in spite of the prevailing mutual mistrust among the political forces. Despite hurdles, we are much better off than many other countries such as Iraq, Cambodia and Afghanistan. Unlike them, we already have organized and tested political parties, a constitution and several other institutions in place. What is wrong in holding elections under the existing constitution? It would have been inexplicable, instead, if the constitution had been abrogated through the royal announcement.
How can the parties participate in the elections when almost all articles of the constitution have been made defunct?
I believe that all the political parties want is a conducive environment. If they are given a role in holding the elections, I doubt they will oppose the polls.
Do you mean that the king needs to move further to reach out to the parties?
If the king takes the political parties which contested elections in the past into confidence, the problems will easily resolve. That will give the elections the legitimacy and the credibility. The point is: the problem we have been facing is not internal. It has a crucial external element.
You are trying to blame others for all the mess that we are in. Don’t you agree that if the king and the parties worked together, other forces would not find any space to play a spoilsport here?
I have enough credible basis to back up my argument. If the king and the parties saw the common dangers from the outside, a reconciliation is very much possible. The two need to trust each other.
Don't you think that the king needs to take more initiatives in this regard?
Both the king and the political parties are on a trial today. If the political parties boycotted the elections on a wrong basis, they would end up in doldrums. If the people subscribed to the parties’ demand for a credible atmosphere, the king would be caught on the wrong foot despite the elections. So, there is a need to bring the king and the political parties together. Media and the civil society have a crucial role in this regard. Is it fair on our part to always provoke and divide them?
Some people argue that the present constitution is incomplete and that a new constitution is the only answer to the present crisis
Instead, it will only deepen the crisis and prolong the uncertainties. How long do you want to deprive the people the right to vote? At present, the choice is between the evils. We have to choose the lesser evil. The present constitution is the lesser evil. Political parties are the lesser evil. The king is the lesser evil. If you create an environment for the external forces to play here, that would be the bigger evil. Between the external forces on one hand and the king and the political parties on the other, I will choose the latter. In so far as the king and political parties are concerned, I don't need to choose, as they are complementary to each other.
If you are still asked to choose between the king and the parties?
What will you do if the army steps in? So, I don’t feel secure without the king. If the king leaves the country as Prince Sihanouk did in Cambodia, the military may step in. Whom would you look to rescue you in such an event?
But the army can come under the political parties.
The present modern army does not rely on thoughts alone – conservative or liberal. Its professional organization and skills compel it to seek its own role. Thus, we need to work to promote the commonalities of interest of the king and the parties. The king's interest lies in the stability in the nation. The political parties can not think of democracy sans the nation’s independence. When the king said that nationalism is a meeting point, it means that there is a common meeting point with the political parties.
How about the Maoists?
As I said earlier, they have to fit in either with the political parties, which would be more honorable and dignified for them, or with other powers which propelled them..
Do you mean that it is the responsibility of the king to create a conducive environment?
Yes, he needs to show more patience and courage than the political parties. Compared to the political parties, the king is on a bigger trial. He has to deal with our neighbors, manage internal peace and transfer the power to the people. So his wisdom, character, courage and restraints are on trial.
NC observes national reconciliation day
http://www.nepalnews.com/archive/2007/dec/dec31/news05.php
The Nepali Congress and its sister organisations are observing Monday as national reconciliation day, to remember the return of late BP Koirala from India calling for unity to preserve national sovereignty.
The party and its sister organisations will organise various activities to mark the day. Nepal Women Association will host a tea reception at Shanti Batika, Ratna Park later today. Similarly, the Nepal Student Union has organised an interaction programme on importance of national reconciliation at this critical period.
In a message given today, NC acting president Sushil Koirala urged all to 'inculcate the spirit of national reconciliation' necessary for peace and stability. He said strengthening of democracy is possible only through reconciliation and unity among the democratic and nationalist forces.
In 2033 BS, BP Koirala returned to Nepal despite being warned of capital punishment saying reconciliation of all sides was necessary to save the nation from being destabilised and that effort for this task was practical only from within the country. Since then, NC has been celebrating the day as 'national reconciliation day'. nepalnews.com ia Dec 31 07
The Nepali Congress and its sister organisations are observing Monday as national reconciliation day, to remember the return of late BP Koirala from India calling for unity to preserve national sovereignty.
The party and its sister organisations will organise various activities to mark the day. Nepal Women Association will host a tea reception at Shanti Batika, Ratna Park later today. Similarly, the Nepal Student Union has organised an interaction programme on importance of national reconciliation at this critical period.
In a message given today, NC acting president Sushil Koirala urged all to 'inculcate the spirit of national reconciliation' necessary for peace and stability. He said strengthening of democracy is possible only through reconciliation and unity among the democratic and nationalist forces.
In 2033 BS, BP Koirala returned to Nepal despite being warned of capital punishment saying reconciliation of all sides was necessary to save the nation from being destabilised and that effort for this task was practical only from within the country. Since then, NC has been celebrating the day as 'national reconciliation day'. nepalnews.com ia Dec 31 07
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Nepali Congress under Koirala: The Great Betrayal
(Courtesy: Dr. Bipin Adhikari, Nepalnews.com)
Betrayal , as a form of deception or dismissal of prior political commitment, is not uncommon in politics anywhere. However, the fact that Prime Minister G. P. Koirala, with 65 years of active politics, is capable to do it is something that comes not just as a surprise to the activists and voters of Nepali Congress, but also as a shame.
As a reform-oriented centrist party, the Nepali Congress has been on the frontline of politics and democratization since it was established in 1947. From the beginning it enjoys the support of the modest, democratic and non-communist voters of this country. They nurtured this party through decades for its commitment to soft politics and institutions based on Westminster model, the principle of national reconciliation as the strategy of Nepal’s independence and survival, and representative democracy.
Shift in Policies : Now there is a new edition of G. P. Koirala, which has challenged these ideals without allowing discussions – and without any working strategy and national direction. He has taken for granted that what he decides is the decision of the nation.
This is not all. Koirala has also cajoled this country - already deeply wounded for its faith in representative institutions – by upholding that those parties who think differently should not have access to the Parliament, and should have practically no opportunity to contest the constituent assembly elections. He has made sure that people who differ with him within the Congress have no voice in the public. In all these betrayals, and maneuverings to ‘republicanise’ Nepal by hooks or crooks, who knows it more than Prime Minister Koirala himself how outrageously treacherous he has proved to this otherwise proud democracy and a country of profoundly nationalist people. Since he approved the India-initiated 12-point understanding in New Delhi last year, Prime Minister Koirala has ignored the agenda of the Nepali Congress. He has also fully stopped the line of communication with the rank-and-file of the Congress.
Two important Decisions
Recently, Prime Minister Koirala took two important decisions: firstly, he reunited the Nepali Congress Party that had been living with the agonies of vertical split since the last five years, supposedly making it as strong as it was during the last general elections (if not more); and secondly, he changed his party having faith in constitutional monarchy and Westminster model of democracy into a republican party with no sustainable agenda for transformation – finally conceding to the Indian demand that monarchy has already served its purpose, and it must go.
The remarks of Koirala until a few months before about national reconciliation, or the policy of Nepali Congress that pleaded tradition with modernity as the basis to defend democracy and protect national independence, has at once become out of context to him. As a consequence, the party which has been re-united at the leadership level has lost its bases of power at the voters’ level. They still believe in constitutional monarchy, a democratic system based on devolution of power to the local people, and a unitary and strong Nepal. Needless to say, at a time when the Party needs its voters overwhelmingly in the impending constituent assembly elections-- especially against extremists and communal elements-- Prime Minister Koirala has thrown them into the mire of confusion, lies and extremist propaganda. Strangely enough, he thinks the Congress will come back to power – without its voters, because the goodwill that the Congress has lost will be compensated by the Madheshi Janadhikar Forum – a new outfit supposedly going to be his new partner in the forthcoming elections. Of course, Koirala is building on wrong premises.
