Secularism a conspiracy between foreign powers, far left

DEC 30 -
Kamal Thapa ’s Rastriya Prajatantra Party-Nepal (RPP-N), campaigning on a platform of ‘democracy with monarchy’ and a Hindu state, won 24 seats in the Constituent Assembly (CA) to become the fourth largest party. This is a massive increase from the party’s four seats in the 2008 CA. Although RPP-N failed to win any seats on first-past-the-post, it garnered a sizeable chunk of proportional representation votes, especially in the Kathmandu Valley—11,013 votes in Kathmandu district alone. Pranaya SJB Rana spoke to Thapa about the RPP-N’s agendas, its stance on federalism and how much the party is willing to compromise on issues of the monarchy and secularism.

How do you see the mandate given to you by the people?

Given the place we were in five years ago and the kind of behaviour we had to face , we are very grateful to the people for our success today. The people have established us as an alternative democratic force, a reserve force. We are quite happy with this. We had definitely expected more, given the preparations we had made and the response we had received from the people. We had expected a dozen seats through direct elections and a lot more through proportional representation. Even though this didn’t happen, we are the fourth largest party. I am also very proud to say that the RPP-N received votes from educated and committed voters.

Since the results, some sections have said that this is not a win for the RPP-N but a vote against the other mainstream parties.

People are free to express their opinion but I don’t think this is a negative vote. We stood firm, regardless of the odds and people voted for us. This is a clear-cut mandate in favour of a Hindu nation and democracy with monarchy.

But a great majority of votes went to the NC, UML and Maoists, which means that a strong mandate is still in favour of republicanism, federalism and secularism.

The mandate of the people this time is very clear. The people have weakened the parties that pushed for extreme agendas after the changes of 2006. These parties are the Maoists and the Madhes-based parties. The people have rejected their agendas. I don’t consider the NC and UML the champions of the 2006 Janaandolan. They simply followed the Maoists and Madhesis. The NC-UML are the champions of the 1990 Janaandolan. This time, the people have voted for the NC-UML to stand in between the Maoists-Madhesis on one side and the RPP-N on the other and find a middle ground. Despite the fact that we have received six times more votes than last time, we still don’t have enough. So it is not just our agendas that will be established. A compromise is necessary and the people recognised that the NC-UML are capable of finding this compromise.

If the people’s mandate is for a compromise, how much is the RPP-N willing to compromise?

We understand that all of our agendas cannot be implemented. We will have to be flexible but without sacrificing the fundamental elements of a Hindu nation, democracy with monarchy and no ethnic federalism. There must be a Hindu nation. We are ready to accept complete religious freedom and religious equality. We are fully committed to democracy but there must be some space for the monarchy, even in a symbolic form. On federalism, we can hold discussions on the form, provided that it is not based on ethnicity.

When you say federalism not based on ethnicity, do you mean not based on single-identity?

It is the same thing. Whether you say single-identity or multiple-identity, there is no difference. When the parties claim the various bases for multiple-identity, it is simply a cover. The main point is still ethnicity. Those who are raising this issue, their commitment is not to the Nepali people but to the donor agencies. But because they cannot sell this idea to the people, they are camouflaging ethnic federalism under multiple-identity.

So what is the RPP-N’s model of federalism?

Federalism is not our agenda but we are ready to compromise. But other parties have to come to us with a proposal. If need be, we can come up with a proposal ourselves but this is not the right time. I don’t think we should play all our cards yet.

On a different note, there is talk of forming a high level political mechanism outside the constituent assembly. Why do you oppose this?

We are totally against this. I see this as an attempt to sabotage and undermine the authority and sovereignty of the CA. Whether we are included or not, we cannot accept this. The Maoists, in the past too, have used so-called consensus as a tool to establish their agendas. In a democracy, you try to move ahead together. But if that is not possible, you still need to follow proper norms and procedures. Now, because the Maoists have been weakened, they are trying to save their political goals using all the resources at their disposal to push for consensus. Unfortunately, the NC-UML did not understand this in the past and they don’t understand this now. Even if they do, they seem to lack the guts, vision and leadership to oppose it.

Couldn’t a high level political mechanism be used as a forum to address the demands of parties, including the CPN-Maoist, which boycotted the election?

There are so many political forces outside the parameters of the CA. The CPN-Maoist boycotted the election but the monarchy, a traditional political force, is also outside the CA. So the voices of all of these forces need to be heard. To do this, a consultation mechanism can be created, not a permanent structure outside of the CA. Constitution-making needs to happen within the CA. To create a

political body outside the CA would be a betrayal of the people’s sovereign authority.

Coming back to the CA, despite being the fourth largest party, your numbers are still small, compared to the NC, UML and Maoists. What impact do you hope to have?

We are drafting a constitution so it not just about the arithmetic. The ideas count. If a small party brings up a good idea, it must be addressed. I think it is now time for me to  explicitly mention something I have been saying for the last seven years. Ethnic federalism, secularism and republicanism were the result of a conspiracy between the foreign powers and the country’s extreme left and a part of their strategic alliance. The political parties, intellectuals and media all went along with this under foreign pressure.

So you maintain that the work done by the old CA should not be continued with?

The day the old CA was dissolved without writing a constitution, all its decisions were dissolved too. This is a legal and political fact, not just my opinion. The Election Commission is also very clear about this. It never said that this was the ‘second’ election to a CA; it said that this was the ‘next’ CA election [sambidhan sabha ko lagi ‘arko’ chunab]. Continuing with the old work could be an easier way but we should not forget that this is a fresh mandate. Extremist agendas have been defeated and the RPP-N has risen as a new force. We cannot take any shortcuts to institutionalise wrong decisions.

You have raised the idea of a referendum on secularism, federalism and republicanism. Is this your focus now?

First, we will try to come to an understanding in the CA. We will request other political parties to address the agendas of all political forces. If we cannot reach an understanding and there is an attempt to push through certain agendas under the force of numbers alone, then the constitution-writing process will once again be incomplete and will invite another conflict. So we should look for consensus and respect for all agendas. And only as a last resort should we go to the people.

Is reunification with Surya Bahadur Thapa’s RPP possible?

I don’t see any possibility of unification in the near future but I don’t rule it out either. We want to consolidate our recent success and move forward. The people have established us as the fourth largest party but in five years time, we will become the largest party. We have already started to work towards that end. To reach that goal, we will accept and welcome individuals or forces with an ideology similar to ours.

On a final note, do you see a constitution within a year?

If we follow the people’s mandate to the letter and spirit, we will definitely have a constitution within a year. And the RPP-N will honestly contribute to that end. But we will not take part in government formation. The people have not given us a mandate to form a government.

Labels: Interview