“If They Want To Kill Me For My Beliefs, I Am Ready To Die”
Rabindra Nath Sharma
Rastriya Prajatantra Party-Nepal president RABINDRA NATH SHARMA is a well known politician. As country is heading towards the elections for Constituent Assembly with diverse opinion on monarchy Vs republican, Sharma, who held several ministerial portfolios during Panchayat period and also after the restoration of democracy, is leading a camp of constitutional monarchists. Sharma, who vehemently opposed King Gyanendra’s move of October 4, 2002 and February 1, 2005 against the spirit of constitutional monarchy, was also detained by King Gyanendra’s government on the charge of corruption. Whatever the situation he has had to face, Sharma, who holds the view that ceremonial or constitutional monarchy is necessary to unite diverse Nepal , spoke with KESHAB POUDEL at his residence in Budhanilkantha. Excerpts:
How do you react to recent attack against you in Jhapa?
It is not a personal attack against anybody but attack against right to speech and right to dissent. Maoists and seven party alliance have shown their true face. It shows that seven party alliance and Maoists want to turn Loktantra as an eight party syndicate. If this kind of attack continues, it will invite dangerous situation. This is a violation of human rights. I have every right to hold my opinion on monarchy. I have faith in constitutional monarchy. Nepal requires monarchy for its independence and sovereignty.
What will you do after this incident?
I will hold other mass meetings in different parts of the country. I told you that I am ready to sacrifice my life for the cause of my belief on constitutional monarchy. I am not afraid of my life as I am an old person. If they want to kill me for my beliefs, I am ready to die. I am waiting to see how the UN and other Nepali human rights organizations react on the violation of my right to dissent.
When prime minister Girija Koirala recently revealed that republic is already at the door-step and eight party leaders can remove monarchy from legislative parliament, is there any reason now for you to plea for constitutional monarchy?
First of all, this interim legislative parliament does not have that kind of power. Even the interim constitution has made it clear that the first meeting of constituent assembly will decide the fate of monarchy. If you ask me about it, I disagree with that provision. Only Nepali people can decide whether they want to retain monarchy or not.
Prime minister Koirala and other seven party leaders are claiming that they represent wishes of people and this government is constituted through the mandate of Janadolan II. How do you look at it?
I again want to reiterate that only Nepali people can decide the fate of monarchy. If somebody claiming as representative of the people decides on the fate of monarchy, it will invite chaos and conflict. Such decisions will push this country into a prolonged cycle of political instability and violence.
What are your suggestions to decide the fate of monarchy?
There are only two ways to decide the fate of monarchy. Either you can decide the fate of monarchy through revolution or through referendum. There is no other way. This government is constituted under a political understanding with the King and all its actions were legitimized by the parliament reinstated by the King. Even interim constitution was promulgated by previous parliament. So, this is not a revolution but an evolution. Thus, they have to call the referendum on monarchy. If people reject the monarchy, it has to go. In my opinion, only through referendum, you can decide the fate of monarchy. If monarch is removed on the whims of eight party leaders, it will invite chaotic situation and country’s independence and sovereignty will also suffer.
Don’t you think eight party leaders represent wishes of people?
It is completely wrong. Tell me how many of them are elected by people and how many of them represent the wishes of people through elections. The members of present parliament are either the members who were elected eight years ago who were elected taking oath to the Constitution of Kingdom of Nepal 1990 which upheld the spirit of constitutional monarchy, multi-party democracy and rule of law. They were not elected on the present plank of republican and these members have no moral right to vote in favor of republican. Other are picked up from the street. There are many MPs who cannot even win 200-300 votes. They are a nominated lot. If they want to prove their legitimacy, they must contest the elections.
But eight party leaders are saying that people’s movement gave them mandate to declare Nepal as a republic?
It is completely false. The issue of Janandolan II was not republican but the issue was the end of autocratic monarchy. Even the King decided to hand over power to the people ending his autocratic rule. The King reinstated the House of Representatives on Baisakha 11, 2063 under negotiation with political parties to pave the way for rule of people’s representatives. No political force has right to exceed the limit of that agreement which reinstated the House of Representatives.
If so, why experienced leader like Girija Prasad Koirala blamed the King for his actions to invite republican in Nepal?
I don’t know why leader like Girija Prasad Koiral made such non-political remarks. Interestingly, he has not given clarifications about the actions of the King which caused Nepal to move ahead towards republic. He has to spell out all causes. If King’s statement of democracy day was a major irritant cause, nobody will agree with that. In democracy, everyone has the right to speak and right to defend himself. In that statement, the King took all the responsibility for the failure of the actions taken by him in February 2005. If he takes his moral responsibility, what is wrong with that? Every human being has the right to self defense. This is a fundamental right.