Subtleties of Monarchy
Twenty-eight years before, in 1979, when t he Shah of Iran, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, had fled his country following months of violent protests against his regime, many democrats and liberals thought that the roadblock to democracy has finally been set aside. In fact, just as G. P. Koirala betrayed King Gyanendra and most of the commoners of Nepal, Dr Shapur Bahktiar, the man who Shah Pahlavi had appointed as Prime Minister just one month before he fled, too had disingenuously forced him to leave the country.
The person, who the increasing number of violent clashes between security forces and anti-Shah demonstrators established in power, was Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini. With the support of the liberals and commies, very much like the support of the imperfect ‘loktantrabadis’ of Nepal to the Maoists, Khomeini finally came to assert control over the course leading to a revolutionary Islamic Council to replace what he called the "illegal government" of Iran. Whatever little democracy the Iranians had during the period of Shah has become a dream for the people since then. After all, democracy is a process not a product, and no Khomeini can ensure it – whether he creates a constitution through his religious decree, or a constituent assembly under the shadow of bloodhounds and separatists.
Communist Invasion: The pressures on Prime Minister Koirala are understandable. He is just like “a parrot in a cage.” But emerging from the difficulties that a country has been plunged into is possible only when the best interest of the nation stands out as the core issue of the national agenda.
When the bases of power are not the voters, whether G. P. Koirala or Babarak Karmal - the Russia nominated President for communist Afghanistan, the effect on the nation is bound to be catastrophic. A leading Afghan Marxist, Karmal lost not only his country but also the prospect of democracy for a long time when he became Russian puppet ruler after the Russian invasion in 1979. The Karmal government, even with the aid of nearly 110,000 Soviet troops, air power and large scale ground offensives was not able to deal with resistance forces. His famed charisma had failed him, for few Afghans wanted to work with the puppet of a foreign power. In fact, Afghans quickly dubbed Karmal as "Shah Shuja the Second," a reference to an Afghan puppet of the British in the 19th century.
Again, who knows it more than Koirala, how the ‘Lhendups’ of the Kingdom of Sikkim brought ‘gallons’ of democracy in the country and washed away all traces of its nationhood from the history. Unfortunately, the poor Chogyal didn’t even have a standing army to defend its people when the country was being overrun by the renegades and foreign invaders advising him.
Chassis of National Reconciliation
It is against the background of annexation of Sikkim that Late B. P. Koirala had appealed to the nation in 1976 that “in the history of each country, an hour arrives when its people stake their lives to defend the integrity and independence of their motherland. We do feel that such an hour has come in Nepal. .. Our personal safety is of little consequence in the face of the danger threatening the very existence of our country.” Nepali Congress needs to be reminded again: “The people of Nepal have a twofold responsibility - achievement of democracy and defense of national integrity. If, however, we consider one of the two responsibilities as our only task, we would be one sided and commit a grave blunder.” And if we lay stress on the achievement of democracy alone, we may not effectively participate in resolving the national crisis.” For these obvious reasons, late B. P. Koirala had maintained that his neck is joined with the neck of the King; and if one of them is killed, the other will not survive for this very reason. Time might have changed, but not the context. Surprisingly, a few Congressmen have come up, here and there, in recent days, who have been arguing that B. P. has become out of context; and the policy of national reconciliation has already lost its roots. Unfortunately, at that level of simplicity, it just does not work.
Foundations of a centrist party
To remain stronger, every political party has to respond to its constituencies, and try to build on their aspiration. Even a fool knows that republicanism is a Maoist slogan. They mean it; and they have certain use for it. Among the democrats, federalism is the slogan of some disgruntled people, who want more participation in the political system, but have little ideas of how the system might work. It requires serious work and sustainable strategies, which none of them have ever been able to bring before the public. Maoists again have their own strategic threads on it, which must be checked for absurdities. The voters of the Nepali Congress can buy religious freedom (at the most protection of all religions, or equal distance with all of them); but it will not be able to digest ten types of community laws. They might throw their weight on devolution of power to the locals; but they will not accept a situation where ethnic ego runs over the representative institutions, and the indivisibility of the nation. Getting from here to there is a matter of routine planning and building institutions, not heroics, and certainly not the extra-ordinary merry-go-around that Prime Minister Koirala is made to think of in the changes he is implementing.
There should not be any shyness in upholding that the Constitution of 1990 remains the best reflection of the democratic model of the Nepali Congress – historically as well as a modern device. It faced external assaults and internal manipulation because of its strengths and inherent capacity to check abuse of power and protect national interests. It did not get enough opportunity to grow on. The agenda of improvement in it, especially the desires of the ethnic communities for greater identity and participation, and similar other reforms could be brought in for serious discussion and decision making. Yet, structures and procedures alone, without structures that create political stability, guiding principles and values, can not give self-momentum or resilience to a party in the face of assault. It is here that the Nepali Congress has to dispense with populism and stand taller than the rest of the parties which do not have issues to bind all the people together. Like the mortar between the bricks of a building, it is the shared values of an institution which bind the structures together, which make them strong and resilient, and which give them a collective identity greater than the sum of their parts. This alone allows them to develop an autonomous vision and sense of purpose. As a leading party of the country, it is the responsibility of the Nepali Congress not to compromise on the chassis that holds all the people together.
Another crucial issue that the Congress should take to the people is the most urgent task of devising national security strategy. Such a strategy should outline the nature of the threat that confronts this country today explaining priorities, and describing the strategy it needs to adopt to counter these threats. But as all know, this country lives in an increasingly interconnected, complex and often dangerous design. Congress needs to get its starting point right, and it should entail a correct understanding of the problems and threats that Nepal has to be up against. This country is facing all these troubles, political or terroristic, because of its geographical location.The threat is definitely strategic. No one can guarantee that another Maoist War will not break out here again. The approach must be to make it extremely difficult for unconstitutional and proxy forces to carry out their evil deeds while at the same time, be well prepared and ready to deal with the repercussions if such a force does emerge. Of course, safeguarding the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of the state is the central pillar of a security policy. But t here can be no greater role, no more important obligation for a government, than the protection and safety of its citizens. What purpose a constituent assembly will serve if the people who have the right to vote do not have the protection from fear. To make sure that the political system of this country works, the Nepali Congress will have to prepare ourselves both operationally and psychologically to deal with threats that may hit the country – including those it cannot even anticipate now.
Euphorias come to an end
But the fear for the Nepalese people is that it is coming to an end with irreparable loss to the nation. A functioning democracy has gone for long. Indeed, what has been marvelously achieved by ‘loktantra’ is the pulling down of a Constitution which for the first time in the history declared that sovereignty of Nepal vests in the Nepalese people; introduced a functioning Westminster model of parliamentary democracy in the country; legalized the operations of the political parties, guaranteed adult franchise and basic human rights to all; ensured the power of the independent judiciary to judge over the issues of constitutionality; and preserved the national interests by means of several constitutional institutions and procedures.
