Myrepublica.com: Political parties have different interpretations of the three-point agreement reached between the UCPN (Maoist), Nepali Congress (NC) and CPN-UML on May 28. What had exactly transpired on that day?
Pradip Gyawali: We were for extending the CA term at any cost and coming up with a concrete timetable on constitution-writing and peace process. But the Maoists were insisting on the prime minister’s resignation as a precondition for CA term extension. Due to Maoists’ wrong stance, the CA was on the verge of an untimely death. Our first and foremost priority was to save the CA. The three-point pact was signed on that backdrop.[break]
The substance of the agreement is that consensus among the political parties is a must to ensure peace and constitution. It was agreed that the prime minister would resign after forging an agreement for a national consensus government. It meant that the prime minister’s resignation was not unconditional nor was it an isolated case. We signed a three-point agreement because it was a package deal. Otherwise there would only be two points, one on CA term extension and the other on prime minister’s resignation. And making an understanding of ‘five-day deadline’ was for preparing a consensus draft on taking the remaining tasks on peace and constitution to a conclusion. Maoists’ interpretation of prime minister’s unconditional resignation is flawed.
Myrepublica.com: Amidst the tense moments during the wee hours of May 28, the UML parliamentarians were reportedly divided into two factions and that they launched signature campaigns for and against the prime minister and party Chairman Jhala Nath Khanal. What had exactly happened there?
Gyawali: The situation was not as bad as it was presented in the media. There were definitely tense moments. It was not only among UML lawmakers, parliamentarians from other parties were also equally anxious. Over 90 percent of CA members were unaware of what was happening inside the closed-door talks on CA term extension. They were impatiently waiting outside the CA hall. The number of CA members wanting to save the CA even if it meant by crossing the floor in the parliament was significant even within the Maoists. We cannot imagine how CA members would have reacted at the last minute had the three-point agreement not been inked. So it was not only in UML, members in the other parties were also divided. As far as the reports about polarization within the UML are concerned, it was exaggerated.
The Maoists must come up with an honest and concrete proposal on peace and constitution. We need to know at what point the Maoist party will detach itself from their combatants and renounce violence.
Myrepublica.com: It is reported that it was due to immense pressure from you and some other leaders, who are believed to be trusted by KP Oli and the prime minister, the word ‘prime minister’s resignation’ was inserted at the last minute and that piled moral pressure on prime minister to step down. Is it true?
Gyawali: I don’t know how others have interpreted it. But the reality is that we were for saving the CA at any cost. Some extremist forces – both leftist as well as rightist – were in favor of dissolving it and taking benefit of the situation of constitutional as well as political void. The Maoist party that treated the CA term extension as a bargaining chip to secure the prime minister’s resignation thought that the political void would be a good ground for them to launch a revolt. At the same time, some leaders who claim themselves to be democrats had an argument that the Maoist, as the largest party, would be the biggest loser in the absence of the CA. They believed that the constitution could be written even through a commission. This is true that we intervened to stop the politics from being divided into two extremes. As far as the case of choosing the word ‘resignation’ is concerned, it can be debated. But there was no alternative to save the CA. I worked with that conviction.
Myrepublica.com: From the May 28 case and from some of your statements given after that, there are also speculations that you – among a few other leaders – who are trusted by PM/Oli camp in the party, have been distanced from them and become closer to the party chairman. Is it true?
Gyawali: I think this is a ridiculous logic. When the three largest parties that command 80 percent of seats in the parliament sit together and both the major ruling coalition and the main opposition party make an agreement on changing the government and say in writing that the prime minister will step down, this definitely raises the question on the status of the incumbent government. This is obvious. I don’t think it is wise to make arguments and counterarguments on legal grounds even after top politicians took a decision that this government should resign sooner or later. Constitutionally, the prime minister still commands the majority. One can’t stop it from doing day-to-day businesses. But, the government’s status no longer remains the same as it was before May 28. Therefore, I said this is a caretaker government. My logic is political. So this is very straightforward and there is no relation at all with any so-called establishment or any other faction within the party. It is nonsensical to connect us with any group in this connection. One can be closer to some leaders in comparison to others, but I believe that is related to the agenda under discussion.
Myrepublica.com: Who do you think violated or misinterpreted the agreement?
Gyawali: We held the first meeting on May 30 as a follow-up of the agreement at the CA hall in Baneshwar. As we entered into the contentious issues, there was a major difference only on the issue of integration and rehabilitation of Maoist combatants. Then Prachandaji (Maoist chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal) said he would discuss the matter first in his party and come up with a concrete proposal. We were scheduled to meet next day* but he remained absent regularly in the meeting.
While reaching the three-point agreement, we had agreed to prepare an operational calendar on peace and constitution in the given five days. Had we been able to do that, things would have moved ahead. In fact, we have been facing a serious challenge as whenever discussions focus on the issues of peace process, the Maoist party wants to escape it. Why doesn’t the Maoist party agree on detaching itself from their combatants? This needs to be seriously pondered upon because there was an agreement that the issue of combatants would be concluded within six months from the first sitting of CA.
Prachanda held three important positions before formation of the present government. He was prime minister and in that capacity he was the executive head of all the state security agencies; he was chief of the special committee formed to look after the combatants’ issues; and he was the commander-in-chief of his own party’s army. This was quite a favorable situation. But the process was not taken ahead even a single step.
