"Indian Leaders should beware of me" - B. P. Koirala (Interview) (Weekly "Sunday" Calcutta, June 24, 1979)
B. P. Koirala, the once and possibly future Prime Minister of Nepal lives simply in typical Nepali house in Chabhill, Kathmandu. Two serious operations, the scars of which are prominent on the left side of his throat, have left his voice week and slightly tremulous but the spirit is still strong and the man retains the courage that has seen hip through the most cruel of years–imprisonment, mental torture, solitary confinement, banishment. But he looks happy now. At long last the democratic Nepal that he has fought for all his life seems to be on the horizon; the referendum ordered by King Birendra looks like the last stretch of a long climb. M.J. AKBAR interviewed "BP" (as he is affectionately known) in Kathmandu.
Q.: Has the King outmaneuvered you politically be calling for a referendum?
BP: Not at all. This is exactly what we wanted, because we could not have expected the King to repudiate the present system just like that. Moreover, he could not have restored the status quo ante, that is restored us (the Nepali Congress) to power without some such manoeuvre.
Q.: Why did he call fore this referendum?
BP: Because he wants to promote the stability of his throne.
Q.: Why are you interested in the stability of the throne? Why don't you want to end the monarchy?
BP: There are three basic reasons. The traditional authority of the King must be utilized to solve the problems of the country. We are not yet a nation; we are, rather, an administrative unit. We have begun thinking on national lines only from 1951-52. We do not have a polity as yet. And economically we are very primitive. These are formidable tasks, and we have to make use of the authority of the throne to achieve these three tasks. Moreover, during the transition period, the King will have a role to play. I always give the example of Spain. If the monarchy had not been restored in Spain I don't think the transition from Franco's fascism to democracy would have been possible so smoothly.
Q.: Doesn't this sound like the language of compromise? Has not your history taught you that to compromise with monarchy is dangerous?
BP: I have not compromised on basic issues: the restoration of democracy, on the need for elections, on the multi-party system, on the Government being responsible to the people, on the primacy of Parliament.
Q.: You don't think you are putting too much trust again on the palace?
BP: We have reached a point in Nepal's history when the King has to make up his mind whether he wants to save his throne or be an authoritarian ruler.
Q.: Were you using similar arguments to rationalize your position between 1952 and 1960 (when the "royal coup" threw out Koirala's Government)?
BP: I told the late King Mahendra in a heated discussion with him in 1960- I think this was a little before the coup, perhaps in December itself-that the problems Nepal was facing needed total national effort and if the King thought he could autocratically solve problems he was grievously mistaken. The monarchy has been in power for nearly 20 yeas after that, and the King finds no improvement–economically, politically, in any away.
Q.: Is it the feudal nature to be responsive to the mass to worry about the well-being of the people?
BP: That is what people have been telling me-that this is the lesson of history. But somehow I fell, and I would like to believe, that in the interest of our nation, our King would be out of the usual run of Kings.
Q.: Does the King have any support among the people?
BP: He has traditional authority. If he is removed it will certainly create a vacuum. And that will add to our national problems.
Q.: Does the King like you?
BP: I don't know. He has to like whoever is liked by the people. He should have no choice in the matter. He can't indulge in his personal likes and dislikes (when running the country).
Q.: But Kings have always employed personal likes and dislikes in running their affairs.
BP: That is why they have brought the situation to a point where a small student's struggle becomes a national crisis. It is because of politics which is based on personal idiosyncrasies that the administration is so fragile, is so unresponsive to the aspiration of the people, is so alienated from the people.
Q.: One of the things the King has done by unilaterally calling for a referendum, without consulting you, is to equate you with all other politicians of Nepal. He has shown you no special status, despite your record.
BP: I couldn't have expected he would restore status quo ante. This was the device he chose. But we are going to be in power.
Q.: What has been the impact of the referendum decision?
BP: The King has defused the crisis and established his bona fides with the people. It must have come as a bombshell to many of the aspirants to power through intrigue and manipulation.
Q.: Would you like to name some of these aspirants?
BP: (Smiles) No names.
Q.: But no date has been fixed for the referendum.
BP: That is not possible, even if I were the King I could not have outright suggested the date. But may feeling is that the King wants to have the election as soon aspossible and be done with it.
Q.: But won't this delay slow the momentum towards democracy?
BP: No. from the moment the King called for the election, there has been a qualitative change in the situation, people have started popular politics.
Q.: What is the nature of the support that the Nepali Congress commands among the people?
BP: I think ours is not a class Party, it's a national Party. Particularly on questions such as restoration of democracy, people from every walk of life look to us for leadership.
Q.: It is said that your support is weak among the peasantry
BP: How can anyone say that? We won the elections in 1959-through the peasant vote. If anything, we have improved our position since 1960. After all, we were the only ones who struggled, the others were nowhere.
Q.: How do you intend to solve the problem of factionalism within your Party?
