The frequency of our meeting increased after he shifted his residence to Maharajgunj where I used to live as well.
The second phase of my interaction with him started in 1986. Local election had been declared in the country. GPK was in favor of participating in the voting while some NC leaders were for boycotting it. Shortly before that, he had talked to me about the party’s organization as well as the election. He suggested it would be better if there were a study about these things. Perhaps he expected it from me. After some time, Krishna Khanal, Kapil Shrestha and me prepared a 17-page report about the NC’s organizational status and its future direction. We submitted separate copies to Girijababu, Ganeshmanji and Kisunji. It was Girijababu’s idea to give the report to the other two leaders as well. We also briefed the trio about the document at Kisunji’s office.
After this time, we frequently and intensely held meetings and discussions with him. In that document, we raised two issues. First, we said that we were gradually becoming weaker among the ethnic groups and Madhes region that always remained the NC’s major stronghold between 1950 and 1960. Secondly, we said that during these years our role in the social development sector has become weaker; therefore we must increase our activity in the social development sector.
The second phase of my relation with him grew after 1991 when he became prime minister after the parliamentary elections. The party nominated me in the National Assembly.
When he became prime minister for the first time [1991], he sought my support to draft the policies and programs of his government for the first time. Then I visited prime minister’s official residence at Baluwatar. I remember Dhruba Kumar Shrestha of TU was also in that team. Maybe because I was a National Assembly member, I was entrusted with more responsibilities. After that, I was involved more in preparing documents to be presented by him as a prime minister or as a party leader. Even the message to be read out by the then king in democracy day on Fagun 7 used to be drafted in the prime minister’s office and forwarded to the royal palace. I remember I had drafted the first one. So I drafted many of such important documents during the days. These involvements made me intimate with him.
Getting closer
Our bond became stronger when he prepared himself to vie for the party’s top post, that of the president in May 1996. As he was very hardworking man, I thought that an active person like him can breathe a new lease of life into the NC. He became the party’s president for the first time. He sought suggestions from me for policies and programs for his tenure as the party president. It was the time from when I started working with him very closely until the party’s 10th General Convention held in Pokhara in January, 2001.
When he vied for the top post the second time, I floated a proposal that he should review whether or not the commitments made during his previous tenure were fulfilled. He took it positively and told me to work on that. The review paper completed, I reached to the convention venue and announced my candidacy for the central working committee member. To my surprise, Girijababu suggested me not to compete for the post; he promised to nominate me to the party’s decision-making body as the president then had the power to nominate half of the 37 members of the CWC. Not keen to be nominated, I told him, “You have already appointed me in the previous convention. I should win the support from the NC friends instead of getting the nomination time and again from you. I wouldn’t request you to nominate for this term if I am defeated.” I contested and won. A few months after the Pokhara convention, he appointed Sushil Koirala as general secretary and me as spokesperson of the party. I had worked in the same capacity in the previous term too. As far as I remember, the independent post of spokesperson in the NC was established for the first time.
Two days after our appointment, the tragic royal massacre took place, on June 1, 2001. I had a different opinion about the massacre but I couldn’t get opportunity to discuss the matter in detail with him. After some three weeks, our party held a CWC meeting to discuss the post-massacre political situation. Upon his suggestion I prepared a draft proposal. The CWC held discussion on the proposal in length. The party colleagues pointed out that the report prepared by the high-level probe commission on the royal massacre (formed by the government) was incomplete. They suggested that the NC shouldn’t recognize the document as a complete report. Several aspects of the massacre were discussed in the meeting. Some members said the party should take initiative to bring the palace under the purview of the parliament. Members were of the view that the new king should accept the idea. Pradip Giri explained the idea in detail in the meeting. The members assumed the king, shaky as was due to insinuations about his hand in the massacre, would be agree to the idea since he should be worried about the future of the dynasty. However, the members also felt that “the king can be convinced”. The party president (and prime minister) was advised to convince the king.
After the conclusion of the meeting, I prepared a draft of the press statement about the meeting. Later, Krishna Prasad Sitaula, Mahesh Acharya, Ram Sharan Mahat and me jointly finalized the statement. In the statement, we mentioned about the future of the monarchy, transparency and accountability of the institution. Next day, the media gave a wide coverage to our statement. BBC Nepali Service interviewed me on that proposal and I wrote an article in Kantipur daily on June 26, 2001. There were three proposals in the article – the parliament should enact a law on the heir to the throne and the heir be declared from the House; the Raj Parishad (Royal Advisory Council) should be dissolved; the parliament should be able to deliberate the conduct of the heir. I had argued that these three things had become necessary.
Disownment and differences
Ten days after the article was published, General Secretary Sushil Koirala issued a statement denying that the article was the party’s official view. The statement indirectly issued a warning to me, saying no one was to violate the party discipline. Next day, on July 7, I met Girijababu and objected to the general secretary’s statement. I wanted to know how come the general secretary issued a statement while the party spokesperson was in complete dark about it. The views made public by the spokesperson had been endorsed by the Central Working Committee while the source of the general secretary’s was unknown. Failing to get any convincing answer, I submitted my resignation right there. Girijababu remained silent on the row. It was clear that he had not been happy with my statement. He neither expressed his dissatisfaction with me nor did he ask me to withdraw my resignation.
