"King in the Parliament" - B. P. Koirala (Interview) (Monthly "Vasudha", July-Aug, 1978)
The compulsion to have to constantly reaffirm one's principle is destined to achieve what he has struggled all throughout his life. B. P. Koirala, who had spearheaded the revolution of 1950, is yet on the mark to scoring another font of restoring to the people the lost democratic rights which, if achieved through a peaceful referendum as announced and promised by His Majesty the King, will add another father in his cap. Mr. Koirala speaks on a number of pertinent issues of contemporary Nepalese politics to VASUDHA's editor.
Q: You have said that the protection and preservation of Nepal's sovereignty rests upon the unity of the people. How do you think that such unity is possible in the days to come?
BP: We are firmly of the opinion that the national unity rests upon the firm foundation of democracy. The first condition of national unity is a relationship of trust and confidence between the institution of monarchy and the Parliament elected by the people. Since the institution of monarchy is not subject to popular vote, it becomes vulnerable under political attacks and thus loess both its legitimacy, which is, through conventions and myths derived from an unopposed supposition of universal loyalty of the people to the institution and its utility to the nation, unless it binds itself to work in harmony with the Parliament. In a democratic monarchy the crown is an exalted institution within the framework of democracy. This institution cannot be a surrogate of the entire nation. Where we differ from the Panchas the ideologues of the present party less Panchyat system is in conception of nationalism. To them the crown embodies in itself the totality of the nation whereas; to us it is only of the institutions of the nation concededly a venerable and exalted institution among many, like an elected Parliament, Independent Judiciary, and Election etc. There is a much used expression in this connection which speaks of the "King in the Parliament". I think this expression gives some idea of what we understand by national unity. The Panchas want us to believe that in the consideration of such questions as nation and its building process, the right of the people is of no consequence, that, the more the King is invested with progressively greater power and authority, the stronger becomes the nation. In our understanding of the problem of nation building, the people occupy the central position. In a delicately evolving relationship between the crown and the Parliament, such debates as are carried on recently on the forums of democracy are not helpful. Even my explanatory answer to your question may not be conducive to a healthy growth of conventions on which this relationship rests than on well-defined formulations of rights and duties of these institutions through constitutional and legal documents.
Q: Are you firmly determined that the proposed referendum will be held in a free and impartial atmosphere?
BP: In my opinion the parties who really count in the matter are the King and the people, and hence if it is in the interest of both of them to have the national referendum conducted in free and fair manner, then it will be held so. The people can not wish to have anything else other than an impartially conducted referendum. They would certainly not like to be a victim of a grand deception. This is quite understandable, So far as the King is concerned I can't understand why he should not like to have an impartial ascertained of the opinion of the people on such an important question when he has himself proclaimed the referendum with a royal promise that it would be help fairly and impartially, I can't believe that his intention is to perpetuate a fraud on the people, Moreover, which he made the proclamation, he must have taken into consideration both national and international factors in the situation before he took this momentous decision. I don't think the situation which necessitated this step on the part of the King has changed to warrant a changed in his decision.
Q: You have recently remarked that if the present government cannot perform two main tasks the maintenance of law and order and the holding or referendum then the banned Nepali Congress has the legitimate right to undertake these responsibilities during this interim period. Do you think it is proper to accept such responsibility at this critical juncture?
BP: The most important issue before the nation is the referendum. All other issue are of secondary importance. Therefore, it is the patriotic duty of all of us to see that it is held as early as possible and that it is held in an atmosphere of peace and tranquility. You cannot hold an election properly when the law and order is not maintained. The government's responsibility is primarily twofold-to-hold the referendum and to maintain law and order. In the context of the referendum, which will secede even the fate of the government itself, the status of the government is that of a caretaker. It is politically unsound and also unethical for a caretaker government to try to prolong itself by delaying the holding of the referendum on which hinges the stability of the nation through the initiation of the process of democratization. There has been a demand for removal of the present government and install a so-called national government or the government of independent persons or technocrats to ensure important election. I am not interested in these suggestions. I am interested only in a government that maintains law and order firmly and holds the referendum in peace in the shortest possible time. Whichever government is capable of doing this job is acceptable to us, I have staked our claim to from the interim government the caretaker government in the event of others failing to do the job.
Q: What type of economic policy you think is suitable for Nepal to remove the existing mass poverty?