Unfortunately, a well functioning system of the check and balance has been replaced with the concept of the “sovereignty of eight parties” in the framework of the Interim Constitution, which looks like a manifesto of a totalitarian regime. It does not have any concept of participation and inclusiveness. Again the rule by law that those who do not buy its formulations, or claim their right to dissent with the constitutional carnage of the nation, are not to be allowed within the interim mechanisms make farce of what has been defined as the transition regime.
Indeed Prime Minister Koirala, who is already in a very vulnerable age, has left nothing for his posterity. The revolution has really been successful under his leadership. It has turned the country into debris – physical, moral, intellectual, and historical – without giving a ray of hope for the future. Everything old – from the physical infrastructure of this poor country to the most ancient of its national institutions have been pulled down. The demographic change that Koirala and his Company have brought in Nepal by distributing citizenship to all willing Indians still has to show its teeth. While all institutions are in limbo, and civil, judicial and military bureaucracies are out of touch with the Prime Minister, there are decisions after decisions under the pressures of sometime Maoists, and sometime Goits and Jwala Singhs. After these eighteen months, Koirala no longer needs the blessings of either the common people, the seven parties of heroic ambitions, or of the erratic King, who appointed him to right the wrong measures that he had applied to diffuse the crisis.
Conclusion
Democracy needs to be worked out with sustainable political strategies. The problem of institutionalization of democracy and empowerment of the people goes far beyond the issue of the elections to the constituent assembly and drawing up of a new constitution acceptable to all. If some opinion makers think everything will be fine after the ongoing movement achieve these milestones, or the King is dethroned, or the Maoists are mainstreamed and power is handed over to the legitimate representatives of the people, they are not objective, and if the history of the world is any evidence, revolutions have frequently been successful to destroy the status quo, but not always to create and sustain a viable alternative regime. The later issue demands proper planning and clearly thought out strategies. An extremist culture based on violent parameters is, therefore, never helpful.
It is very unlikely for the Nepali Congress to establish itself in terms of its newly acquired rhetorics. It could still be saved if it goes to the people with the policies that they want to hear from them. These policies are no doubt the historical parameters of the Nepali Congress. For that to happen, Prime Minister Koirala has to reestablish the line of communication with the rank and file of his party, and think in terms of what his voters want from him.
Betrayal , as a form of deception or dismissal of prior political commitment, is not uncommon in politics anywhere. However, the fact that Prime Minister G. P. Koirala, with 65 years of active politics, is capable to do it is something that comes not just as a surprise to the activists and voters of Nepali Congress, but also as a shame.
As a reform-oriented centrist party, the Nepali Congress has been on the frontline of politics and democratization since it was established in 1947. From the beginning it enjoys the support of the modest, democratic and non-communist voters of this country. They nurtured this party through decades for its commitment to soft politics and institutions based on Westminster model, the principle of national reconciliation as the strategy of Nepal’s independence and survival, and representative democracy.
Shift in Policies : Now there is a new edition of G. P. Koirala, which has challenged these ideals without allowing discussions – and without any working strategy and national direction. He has taken for granted that what he decides is the decision of the nation.
This is not all. Koirala has also cajoled this country - already deeply wounded for its faith in representative institutions – by upholding that those parties who think differently should not have access to the Parliament, and should have practically no opportunity to contest the constituent assembly elections. He has made sure that people who differ with him within the Congress have no voice in the public. In all these betrayals, and maneuverings to ‘republicanise’ Nepal by hooks or crooks, who knows it more than Prime Minister Koirala himself how outrageously treacherous he has proved to this otherwise proud democracy and a country of profoundly nationalist people. Since he approved the India-initiated 12-point understanding in New Delhi last year, Prime Minister Koirala has ignored the agenda of the Nepali Congress. He has also fully stopped the line of communication with the rank-and-file of the Congress.
Two important Decisions
Recently, Prime Minister Koirala took two important decisions: firstly, he reunited the Nepali Congress Party that had been living with the agonies of vertical split since the last five years, supposedly making it as strong as it was during the last general elections (if not more); and secondly, he changed his party having faith in constitutional monarchy and Westminster model of democracy into a republican party with no sustainable agenda for transformation – finally conceding to the Indian demand that monarchy has already served its purpose, and it must go.
The remarks of Koirala until a few months before about national reconciliation, or the policy of Nepali Congress that pleaded tradition with modernity as the basis to defend democracy and protect national independence, has at once become out of context to him. As a consequence, the party which has been re-united at the leadership level has lost its bases of power at the voters’ level. They still believe in constitutional monarchy, a democratic system based on devolution of power to the local people, and a unitary and strong Nepal. Needless to say, at a time when the Party needs its voters overwhelmingly in the impending constituent assembly elections-- especially against extremists and communal elements-- Prime Minister Koirala has thrown them into the mire of confusion, lies and extremist propaganda. Strangely enough, he thinks the Congress will come back to power – without its voters, because the goodwill that the Congress has lost will be compensated by the Madheshi Janadhikar Forum – a new outfit supposedly going to be his new partner in the forthcoming elections. Of course, Koirala is building on wrong premises.
Subtleties of Monarchy
Twenty-eight years before, in 1979, when t he Shah of Iran, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, had fled his country following months of violent protests against his regime, many democrats and liberals thought that the roadblock to democracy has finally been set aside. In fact, just as G. P. Koirala betrayed King Gyanendra and most of the commoners of Nepal, Dr Shapur Bahktiar, the man who Shah Pahlavi had appointed as Prime Minister just one month before he fled, too had disingenuously forced him to leave the country.
The person, who the increasing number of violent clashes between security forces and anti-Shah demonstrators established in power, was Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini. With the support of the liberals and commies, very much like the support of the imperfect ‘loktantrabadis’ of Nepal to the Maoists, Khomeini finally came to assert control over the course leading to a revolutionary Islamic Council to replace what he called the "illegal government" of Iran. Whatever little democracy the Iranians had during the period of Shah has become a dream for the people since then. After all, democracy is a process not a product, and no Khomeini can ensure it – whether he creates a constitution through his religious decree, or a constituent assembly under the shadow of bloodhounds and separatists.
Communist Invasion: The pressures on Prime Minister Koirala are understandable. He is just like “a parrot in a cage.” But emerging from the difficulties that a country has been plunged into is possible only when the best interest of the nation stands out as the core issue of the national agenda.
When the bases of power are not the voters, whether G. P. Koirala or Babarak Karmal - the Russia nominated President for communist Afghanistan, the effect on the nation is bound to be catastrophic. A leading Afghan Marxist, Karmal lost not only his country but also the prospect of democracy for a long time when he became Russian puppet ruler after the Russian invasion in 1979. The Karmal government, even with the aid of nearly 110,000 Soviet troops, air power and large scale ground offensives was not able to deal with resistance forces. His famed charisma had failed him, for few Afghans wanted to work with the puppet of a foreign power. In fact, Afghans quickly dubbed Karmal as "Shah Shuja the Second," a reference to an Afghan puppet of the British in the 19th century.
Again, who knows it more than Koirala, how the ‘Lhendups’ of the Kingdom of Sikkim brought ‘gallons’ of democracy in the country and washed away all traces of its nationhood from the history. Unfortunately, the poor Chogyal didn’t even have a standing army to defend its people when the country was being overrun by the renegades and foreign invaders advising him.
