 |
| |
VOL. 27, NO. 7, September 28, 2007 (Ashwin 11 2064 B.S.)
|
|
NEPALI CONGRESS UNITY
Reluctant Republicanism?
The adoption of a republican agenda by the unified Nepali Congress raises more questions than it answers
By NARAYAN KARKI CHHETTRI
“The agenda of a republic and its endorsement would be in contravention of the policy and the tradition of the Congress.”
Thus spake the only surviving founding leader of the Nepali Congress, Krishna Prasad Bhattarai, in his letter to the presidents of the two Nepali Congresses – three days before the two got re-united under the watchful presence the very octogenarian leader.
But the unification of the two Congresses witnessed the now-largest centrist party of the country formally adopting the republican agenda.
Did Bhattarai become irreverent, then? If yes, why did he choose to be a witness to the unification event that also saw the party making a major policy shift to republicanism? Or, why did the “rejuvenated” Congress under a republican bandwagon roll a red carpet for “the out-dated monarchist” saint leader at the joint mahasamiti? Why did Girija Prasad Koirala and Sher Bahadur Deuba drive all the way to Bhainsepati to have a meeting with him ahead of the mahasamiti?
The questions remain unanswered.
Bhattarai must have been a happy man having witnessed the realization of his long-cherished dream which he re-emphasized in his letter: “Both Nepali Congresses need to be unified at the earliest to achieve the main objective of national reconciliation: build a total trust and collaboration between nationalism and democracy.”
Did he bargain his principles and beliefs for the happiness at the Congress unity, then? This also remains unanswered.Answers to these very questions would determine the shape of politics in the days to come.
The Nepali Congress’ decision to go republic through the first meeting of the proposed constituent assembly could be a strategy to placate the Maoist leadership who are bent on imposing a republic without a popular mandate through elections.
But the cloud of uncertainty still hovering over the constituent assembly elections which had first been due more than fifty years ago, translation of the Congress decision into action would be a matter of a great speculation.
Koirala and Deuba rather reluctantly joined the republican bandwagon is no secret. Both may have been vocal on the issue of building a new Nepal and heralding a new era in the country’s history, but neither has been as clearly categorical in favour of a republic
Whether their reluctance is guided by their own conscience or influenced by the hard realities of the country’s geo-politics and the competing interests of the nuclear neighbors is not clear yet.
Incidentally, a senior Chinese delegation was in town on the day the Nepali Congress mahasamiti began its deliberation, and stayed, coincidentally, till it was over.
The quite and largely un-reported visit of the Chinese delegation led by the influential vice-chairman of the people’s political consultative conference, Wang Zhonguy, came days after the Indian external affairs minister, Pranab Mukherjee, reminded the Nepali political actors of the previous agreements.
Delhi’s South Block boss was not specific, but many believed that the former boss of the North Block could well have been referring to one of the past agreements that led to the royal relinquishing of absolute power and swearing in of Girija Prasad Koirala as the head of a multi-party coalition at the Narayahiti palace in April 2006.
On their part, neither Koirala nor Deuba have given any hint so far about the geo-political compulsion. In private conversations, though, both do appear to be aware of the same
Clearly, it is these compulsions and the resultant actions and reactions that would determine the future course of the present fragile politics of Nepal
‘An Ominous Message’
Dear Girijababu,
I am very concerned at the current situation of the country. I am even more concerned at reports that quoted you as saying that the national sovereignty is in danger. You are fully aware of our long struggle and sacrifice. Your statement about the emergence of such a situation, coming as it does at a time when you have been leading the government, gives an ominous message that the independent national sovereignty can not be safeguarded in the name of a democratic system alone.
In fact, the movements launched by the Nepali Congress at different times right from its inception have greatly helped maintain the country’s sovereignty, independence and nationalism. At a later stage, we had been successful to present that value as an all-accepted document through the 1990 movement and the subsequent constitution. The call for a national reconciliation by the late leaders, BP Koirala and Ganesh Man Singh, upon their return to Nepal from India was a strong evidence of that very historical character of the Nepali Congress.
The 2006 movement to establish democracy had ended on an agreement. All of us had hoped that the subsequent Maoist announcement to join the democratic mainstream would end the 12-year armed rebellion. After the Maoists joined the interim government under your leadership, all had also hoped that the country would take a firm progressive leap towards peace and democracy. But these hopes of the country have been dashed following your public statement that the sovereignty was in danger. I feel that it is within the prime minister’s duty to inform all about it; otherwise the people would be in a big confusion.
As we enter the 21st century after passing through different stages of total developments of Nepal, it is sad that the prime minister made such a statement himself without giving a thought to it. The country needs to be informed about it all. Equally faulty would be the absence of thought on how to move ahead to deal with the situation. The main objective of national reconciliation is to build a total trust and collaboration between nationalism and democracy. For the purpose, both Nepali Congresses need to be unified at the earliest.
Girija Babu,
I think that the crisis over the sovereignty that you had referred to can not be mitigated without the unity of all democratic forces. The agenda of a republic and its endorsement would be in contravention of the policy and the tradition of the Congress. So, I think, that should be not the policy of the Congress.
I have forwarded a copy of this letter to my friend Mr. Sher Bahadur.
Regards,
(signed)
Krishna Prasad Bhattarai
September 22, 2007