Secondly, around seven months back, the present prime minister came up with a concrete proposal of 112-day action plan on the integration and rehabilitation of the combatants. But the Maoists didn’t cooperate to implement it.
Thirdly, on May 1, in a marathon-meeting that took place at Hotel Radisson, we put forth a concrete proposal that everything would be resolved by May 24, thus paving the way for the formation of a national consensus government by May 25. But they weren’t ready even for that. And now, we don’t want anything more but we said that people should get at least an operational calendar on the peace process upon the resignation of the prime minister.
Maoists don’t even want to enter into any other agenda. They are stuck on one point i e the prime minister’s resignation. This is the main problem. Lately, we also agreed to adopt the principle of simultaneity. But they are not ready for this idea as well.
Myrepublica.com: Do you mean that the Maoist party alone is a problem in implementing the agreement? Are the prime minister and the ruling coalition sincere about it?
Gyawali: We have heard some arguments from other sections who claimed that no agreement as such was reached and that the prime minister wouldn’t step down. May be some people have their interest in prolonging the government but that doesn’t prevail as the prime minister himself is ready to step down. He has time and again said in public that he is ready to step down. He has also urged other leaders to come up with an alternative. He is ready to cooperate. But, he is not only a leader of a particular party but also the head of the government. He doesn’t want to quit the post in a vacuum in order to avoid further confusion. He is not willing to stick to the post. He wants to ensure that the country takes a direction when he steps down.
Myrepublica.com: Why is a solution so elusive?
Gyawali: The Maoists want to play in a vacuum. They think that they can create a void, which would favor their interests. This is a problem. I am also worried because the political course is being driven toward a wrong direction. The need of the hour is to implement the three-point understanding. But the discussions have instead been diverted on who would become the prime minister. Prachanda’s ego and the Maoist party’s intra-party feud has taken national politics hostage.
Myrepublica.com: What is the solution of the ongoing deadlock?
Gyawali: The Maoists must come up with a honest and concrete proposal on peace and constitution. We need to know at what point the Maoist party will detach itself from their combatants and renounce violence. Maoist’s sincere commitment on these two issues alone will help solve 90 percent of the problems.
Myrepublica.com: Is the three-point agreement sufficient to resolve the deadlock or has it failed?
Gyawali: The agreement is just a first and key step to pave the way forward. This is not sufficient. It requires more elaboration and additional agreements. We need to prepare a comprehensive set of plans to achieve what it envisaged. In the additional agreements, we have to come up with a concrete action plan with a timeline to take the peace process ahead.
Myrepublica.com: Who, do you think, should lead the new government?
Gyawali: The discussion shouldn’t center around an individual. It should be open. The only agenda of the government should be to ensure peace and constitution-writing.
Myrepublica.com: Which party should lead the government?
Gyawali: The Maoists will not have the moral ground to claim the leadership of the national consensus government until it renounces violence and detaches itself from its army and arms. It must transform itself into a civilian party. I don’t see the possibility of forming a Maoist-led government at present because the Maoist leadership has so far failed to deliver when it comes to the issue of ensuring peace and democracy.
Myrepublica.com: But, isn’t the present non-Maoist coalition led by UML and NC a failure too?
Gyawali: Yes, it has also failed. Therefore, we decided to replace the majority government by a national consensus coalition. The Maoist party is not eligible to lead the consensus government because it hasn’t addressed our concerns. The party was already given a benefit of doubt but it didn’t prove itself to be committed to democracy and peace.
Myrepublica.com: Do you see any candidate acceptable to all to head the consensus government?
Gyawali: There is a challenge. The Maoist party, though it is yet to be made public officially, has set a position that the national consensus government can be formed only in its leadership and that too only under Prachanda’s leadership. This is a very undemocratic position and this will be a stumbling block in forging a consensus. Let’s hope that the Maoists will change their stance. History will not forgive Prachanda for taking the country hostage just for his personal ego.
Myrepublica.com: Do you think that non-Maoist parties can recommend a candidate acceptable to all?
Gyawali: We should focus our talks on the agenda instead of particular individuals.
Myrepublica.com: Then, why have NC, UML and other parties said that they can accept Dr Baburam Bhattarai’s candidacy but not Dahal’s?
Gyawali: So far, we have heard it in informal discussions. Maybe this argument has come on the basis of Prachanda’s performance in the previous government. It is true that Prachanda is a failure. Within the Maoist party, Bhattarai, who is an architect of the party’s changed policy [on peace and constitution], has a clean image and performed relatively better during his tenure as a finance minister. I guess the arguments have come from various sections on these grounds. But I personally think that leaders from other parties can’t demand that one particular party give a specific leader as per their choice.
Myrepublica.com: Will not a question be raised on the relevance of the three-point agreement if the present government continues?
Gyawali: The government can continue only when the two signatory parties again sit together and declare that the agreement is no longer relevant, say that they have backtracked from it and again give full commitment to it. This confusion should be ended soon. Otherwise, there will be repercussions in various sectors including in law and order, administration and in social security.
Myrepublica.com: That means politics is headed toward forming a majority government?
Gyawali: There is a chance. But the solution is only a national consensus government. Maoists should be ready to join a consensus government. We may become ready to accept a Maoist-headed government only when the Maoist party detaches itself from arms and armies and proves itself to be a civilian party.
thira@myrepublica.com
* (Corrected)
Related story
Marrying an underage girl is child marriage, not kidnapping and...