Chassis of National Reconciliation
It is against the background of annexation of Sikkim that Late B. P. Koirala had appealed to the nation in 1976 that “in the history of each country, an hour arrives when its people stake their lives to defend the integrity and independence of their motherland. We do feel that such an hour has come in Nepal. .. Our personal safety is of little consequence in the face of the danger threatening the very existence of our country.” Nepali Congress needs to be reminded again: “The people of Nepal have a twofold responsibility - achievement of democracy and defense of national integrity. If, however, we consider one of the two responsibilities as our only task, we would be one sided and commit a grave blunder.” And if we lay stress on the achievement of democracy alone, we may not effectively participate in resolving the national crisis.” For these obvious reasons, late B. P. Koirala had maintained that his neck is joined with the neck of the King; and if one of them is killed, the other will not survive for this very reason. Time might have changed, but not the context. Surprisingly, a few Congressmen have come up, here and there, in recent days, who have been arguing that B. P. has become out of context; and the policy of national reconciliation has already lost its roots. Unfortunately, at that level of simplicity, it just does not work.
Foundations of a centrist party
To remain stronger, every political party has to respond to its constituencies, and try to build on their aspiration. Even a fool knows that republicanism is a Maoist slogan. They mean it; and they have certain use for it. Among the democrats, federalism is the slogan of some disgruntled people, who want more participation in the political system, but have little ideas of how the system might work. It requires serious work and sustainable strategies, which none of them have ever been able to bring before the public. Maoists again have their own strategic threads on it, which must be checked for absurdities. The voters of the Nepali Congress can buy religious freedom (at the most protection of all religions, or equal distance with all of them); but it will not be able to digest ten types of community laws. They might throw their weight on devolution of power to the locals; but they will not accept a situation where ethnic ego runs over the representative institutions, and the indivisibility of the nation. Getting from here to there is a matter of routine planning and building institutions, not heroics, and certainly not the extra-ordinary merry-go-around that Prime Minister Koirala is made to think of in the changes he is implementing.
There should not be any shyness in upholding that the Constitution of 1990 remains the best reflection of the democratic model of the Nepali Congress – historically as well as a modern device. It faced external assaults and internal manipulation because of its strengths and inherent capacity to check abuse of power and protect national interests. It did not get enough opportunity to grow on. The agenda of improvement in it, especially the desires of the ethnic communities for greater identity and participation, and similar other reforms could be brought in for serious discussion and decision making. Yet, structures and procedures alone, without structures that create political stability, guiding principles and values, can not give self-momentum or resilience to a party in the face of assault. It is here that the Nepali Congress has to dispense with populism and stand taller than the rest of the parties which do not have issues to bind all the people together. Like the mortar between the bricks of a building, it is the shared values of an institution which bind the structures together, which make them strong and resilient, and which give them a collective identity greater than the sum of their parts. This alone allows them to develop an autonomous vision and sense of purpose. As a leading party of the country, it is the responsibility of the Nepali Congress not to compromise on the chassis that holds all the people together.
Another crucial issue that the Congress should take to the people is the most urgent task of devising national security strategy. Such a strategy should outline the nature of the threat that confronts this country today explaining priorities, and describing the strategy it needs to adopt to counter these threats. But as all know, this country lives in an increasingly interconnected, complex and often dangerous design. Congress needs to get its starting point right, and it should entail a correct understanding of the problems and threats that Nepal has to be up against. This country is facing all these troubles, political or terroristic, because of its geographical location.The threat is definitely strategic. No one can guarantee that another Maoist War will not break out here again. The approach must be to make it extremely difficult for unconstitutional and proxy forces to carry out their evil deeds while at the same time, be well prepared and ready to deal with the repercussions if such a force does emerge. Of course, safeguarding the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of the state is the central pillar of a security policy. But t here can be no greater role, no more important obligation for a government, than the protection and safety of its citizens. What purpose a constituent assembly will serve if the people who have the right to vote do not have the protection from fear. To make sure that the political system of this country works, the Nepali Congress will have to prepare ourselves both operationally and psychologically to deal with threats that may hit the country – including those it cannot even anticipate now.
Euphorias come to an end
But the fear for the Nepalese people is that it is coming to an end with irreparable loss to the nation. A functioning democracy has gone for long. Indeed, what has been marvelously achieved by ‘loktantra’ is the pulling down of a Constitution which for the first time in the history declared that sovereignty of Nepal vests in the Nepalese people; introduced a functioning Westminster model of parliamentary democracy in the country; legalized the operations of the political parties, guaranteed adult franchise and basic human rights to all; ensured the power of the independent judiciary to judge over the issues of constitutionality; and preserved the national interests by means of several constitutional institutions and procedures.
Unfortunately, a well functioning system of the check and balance has been replaced with the concept of the “sovereignty of eight parties” in the framework of the Interim Constitution, which looks like a manifesto of a totalitarian regime. It does not have any concept of participation and inclusiveness. Again the rule by law that those who do not buy its formulations, or claim their right to dissent with the constitutional carnage of the nation, are not to be allowed within the interim mechanisms make farce of what has been defined as the transition regime.
Indeed Prime Minister Koirala, who is already in a very vulnerable age, has left nothing for his posterity. The revolution has really been successful under his leadership. It has turned the country into debris – physical, moral, intellectual, and historical – without giving a ray of hope for the future. Everything old – from the physical infrastructure of this poor country to the most ancient of its national institutions have been pulled down. The demographic change that Koirala and his Company have brought in Nepal by distributing citizenship to all willing Indians still has to show its teeth. While all institutions are in limbo, and civil, judicial and military bureaucracies are out of touch with the Prime Minister, there are decisions after decisions under the pressures of sometime Maoists, and sometime Goits and Jwala Singhs. After these eighteen months, Koirala no longer needs the blessings of either the common people, the seven parties of heroic ambitions, or of the erratic King, who appointed him to right the wrong measures that he had applied to diffuse the crisis.
Conclusion
Democracy needs to be worked out with sustainable political strategies. The problem of institutionalization of democracy and empowerment of the people goes far beyond the issue of the elections to the constituent assembly and drawing up of a new constitution acceptable to all. If some opinion makers think everything will be fine after the ongoing movement achieve these milestones, or the King is dethroned, or the Maoists are mainstreamed and power is handed over to the legitimate representatives of the people, they are not objective, and if the history of the world is any evidence, revolutions have frequently been successful to destroy the status quo, but not always to create and sustain a viable alternative regime. The later issue demands proper planning and clearly thought out strategies. An extremist culture based on violent parameters is, therefore, never helpful.
It is very unlikely for the Nepali Congress to establish itself in terms of its newly acquired rhetorics. It could still be saved if it goes to the people with the policies that they want to hear from them. These policies are no doubt the historical parameters of the Nepali Congress. For that to happen, Prime Minister Koirala has to reestablish the line of communication with the rank and file of his party, and think in terms of what his voters want from him.
“Nobody Can Override Sovereign Rights Of Citizens” - KB Gurung
KB Gurung
http://www.nepalnews.com.np/contents/2007/englishweekly/spotlight/aug/aug24/interview.php
Nepali Congress general secretary KB GURUNG has had a long innings in politics. A member of Legislative Parliament, Gurung, who was elected from Ilam district in 1999 elections, spoke to KESHAB POUDEL and SANJAYA DHAKAL at Nepali Congress Central Office. Excerpts of half an hour interview:
What is your stand on various issues including the political disputes on monarchy, republican, federalism and proportional representation?
First of all, the priority of Nepali Congress (NC) is to protect sovereignty and independence of Nepal by championing liberal democracy. Nothing is greater than nation. So far as other political issues are concerned, NC has already said that it will accept the verdict of the sovereign people expressed through the free and fair elections of constituent assembly. So far as the election modes are concerned, all eight parties have already agreed that the elections should be based on mixed pattern. Nepali Congress follows the supremacy of the people.
