The Court Statement - B. P. Koirala (April 29 - May 17, 1977)
Print Friendly and PDF

[The following is the Court statement, recorded between April 29 to May 17, 1977, in edited and abridged form, of Mr. BP Koirala, President of the Nepali Congress and the former Prime Minister of Nepal Mr. Koirala, while returning to Nepal after eight years of exile in India, was arrested at the Tribhuvan airport, Kathmandu, on December 30, 1976. He was being tried by a special one man tribunal on eight charges of sedition and treason and if found guilty, he would be liable to death penalty.

The statement gives an account of political events in Nepal with particular reference to the people's struggle for their basic civil liberties. It throws light on the personality of the man who founded the Nepali Congress and led the party ever since its inception]

Nation a Collective Entity:

I want to draw the attend one of this Court towards the Revolution, with a brief reference to history, of 1950/51. The revolution, which in one stroke, gave the King his throne; people their fundamental rights; and through the Royal Proclamation, committed the King to democratic political system. This was not a small achievement for the nation. The New age in Nepal was initiated as a result of the collective efforts of the King and People. I do not think that such a remarkable effort was ever made in the history of Nepal. As a matter of fact, this collective effort elevated Nepal's status from a mere geographic entity and a state to that of a nation. This, in the early stage of nation building the wise saying desh sabai ko sajha ho (the nation is a collective entity) dawned upon the minds of the Nepali people. Since that very day the principal: Nation as collective entity, a fundamental pre-requisite of nationalism, was honored and established. If this principal is not mere lip service or rhetoric, then this "Collective" property should be owned, shared, controlled; and administered through collective rights and responsibilities.

The Revolution of 1950/51 was brought about by the collective efforts and co-operation of the King and the people. Thereafter, the historic Royal Proclamation of 7th Falgun (18th February) was honored as the fundamental principle of nationalism and democracy. The principal of Collective ownership of the nation or ownership by the King and the people alike (and not by an individual) was enshrined as an idol in the temple. Here the nation can be taken as a temple and the principal of collective ownership as the God's idol establishment must not be allowed to be vitiated. Having been inspired by these glorious and lofty ideals of nationalism, democracy, and the love of my country, I offered myself and participated in the Revolution of 1950/51. I have dedicated myself to this task of Nation Building. This feeling is the main source of inspiration of my political life. My decision both successful and unsuccessful, rash or prudent, are inspired by the higher call of Nation-building. My life is an open book.

After this revolution, another significant development took place in the history of Nepal. The King in a Royal Proclamation, under the constitution promulgated by him, announced to hold general elections on the basis of adult franchise in 1959. As a result of this election, I became the Prime Minister. My Premiership had three strong four dictions; First, the Constitution-granted by the King, Secondly a General Elections which clearly expressed the popular will and, thirdly, the Constitution had up help democratic norms and called upon me to become Prime Minister. Thus, the People the Constitution, and the Monarch were the basis on which I became Prime Minister. I am the first and the only elected Prime Minister in the history of Nepal. The action of 1960 was an unwarranted attack dealt upon Nationalism, Democracy, and the Principle of Co-operation.

I do not mean to assess the merits and demerits of the action here; because my attention is directed towards the goal of future reconstruction Merits and demerits are assessed either by historians or by those who do not play any constructive and practical role in the reconstruction and reconstruction and nation building. Yet, I would like to say that there was no justification on the basis of democracy neither on the basis of the constitution nor nationalism for the termination of my premiership, which was based on those three honored foundations.

I never dishonored the rights and privileges of the King neither the letter spirit of constitution, nor did I violate political and democratic norms or conduct in thought, word, and action. But, I was kept in detention for eight years without being charged with the violation of any law. That day, along with myself thousands of political people, supporters and opponents alike, were arrested and detained. Why? Now I have been produced in this court as an accuses! What was the reason behind this tremendous change in my status? Am I responsible for this change, or was this due to changes in the system of government and administration? Without understanding this basic fact, the charges leveled against me cannot be examined in proper perspective. This is a very important question its answer has to be sought. That very day I was made an accused without charges and since then, let us say, I am awaiting justice. The change in my status is not due to my action nor is it due to the change in my thinking I am, as I was in 1950-51 and 1960 a true democrat, a nationalist, and a believer in co-operation. There was change outside. I want to make a submission regarding this outside change.

