As someone who has been closely involved in the peace process from the start, how do you view the current debate over monarchy, particularly vis-à-vis Baburam Bhattarai and Baidya-led CPN-Maoist?
The Maoist debate on monarchy goes back to insurgency days. Baburam Bhattarai and Pushpa Kamal Dahal were divided over whether the Maoists should align with political parties or the palace. Bhattarai had issued a long document against a possible alignment with monarchy and he was persecuted over the same. Around that time in 2005, I was in Delhi. We were informed that Bhattarai was there as well. SD Muni, Bhattarai’s mentor and also a close friend of mine, had me talk to Bhattarai over the phone. I got the impression that Bhattarai was quite nervous. Around the same time, Mohan Baidya and CP Gajurel were arrested in India. Both felt that Bhattarai had a hand in their arrest. I take Bhattarai’s and Baidya’s conflicting take about the former king as a manifestation of the same discord.
Are you suggesting that Bhattarai has always been against the monarchy?
Dahal and Baidya seemed open to an alliance with monarchy. From SD Muni’s account it becomes clear that India toed Bhattarai’s line of alignment with political parties. Bhattarai has been against monarchy for as long as I have known him. I remember Bhattarai interacting with BP Koirala when he was studying in Delhi. He would subscribe to almost every view of BP, but on an alignment with monarchy.
Why do you think Baidya and Bhattarai are reviving the issue now?
On the surface, it may look like the revival of the insurgency era differences. Baidya and co may be avenging their arrest, which they believe was instigated by Bhattarai, by talking about a possible alignment with the former king. Like I said, there might be some truth to this belief. But there is more to it than meets the eye. First, communists in Nepal have been schooled on the idea that the king is the symbol of nationalism. Second, Baidya camp seriously feels that Nepali nationalism is at stake and it has turned to the ex-king to salvage it. Moreover, China wants Baidya and Dahal to go into the polls as a united force. I feel that Bhattarai has thrown the king card to safeguard his position, just in case Dahal and Baidya come together.
Bijaya Rai
Is Nepali nationalism really under threat?
I believe never before was our country at such a vulnerable state. State powers are concentrated on a single individual. The head of the government is also the head of the judiciary and there is no functioning parliament to check him. I had hoped that the President would work to safeguard nationalism. But he failed the nation by being a silent spectator to all the wrongs that have been committed in recent times. Now, many foreign actors have their interests in Nepal. India and China have their concerns. Foreign envoys are visiting far-flung districts in the name of supporting election. And other foreign forces are working to spread racial and ethnic disharmony. Is this not enough proof of how vulnerable Nepali nationalism has become?
Your party colleague Dr Sashank Koirala recently told the BBC that abolition of monarchy was a mistake. Does NC endorse this view?
Koirala’s remark is personal and has nothing to do with NC’s official line. NC has already endorsed republic, federalism and secularism and there is no going back. And I don’t believe monarchy will ever be revived. But one thing is for sure. The seeming popularity of the former King is the result of growing unpopularity of four party leaders and their failure to address the concerns of the people. The problem with the top leaders of Maoists, NC and UML is that they neither listen to public nor heed the suggestion of their own cadres. The majority of CC members in NC and UML had stood against a government under Khil Raj Regmi. But the party leadership ignored the advice. Top leaders have not been able to manage even their parties, let alone the country. This maybe the reason some people have started to look to the former King as an alternative.
The former king’s relief distribution seems to have spooked four party leaders. They suggest that election code of conduct be applicable to ex-king as well.
The High Level Political Committee and the government made a mistake by prohibiting Himani Trust from distributing relief material. In fact, it is the parties who should have been doing this. Also, if it were political leaders doing this, it would be logical to invoke EC’s prohibitions. But the ex-King is neither going to face the polls nor be active in politics anytime soon. As a citizen, he has every right to go around the country and meet the people. By prohibiting him from distributing relief material, the parties are helping him gain a foothold.
Sushil Koirala is slated to visit India on August 4. Why do you think India invited Koirala after hosting party second-in-command Sher Bahadur Deuba?
So far as I know India had invited Koirala before Deubaji. Maybe there was misunderstanding and miscommunication between the party president and Indian ambassador. Meanwhile, there had been a lot of debate in Kathmandu media that Delhi bypassed Koirala by inviting Deuba. If India has invited Koirala to correct that mistake so much the better. But I take the proposed trip purely as a goodwill visit.
Koirala has been a vocal critic of Indian meddling in Nepali politics. Do you think he will take up the issue with Delhi?
Let me put your question in the context first. Just before Dahal’s visit in April, an Indian official is reported to have told visiting Nepali journalists that only three prime ministers—BP Koirala, Krishna Prasad Bhattarai and Manmohan Adhikari—have talked national interest with India. Sushilda has the chance to become the fourth.
How optimistic are you about November 19 polls?
I must be optimistic. But the way things are developing in the past few days November polls look uncertain. There is growing rift between Bhattarai and Dahal within UCPN (Maoist). And distance between Dahal and Baidya is as wide. I feel Dahal has no intention of going to the polls without placating Baidya. Upendra Yadav and Ashok Rai have also opposed November 19 polls. Meanwhile, there is rising concerns that polls might not be possible without the agitating parties on board. All this is adding to the uncertainty of November polls.
Should we go to the election without agitating parties on board?
If we do so, the election will lose its sanctity. It would be wrong to ignore dissident voices.
Do you believe hidden agendas are at play behind HLPC’s apparent hesitation to hold meaningful talks with agitating forces?
I cannot tell you about Baidya but Madhesi Morcha seems determined not to bring Upendra Yadav into electoral fold. They are apparently wary of Yadav who has great political clout in the Tarai.
What do you think should be done to bring the agitating forces on board?
I still believe that the Big Four and the government are not serious about it. I would say Khil Raj Regmi is not at all serious and he is holding the nation hostage. The parties should exert pressure on Regmi to resign from the post of Chief Justice immediately. Once he does so, I am sure Ashok Rai and Upendra Yadav will come in the election process. As for the Baidya-led Maoists, I believe that eventually, they will either unify with UCPN (Maoist) or register with the EC and face the polls separately.
Do you believe the new CA will be able to draft a viable constitution?
I have a different take about constitution drafting. We should form an apolitical team of experts for the purpose. This team should comprise of constitution experts and should be inclusive. It will assess the completed work of the first CA and form a draft constitution on the same basis. Such a draft should be presented in the new CA. Of course, issues of federalism, system of governance and secularism will remain contentious. Such contentious issues should be settled through referendum. Otherwise, I see very little possibility of even the second CA coming up with a new constitution.
Related story
Photo Feature: Pro-monarchy supporters take to streets demandin...