Maoists have recently said that they want to declare republic from the interim parliament arguing that monarchy is a stumbling block against holding the elections? How do you look at it?
As I have already said it is for the sovereign people of Nepal to decide what kind of political system they want and what they prefer. No party has the right to override the sovereign rights of citizens. Nepali Congress respects the decisions of the people. Since all eight parties have already signed a document that the fate of the monarchy will be decided by the first meeting of Constituent Assembly, all of us must abide by that document.
Don't you think the present interim legislature has the right to declare Nepal as a republic as said by Maoists?
This interim parliament does not reflect the real opinion of the people. Thus, it does not have right to take such a major decision. Again, Nepali Congress will respect the sovereign rights of the people and we are bound by the constitution.
What exactly is the stand of Nepali Congress on all these issues?
Since we are holding the elections for CA, we have to wait for the mandate of the people. Nepali Congress has already said that people are supreme and they should be given right to choose the political system they want. One thing is certain that Nepali Congress is a liberal democratic party and it will oppose any kind of authoritarian system.
Despite your position as a general secretary of Nepali Congress, you do not seem to have been involved in any major decision making process. Since you are not involved in the process, who is responsible for working out all these agreements?
It is clear now where the 12 point agreement was worked out and where and when it was signed. Later on, several other agreements were also signed with the Maoists but there are only certain persons from Nepali Congress involved in that. Since home minister Krishna Prasad Sitaula and Dr. Shekhar Koirala were involved in this process along with other members, they have to take responsibility.
As a general secretary, don't you think your representation in the eight parties meeting is necessary?
It is for the party president to decide. I cannot force my leader to include me in the process.
Some of you are raising concerns over the negotiation process. Have you ever discussed these things with prime minister Girija Prasad Koirala?
We have raised these issues several times at the central committee meeting of Nepali Congress and parliamentary party meeting also. Personally, we also air our grievances to party president and prime minister Girijadaju. Unfortunately, our suggestions are ignored.
If you say your suggestions were ignored, who prevailed over the decision then?
We don't know who prevailed in decision making and how decisions were taken. When we asked prime minister Girijadaju, he expressed regrets and unhappiness over some of the decisions. We often make efforts to convince prime minister and we often raise the questions but in vain. We also read in newspapers that there is a coterie around the prime minister.
Don't you think those who involved in decision making do not care about your party and/or the country?
Those who are involved in the decision making are also Nepali Congress leaders who know what are the interests of the country and ideals of our party. People around Girijadaju are educated but I don't understand why the results are not coming in line with their commitments. Since I am not a part of the process, I can just wish that they uphold the party's ideals and identity while signing any agreement.
It is reported that prime minister Girija Prasad Koirala was directed wrongly by a small group. How do you look at it?
You cannot blame anybody for wrong doing. Person of a stature like Girijadaju does not need any adviser to judge what is right and what is wrong. He must recognize who is misleading him and who is trying to rescue him.
How much debates and discussions are permitted in your party?
We discuss all those issues including violation of the agreement by Maoists and weaknesses of our ministers. Following intense debate, our party has already endorsed the suggestion urging concerned people to correct mistakes. But, the group which is responsible to implement them has undermined it.
What usually is the response of the prime minister?
Girijadaju accepts the mistakes and expresses commitment to correct them. So far as the correction is concerned, we have not seen any correction. It is very sad to see even prime minister's commitment not being fulfilled. Since Girijadaju is our respected leader who is now running in 84 years of age, we don't want to hurt him by arguing much.
Have you met prime minister recently?
Girijadaju's health is not good in recent days. Whenever we go to Baluwatar, Girijadaju is in the rest room and we are not allowed to meet him. My recent meeting with him was two weeks ago. There are some party leaders who have direct access to Girijadaju and they don't need any permission.
Some influential Nepali Congress members including former co-general secretary Govinda Raj Joshi, central committee members Laxman Prasad Ghimire, Binayadhoj Chand and Sunil Kumar Bhandari are raising fundamental questions regarding your party under your leadership, what is your ideological stand?
Yes, we all are concerned about the future of country and future of liberal democracy. This is a gathering of likeminded people of Nepali Congress whose only interest is to protect the ideology and identity of country. We never raise any personal matter. We are working to uphold the party's spirit - nationalism, democracy and socialism is the basic ideals of our party.
Don't you see yourselves as a pressure group?
Once you get the membership of particular political organization, you have to give up your personal interest and work to uphold party's ideology. We must abide by party's discipline and it is applicable to all. Nobody can go against the party's ideology. Whenever our nation's identity and democracy is under threat, we cannot remain silent.
You are organizing in a group but you said this is not a pressure group. What do you mean?
One must be clear that ours is not a formal group. Some persons of Nepali Congress sit together and discuss the lapses and lacunae of the party. When we feel necessary, we also convey these things to prime minister and party president. We don't want to create any faction in the party. Our aim is to advise party leader whenever the party goes out of track. Many decisions taken by our party is against the norms and ideals of democratic party.
How does your party president take your comments?
Girijadaju has not said anything about us. If concerns raised by us are wrong and personally motivated, Girijadaju must advise us whether it is right or wrong since Girijadaju is our leader. We respect him.
Some of your colleagues argue that your dissension is individually directed against the persons like minister Ram Chandra Poudel, home minister Krishna Prasad Sitaula and prime minister's nephew Dr. Shekhar Koirala, who are now regarded as members of an inner coterie of prime minister. How do you look at it?
We don't have anything against any individual. Our aim is to raise concerns about the mistakes committed by those close to the leadership.
Do you see there is utility of B.P. Koirala?
As B.P. Koirala said, our stand is nationalism and democracy. If we fail to make balance between them, our party will lose identity. B.P. Koirala's views and ideas are always relevant to our party and country. As he said, there is a need for reconciliation among all the political forces to uphold Nepal's sovereignty and independence. We cannot bring long lasting peace in Nepal without that. His recently published book, Raja, Rajniti and Rastriyata gives clear picture regarding our country, democracy, monarchy and our party. At a time when the country has been passing through a very critical phase, Nepali Congress workers needs to follow B.P. Koirala's national reconciliation.
How do you see the peace process?
The peace process is not on the right track. Maoists are violating all the agreements signed between seven party and them. They are yet to return confiscated properties. The properties of Nepali Congress leaders including myself have not been returned.
Do you see any possibility of holding the elections of CA when Maoists have announced the month-long program?
Less than three months remain to hold the elections. Month long protest program announced by Maoists will block the election process. At a time when many leaders of the party are yet to go their villages because of Maoist threat, Maoist decision to take physical action will create another panic.
Maoists and other parties are saying that it is Nepali Congress which does not want to hold the elections. They argue that Congress is unclear about its stand on republic and it is yet to prepare party's manifesto? How do you look at it?
Nepali Congress has made it clear that it stands for nationalism, liberal and pluralistic democracy and is opposed to any kind of tyranny. It is none of the business of other parties to dictate us what kind of manifesto Nepali Congress needs. We don't need their guidance. I don't understand why they worry for us. If we take any wrong stand, it will benefit them.
What is the state of unity process?
I am not involved in the process of unification. Sooner or later Nepali Congress will unite. Girijadaju has also assured us that the party will unite very soon.
http://www.nepalnews.com.np/contents/2007/englishweekly/spotlight/aug/aug24/interview.php
Nepali Congress general secretary KB GURUNG has had a long innings in politics. A member of Legislative Parliament, Gurung, who was elected from Ilam district in 1999 elections, spoke to KESHAB POUDEL and SANJAYA DHAKAL at Nepali Congress Central Office. Excerpts of half an hour interview:
What is your stand on various issues including the political disputes on monarchy, republican, federalism and proportional representation?