The constitution of 1959 promulgated by the King was in fulfillment of the commitment made by the Royal Proclamation of 1950/51. Though the constitution of 1959 was a departure from the very spirit and letter of the Royal Proclamation of 1950/51, The Royal Proclamation of 1950/51 clearly stipulated that: 'it being our desire and decision that our people, henceforth, be governed by a democratic constitution framed by the Constituent Assembly, elected by them......" Even then the people accepted the constitution of 1959 promulgated by the King. The day people accepted the 1959 Constitution once again, were efforts made for Cooperation between the people and the King. In this context I want to raise a question of legal principle can something given away by the King be taken back by him unilaterally? From religious stand point a doer cannot take back, of his free will, anything given away in donation. Even from a legal approach things donated cannot be taken back from the constitutional angle this is not possible Otherwise Queen Elizabeth the II of Britain could have taken back the "Magna Carat." In practical terms, if the principal of taking back things once given be accepted will lead to grave uncertainty and chaos which will make things impossible. On the basis of legal principal; I want to submit to this Court that the event of 15th December 1960 was not only unfair, it was illegal and unconstitutional as well.

There is another aspect which needs attention, in respect to Human Rights as well as in the narrow realms of law and justice. During the action of 1960, thousands of people were imprisoned and many were subjected to cruelty; concerted propaganda was unleashed by the State machinery which continuously maligned and defamed those who were illegally detained. In spite of regard for the law of the land, a citizen like myself, who had violated neither the law of the country nor constitutional directives, nor governmental orders has had to undergo eight years of imprisonment. If it is accepted for the sake of argument, that the ten Prime Minister had committed some legal or constitutional impropriety, he and his supporters would have been liable to punishment. But, on that day action was taken against all political people without any exception. I am not stating all this with an intention to charge anyone. But this is a natural outpour of an anguished heart. That day not only thousands of innocent citizens got arrested but were compelled to sign petitions in an atmosphere of terror. Self-respect and dignity were plundered. Never in the history of Nepal was such a large scale attempts were made to efface self-respect but the moral courage of its citizens also emasculated.

Who is to honor justice?

The seeds of injustice were sown in the year 1960. Dus in injustice perpetrated at the governmental level, the people developed a sense of indifference to the law and justice. Subsequently, the outbursts of revolt and rebellion were the only natural reactions. This is a universal phenomenon which we find written in every page of history. This attitude is a natural reaction of human behavior. When justice is violated by the upholders of justice, who will then honour justice? Where will the purity of water remain if the source itself is polluted? When justice is dishonored at the very place of its origin; and the country is governed by the brute force and physical prowess the law of the jungle prevails. The first and fundamental objective of the State is to ensure justice. In a country where justice is not honoured, the State loses its ideals. Thereafter in a State void of ideals, institutions and different departments of administration become corrupt one after another. The army deviates from its path of protecting the nation and becomes an instrument of terror to be used against political opponents. The police become a tool of repression. Civil service converts into a club of sycophants. Under these circumstances, even if an honest citizen realizes his responsibility and tries to do something, he is sure to invite trouble.

Necessity of Revolution:

I did give a call for a revolution. A recourse to revolutionary means had to be taken since no peaceful and constitutional means of protest were available. Revolution is an inherent right of the people which comes under the category of the right to self defense. If fundamental rights, personal freedom, and rule of law were available to the citizens there would have been no need to raise the issue of revolution.

In the atmosphere of freedom, there would have been competition to secure the support of the people on the basis of ideas principles, and constructive programmes. A strong commitment to the people's cause would have been reflected in the administrative goals. The country would have advanced on the path of progress through the constitutional exercise of timely and clearly expressed policies and programmes based on people's aspirations; and implemented by the administrative machinery. Who will raise the issue of revolution in such a healthy political atmosphere?

