By Keshab Prasad Bhattarai, Political Analyst, Nepal
 |
| Keshab Prasad Bhattarai |
Mr. Keshab Prasad Bhattarai is a
veteran political analyst of Nepal. He is writing on issues of politics and
diplomacy since long. Right now, he is working as a regular columnist in The
Reporter weekly.
Mr. Bhattarai worked as a teacher
and Headmaster in Pragatisheel Secondary School and Campus Chief in Sunkoshi
Campus, Sindhuli. He is also the Former President of Nepal Teachers'
Association, Teachers' Union of Nepal and is also the former General
Secretary of SAARC Teachers' Federation.
Sujit Mainali for the Telegraph
Weekly and its online edition telegraphnepal.com approached
and interviewed this seasoned and widely acclaimed analyst, both within and
without, on several facets of Nepal’s contemporary politics. His
scrutiny is commendable.
Below the excerpts of this
exclusive interview: Chief Editor.
TGQ1: Former King Gyanendra
Shah has very recently revealed that a written agreement was reached between
him and the then alliance of seven political parties of Nepal to retain the
Constitutional Monarchy in the country. Do you think that such an agreement
could have been made then? And do you think the monarchy will stage a grand
comeback in the coming days? What say you?
Bhattarai: I do not
think they have reached any such written agreement and in his television
interview the former King also has not categorically claimed that they have
reached any such agreement between the Palace and seven party alliances.
 |
| King Gyanendra administering oath to GP Koirala |
But that was not necessary at
that time because the seven party alliances had presented their demand with the
King and ultimately the King had reinstated the Parliament and the King
himself had administered the oath of office of the Prime Minister. It was
obvious that the movement had ended accepting the principle of the King in
parliament. Therefore the parliament had been
reinstated by the King and the Prime Minister Girija Prasad
Koirala was sworn in by the King himself. That time the issue of retaining or
abolishing monarchy was indubitably a non-issue. If it was the issue they would
not have made the demand with the King to reinstate the parliament and why the
oath of office of the prime minister was administered by the
King? Therefore, I don’t understand why should be there any such
agreement at that time.
Regarding your question on the
possible comeback of the monarchy please note - although common people in Nepal
had some reservations on the role of King Gyanendra and Crown Prince Paras,
they were, and I believe, are not against the Monarchy as an institution. But
King Gyanendra did not help Nepali people in sustaining their beloved
institution. He did not know the moral power and cultural values of the
institution he represented nor did he make efforts to reinvent the shattered
legitimacy of the Palace after Royal massacre. Together with political or more
than political, the Crown in Nepal was a social and cultural institution that
worked as a strong bond between people and various communities.
I can realize he was the victim
of time; conspiracy and ill willed propaganda campaign, but
the team he chose at such a critical time was useless. What was the logic
of bringing Tulsi Giri and Kirti Babu in government when people like Girija
Prasad, Madhav Nepal and Sher Bahadur Deuba were offering their humble service
to him?
Besides, from the Great King
Prithivi Narayan Shah to King Mahendra the Royal Palace was well served and
protected by the community of most loyal, honest and most competent traditional
families of the valley including the famous Newari-Singh family. The
palace had a tradition of bringing people from those families, train them and
make a fine team to serve the palace and its best interests from behind the
scene. But King Birendra in the name of modernization started hiring people
from outside even at the senior level through an open competition. A
traditional institution must have followed traditional norms however
cultivating some modern values and tools to enhance its function was a must.
But a new team of careerist people, preferring to exercise power, bargain
position out of it, engage in trade like practices and tempted to be seen in
media glaze, could not serve the best interest of the centuries old traditional
institution and it went on weakening the monarchy from within.
We have been reading too much how external powers and some political persons
and parties were collaborating.
Former King Gyanendra was to
assess the whole situation and was to socialize the monarchy, reinvent it, join
with the young generation as his daughter in law Himani Shah is doing right now
and build a broader social base to sustain monarchy. But we have seen how
he worked and the inevitable results that followed.
Therefore, even if people have
lots of love, sympathy and respect for Monarchy, much more is to be done by the
former King himself, find a good and loyal team of advisors, fine tune with
social and political opinion builders, improve public image and gain higher
level of competency in media handling- a lots of challenge and if the former
King have that guts to do all these, no one can deny the revival of monarchy.
But without any such web of extensive strategy even with much favorable
internal and external situation, the monarchy may not revive. To sustain
it is more challenging than to revive it.
Moreover, the King is not a
person. It is an institution and perhaps former King is thinking himself as a
person and has some persons as his aides but seems doing nothing to
institutionalize the Kingship. As the former king himself has accepted
that it does not depend upon him but upon the people and people need
leadership, this time the country does not have any such a leadership that can
help the country to reinstate the monarchy. But in future it seems possible.
TGQ2: The Chinese delegation
led by Mr. Ai Ping during its recent visit to Kathmandu suggested Nepali
leaders to think of devolving power to the grass roots than thinking of
dividing the country into several federal units. Why the Chinese authority made
such unusual remarks? Does it mean that China too has begun influencing Nepal's
political affairs? Your enlightening comments please.
Bhattarai: I have
been repeatedly saying the same and writing this from the very beginning, real
power to the people at the grassroots level, even issuing citizenship
certificate from the elected body at the village level, their own executive,
legislature and judiciary. Their own Public Service Commission and other bodies
they need to make local government completely accountable. Justice
at the local level at their door steps, all the policy related to them prepared
with their consent and its execution by the people they know individually and
they have elected directly.
