|
“All Of Us Are Happy That We Are Able To Restore Peace In The Country Through The Accord”
-- MADHAV KUMAR NEPAL
MADHAV KUMAR NEPAL , general secretary of Communist Party of Nepal - Unified Marxist Leninist (UML), is a politician who has been constantly in the center of his party leadership for more than a decade. In his long political career, Nepal , leader of second largest party in the House of Representatives, has seen many ups and downs. He was deputy prime minister during the nine month of minority government formed by his party. At a time when he is facing very crucial time for his own leadership, he spoke to KESHAB POUDEL on Monday evening regarding the current political development. Excerpts:
Despite his ill health and not actively taking part in negotiations, prime minister Girija Prasad Koirala got what he wanted in the seven party Maoist negotiations. But your party had to write note of dissent on two points. What did CPN-UML really secure in the negotiations?
There is nothing to gain or lose. All of us are happy that we are able to restore peace in the country through the accord. In other words, we succeeded to fulfill the wishes of common people who want to live in peace. People wish to see peace and end of ten years long violence. I don’t want to comment on what prime minister with ill health got or what our party got. I would like to see how much Nepalese people have gained from the accord. After the agreement, the terror and intimidation have come to an end. This was what people were expecting for quite a long time. Nepali people want to see the end of feudalism and guarantee of absolute change. People want durable peace, consolidation of democracy and progress. The agreement signed on 8 November, 2006 has important contribution to fulfill all those wishes of people. It was a milestone in the history of Nepal .
What about your two demands?
Although we signed in the agreement, we have also written note of dissents on two major issues: to hold referendum to decide the fate of monarchy and adopt proportional representative system in the election for Constituent Assembly. Our argument is that only through the referendum, can we solve the fate of monarchy forever and only through the elections based on proportional representation, can we make the inclusive democracy possible. Had all others accepted our two demands, the result would have been much better. Other parties – who agreed on our two proposals earlier - gave up their stand but we carried on with the genuine demands of people. We are proud of that.
As it is reported in newspaper that prime minister Koirala went to bed at 9:30 pm, who took part in such an important negotiations on behalf of prime minister, after that?
Before going to bed, prime minister Girija Prasad Koirala accepted our two demands but he backed out later on. Even other seven parties had agreed on our demands but they, too, could not stick with it. We stuck to our stand and wrote note of dissent on the final agreement. We have put our views but we did not disturb the peace process. We were very much flexible in the negotiations following the principle of ‘agree to disagree.’ But flexibility is not our weakness.
It is reported that prime minister Koirala even threatened you that his party and Maoists would sign the peace agreement in case your party insisted on your two demands?
Of course, we argued with prime minister Koirala and we have made agreement with him and other parties that UML should be given right to write note of dissent. There is no question of anybody’s threat.
It means you had heated arguments with Koirala before signing the document?
I don’t want to comment on this issue. It is not proper now to play blame game against each other. Now our only one target is to hold the elections for Constituent Assembly before May, 2007. For this we want unity and good relations among all national political parties. Writing difference of opinion does not mean that UML wants to break the unity. Our party has a long-term policy to maintain harmonious relations with other parties on the basis of unity, struggle and unity. Our party has clear policy: unity for constructive change and struggle against bad practice. Under this philosophy, there will be unity as well as struggle with all political parties.
Every political party has its own ideology. How could you make unity with all? Is not it contradictory?
I did not mean that there will be unified stand on all national issues. There needs to be struggle on many fronts. We want to maintain dialectical relations. It means struggle and unity. We will never compromise on bad practices but always unite on common interests.
According to newspaper reports, prime minister Koirala went to bed at 9:30 pm then who participated in the negotiations on behalf of prime minister?
Because of ill health of Girijababu, we had to consider him. Prime minister Koirala, who is old and sick, required frequent inhaling of oxygen, authorized his representative who consulted Koirala whenever his consent was needed.
How did you settle when there were major differences over political issues?