I am a revolutionary:

I am a revolutionary not a terrorist. I term the events of 1950 as revolution; incidents (hit and run) of, 1962, taken collectively as revolt; and conspiracies viz. 'Kot Massacre' (September 15, 1846) and the action of December 15, 1960, and all such acts of individual liquidation resorted to create fear and panicky by the system or opponents as terrorism. Revolution in my opinion is that state of active opposition in which the people can put pressure on a hostile Government to the extent to which they compel it to give democratic rights. People's revolution had become necessary to restore democracy. But I do not believe in individual violence. My objective is to change the system and not to eliminate the advocates of the system. Revolution aims at the system and terrorism at the individual. I have been stating my views against individual violence and terrorism. I want change in every sphere of the Nepalese society in accordance with the modern times. Inspired by my call for a revolution, to establish democracy, if anyone had collected or been collecting arms, I own full moral responsibility for this act. I further own responsibility of commission and commission of my party, Nepali Congress, as its president.

I want change in the political, economic, social, intellectual, and educational spheres. The view that social back-wardens, superstitions, mental slavery, conservatism, feudal attitude, poverty and all the evil by products if these must go when taken in the contest of total change is termed revolutions. Political revolution creates an appropriate condition for a total change which will follow in due course. Being the upholder of this thought and principle I call myself a revolutionary. Perhaps the Government, in view of my principle and conviction has charged me of trying to establish Democratic Socialism through the people's revolution. People's revolution is just a method. It is only a means to an end.

In fact, I am a political being of liberal ideas, having faith in the constitutional method. A person like me, who due to events of history, compulsion of situation, by refusing to abandonee the ideals that I cherish, despite my liberal views and commitments had to resort to the revolutionary path in 1950. Even the upholders of the present regime will justify the compulsion of the 1950/51 revolution. If this fact is truthfully accepted, it shall not be difficult to understand my present revolutionary stand. While talking about the injustice perpetrated on me, I have also discussed my political values and matters relating to it. Had I not been produced in this Court as an accused, I would not have mentioned these facts.

National Unity:

We are passing through a critical phase in our history. This is a National Crisis. This is not only a transitional crisis nor the crisis witnessed in the early stage of development; but a crisis of our very existence. National unity is the only basis of our survival in this situation. We must not create an atmosphere of distrust by dragging in the past differences of opinion and partisan attitudes. Every one of us must make a determined effort for National Unity.

Principle of Democracy:

There are three basic principle of democracy. Even if a single one of three principles is missing the system cannot be accepted as democracy. And, if all the three are missing the question of democracy does not arise all. The three essential elements of democracy are: (1) Civil and fundamental rights of citizen means, one who enjoys those rights. (2) Rule of Law is a legal safeguard of the citizens right against encroachment by a repressive Government, particularly, its oppressive machinery like the army and the police. Therefore, the principle of rule of law is regarded as the foundation of democracy. (3) The principle of non-interference unrestricted and rightful presence of the citizen in the decision making process, and the exercise of State power. This principle is a by-product of the concept of people's sovereignty.

Three methods can be discussed regarding who has the right to exercise the state power and who shall run the Government. (1) The means of acquiring state power forcibly through the exercise of physical force no one will accept the rationality of this means. (2) Acquiring the state power through the concept of divine right. The last Rana Prime Minister Mohan Shumsher had once told me that one must have it written in the forehead to enjoy the state power. The principle of birth right to sate power comes under this proposition. (3) Democratic means enable the people to assume state power in an atmosphere of freedom by exercising fundamental rights through the methods of elections.

There are historical reasons for describing the present age as the age of democracy. The old notion regarding the State and sovereignty; that the state belonged to the King and its sovereignty was vested in the person of the King; and that the government is a personal machinery of an individual is no longer acceptable. That is why no dictator has the moral guts to declare like Louis the XIV that "I am the state". That is why they too claim that they rule in the name of the people. In a democracy the state and sovereignty are related to the principles of government. The State collectively belongs to the people and for that reason the sovereignty of that State too is vested collectively in the people. Therefore, the government which is an instrument of the state has got to be formed by the people. This democratic principle raises the status of the people from a 'subject' to that of a 'citizen'.

Democracy for Development:

Democracy is essential even for economic development. Historical forces have evolved this system. The Nepali Congress holds that in order to awaken latent social forces and mobilize them for social reconstruction, the old feudal order has to be done away with, and be replaced by a popular democratic system tune with modern times. Moreover, internal forces can only be mobilized when the people start taking bigger responsibilities. They are awakened from within to tread new paths; where leadership emerges amidst the people at local and national level. Democracy, for historical reasons and compulsions of developing situation, evolved as apolitical philosophy and system of Government; for the sole purpose of starting this process amongst the people. In absence of democracy the process of development is also arrested.