If that is so, why is there such a hue and cry?
It has sent shock waves. The statement was bomb shell to those political leaders who were arguing that the monarchy is in coma. Even the Maoist leaders, who used to declare that monarchy is dead, have changed their tone saying there are only two forces Prachanda or King Gyanendra. Maoists have made efforts to take advantages of King’s statement condemning it against the spirit of interim constitution.
When Maoists will emerge clear beneficiary, what has prompted prime minister Koirala to issue new statement?
Prime minister Girija Prasad Koirala is now standing between Maoists and the King. His statement is to push both monarchy and the Maoists. He is at the center of political front because of pressure of monarchy and Maoists. Prime minister Koirala’s position seems to be shaken so he issued this statement to strengthen himself in power. As he has already told Maoist leaders that he would issue a statement, the reason behind the statement may be to pacify Maoists. Girija Prasad Koirala’s statement is calculative and well planned. One thing Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala must realize is that once monarchy is removed, no one can establish competitive political process in Nepal. In present situation when law and order is worsening and the country is heading towards chaotic and lawlessness, removal of monarchy will result in wiping out of democratic forces from Nepal.
At a time when all persons - who enjoyed benefits from the King’s direct rule – seem to have vanished, what prompted a politician like you who were politically humiliated during the King’s direct rule, to take up this cause?
I am defending the institution of monarchy to defend my own interest. As long as monarchy is there, it guarantees the stability and national independence. Once it is removed, no body can provide stability in this country. This is the reason why I have been defending the monarchy. I opposed King Gyanendra’s move of October 4, 2002 and February 1, 2005 and I continue to oppose that kind of acts. I was politically humiliated because I publicly condemned the royal move. I have clear conscience about monarchy as I believe country needs monarchy in any form whether it is in symbolic, ceremonial or constitutional. It has utility now to safeguard the country’s independence and stability. I am not personally defending the King but I am defending the multi party democratic system with constitutional monarchy as institution of monarchy is a supplementary factor to multi-party democracy. If we remove monarchy, I don’t think we ever will get full-fledged democracy and the status of independent and sovereign country. I am struggling to save democracy. We will get democracy only when we can save our independence and sovereignty. For this, we need institution of monarchy.
Leaders of political parties are saying that monarch has betrayed democratic forces several times in the past. They argue that republic will guarantee democracy in Nepal. How do you look at it?
Of course, the King has betrayed democratic forces. Monarchy sometimes played against democracy but it handed over the power to the people. If we had military or tyrannical ruler like Pol Pot in power, he would not have bowed down to the people just after 16 days of general strike. The King has also learnt from his mistakes so monarchy and democracy can work as complimentary and supplementary to each other. Political leaders and intellectuals are talking for just the sake of their prestige and nobody is speaking reality which every one can see. There are highly developed and democratized countries which have monarchy. United Kingdom, which is known as mother of democracy, is a monarchical state. Similarly, Japan and many other Scandinavian countries have perfect democracies with monarchy. Though Iran, Vietnam, Laos, Libya are republics, they don’t have democracy. Monarchy as an institution is not anti-democratic but it helps to strengthen the democratic process.
Why is monarchy so important?
If we remove monarchy without considering its importance in multi-ethnic, multi-cultural country like Nepal, the country will have to face prolonged political instability. We can see how the countries like Afghanistan, Iran, Cambodia and Iraq were devastated following the removal of monarchy. In Iran and Iraq, a tyrannical regime emerged after the overthrow of monarchy. Tens of thousands of people were butchered in Cambodia. Afghanistan has been facing prolonged political instability. In present Nepal when extreme leftists are in dominant position and extreme rightists, too, are coming up, only monarchy can save democracy.
What does monarchy needs to learn?
Monarchy must realize that it is the democratic forces which can protect the institution of monarchy. In recently published book, King, Nationality and Politics, B.P. Koirala, who was humiliated and put behinds bars for such a long time, has defended the institution of monarchy. The King must understand that a true democrat is his permanent friend who will defend it at the time of crisis. If democratic forces are weakened, nobody can save the monarchy.
If there are so many positive aspects of monarchy, why are the leaders of political parties ignoring it?
Actually, the slogan of republic is not a slogan of Nepali Congress and CPN-UML but it is a slogan of CPN-Maoists. Nepali Congress is still neutral on the matter of monarchy. Nepali Congress general assembly has not taken any decision on monarchy or republic. So far as CPN-UML is concerned, it even welcomed the King’s decision to remove prime minister Sher Bahadur Deuba on October 4, 2002. When I was opposing the King’s direct rule, CPN-UML had even joined the government.
