"Where does Nepal go from Here" - B. P. Koirala (Interview) (Amrit Bazar Patrika, April 19, 1981)
The democrat's decision to opt out of the political process, notwithstanding the recent constitutional reforms, is fraught with danger. B. P. Koirala is well aware of it, whoever else may or may not be. This is why he emphasizes that the Nepali Congress will not shift its ground; it would continue to explore every peaceful avenue to democratic transformation of the Nepalese society.
The King, however, has not spoken his mind except that he does not propose further changes in the already amended constitution. As for B. P. Koirala, he is on record with the observation that the recent constitutional reforms do not go far enough to meet the people's democratic aspirations. He made this clear once again in the course of a taped interview I had with him on 2 April in Kathmandu.
BC: Don't you think your non-participation in the general election will close all your options except that of the politics of conflict? There do you go from here now that you have decided to stay away from the election?
BP: I think if I had accepted the amended Constitution in to, then perhaps my options would have become very limited. My options would, have been limited if I had joined the system. Thapa's (Premier Surya Bahadur Thapa) options are limited, M.P. Koirala's (former nominated Prime Minister and a Panchyat leader) options are limited, but not my options because I am with the people.
BC: Don't you think that whatever you might decide to do there is always the possibility of that leading to confrontation?
BP: No. I don't think so. S debate went on for some time in our party about its approach to the election. Three alternatives were suggested: (1) Boycott the election and sit tight in our homes, doing nothing it is called non-active boycott, (2) Active boycott which should follow either of the three strategies don't allow the election to take place or capture the polling booths on the election day or prevent the voters from going to the booths; (3) Creation a law and order situation. We are opposed is that; we are also opposed to passive boycott. Our boycott is that we would go to the masses. But we would do this only to explain to the voters the political situation and the reasons why we are not participating in the election, what particular clauses in the Constitution, what processes we object to and why. We will not create a law and order situation, we will not physically prevent the voters from going to the polling booths, we will not physically interfere in the election process. But we will education the people we will go to them and do the political job and not the job of the anti-social elements or that of the law-breaker. To repeat, we will not sit tight in our homes and just issue statements saying that we have decided not to participate in the election.
BC: You are on record with the observation that the amended Constitution is good for neither the King nor the people. You stated on 21 March 1981 that your current Political line is "no confrontation" with, "no surrender" to the Palace. This reminds one of Mahatma Gandhi's "neither acceptance, nor rejection" approaches to the constitutional changes the British government had proposed during India's freedom struggle. What does your line really mean?
BP: I will explain what our line is we will not compromise on the issue of democracy and we will not adopt the line of confrontation with the King. That is why I said no confrontation; no surrender; no surrender of our right to fight for democracy in our country. But our fight will not be of the nature of a confrontation with the King. With regard to Gandhiji's statement sometimes I feel that I have started understanding Gandhiji more and more as critical situations develop and one has to take decision alone because there is no assistance available from any quarter. When my people, my co-workers, my comrades look to me for getting out of a tight corner, then I feel that I am confronting a situation the like of which perhaps Gandhi also had to face. That is why I say I have started understanding Gandhiji better; his line has become a little more relevant in the given context.
BC: You are credited with the statement that "without our acceptance of the constitution and our involvement in the pool, the credibility of the democratic process will be very little."You declare that "We intend to ask our supporters to stay away from the polling booths on the election day" for "the choice offered is of candidates having a poor record" and not because you reject on principle the post referendum political engineering. At the same time you confirm that "my line of seeking a national reconciliation is still operative and relevant in the national context." Can you really say that there is no gap in the logical association of the three formulations?
BP: The election will be meaningful only when the people who had remained outside the prevalent structure participate in the election. If the same set of people, who have been with the system, in the Panchayat process for the last 20 year, were to be involved in the election, if it does not take in those that had remained outside the Panchayat system, then the election is meaningless. This is why I said that the election would be a futile exercise because it would involve the same people and voters will have no choice.
BC: Your statement (20 March 1981) that the amended Constitution's grant of universal adult franchise and direct election would eventually lead to "watering down" of the Crown's authority" because "the people could choose their own candidates in future and not abide by the official list" seemingly suggests that there is a qualitative difference between the pre-referendum political situation and the realities on the ground today. How's that?
BP: I told you that the positive feature in the Constitution is that there will be direct election on the basis of universal adult franchise and the government will not be responsible to the King but to the elected legislature. But what I have been trying to tell you, Bhola is that this is not adequate; the situation is developing faster than the mind of the King. Whatever little concession the King grants is just a drop in the ocean. It only whets the appetite of the people instead of satisfying their hunger. I do not say that it has no positive aspect; it has some good features. But these are nullified by other features like membership of the class organization. You see, membership of the class organization means that you have got to take a pledge when you offer yourself as a candidate for election, there is a document which you have got to sign saying that you adhere to the party less principle. We subscribed to the party system. True, we have lost the referendum but we still think that is not good for the country. We reserve to ourselves the right to say no.
BC: Is the Palace involved in day to day politics in a partisan manner? Do you think the Palace should scrupulously stay away from active politics?
BP: The Palace is a bizarre affair. It is not a monolith so to speak. There is the King and there are other lobbies also in the Palace. I shall not be surprised if the big powers also have their own spokesmen in the Palace. So I will not speak of the Palace as such, because I do not understand it. I only understand the King and I think he has some positive role to play he should not be a dummy. He should play a positive role in starting the process of democratization. The King should be partisan in favor of the people. I want that the King should be modern, democratic; I want democratization of the kingship and the King should play a role in that.
Citation: B. P. Koirala, "Where does Nepal go from Here", (Interview) in Sushil Koirala (ed.), Democracy Indispensable for Development 95-99, (Varanasi: Sandaju Publications, 1982)
Back