First of all, the priority of Nepali Congress (NC) is to protect sovereignty and independence of Nepal by championing liberal democracy. Nothing is greater than nation. So far as other political issues are concerned, NC has already said that it will accept the verdict of the sovereign people expressed through the free and fair elections of constituent assembly. So far as the election modes are concerned, all eight parties have already agreed that the elections should be based on mixed pattern. Nepali Congress follows the supremacy of the people.
Maoists have recently said that they want to declare republic from the interim parliament arguing that monarchy is a stumbling block against holding the elections? How do you look at it?
As I have already said it is for the sovereign people of Nepal to decide what kind of political system they want and what they prefer. No party has the right to override the sovereign rights of citizens. Nepali Congress respects the decisions of the people. Since all eight parties have already signed a document that the fate of the monarchy will be decided by the first meeting of Constituent Assembly, all of us must abide by that document.
Don't you think the present interim legislature has the right to declare Nepal as a republic as said by Maoists?
This interim parliament does not reflect the real opinion of the people. Thus, it does not have right to take such a major decision. Again, Nepali Congress will respect the sovereign rights of the people and we are bound by the constitution.
What exactly is the stand of Nepali Congress on all these issues?
Since we are holding the elections for CA, we have to wait for the mandate of the people. Nepali Congress has already said that people are supreme and they should be given right to choose the political system they want. One thing is certain that Nepali Congress is a liberal democratic party and it will oppose any kind of authoritarian system.
Despite your position as a general secretary of Nepali Congress, you do not seem to have been involved in any major decision making process. Since you are not involved in the process, who is responsible for working out all these agreements?
It is clear now where the 12 point agreement was worked out and where and when it was signed. Later on, several other agreements were also signed with the Maoists but there are only certain persons from Nepali Congress involved in that. Since home minister Krishna Prasad Sitaula and Dr. Shekhar Koirala were involved in this process along with other members, they have to take responsibility.
As a general secretary, don't you think your representation in the eight parties meeting is necessary?
It is for the party president to decide. I cannot force my leader to include me in the process.
Some of you are raising concerns over the negotiation process. Have you ever discussed these things with prime minister Girija Prasad Koirala?
We have raised these issues several times at the central committee meeting of Nepali Congress and parliamentary party meeting also. Personally, we also air our grievances to party president and prime minister Girijadaju. Unfortunately, our suggestions are ignored.
If you say your suggestions were ignored, who prevailed over the decision then?
We don't know who prevailed in decision making and how decisions were taken. When we asked prime minister Girijadaju, he expressed regrets and unhappiness over some of the decisions. We often make efforts to convince prime minister and we often raise the questions but in vain. We also read in newspapers that there is a coterie around the prime minister.
Don't you think those who involved in decision making do not care about your party and/or the country?
Those who are involved in the decision making are also Nepali Congress leaders who know what are the interests of the country and ideals of our party. People around Girijadaju are educated but I don't understand why the results are not coming in line with their commitments. Since I am not a part of the process, I can just wish that they uphold the party's ideals and identity while signing any agreement.
It is reported that prime minister Girija Prasad Koirala was directed wrongly by a small group. How do you look at it?
You cannot blame anybody for wrong doing. Person of a stature like Girijadaju does not need any adviser to judge what is right and what is wrong. He must recognize who is misleading him and who is trying to rescue him.
How much debates and discussions are permitted in your party?
We discuss all those issues including violation of the agreement by Maoists and weaknesses of our ministers. Following intense debate, our party has already endorsed the suggestion urging concerned people to correct mistakes. But, the group which is responsible to implement them has undermined it.
What usually is the response of the prime minister?
Girijadaju accepts the mistakes and expresses commitment to correct them. So far as the correction is concerned, we have not seen any correction. It is very sad to see even prime minister's commitment not being fulfilled. Since Girijadaju is our respected leader who is now running in 84 years of age, we don't want to hurt him by arguing much.
Have you met prime minister recently?
Girijadaju's health is not good in recent days. Whenever we go to Baluwatar, Girijadaju is in the rest room and we are not allowed to meet him. My recent meeting with him was two weeks ago. There are some party leaders who have direct access to Girijadaju and they don't need any permission.
Some influential Nepali Congress members including former co-general secretary Govinda Raj Joshi, central committee members Laxman Prasad Ghimire, Binayadhoj Chand and Sunil Kumar Bhandari are raising fundamental questions regarding your party under your leadership, what is your ideological stand?
Yes, we all are concerned about the future of country and future of liberal democracy. This is a gathering of likeminded people of Nepali Congress whose only interest is to protect the ideology and identity of country. We never raise any personal matter. We are working to uphold the party's spirit - nationalism, democracy and socialism is the basic ideals of our party.
Don't you see yourselves as a pressure group?
Once you get the membership of particular political organization, you have to give up your personal interest and work to uphold party's ideology. We must abide by party's discipline and it is applicable to all. Nobody can go against the party's ideology. Whenever our nation's identity and democracy is under threat, we cannot remain silent.
You are organizing in a group but you said this is not a pressure group. What do you mean?
One must be clear that ours is not a formal group. Some persons of Nepali Congress sit together and discuss the lapses and lacunae of the party. When we feel necessary, we also convey these things to prime minister and party president. We don't want to create any faction in the party. Our aim is to advise party leader whenever the party goes out of track. Many decisions taken by our party is against the norms and ideals of democratic party.
How does your party president take your comments?
Girijadaju has not said anything about us. If concerns raised by us are wrong and personally motivated, Girijadaju must advise us whether it is right or wrong since Girijadaju is our leader. We respect him.
Some of your colleagues argue that your dissension is individually directed against the persons like minister Ram Chandra Poudel, home minister Krishna Prasad Sitaula and prime minister's nephew Dr. Shekhar Koirala, who are now regarded as members of an inner coterie of prime minister. How do you look at it?
We don't have anything against any individual. Our aim is to raise concerns about the mistakes committed by those close to the leadership.
Do you see there is utility of B.P. Koirala?
As B.P. Koirala said, our stand is nationalism and democracy. If we fail to make balance between them, our party will lose identity. B.P. Koirala's views and ideas are always relevant to our party and country. As he said, there is a need for reconciliation among all the political forces to uphold Nepal's sovereignty and independence. We cannot bring long lasting peace in Nepal without that. His recently published book, Raja, Rajniti and Rastriyata gives clear picture regarding our country, democracy, monarchy and our party. At a time when the country has been passing through a very critical phase, Nepali Congress workers needs to follow B.P. Koirala's national reconciliation.
How do you see the peace process?
The peace process is not on the right track. Maoists are violating all the agreements signed between seven party and them. They are yet to return confiscated properties. The properties of Nepali Congress leaders including myself have not been returned.
Do you see any possibility of holding the elections of CA when Maoists have announced the month-long program?
Less than three months remain to hold the elections. Month long protest program announced by Maoists will block the election process. At a time when many leaders of the party are yet to go their villages because of Maoist threat, Maoist decision to take physical action will create another panic.
Maoists and other parties are saying that it is Nepali Congress which does not want to hold the elections. They argue that Congress is unclear about its stand on republic and it is yet to prepare party's manifesto? How do you look at it?
Nepali Congress has made it clear that it stands for nationalism, liberal and pluralistic democracy and is opposed to any kind of tyranny. It is none of the business of other parties to dictate us what kind of manifesto Nepali Congress needs. We don't need their guidance. I don't understand why they worry for us. If we take any wrong stand, it will benefit them.
What is the state of unity process?
I am not involved in the process of unification. Sooner or later Nepali Congress will unite. Girijadaju has also assured us that the party will unite very soon.
“NC Will Contest Elections On The Basis Of Moderate Ideology Propounded By B.P. Koirala” - K.B. Gurung
Nepali Congress general secretary K.B. GURUNG is a well known person in Congress party. Claimed as a true follower of B.P. Koirala’s national reconciliation, Gurung’s recent political paper has generated a new debate in Nepali politics. Gurung whose house and property in Ilam still remain seized by Maoists; spoke to KESHAB POUDEL on various issues regarding re-emergence of centrist line in Congress. Excerpts:
At a time when Maoist leaders are saying that the time has come to declare the republic from the interim parliament, what is the reaction of Nepali Congress?
Nepali Congress is a responsible Democratic Party and it cannot go against its commitments. As interim constitution has already stipulated that the fate of monarchy will be decided by the first meeting of constituent assembly, this kind of debate has no meaning now and it is just a politically motivated debate. Only the Nepali people can decide such dispute through the ballot - whether they want to retain monarchy or not.
But, Maoist leaders have been saying that this interim parliament has such mandate?
If this parliament has all these mandates, why do we then need to go for the elections for Constituent Assembly? As a democratic party, Nepali Congress always accepts the verdict of the people. We believe that people are supreme authority to decide. This interim parliament does not have such mandates.
Some of your communist allies have been accusing that Nepali Congress is protecting monarchy by delaying the elections of CA. How do you look at it?
Nepali Congress has already made it clear that only the people of this country has the right to decide the fate of monarchy. If people vote for monarchy, we have to accept it. Nepali Congress will follow the verdict of the people. Nepali Congress is always committed to hold the free and fair elections for CA but it is the activities of Maoist organizations like Young Communist League, which is terrorizing people, that are obstructing the elections.
Some of your party colleagues have been saying that the time has come to decide on republic. What is the status of Nepali Congress now?
As a democratic party, every individual has the right to speak his views. So far as our party’s stand is concerned, only party general assembly can decide on such issue. The last general assembly meeting of our party amended the constitution making our party’s stand silent on monarchy. Even our party leader Girijababu has said that Nepali Congress has to look at international reactions before making any shift on the issue.
But, some of your party leaders including prime minister Koirala reportedly said that the country is heading towards republic. Is it not contradictory?
I have already mentioned to you that such decision cannot be taken on the whims of just a few handful of party workers. It is the issue to be decided by the people of Nepal . Girijababu’s spirit is also similar like that of ours.
Is it not true that your party has deviated from 12-points agreement by signing new eight point agreement?
There have been certain deviations on the part of our party. Even prime minister Koirala acknowledged that the eight point agreement has created new problems. After signing the agreement, Girijababu personally shared his dissatisfaction with our party leaders. The 12 point agreement has clear mandate on how to hold the elections for Constituent Assembly. One of the essences of 12 points agreement is to revive House of Representatives, sign the peace agreement with Maoist and hold elections for Constituent Assembly. This is also the mandate of Janandolan II which was launched to end autocratic monarchy and establish complete democracy.
If that was the mandate, how all these new developments appeared by writing interim constitution and constituting new interim parliament?
Girijababu - who signed the new agreement on the eve of his departure to Bangkok for his medical treatment - expressed anger and dissatisfaction over the agreement. Some of our party leaders pressurized Girijababu in such a manner that he was compelled to sign it. Had we followed 12 points agreement honestly, we would have by now already elected Constituent Assembly and the country would have entered a new phase of political stability.
But, CPN-UML leader Madhav Kumar Nepal and other communist leaders are now pointing their fingers against Girija Prasad Koirala for failure to hold the elections for CA. How do you look at it?
Girijababu has shown greatness by accepting responsibility of not holding the elections for CA on schedule but other leaders of eight political parties are more responsible than Girijababu and our party. Girijababu has expressed his strong commitment to hold the elections for CA. I think Nepali Congress is the only party determined to hold the elections for CA. How can you blame Nepali Congress leader when Maoists did not abide by their written commitments signed with the seven parties? We all know that it is the CPN-Maoist cadres who are still terrorizing people. The Maoists have not returned our confiscated properties and have not allowed internally displaced persons to return.
Even they have not yet returned my property.
What would be the agenda of Nepali Congress in CA?
As long as B.P. Koirala’s ideology is there, we don’t need to worry. Our party will contest the elections on the basis of moderate ideology propounded by B.P. Koirala. Our party always follows the moderate path. This is our identity. This is going to be our agenda.
At a time when your party is completely discarding traditional force siding with extremist communists demanding abolishing monarchy, what elements are left to distinguish your party from the communists?
NC, which is the only liberal democratic party in Nepal , has a long history of struggling against autocracy of any form. Our opposition is against the autocratic monarchy. We have our own ideology propounded by B.P. Koirala. As B.P. Koirala had said, Nepali Congress is not in favor of any forms of extremism whether it is rightist extremism or communist extremism.
In case your party contests elections with a similar slogan of republic, do you believe that your party will retain its broader appeal?
As you know our party still maintains silence on monarchy and republic. In this regard, our slogans for elections will be different than communists. B.P. Koirala’s new book Raja, Rastriyata and Rajniti (King, Nationalism and Politics) clearly will guide us on what Nepali Congress needs to do at the time of crisis.
Don’t you see there are deviations?
I told you that there is deviation in the ideological front of Nepali Congress but our party cannot survive if we continue to deviate further. Even our leader Girijababu has been frank enough to accept that.
At a time when most of your party workers including prime minister Koirala are justifying the new role of Nepali Congress, what prompted you to take opposite stand?
We are not taking any opposite stands but we are harping similar ethos of national reconciliation as all our leaders including Girijababu has been doing. We were grown up under the leadership of B.P. Koirala, who taught us that whenever there is a crisis in the country prime duty of a party worker is to speak truth keeping the country’s interest in mind. We are fulfilling our own national responsibility by speaking truth. As B.P. said, a political leader must speak truth even if it brings hostile reactions. I am not afraid of hostile reactions.
If B.P. Koirala had been alive, what do you thing would be his reactions to the new situation?
He would stand for his own belief and conviction. Although B.P. Koirala is not there, his commitments and ideology inspires us to speak party’s ideology. In his recently released book, B.P. Koirala firmly expressed his views on nation, democracy and monarchy. Every party worker knows what our leader said about our future.
Some of your leaders have been saying that the context of B.P’s national reconciliation has changed now. How do you look at it?
Nothing has changed now and B.P.’s national reconciliation is still valid as it was in the past and it will be valid forever. The photo of young B.P. printed as a cover page of the book Raja, Rastriyata and Rajniti indicates this. It shows B.P.’s ideology has utility at all times and is forever young. I don’t know what reasons prompted Ganesh Raj Sharma to choose B.P. Koirala’s photograph of younger age in the cover page of the book. My observation is that the picture, which only a few of us had seen before, demonstrated that B.P.’s idea is always valuable and relevant.
What are the main agenda raised by the chairmen of District Committees and other leaders at the recent meet?
The meeting helped to bring clarity in the mind of many of us. Many party leaders expressed dissatisfaction on the deviation of Nepali Congress on many issues. Few members even demanded to amend the party constitution to make it republican. One of the positive sides of this meeting is that there is a consensus among all the members that the first meeting of Constituent Assembly should decide the fate of monarchy.