BP: Ours is a democratic Party. Even in rronolithic Parties like the Communist Party there are deferent points of view. But meet Ganesh Man Singh, Bhattarai and myself and see if there are any major differences between us. On the question of referendum there is total unanimity within our Party. We support this step of the King. Some of my colleagues want that in the interests of impartiality (in the elections) there should be further steps before the elections are held. But I don't insist on that, and they too don't raise their protest to the level of a condition. Similarly, a general amnesty for all political prisoners would be in tune with the steps the King has lately taken, and it would create a healthier atmosphere for a referendum-but I do not want to make this a condition precedent to a referendum. My colleagues emphasize this (the demand for amnesty) more than I do, but they too have not made this a condition.
Q.: How powerful is the Communist movement?
BP: It is very weak, because the movement is fragmented. Firstly, by rifts between the pro-Russian, The pro-Chinese and the nationalist communists. Then, among these broad factions, internal rifts exist-the factions are waging a more ferocious war between themselves than at anyone else.
Q.: Why have the communists supported the King and the Panchayat system?
BP: I think it was an ideological anachronism, but strategically it is sound policy, because they could be effective in a situation where the two most important Parties were at loggerheads. Not having mass support, they could play an effective role by politicking.
Q.: It is well known that many Indian politicians, the Socialists in particular, are your close friends. Has your Indian connection hurt you politically in Nepal?
BP: I was in Indian politics. Not many people know that I was for four years in a British prison during the independence movement. In 1930, I was arrested as a terrorist; I was operating between Benaras and Hajipur. And during the 1942 movement too, when I was arrested in 1942 I was kept with Rajendra Prasad in Bankipore Jail for six months. Then I was taken to Hazaribagh jail where I was with Jagjiven Ram. I knew Chandrashekhar quite a few years ago; he was a junior member then; he has attended some of my summer classes in socialism. I know madhu Dandavate, George Fernandes Madhu Limaye Surendra Mohan.
Why should this hurt me in Nepal? The unscrupulous Opposition has been trying to call me some kind of an Indian stooge-but that does not cut any ice. Every time I came back from treatment from Europe, I faced demonstrations by hired people. One of the slogans called me the running dog of Indian imperialism, but I don't think that has hurt my politics. My friendship with Indian leaders does not prevent me from being an ardent nationalist. I've been telling some of my detractors that an Indian leader should beware of me rather than me being beware of them.
Q.: I think Delhi's South Block knows that
BP: (Smiles) I think, yes. I have some experience also (in this context). In 1960 we were involved in some important trade negotiations. The South Bloc people were very adamant on certain issues and things were not moving. I contacted Nehru directly and he sent for L.K. Jha–Jha was a class fellow of mine from Benaras. Nehru said the treaty should not be delayed, and whatever I wanted should be given.
Q.: What do you think of the bureaucrats who implement our foreign policy?
BP: I do not want to comment on that because I have not had to deal with them. But sometimes they give the impression that they are too rigid, too unaware of the national susceptibilities of foreign countries.
Q.: How would you compare Vajpayee's foreign Policy with Mrs. Gandhi's?
BP: Vajpayee has been trying to soften the abrasive policy of his predecessor and I think he has improved relations with his neighbours-thourg I don't know if the improvement is only cosmetic. But I talked to Pakistani and Bangladeshi diplomats when I was in Washington and they also said there has been improvement since Mrs. Gandhi's days. The Indian Government cannot go against the general mood of its people and we have been receiving massive popular support for our democratic movement. Vajpayeeji once admitted this at a Press conference two years ago. There is tremendous good-will for us in India-never has there been such enthusiastic support for our cause.
Q.: Is Indian money playing a part in Nepali politics?
BP: I have no information about this. I don't want to say anything about something I do not know.
Q.: But your Party has been accused of taking money from Indian sources.
BP: This is a false accusation. This charge appears when-ever we win an election and show our popular strength, or detractors come forward with this. Now we are accused of getting money from the Americans also. (smiles.) One very important communist paper has accused me of riding to power on the back of Mr. Carter!Q.: Do you have full control over the agitation now taking place in Nepal?
BP: You see, we have full control over the genuine agitation. But we have no control over the anti-social elements. (By now) all genuine movements have been suspended and there is, by and large, a peaceful atmosphere in the country. We created a situation (where peaceful change was possible) when we decided to return to Nepal with the slogan of national reconciliation. We created an atmosphere where people could organize and speak out against the system. When the students decided to launch a movement, we did not associate ourselves (officially) as the Nepali Congress, but we asked our members to assist the movement wherever possible. We did not want this movement to acquire a political overtone because our policy was not one of confrontation. We had permitted our units to organize agitations on local economic issues, or sectional issues, but we did not want to confront the King with a political struggle. The student movement did play a role, but it was not the main factor, which has induced the King to call the referendum.
Q.: Do you think the King was haunted by the fate of Iran?
BP: I don't know. But the situation in Iran must have been one of the factors which the King must have taken into consideration
Citation: B. P. Koirala, "Indian Leaders Should Beware of Me", (Interview) in Sushil Koirala (ed.), Democracy Indispensable for Development 33-40, (Varanasi: Sandaju Publications, 1982)
Back