 |
| |
VOL. 27, NO. 46, August 01 , 2008 (Shrawan 17 2065 B.S.) |
|
" Maoist leaders do not have continuity in thought and expression "
Rabindra Nath Sharma
Former minister and RPP-Nepal's leader RABINDRA NATH SHARMA is a seasoned politician. As the country's political crisis prolongs, Sharma, who is sometimes known as Chanakya of Nepalese politics spoke to SPOTLIGHT on various issues. Excerpts:
At a time when CPN-UML and CPN-Maoists are trying to forge new alliance for the government formation and urging prime minister Girija Prasad Koirala to cancel his proposed visit to Colombo, how do you look at the future political course?
I don't think CPN-UML will follow CPN-Maoists to forge new alliance as Maoists have already betrayed them in the last minute. So far as Girija Prasad Koirala's decision to lead delegation for Colombo SAARC summit is concerned, it is not a big issue as he is not there to sign any bilateral issue. If the visit is canceled at the last minute under the pressure of two communist parties, it will have much repercussion near and far.
It means prime minister Girija Prasad Koirala will attend the summit?
Yes, he will.
Is it based on your expectation or do you have some information?
I have both.
What do you say about the attempts being made by the Maoists to form the government?
The elections of president and vice president by the three party alliances and defeat of Maoist candidates in both the posts have already indicated that the majority is not with the Maoists. It also gives clear sign that Maoists cannot form the government on their own.
Maoists say they have the mandate to form the government. Don't you think it is against the mandate of the people to let the government be formed under any other party's leadership?
One must read the parties' strengths in the Constituent Assembly election before commenting on the mandate of the people. Maoists have over 30 percent of seats of out of 601 CA members and they got 30 percent of popular votes. People have not given clear mandate to any party and this is a fractured verdict. How can a party claim that it has the mandate to form the new government when it does not have majority in the CA?
If that is the case, why are the other parties saying that the Maoists have to take the initiative (to form the government)?
They know that the Maoists cannot stake claim to form the government until they manage the majority. They also know that nobody is going to accept Maoists in the government. Such political rhetoric do not have any meaning. If they were really committed to see Maoists in power, why have not they given written support to Maoist leadership?
Maoist leader Prachanda has declared that he will form the government within a week under his leadership. Do you see the possibility?
His wish to be the first president of Nepal has already been shattered. If he could, he would have formed the government a long time back. Given the political situation, it will take few more weeks to see the new government. So far as the leadership of new government is concerned, time will tell who will get to lead it. If we are lucky, there will be government in few weeks, otherwise it may take another couple of months.
As president Dr. Ram Baran Yadav has already invited Maoist leader to form the consensus government, how do you say Maoist will not form the government very soon?
Don’t forget that president has invited Maoist to form consensus government as par the interim constitution. At a time when Nepali Congress opposes Maoist, the possibility of forming consensus government has already finished. After this, president will invite other party to form the government on the basis of majority. As Maoist needs other party support to show the majority, they need to convince other party and no body will give unconditional support to them. The process of forming government is not easy as it looks. There is powerful external factor also.
Why there counts external factor much?
Because they have security stakes and need to take the greater risk placing Maoist in power.
Maoist leader and former minister Dev Gurung recently remarked that India spoiled their three-months-long effort to forge alliance with CPN-UML. Is it the indication to external factor?
As far as Maoists leaders are concerned, they do not have continuity in thought and expression. They will interpret the situation to suit their interest. Recently, when Indian foreign minister Pranab Mukharjee and other Indian leaders prematurely congratulated Maoists (immediately after the CA election), no Maoist leaders interpreted that as Indian interference. At that time even the election results were not finalized. Similarly, when they signed 12 points agreement in New Delhi and launched Janandolan II, Maoists did not see any Indian role. Maoists have appreciated India when the latter sided with them. And they oppose Indian now when they see Indian policy is not favoring them.
Do you mean the Maoists' anger against India is reflection of India's changed policy towards Nepal?
Not only the Indian policy but the international situation has changed now. When the Maoist leader Prachanda gave interview to India's Hindu daily a month ago, he appreciated India's role in Nepal. Maoist leaders may now have perceive India's changed policy and, therefore, are making anti-Indian statement. This kind of pseudo-nationalist slogans like in the days of Panchayat will be counter productive.
How has India's policy changed so suddenly?
It is bitter but true that initially India supported Maoists. When India saw Maoists are drifting ideologically closer to China, India was apprehensive of them. They feared that based on their ideological affiliations, Maoists may build new relations with China. Whether one likes it or not, Maoists have always been a vulnerable force.
As the secessionist demand in terai is growing, what will be its consequences?
If India encourages one Madhes one Pradesh in terai, Nepal's northern neighbor will encourage one Himal one Pradesh. As there are wide dissensions from Kashmir to north India for separate state, that will create other problems. I don't think it is in anybody's interest to encourage slogans like one Madhes one Pradesh.
Recently, there was nationwide protest against vice president Parmananda Jha for taking
oath in Hindi. How have you observed it?
It was a very unfortunate incident. I don't see any reason to oppose that in such a violent manner. It will create more rifts between two communities. Taking oath in Hindi should not be an issue for such violent demonstration. Such acts will create hatred among different communities. Every individual is given the right to speak/write and wear dress as per his/her wish. By organizing violent demonstrations, students weakened our nationalism.
You stood for monarchy till the last minute. What is your opinion on the institution of monarchy now that Nepal has already become a republic?
I have never supported the individual king. I was severely punished when I opposed the unconstitutional activities of the king. Despite all humiliation and suffering, I held the opinion that monarchy is essential for Nepal. Like in the past, it is essential for future.
Do you see any possibility of revival of monarchy?
Monarchy is history now and it cannot be easily restored. Given the history of many countries of the world, one cannot rule out the possibility of revival of monarchy. I think monarchy is required in Nepal to maintain social, cultural and religious harmony.
How can Nepal stabilize?
As the saying goes Punar Musiko Bhaba, Nepal has to come face to face with its own reality, which all the national and international players also need to accept.