Why are all the parties demanding republic now?
Without removing monarchy, one cannot establish tyrannical rule in Nepal. The Maoists are clearly saying that they have not supported the present multi-party democracy and parliament. As we know, there are parliaments and multi-party democracy in communist countries but they don’t have competitive politics. The Maoists are now showing that they don’t believe in ballot and they want to effect change through bullet. What political leaders are speaking are not through their own brains.
As Nepal’s political situation is complicated further with involvement of internal players and interest of external powers including our two neighbors, do you think any single force is in determining position in Nepal?
Frankly speaking, Nepalese internal forces are not only the sources of change in Nepal. It is a bitter thing to say but it is a fact that international communities have played a major role in all major political changes from 1950 to 1960 or 1990 to 2006. Of course, Nepal’s neighbors played more decisive role. Although Nepal is small, its geo-political location is very important as it lies between Asia’s two major economic powers India and China. India and China are going to play important role in world politics in 21 st century. Our political, economic and religious and cultural relations are very close with India since our border with India is open and there are many similarities with India. But, Nepal has other neighbor in the north. China’s presence is increasing in Nepal as it has now economic interests as well as security interests. Tibet’s economic development is going fast. China is watching Nepal’s development very closely. China might accept India’s strong traditional ties with Nepal but it might object if its interest is under threat. China’s development in Tibet will bring greater influence in northern border of Nepal as China has already decided to expand its railway up to the border. India is also showing similar interests. It is a fact that China’s interest in Indian ocean and south Asia is growing. They are building ports in Myanmar, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. I don’t think China will remain aloof in Nepal’s internal politics like in the past. In the past, China had not involved in domestic politics in Nepal. I don’t think it will last for longer period of time. After completing 2008 Olympic and completion of Tibetan development program, China will show its presence. As it shares border with Nepal, China will show its presence in Nepal. India’s economic growth is also pushing higher. China will closely monitor Indian and American activities in Nepal. We cannot balance this growing involvement of foreign countries by declaring Nepal a republic. We are in a very crucial phase. If we lose balance, it will have far reaching complications. Nepal’s stability is of vital interest for the world’s lone super power America as well as Nepal’s two neighbors particularly India.
At a time when Nepal’s traditional forces like monarchy, and democratic parties are weakening, what will happen?
Nepal’s traditional forces are allies of India. We have to accept that Nepal’s foreign policy lost its balance after February 1, 2005 royal takeover. It totally failed. We forget that Nepal and India have different kinds of relations like special relations in terms of religion, culture, economy and many other things. We provoked India without making any benefit to Nepal. Whether it was on the issue of membership of security council or our policy on Dhaka Summit, Nepal ignored India’s friendship towards Nepal. India suspected that Nepal tried to play against India whenever it needs Nepal’s support. India’s complaint against the monarchy is that it supported monarchy whenever it was in trouble but monarchy in Nepal always worked against interests of India whenever it needed Nepal at crucial times. During Panchayat period, there were many ups and downs but the relations were restored using various channels. This time no one could restore the imbalance that appeared in Nepal India relations. India faced uneasiness. However, India, too, has to understand the fact that weakening democratic forces and traditional forces is against its interest. In the present situation, Maoists may be closer to India and India need not worry. If influence of extreme leftist forces is firmly established in Nepal, it will have influence on extreme leftist movement in India. The rise of extreme left has already alarmed India’s policy makers. Rise of extreme leftists in Nepal will have far reaching long term implications in India. If India sees for short term gains, it will definitely have to face bigger problems in the long term. As a friend of India, I have been emphasizing this for a long time. There are many people who don’t buy this idea. As a friend, I have to speak truth though that may be bitter. Continuity of Nepal’s democracy and stability is in the interest of India. For the sake of stability and continuity of democracy, monarchy is essential in Nepal. Even for Nepal-India relations, monarchy is a factor of continuity. You had changed monarchical system just in 19 days but once the tyrannical system sets in, it will not be possible to rock that. It will not be in the interest of anybody.
Who has major stakes in Nepal?
Of course, India has major stakes in Nepal as it cannot go away. Prolonged political instability in Nepal is not in the interest of India. As a vast country, India has diverse views. There are two schools of thought prevailing now in India. There is an opinion, which favors monarchy, and there is an opinion, which favors republican. We can see these reflections through the statement of Indian leaders. It is natural to have divided opinion in a democratic country like India. Whatever differences and divisions in the opinions among political leaders, they will set the policy on the basis of consensus. Monarchy will guarantee the stability in Nepal and stability in Nepal is necessary for India’s security.