During the negotiations, there appeared many differences. Whenever there were crucial disputes, prime minister’s representative went to his bedroom to consult him. Prime minister’s representatives got consent from him before settling those issues. We did not peep inside his bedroom door so I don’t know how his representative convinced prime minister Koirala. Several time the meeting had reached deadlock and Koirala’s representative visited his bedroom several times. When we stood on our stand, prime minister agreed to allow us to write note of dissent as part of agreement.
Was it delayed due to political differences?
Yes, the meeting was delayed for more than two hours because of our two demands. When we could not resolve differences, all of us decided to convey this to prime minister at midnight through his representative. Following hour-long discussions, Koirala’s representative came out at around 2 with the consent of prime minister to allow us to write note of dissent. Finally, we put signature on the document.
There were so many Congress leaders representing Nepali Congress Party. Who was the real person on behalf of prime minister to deal with you all the time?
We conveyed our differences in meeting and some Congress leaders went to prime minister. I told you that we did not peep inside his room to know who were inside prime minister’s bedroom.
What role your party has in preparing the final draft?
Our party has played an important role in the process of preparation of final draft. It was our insistence that the agreement needed to be signed within Monday and Tuesday. Our party believed in peace.
You mean the UML got what it wanted?
Our two major demands were rejected by other parties and we gave up some of our other demands on the basis of compromise. As I earlier said that all of us got permanent peace in the country.
Why other parties did not agree on your two demands?
Because of insistence of the major party, our two demands were rejected. Even other parties, which supported our demand earlier, backed out. Finally, UML was the lone party to stick to its two demands.
As the Maoists still will have their militias in cantonment and their arms will be stored nearby in a single lock system, how do you assure people that there will be no more violence now?
Since the United Nations has already sent its experts to monitor and supervise Maoists, we don’t have to worry about the Maoist militia and their weapons. After placing sensitive electronic surveillance equipment like alarm siren, CCTV cameras by UN, I don’t think it will be possible for Maoists to use their arms. Whether it is single lock or double lock, nobody can break if we can develop effective supervision mechanism.
At a time when you are hailing the agreement as historic to bring the permanent peace in Nepal , how do you see the reactions coming from ethnic groups and regional groups from terai threatening to launch another rebel against state?
There are certain lacunas in the agreement. We can improve at the final stage including the grievances raised by Janjatis and Madhesis. As per the demand of terai people, we will issue the citizenship certificate for all who do not have it. For Janjatis and people of terai, there will be adequate representations.
Even after all eight parties agreed to change the cut off date from 1962 to April, 1990 to obtain citizenship as per the demand of Terai's party, what prompted them to oppose the agreement now?
There is a force in terai which wants to create troubles misusing sentiments of people. We need to assure the people of terai that their genuine demands will be addressed. In the past, the people of terai were betrayed by various regimes. This time we will address the problems and nobody will have opportunity to play on sensitive issues like citizenship.
On what basis all eight parties agreed to change the cut off year to April 1990? Do you think changing cut off year will resolve the citizenship problem?
We have decided to take this decision to resolve the issue of citizenship forever. As a member of parliament representing terai, we know there are many genuine people who are denied citizenship. This cut off year will be there forever. There were growing pressures to resolve the citizenship issue before the elections for CA. CPN-UML was first party that decided to issue citizenship on the basis of voters list of 1979.
How do you develop mechanism to check the misuse of citizenship certificate by foreigners?
Our stand is that all the genuine Nepalese should be given citizenship and no foreigner should be allowed to get our citizenship. For a small country like Nepal , the issue of citizenship is very sensitive but we also need to distribute citizenship certificate to genuine Nepali. We will pass the act which will bar the misuse of citizenship certificate by foreigners. Our aim is to resolve this problem forever.
Was there any emissary of third country influencing the negotiations?
So far as our party is concerned, no emissary of third country influenced us in the course of negotiations. I cannot say anything about others.
|
