'NC is a crowd of corrupt, inefficient persons'

Raghuji Pant, journalist-turned-politician, is an UML MP. He has won two consecutive elections for the parliament from Lalitpur. Though he spent more than a decade in journalism - he was the editor of several vernacular weeklies such as Dristi, Budhabar, Chalphal -he says he took up journalism only for political reasons. Pant, who has watched and experienced both journalism and politics, blames the lack of far-sightedness by the politicians for the sorry state of the country. He says, "In the last ten years, we had leaders, but there was no leadership; there were politicians but no statesmen and those who ruled the country failed to show any vision and far-sightedness." He may be among the junior leaders of his party, but he is known for giving a clear view and speaking out his mind. Last week, Pant talkd to The Independent about different political issues. Excerpts:

Q. The UML’s former Finance Minister was very critical of the recently presented budget. Do you think the budget is that bad?

A. This budget is only the continuation of the policies pursued by the Nepali Congress in the last 10 years. The present Finance Minister, in the preface of the budget, talked about some of achievements of the last 10 years. If there have been good achievements in the last ten years, the major credit goes to the Nepali Congress and if it is otherwise the Nepali Congress should also take the blame because it is the party which has ruled for almost 8 years. But the real situation of the country is not good. The number of people below the poverty line has increased, the industries are in a very bad shape, the economy has failed to take momentum. So, there was a need to rethink about the policies followed by the country in the last ten years. But this budget has failed to do so and it has also failed to prescribe any remedial measures to the economic woes of the country. I would say, the budget has deceived the people. For example, in the last year’s budget the revenue collection was projected at Rs. 44 billion. Now, it is estimated to be only 42 billion. The development budget was projected at Rs. 41 billion. Now, the expenditure for development programmes is estimated at Rs. 33 billion. This deficit expenditure of Rs. 8 billion, which is almost 20 per cent of the total development expenditure means that development programmes such as bridges, drinking water, roads, schools are cut down. When the budget was presented last year, the opposition had cautioned that collecting that much revenue was impossible. But the government did not listen to us. This has led to a wrong precedence of trying to mislead the parliament through wrong projections on revenue, development expenditure, development programmes and others.

The increment of salary is probably the only good aspect of the budget. But here, too, there are discrepancies. The increment of the lowest-level civil servants is very low at about 16 per cent only compared to about 90 per cent of the secretaries. However, the deduction of other facilities means, the net increase in their salaries will be negligible. This has further widened the economic gap between the low-level and high-level civil servants. The increment has failed to give any real benefit to the non-gazetted staff, who constitute almost 90 per cent of the total civil servants.

The other discrepancy of the budget is that it has failed to focus on agriculture as it has no plan for land reform and without radical land reform, agricultural development is impossible.

Q. The government has completely ignored the oppositions’ amendment proposals to the government’s policies and programmes. What do you say about it?

A. I think we need to review the whole parliamentary process regarding this. If any amendment proposals is passed, it creates a danger of the fall of the government. So, the government does not want to make any change in its programmes even if it finds them worthwhile. Similar is the case with the budget. If any amendment to the budget is passed by the parliament, the government will fall because that is taken as the disapproval of the budget. So, this has raised a question about the relevancy about the discussions in the parliament on the government’s policies and programmes and the budget.

Q. Sometime back, the CPN-UML had staged protest programmes making several demands. What will be the party’s stance on those demands?

A. The government has fulfilled some of them mainly because of our pressure. The government has initiated action, based on the report of the parliamentary committee on the leakage of revenue. Similarly, there have been some agreements and understandings between the government and us on some other issues. Some of those issues have also been addressed by the government’s policies and programmes, and the Prime Minister himself has said from the rostrum that those things will be implemented. Talks are still going on other issues. But if those talks fail, the UML may again have go for protests.

Q. What would be the mode of protest?

A. It will be both — inside the parliament and out on the streets.

Q. Regarding the understandings between the government and the UML, some MPs of the Nepali Congress are accusing the government of making secret deals with the UML. How far are those accusations true?

A. I don’t see any logic in those accusations. Because our protest programmes had already started when K.P. Bhattarai was the prime minister, and he, too, had said that he would meet some of our demands. Meanwhile, we are clear that we are in the opposition and we know about our roles as an opposition. We are not in a hurry to go to power and we will remain in the opposition till we get a mandate from the people to govern the country. Again, we are not interested and concerned about the internal conflicts of the Nepali Congress and we do not want to take any undue benefit.

Q. If the present government falls in minority because of the infighting in the NC, will the UML side with Koirala to keep the government afloat?

A. No. We will not support Koirala or any other. It is the Congress’ job, not ours, to keep its government from falling.

Q. There have been some controversies within the NC and between the NC and the UML regarding the appointment of Nayan Bahadur Khatri as the chairman of the Human Rights Commission. Do you think the appointment was a wrong one, and was UML responsible for the appointment?

A. The appointment of the chairman of the Commission is the responsibility of three persons - Prime Minister, Chief Justice and the leader of the Opposition party in the parliament. Deputy prime minister Ram Chandra Poudel’s recent statement regarding this is highly irresponsible. He said that the government was in minority in the selection process. Does he mean to say that the Chief Justice is with the opposition party? Even Khatri in a statement has said that Prime Minister came to his house and asked him to become the chairman of the Commission. So, it was the Prime Minister who made the proposal and the other two only seconded it. So, to put any blame on the opposition or the Chief Justice will be totally wrong. Again, after the decision has been made it will now be useless to express any reservation or create any fuss about the appointment, especially by the Nepali Congress.

Q. There have also been rumours of power struggle within the UML. Recently, it has been said that there were two different nominations from the UML General Secretary and K.P. Oli on the party’s representative to participate in the Beijing Plus five conference in New York. What was the issue?

A. I have now begun to suspect the credibility of the newspapers. There is no reservation or conflict within the UML regarding the person who represented the party. The fact is the UML is a political party and there are discussions and debate on issues, and one may have different views. But after a decision is made, everybody abides by the decision. So, it was wrong of the press to try to make a mountain out of a mole hill.

Q. The UML’s drive against corruption seems to have slackened. The UML leaders said that they would declare the names of more corrupt persons. How far has that aspect of the UML’s movement come?

A. That was a phase of our movement. The disclosure, we made, was based on the report of the parliamentary committee on the investigation on revenue leakage. Apart from that we have received many other names from other sources. However, we are not forced to disclose all the names because we are not the authorized body to investigate on corruption. But if the government starts taking action against the corrupt ones we are ready to provide the names to the government.

Q. That means the UML will not bring out the second list of the corrupt?

A. No, we do not have any plan at the moment. But if we feel the necessity we may do it again.

Q. One of the criticisms on the list disclosed was that it did not contain anyone from the UML, and the UML leaders even said no UML person have been involved in corrupt activities. Is the UML completely free from corruption?

A. The UML has also made investigations within the party, but those investigations are confined within the party only. But if the government thinks the UML persons are involved in corruption, it may start investigations from within the UML. We are ready for that. This is our challenge to the government.

Q. How do you see the last ten years of the multi-party democracy of the country?

A. In the last ten years, we had leaders, but there was no leadership. There were politicians but no statesmen. Those who ruled the country failed to show any vision and far-sightedness.

This lack of leadership quality has been felt more glaringly in the Nepali Congress because that party has ruled the country for almost 8 years. That party has now become a den of corrupt and a crowd of inefficient persons.