What were the major concerns raised by your party leaders in the meeting?
All of them were concerned about the deteriorating law and order situation in the country. District presidents also raised the question on continued Maoist atrocities in the villages. They called to announce the date of elections for CA with credible assurance of law and order. They criticized the Home minister failing to restore law and order. Nepal.
Source:Spotlight.
At a time when Maoist leaders are saying that the time has come to declare the republic from the interim parliament, what is the reaction of Nepali Congress?
Nepali Congress is a responsible Democratic Party and it cannot go against its commitments. As interim constitution has already stipulated that the fate of monarchy will be decided by the first meeting of constituent assembly, this kind of debate has no meaning now and it is just a politically motivated debate. Only the Nepali people can decide such dispute through the ballot - whether they want to retain monarchy or not.
But, Maoist leaders have been saying that this interim parliament has such mandate?
If this parliament has all these mandates, why do we then need to go for the elections for Constituent Assembly? As a democratic party, Nepali Congress always accepts the verdict of the people. We believe that people are supreme authority to decide. This interim parliament does not have such mandates.
Some of your communist allies have been accusing that Nepali Congress is protecting monarchy by delaying the elections of CA. How do you look at it?
Nepali Congress has already made it clear that only the people of this country has the right to decide the fate of monarchy. If people vote for monarchy, we have to accept it. Nepali Congress will follow the verdict of the people. Nepali Congress is always committed to hold the free and fair elections for CA but it is the activities of Maoist organizations like Young Communist League, which is terrorizing people, that are obstructing the elections.
Some of your party colleagues have been saying that the time has come to decide on republic. What is the status of Nepali Congress now?
As a democratic party, every individual has the right to speak his views. So far as our party’s stand is concerned, only party general assembly can decide on such issue. The last general assembly meeting of our party amended the constitution making our party’s stand silent on monarchy. Even our party leader Girijababu has said that Nepali Congress has to look at international reactions before making any shift on the issue.
But, some of your party leaders including prime minister Koirala reportedly said that the country is heading towards republic. Is it not contradictory?
I have already mentioned to you that such decision cannot be taken on the whims of just a few handful of party workers. It is the issue to be decided by the people of Nepal . Girijababu’s spirit is also similar like that of ours.
Is it not true that your party has deviated from 12-points agreement by signing new eight point agreement?
There have been certain deviations on the part of our party. Even prime minister Koirala acknowledged that the eight point agreement has created new problems. After signing the agreement, Girijababu personally shared his dissatisfaction with our party leaders. The 12 point agreement has clear mandate on how to hold the elections for Constituent Assembly. One of the essences of 12 points agreement is to revive House of Representatives, sign the peace agreement with Maoist and hold elections for Constituent Assembly. This is also the mandate of Janandolan II which was launched to end autocratic monarchy and establish complete democracy.
If that was the mandate, how all these new developments appeared by writing interim constitution and constituting new interim parliament?
Girijababu - who signed the new agreement on the eve of his departure to Bangkok for his medical treatment - expressed anger and dissatisfaction over the agreement. Some of our party leaders pressurized Girijababu in such a manner that he was compelled to sign it. Had we followed 12 points agreement honestly, we would have by now already elected Constituent Assembly and the country would have entered a new phase of political stability.
But, CPN-UML leader Madhav Kumar Nepal and other communist leaders are now pointing their fingers against Girija Prasad Koirala for failure to hold the elections for CA. How do you look at it?
Girijababu has shown greatness by accepting responsibility of not holding the elections for CA on schedule but other leaders of eight political parties are more responsible than Girijababu and our party. Girijababu has expressed his strong commitment to hold the elections for CA. I think Nepali Congress is the only party determined to hold the elections for CA. How can you blame Nepali Congress leader when Maoists did not abide by their written commitments signed with the seven parties? We all know that it is the CPN-Maoist cadres who are still terrorizing people. The Maoists have not returned our confiscated properties and have not allowed internally displaced persons to return.
Even they have not yet returned my property.
What would be the agenda of Nepali Congress in CA?
As long as B.P. Koirala’s ideology is there, we don’t need to worry. Our party will contest the elections on the basis of moderate ideology propounded by B.P. Koirala. Our party always follows the moderate path. This is our identity. This is going to be our agenda.
At a time when your party is completely discarding traditional force siding with extremist communists demanding abolishing monarchy, what elements are left to distinguish your party from the communists?
NC, which is the only liberal democratic party in Nepal , has a long history of struggling against autocracy of any form. Our opposition is against the autocratic monarchy. We have our own ideology propounded by B.P. Koirala. As B.P. Koirala had said, Nepali Congress is not in favor of any forms of extremism whether it is rightist extremism or communist extremism.
In case your party contests elections with a similar slogan of republic, do you believe that your party will retain its broader appeal?
As you know our party still maintains silence on monarchy and republic. In this regard, our slogans for elections will be different than communists. B.P. Koirala’s new book Raja, Rastriyata and Rajniti (King, Nationalism and Politics) clearly will guide us on what Nepali Congress needs to do at the time of crisis.
Don’t you see there are deviations?
I told you that there is deviation in the ideological front of Nepali Congress but our party cannot survive if we continue to deviate further. Even our leader Girijababu has been frank enough to accept that.
At a time when most of your party workers including prime minister Koirala are justifying the new role of Nepali Congress, what prompted you to take opposite stand?
We are not taking any opposite stands but we are harping similar ethos of national reconciliation as all our leaders including Girijababu has been doing. We were grown up under the leadership of B.P. Koirala, who taught us that whenever there is a crisis in the country prime duty of a party worker is to speak truth keeping the country’s interest in mind. We are fulfilling our own national responsibility by speaking truth. As B.P. said, a political leader must speak truth even if it brings hostile reactions. I am not afraid of hostile reactions.
If B.P. Koirala had been alive, what do you thing would be his reactions to the new situation?
He would stand for his own belief and conviction. Although B.P. Koirala is not there, his commitments and ideology inspires us to speak party’s ideology. In his recently released book, B.P. Koirala firmly expressed his views on nation, democracy and monarchy. Every party worker knows what our leader said about our future.
Some of your leaders have been saying that the context of B.P’s national reconciliation has changed now. How do you look at it?
Nothing has changed now and B.P.’s national reconciliation is still valid as it was in the past and it will be valid forever. The photo of young B.P. printed as a cover page of the book Raja, Rastriyata and Rajniti indicates this. It shows B.P.’s ideology has utility at all times and is forever young. I don’t know what reasons prompted Ganesh Raj Sharma to choose B.P. Koirala’s photograph of younger age in the cover page of the book. My observation is that the picture, which only a few of us had seen before, demonstrated that B.P.’s idea is always valuable and relevant.
What are the main agenda raised by the chairmen of District Committees and other leaders at the recent meet?
The meeting helped to bring clarity in the mind of many of us. Many party leaders expressed dissatisfaction on the deviation of Nepali Congress on many issues. Few members even demanded to amend the party constitution to make it republican. One of the positive sides of this meeting is that there is a consensus among all the members that the first meeting of Constituent Assembly should decide the fate of monarchy.
What were the major concerns raised by your party leaders in the meeting?
All of them were concerned about the deteriorating law and order situation in the country. District presidents also raised the question on continued Maoist atrocities in the villages. They called to announce the date of elections for CA with credible assurance of law and order. They criticized the Home minister failing to restore law and order. Nepal.
Source:Spotlight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)