BP: Nepal lives in villages. Its poverty lies there. We cannot even understand the problem of poverty, unless we are aware of the existence of villages and their inhabitants. The mistake of the planners stems from the ideas that they derive from the developed nations with high and sophisticated technology. You know these nations are highly urbanized and even their villages are urban pockets. Their agriculture has adopted highly developed technologies to improve its efficiency. The Nepali planner's model of development is provided by these nations. Unless the mind of the planners is appropriately changed, their conception of development is altered we cannot even start the process of development. I will ask the planners to set their sight on the villages and the villagers. Think in their term; introduce only such technologies that they can themselves handle such technology that is only slightly an improvement on what they are used to. No big machines, no tractors, no bulldozers, no jet engines, no big roads meant only for imported vehicle technicians imports. Put all your emphasize on improving agricultural efficiency and on such industries as are agro-based. Make at least drinking water safe, potable water available to the villagers. Motivate them to keep their villages clean by providing them not with costly hospitals which we cannot afford in any case, but with basic hygienic needs. Mr. Editor, what I want to suggest is let us not be moon struck with the glamour of the developed countries and be soiling our hands with the dirt of the villages which make up what we call Nepal.
Q: You have emphatically said that Nepal will have very close relations with India and friendly relations with China. Do you not think that the growing interest of the powers in Nepal can influence her foreign policy?
BP: We cannot wish the existence of big powers and the dynamics of their economic and military strength and their propensity to exercise their strength in their so-called interest. It is our nationalistic duty to try to limit their influence in our policy making sphere. If we are united, this patriotic task is not impossible. Big powers to have this Achilles heels and they are vulnerable at many points.
Q: How do you view the prospects for regional cooperation in Asia? What should be the role of Nepal?
BP: Nepali has a role in South Asia only if it is a united nation. This unity again, can only be achieved if we build democratic institutions in which the people have a vested interest and which the King himself helps to build through resting anti democratic forces and encouraging the growth of healthy conventions to bolster up such democratic institutions. South Asia is undergoing a phase of destabilization leading to occasional uncertainty about its prospect, politically and otherwise. I visualize big changes in our part of the world, and during this period of uncertainty and disquiet Nepal could provide an example of stability, a united nation where leadership is fully aware of the direction which the ship of the state they want to steer to. This is a big role we can play. If we don't then we would be round wanting. Nobody but our selves would be responsible for the failure of Nepal to play its legitimate role in the current situation. Again, I would like to warn that if we cannot play this role in the present situation, which I think is favorable to us as a nation; we will perhaps have no further occasion to do so.
Q: How do you react to the allegation that in one of your recent public speeches in Biratnagar you have opted for multi-party system without the referendum being held?
BP: I did not make statement attributed, obviously with mischievous intent to me. The Rastra Pukar a popular Kathmandu weekly has published the full text of my statement on the subject. The text is the transcription of my tape-recorded speech that I made recently in Biratnagar.
Q: Is there any move in the offing to realign the break-away groups with the parent organization of the banned Nepali Congress?
BP: The parent organization has parental attitude towards erring and aberrant groups. I want all those nationalist and democratic elements in our body politics to come under a disciplined political organization which in the present political context is no other than the Nepali Congress. The experience of 19 years of an authoritarian rule, which not only deprived the people of their human and democratic rights, but also enfeebled our national character to the extent that Nepal has become vulnerable to foreign machination endangering its national integrity has taught us that the party that aspires to rescue the nation from the present predicament and ensure stability and progress through democratic means must belong to its dedicated members with total loyalty to its ideal of nationalism, democracy and socialism. All those who share this common purpose with us are most welcome to join us in this noble enterprise.
Q: Your non-participation in the recent meeting of the united front of the multi-party forces is alleged to have borne out of arrogance, having been developed as a strange trait in your character in recent times. What is your opinion?
BP: You forget, Mr. Editor that it is not only I who did not participate in the recent meeting of which you speak. Even such people as have credentials of humility like Dr. Regmi, Comrade M.M. Adhikari and a host of other too did not attend the meeting of the united front on many occasions. According to my thinking it will be conducive to the ultimate promotion of the cause of multi-party system if the prospective parties campaign from their respective platforms for the multi-party system in the referendum itself. This will not cramp their style of functioning and will help to project their images in sharp outlines. The focus will not be blurred.
Citation: B. P. Koirala, "Where does Nepal go from Here", (Interview) in Sushil Koirala (ed.), Democracy Indispensable for Development 60-65, (Varanasi: Sandaju Publications, 1982)
Back