That was the beginning of the differences in policy matters between him and me. However, that was not the end of our relation. Some four or five months after my resignation, he appointed me as chief of the party’s publicity department. I suggested him not to appoint me for the post as I hadn’t changed my stance. He said, “Let bygones be bygones.”
Our differences surfaced again. A few days after my appointment as publicity department chief, the Samacharpatra daily ran news quoting me as saying that we should go for Constituent Assembly (which was one of the key demands of the then outlawed and underground Maoist party). It was the second week of January, speaking at a function, I challenged the then king Gyanendra Shah, to set an example by declaring his property, so as to put moral pressure on political party leaders. This was in response to the king’s remarks about teaching moral lesson to the party leaders. My argument was if a junior minister needed his/her property details public, why not the head of state?
After that, the party sought formal clarification from me about my opinion published in the newspapers and the views I expressed during the public function. I furnished my clarification. Girijababu suggested me to settle the issue by making some “improvements” in the clarification. However, I stood my ground. What I had expressed was my belief and I was not going to change it. Not satisfied with my reply, he sought my resignation from the post of chief of the publicity department. I complied immediately.
After these two episodes, the differences between us widened. I repeated my stance in favor of the CA. I had already proposed (first time in 1997) to restructure the country into federal system. Likewise, I had also proposed going for the directly-elected prime ministerial system so as to avoid the frequent abuse of “no confidence motion” as parliament measure. Obviously, these proposals were too early for Girijababu and it only added to our growing difference. That, however, didn’t harm our personal relation.
In July 2005, just before the party’s 11th General Convention, the media reported that Girijababu, in his hometown Biratnagar, accused me and Gagan Thapa of being “pro-palace”. Although he refuted the reports, it was widely covered by media.
Soon after that, I visited him to inform him about my intention to fight for party president’s post so as to carry on my political agenda widely and more effectively. I requested him to lead the national movement for democracy by remaining above party’s internal competitive politics. I told him that I wouldn’t withdraw my candidacy even if he were to fight for the post. He and his close aides interpreted the two-term limit of the party presidency to come into effect only after the Pokhara convention where such a measure had been adopted.
In my view, he had already served two terms, the first one being 1996. I had four agendas for the 11th convention to adopt: accept restructuring of the state; adopt Constituent Assembly (CA) as the party’s own agenda; break its relation with the monarchy and got for republic; revamp the party structure to ensure intra-party democracy. I registered my proposal on these issues to the party’s Central Working Committee meeting while I was staying in Duwakot as a political detainee. Finally I fought for the party’s top post.
Later when he became ready for the agenda of CA, republic and federalism, he did not deem it fit to consult me. It is notable because he had publicly criticized me when I pushed the party leadership to go for the same.
After Girijababu won the election at the 11th convention, I took it very positively. I wholeheartedly congratulated him through a statement and in person as well. Despite all the policy differences, we had no grudge at the personal level. He nominated me to the CWC. We held very open and healthy discussions. He also involved me in several of his confidential discussions. I also held several rounds of talks with the Maoists upon his request. Thus we maintained cordial relation despite differences in opinions.
Intra-party democracy
Apart from the differences with the policies he advocated, I had differences with his style of work as well.
He definitely followed his own style in the decision-making process. His decisions weren’t far-sighted. Neither he accepted the new opinions nor did he encourage any forum for dissenting opinions to be discussed in the party. Now I regret the lack of discussions on restructuring the state. Had we discussed enough about federal system at the time I proposed it, we wouldn’t have encountered the complications that we are facing now. Later at the Constituent Assembly, Girijababu himself had to announce the federalism in the country.
As per the party statute, Mahasamiti meeting must be convened at least once a year. Ironically, it couldn’t take place for 10 years during his tenure. This was the result of his work style because he would care only to implement the ideas he liked. He didn’t call the Mahasamiti meeting perhaps because he didn’t realize the importance of broader discussions among the larger number of participants on particular issues. Such tendency helped in weakening the intra-party democracy. It definitely needs to be taken as his weakness.
Experience
One thing that needed to be understood is that we had only differences in opinion. It was not an expression of personal ill-will. Some leaders who had been unhappy with Girijababu for sacking them from the party posts left him after the party split in 2002. The media also termed them as “dissatisfied” leaders. But I was never labeled that way. I say, that was right judgment.
In spite of our differences, he patiently listened to my opinions. He didn’t want our personal relationship to be victim. It was because of this nature of Girijababu that I could stay in the same political party led by him even after the vertical split of the party. It is no small aspect that I was free to remain active despite holding opinions that differed with the most powerful leader of the party. It was possible due to the NC’s broader and liberal policy as well as Girijababu’s personal behavior.
(Acharya is a Nepali Congress leader.)
(As told to Thira L Bhusal)
Related story
PM’s aide says govt under Dahal-Nepal leadership is next to imp...