Democratic Socialism goal of Nepali Congress

Democracy and Socialism are the ideals and goals of the Nepali Congress, Just as the principle of political equality is established by democracy so too is the principle of economic equality established by socialism. The ideal state of socialism is that state of production where the society provides and fulfills the material needs of all the members in the society, according to their needs. For the society, in order to reach that stage of abundance and sufficiency, the means of production has to be modernized according to the planned and rational development. The present day talk, in the country, about tapping the sources of development in the absence of appropriate political institution has remained a mere rhetoric. It can also be accepted in principal as an initial step towards the goal of socialism. I am committed to establish democratic socialism and it is the goal of the Nepali Congress as well.

Question of Monarchy:

Nepali Congress is not against the institution of monarchy. Not only that but having realized the necessity of the institution of monarchy in the present context, the Nepali Congress has accepted its constitutional form. Nepal was always a monarchy, but it has been manifested in various forms. This is illustrated in-the monarchy prior to the Rana regime; the monarchy of the post Rana period; and the monarchy after the events of 1960. Furthermore, during 1950, Nepal had two Kings, King Tribhuvan and King Gyanendra, hence Nepal had two monarchies. King Trivhuvan had neither a kingdom nor the state machinery. King Trivbhuvan had to take political asylum, but then he had support of the most important and sovereign element the people, King Gyanendra had all the State paraphernalia; administrative system, the state army and the like, with their expressed allegiance to him; but one important element of state the people were not with him. So it does not suffice, simply, also be specified. The Nepali Congress has full faith in constitutional monarchy. But, if, in the name of monarchy, the system of Rana period ensues or an undemocratic system ensues, the Nepali Congress is against that. Therefore, the Nepali Congress and as the President of the party I, firmly believe in constitutional Monarchy. I have never disrespected H.M. the King neither dishonored the crown. As regards the Panchayt system, Nepali Congress is not averse to its nomenclature; what we are against is the anti-people system that is in vogue in the name of Panchayat Democracy.

Human Rights:

Human Rights bestowed recognition to human beings as man; one does not become man merely by living. I have only propounded that man must live by exercising human rights that is why, basic democratic right are considered as the birth rights of man. I did give a call for a revolution from time to time. I have stated that the people should reserve the right to revolt in order to establish a democratic system and to restore fundamental rights whenever they are denied. This too, is a birth rights. The revolution of 1950-51, recognized the constitutional legitimacy of this right. His Majesty the King also accepted it through his Royal Proclamation (February 18, 1951). As a matter of fact, the legitimacy of the revolution itself availed the King; the throne, and bestowed upon him constitutional authority.

Plead not guilty:

I have only this to state regarding the charges leveled against me: I None of my activities nor that of the Nepali Congress can be termed to have been detrimental to nationalism and sovereignty of Nepal. I am a democrat and a nationalist. Such allegations of acting against nationalism and sovereignty ware leveled against me even during the regime of Rana Prime Minister, Mohan Shamsher or when King Gyanendra was enthroned. The forces in power during that period had styled the opponents of their system as antinational element. Democracy struggle and people's revolution were termed counter-productive and regarded as a direct attempt against national sovereignty. On these ground charges were filed against the democrats. The same thing is happening today. Only those who consider democracy as poison would term the struggle for democracy as antinational. (2)Since the present system is undemocratic, the Nepali Congress and I hold that democracy should replace the present system. Therefore, I have been making efforts for the same. Neither the Nepali Congress nor myself have ever advocated that we must struggle with view to establish Nepali Congress government in place of the present one. The Nepali Congress never expects more in the form of political or governmental favor than is available to other political parties: It aspires for no more power than is available of other political parties in a democracy. Hence, in the eyes of history, the people, my ideals, and this court, I plead not guilty.

Citation: B. P. Koirala, "The Court Statement", in Sushil Koirala (ed.), Democracy Indispensable for Development 141-153, (Varanasi: Sandaju Publications, 1982)

Back