I think a smaller district or
bigger VDCs than it is now can make it well. We can make 500 to 1000 local unit
of government at the bottom level to which any name could be given as GRAMPALIKA and
NAGARPALIKA-accompanied by smaller ward units. Such local bodies will
effectively address both the issues of inclusion and
authority. Above them, a regional body with the representatives from
such GRAM and NAGARPALIKAS. This body will assist, supervise and coordinate the
activities of the GRAM and NAGARPALIKAS. It will represent local bodies and will
also represent people through local bodies.
Then the centre with all
democratic attributes and institutions but a more powerful constitutional body
to check and control corruption and abuse of authority with nationwide networks
that reaches up to the local level will be needed.
As you say if the Chinese
vice Minister at the International
Department of Chinese Communist Party-Ai Ping has advised Nepali
leaders to devolve power to the grass roots than thinking of dividing the
country into several federal units, he is more than right which means the
Chinese do share the same concern that majority of people in Nepal
have been keeping in their mind with heavy sighs.
Apparently, you also
know stronger voice being raised in Nepal in favor of ethnicity based federal
units in Nepal which is presumed to
have surfaced in the
country with the political and
financial support from India and some Western
countries. This kind of division along the
ethnic line will jeopardize
Nepalese unity and security in the long run
and this will ultimately have adverse impacts upon Tibetan
security because during Khampa rebellion too Nepali land
had been used by external powers to launch anti Chinese
activities. And naturally China for its own larger security
interests wants a stable and stronger Nepal. For this reason I think
Ai Ping may have advised Nepal to transfer real power to the real people.
TGQ3: A senior leader of the
Unified Maoist party Mr. Haribol Gajurel has accused the former Royal family
and Revolutionary International Movement (RIM) for having orchestrated split
inside his party. Do you think Mohan Baidya and his associates could have
reached to any sort of tacit understanding with the former Royalty and RIM? And
how this split will impact Nepal's relation with our neighboring countries?
Bhattarai: If they
think any organization like RIM, to my knowledge-RIM is much weaker than
Gajurel’s party UNCP (Maoist) and similar is the case with members of former
Royal Family. If such weaker and disintegrated forces can break their party, it
is better for Mr. Prachanda, Baburam and Haribol to quit politics and go to
Kashi Bas.
Look here, I am sorry to say this
but what I have seen, experienced and realized is that communists are more
opportunists and corrupt than other political parties but under a guise of so
called revolutionary propaganda they could confuse their people and invent a
new rhetoric each day to befool their members and common people.
Comparatively, I think Mohan
Baidya, Ram Bahadur Thapa Badal are more honest and clean than Prachanda or
Baburam. Honest to the country and to their cause of revolution. But I am
against their way of thinking so don’t like Baidya’s party becoming stronger.
However, when the very survival of their party is threatened, they can join
hands with anyone in any name or can invent any new slogan. You know in the
past, Maoist including Baidya and Badal sometimes had joined hands with King’s
men against Nepali Congress and UNCP- UML and at other times with seven parties
and even with India against the King. So Baidya and his
colleagues may join hands with anyone including former Royal family members.
TGQ4. The self proclaimed
Nepal expert of India, Mr. Sukh Deo Muni in his latest write up published in a
book named “Nepal in Transition: From People’s War to Fragile Peace” has
revealed that Prachanda and Babu Ram Bhattarai had signed a written treaty at
Hyderabad House with the Indian establishment that “their people’s war would in
no way be detrimental to the Indian interests in Nepal”. Which factor might
have encouraged the Prachanda-Bhattarai duos (who were then officially labeled
as terrorist by the Government of India) to sign such a deal with the Indian
establishment? And why Professor Muni decided to expose Dr. Bhattarai, his
obliged disciples, through his writing at this critical juncture?
Bhattarai: Now
according to Muni’s revelation, it has become crystal clear how Nepali Maoist
and India joined hands in abolishing the institution of Nepali monarchy, unleashing
forces of instability and weakening state authority in Nepal. In addition to
this the socio-political vacuum created by the abolishment of monarchy and
weakened state authority by and large is filled by China. Among Nepali
people, while India has been seen as a villain, on the contrary, China is seen
as an ultimate savior. Never in Nepal China has gained such a huge support
base among all sections of people who traditionally were having deep love and
respect towards India.
India never tried to understand
Nepali people and will never understand them. May be our political
officials for their petty interest are exhibiting a sense of
servitude towards Indian diplomats and politicians but the largest democracy of
the world needs to learn that the group of corrupt, selfish and crook politicos
without a sense of self respect can never help India attain its national
interest being strengthened in Nepal. What has India gained in Nepal
with all these relations with these people?
I do not want to guess on Muni’s
mind but what he revealed has endorsed what Nepali people had believed. It is
the job of Indian people to know what people like Muni, Sitaram Yechuri and
former RAW Chief Hermis Tharakan have permanently damaged India’s image in
Nepal.
TGQ5. Chief of Army Staff of Indian
Army General Bikram Singh, during his five-day official visit to Nepal is
scheduled to visit Mustang, which adjoins the Tibet Autonomous Region of China.
The staying and visiting diplomats and military officials of India almost always
manage to visit Mustang under this or that pretext. Mr. Bhattarai! What might
be the cause of this love of the Indian officials towards Mustang?
Bhattarai: I did not
answer your question number five because I heard the Indian Army Chief did not
visit Mustang.
Exclusive for telegraphnepal.com
Courtesy: Telegraphnepal.com,
July 18, 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment