FEB 18 -Interview: Ranjit Rae
India has no intention of micro-managing Nepali institutuions 
Indian Ambassador Ranjit Rae arrived in Kathmandu in September last year, when the country had embarked on the election cycle. He has largely managed to avoid major controversies, something not all his predecessors managed to do and has taken up the mantle at Lainchour, arguably Kathmandu’s most important diplomatic mission, at a time of relative calm in Nepal-India ties. Crucially, Rae was Joint Secretary (2002-06) with the Indian Ministry of External Affairs at its North Desk, which looks after Nepal affairs. That was a period when New Delhi actively facilitated a peace deal between Nepal’s parliamentary parties (the Seven Party Alliance, SPA) and the Maoists, who were still underground. Right through the 2006 Janaandolan and the subsequent peace process, New Delhi has remained an active player in Nepal’s transition, often courting ire from various quarters in Nepal. In an hour-long exclusive interview with Editor-in-Chief of The Kathmandu Post Akhilesh Upadhyay and Editor-in-Chief of Kantipur Sudheer Sharma, Rae described current Nepal-India ties as excellent and explained that Nepal’s ‘stability, security and prosperity’ were fundamental strategic objectives of India’s foreign policy towards Nepal.

How would you describe the current state of Nepal-India relations? 

I can describe it in one word, ie, excellent. Our relations are very ancient, wide-ranging, warm and cordial. And in the new global context of economic reform and globalisation policies in India, they have opened up many new opportunities. So the challenge before us today is to build upon the age-old friendship we have and see how to make it even more dynamic.

What are New Delhi’s major foreign policy goals in Nepal? 

India and Nepal are very close friends and neighbours that share an open border. Our prime minister has said on more than one occasion that if India is to prosper, if India is to grow, if India is to reduce poverty amongst her people, then India needs peace, stability and friendship in her neighbourhood and especially in a country like Nepal with which we share open borders. If there is no peace and prosperity in India, Nepal will not be able to prosper either. The most important thing is to have peace, stability, security and prosperity in Nepal. So that is clearly a very fundamental strategic objective that is common to both Nepal and India.

Second, how do we make this relationship even stronger? I would specially identify economic areas. If we can take our economic cooperation to new levels that will really cement the relationship between our two countries. So I think these are the two fundamental objectives that we feel are common between India and Nepal.

Currently, we are in the middle of completing a peace process and a constitution. Do you see these processes heading towards the right direction, or what challenges do you see in completing them?

I think the peace process has been a great achievement for Nepal. It is a very positive development that has brought peace and stability in this country. Second, as far as transitions are concerned, I think Nepal is going through multiple transitions. There is the transition from monarchy to a republican system; the transition from a Hindu state to a secular state and the economic transition. There is also the process of constitution formation. So, if you see step-by-step, considerable progress has been made: elections have been held, a government has been formed and everyone is committed to enacting a constitution within a year. I think that will consolidate multi-party democracy and provide a very strong framework for development, stability, prosperity and inclusive growth. If you look at all of South Asia today, I think the one striking feature is that all the countries in the region are now multiparty democracies.  



In light of the ongoing transition, and that the Nepali Congress (NC) is now leading the government after a fresh mandate, what kind of relations does New Delhi have with our political parties—the NC, CPN-UML, UCPN (Maoist) and parties to the right of the centre?

The first thing I would like to say is that both our countries are multiparty democracies; India and Nepal both have many political parties with different views. But the important thing is, on an issue like Nepal, all political parties in India share the same view and attach the same importance to the relationship with Nepal. There is consensus in terms of the way we look at Nepal in India, in terms of both approach and policies. I feel that the same is true of the political parties in Nepal.

The second point is, many political parties in Nepal and India share a very ancient and historic connection. With some political parties, the relationship is many decades old, with others it may be relatively new and there may be no relationship with some other parties right now. I feel that this relationship between the political parties is very important.

NC leaders were in India during its freedom struggle, for example. A number of our party leaders, likewise, have relationships with Indian leaders and there are party-to-party relationships too.

I have already made a general comment and certainly, we have great respect for the NC and for the contributions its leaders made to the Indian freedom struggle. I don’t think you would find this kind of example in many other countries of the world. This is certainly something we greatly appreciate and admire. It has contributed to the strong cooperation between the two countries. But that does not mean that the relationships with the parties that have come up subsequently are in any way different. I think every party, in its own way, has made significant contributions to Nepal and India-Nepal cooperation.  It is our desire to strengthen our political relationship with every political party that is active in Nepal.

How do you view the second largest party, the CPN-UML? 

We have very good relations with the CPN-UML, the UCPN (Maoist) and the Madhesi political parties. We have worked closely with each of these parties. As they have all been represented in the government, political leaders are known to us and we are committed to further stepping up our cooperation, not only between the two governments but also at the level of leaders and political parties.

To focus on party relations, one charge against the Indian establishment has been that it engages in a certain degree of micro-management of Nepal’s political parties, which are fundamentally independent institutions.

First, I would like to say that the Government of India and the Indian Embassy have no intention of micro-managing anything in Nepal. The only objective we have and what we wish for our friends in Nepal is stability and prosperity. And we hope very much that whatever we do in Nepal is for the mutual benefit of Nepal and India. My very firm conviction is that, at a fundamental level, there is convergence in terms of our national interests. I don’t see any fundamental divergence. Of course, in any close relationship, especially between neighbours with open borders, there will be irritants from time to time. Let me tell your readers that we have nothing but the best wishes and support for Nepal. There may be a perception of micro-management, which I see from the perspective of some newspapers and articles.

It is often said that as far as Delhi is concerned, three actors basically decide the larger bilateral relations: the Indian Ambassador, the National Security Advisor and the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) chief.

I think this is a gross oversimplification of the way policies and decisions are made in the Government of India. We are a democracy and there is a certain process of decision making. It is also based on the political leadership. Eventually, the political leadership gives the political line in terms of what our approach should be. Then decisions are taken through a very comprehensive discussion across organisations and institutions involved in any approach. So I wouldn’t simplify it in the manner in which you have presented your question. I think it is a much more complex process and, as I said, there is wide political consensus in India in terms of policy and approach towards Nepal.



On some occasions, you have mentioned that India and Nepal could have common interests, mainly on security and development issues. Can you elaborate? 

Let me talk about security first.  In this era of globalisation and interdependence, peace, prosperity and security have become indivisible. When something happens in one country, it affects another country and they may not even be neighbours, as we have seen in the last 10-15 years. India and Nepal are neighbours with open borders. So clearly, peace and stability in one country has a direct impact in terms of peace and stability in the other. Security is thus a very important element of this bilateral relationship. And I am very happy to inform you that both our countries see our security as interlinked. So India and Nepal are coming together to ensure that nothing happens which causes insecurity in the other country. Second, we have very good cooperation between our security forces, whether it is the police or the military. This is in the traditional sense. In a broader sense, if you look at economic security, climate change or disaster management, security has a wider dimension. We are cooperating on those areas too.

In so far as economic cooperation is concerned, the India of today is very different from India before the 1990s. Post our liberalisation programme, we have clearly unleashed the entrepreneurial energies of our people. India is now growing at a much higher trajectory. We are almost a two-trillion-dollar economy. Of course, this year, we are expected to grow at about 5 percent but we were growing at 8 to 9 percent. Every year, we are adding something like $180 billion to the size of our GDP. I see great opportunities for Nepal in benefitting from this huge economic growth that is taking place in India. I think the challenge is to identify sectors where Nepal can take advantage of this economic growth.



Going back to the question of security, what are the specific areas of concern India has with Nepal vis-à-vis the open border? 

There have been terrorism-related cases, fake Indian currency smuggling, gold smuggling and trafficking of protected species. Also, because we have an open border, someone commits a crime in one country and runs to the other. I think this is a problem for both countries.

The open border between India and Nepal can bring a lot of positive advantages but sometimes, unfortunately, they are also misused by people who do not have the best interests of the two countries at heart. I think both countries are committed to ensuring that this misuse is minimised and prevented.



On that, how would you describe the current framework for cooperation vis-à-vis border security? And what level of satisfaction do you have in terms of our security establishment’s execution of the existing framework? 

We have very good cooperation between the Indian and Nepali security forces. I think the legal frameworks could be improved. At a political level, we have to be very conscious of each other’s interests and requirements. At the execution level too there is good cooperation now. What is good about this cooperation is that it is now taking place in smaller units at the operational level. Of course, it is important at the central level but to improve security, it is more important to have good cooperation at the level of the border districts. This is moving on very satisfactorily. We have regular border district coordination meetings where these issues are discussed.



You talked about the porous border. Do you think putting a registration mechanism in place for citizens of both countries would help control fake currency smuggling and other terrorist activities? 

At the fundamental level, I think open borders are a very good thing. If you look at all the regional cooperation and organisations wherever they exist, they have completely open borders like in the European Union. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) is also moving in that direction. But an open border sometimes leads to problems. Clearly, we have to step up our cooperation and coordination to ensure that the benefits are maximised and the problems are minimised. To do so, you definitely need to have regulation and more patrolling along the border but the border needs to remain open. This has been so traditionally for centuries. People of the two countries have such close relationships across the border, you may even go shopping from one country to the other or a school. People cross the border many times in a day. This lies at the heart of the relationship between the two countries. So I would like to encourage this, rather than control it.

One area where Nepal has clear potential is hydropower. Nepal’s hydropower establishment has requested India to reciprocate in a power-sharing agreement but that has not happened at the government level. Should it occur, prospective investors would at least know that there is a power-exchange mechanism in place and they can invest within that framework knowing very well that they have an assured market in India.

For your readers’ information, I would like to say that, India, despite being a power-deficit country, actually exports power to Nepal. We have committed to export some 200 megawatt of power to Nepal. Second, hydropower possibly offers the most significant opportunity to strengthen economic cooperation between the two countries. There are many ways in which this can be done. It can be done at the government-to-government level, as we have committed in the Pacheshwor Multipurpose Project under the Mahakali Treaty. It could be done at the private sector level, as is being done in the case of Upper Karnali or Upper Marsyangdi or even Arun III where Indian private companies have been given the opportunity to develop them. What has happened over the years is that progress has been extremely slow. In fact, we have not had a major hydropower project for many decades. And sometimes, people tend to become cynical.

As to the power-trade agreement, it is certainly very important. But if I may inform you, India has already put power-trade under the OGL (Open General Licence). So you are free to trade power with India without any licence or specific approval. As far as I understand, from a technical perspective, in hydropower projects, a certain basic minimum has to be sold through a long-term Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) and you trade at the margins. So the viability of the project is not actually determined by the share of the power you trade but by the long-term PPA you have. The power trade price can go up and down, that is on the margin. So I don’t think that the power trade between the two countries, whether it be at the government or private sector level, is held up because of the power trade agreement.  But yes, we do have a proposal for a power trade agreement, which is under consideration at the Government of India. And we will do whatever is required to promote and step up cooperation.

The current transmission line that runs from Dhalkebar in Nepal to Muzzafarpur in India is not complete yet. During our rainy season, we have a power surplus which can be exported to India. But we haven’t been able to do so because of the current infrastructure, ie, the transmission line does not support it. Progress on the Indian side has not been very satisfactory.

I agree with you. I think it is very important to set up infrastructure that will allow for power exchange and trade. Right now, we are engaged in the development and renovation of three transmission lines. It is currently a point-to-point power exchange. Eventually the idea should be to connect the two (Nepal and India’s) electricity grids so that there is seamless transmission of power. I remember reading in one of the newspapers a couple of weeks ago that because of the lack of Indian customs clearance, loadshedding in Nepal is going to increase by so many hours everyday. We, of course, rebutted that very strongly.

This is a very high priority project. India is already committed to exporting more than 200 MW of power to Nepal and that can only happen if the transmission lines are upgraded. In order to make sure that the transmission lines are upgraded, certain procedural things and customs and other related formalities have to be completed. All these have been explained to the Nepal Electricity Authority and I am happy to say that are working very strongly on all these issues.



India is helping Nepal in various small projects like building schools and health centres all over the country. Some people wonder, why doesn’t India concentrate on investing in large infrastructural projects rather than providing such scattered assistance to Nepal? Is there a possibility for doing so instead? 

First of all, thank you for raising this question. I would like to give you some information about the scope and range of our assistance. India is assisting in some 484 projects in Nepal at a total cost of something like 60 billion Nepali rupees. It is a very huge assistance programme. This does not include the concessional lines of credit that we have given. In recent years, we have two ongoing lines of credit of 350 million dollars for infrastructural development. So India has a huge assistance and partnership programme and this covers both large and small projects.  The Mahendra Highway, the East-West optical fibre network to facilitate internet and mobile telecommunications in Nepal, the BP Koirala Institute for Health Sciences and trauma centre in Kathmandu are some of the large infrastructural projects. There are also some irrigation projects and Tarai roads projects: some 1,400 km of roads are to be developed. We are developing railway lines along the India-Nepal border, integrated check posts. And we have over 225 small projects like schools, dispensaries, small roads.

Our approach is a combination of large and small development projects. But I agree with you that we need to review some of our schemes and particularly our small development schemes. I am very keen to ensure two things now. First, that the local community is a genuine stakeholder in that project; they want the project. Second, we must ensure that these projects are sustainable.



 

The other component of the question is, are there any large infrastructural projects with Indian assistance that coming up? 



Well, we have the Tarai roads projects and the integrated check posts project. These are two very large infrastructural projects. We also have the transmission lines projects financed under Indian lines of credit. There are also other projects in the pipeline in which more discussions need to be held: like a bridge on the Mahakali River and talk of a Mid-hill highway. But I think we must focus our energies on what we have.



That brings us to our last segment, international relations. Do you see any cooperation between India and China in large infrastructural projects in Nepal? 

First of all, cooperation between India and China is very robust. Our bilateral trade is around $65 billion and likely to go up a $100 billion in the next couple of years. Cooperation between the two cou-ntries is very vibrant, robust and mutually beneficial, including in the power sector in India. Certainly, there could be cooperation between our companies.



The point is, has there been any discussion regarding India and China jointly investing in a large infrastructure project in Nepal? 

For many large projects you need huge amount of resources. And where are these resources going to come from? You need companies that have to undertake engineering, procurement and construction contracts. Most of these projects are through global contracts. Clearly, there are opportunities. As far as India or Nepal is concerned, the primary objective is to develop power. You need energy to fuel your economy, just as India needs it for the same. I think there are opportunities and the private sectors engaged are conscious of it. But the first thing to do is get a power development agreement. Only then can you start talking about financial closure and awarding of contracts and so on. Right now, even the PPAs have not even been finalised, though discussions have been going on for a long time.



What are convergent and divergent views of India and China regarding Nepal’s politics and transition? 

I can talk about India. I think peace and stability in Nepal is very important for India. I think that is the same for China. Clearly, there is convergence in terms of the objective of peace, security, stability and prosperity in Nepal. I must say that the international community as a whole has worked very closely in recent years, even in terms of political transitions that have been taking place in Nepal. You would recall, 10 days prior to the last Constituent Assembly elections, people were skeptical including many journalists. There were questions whether the election would be held or not even one week before the election. And the international community stood as one and supported this whole process. I think it is not only India and China but this general convergence amongst the international community in terms of how they see developments in Nepal and the overall goal of stability and peace.

There seems to be a certain level of nervousness about Chinese investments in Nepal in the Indian intelligentsia and among its think tanks, which is clearly reflected in the Indian media.

The defining characteristic of our times is the economic rise of Asia: of India, of China and the continent as a whole. The centre of global economic gravity is shifting towards Asia. Clearly, the Asian footprint is going to expand, not only in Asia but all over the world. So the Chinese are investing in India, Nepal, South-east Asia, Europe, Africa. Indians are doing the same. We are talking about connectivity between India and Asean. We are talking about driving from Calcutta to Kunming and the Bangladesh-China, India-Myanmar forum for regional cooperation initiative. As economies get more interdependent, more interlinked, this will be a factor in promoting stability in the countries concerned. India and China have very vibrant and strong cooperation in every sector.



So how do you explain the unease that we encounter regarding Chinese investments in Nepal?

I cannot speak for individual analysts or strategic experts. Perhaps you have to address the question to them. What I am trying to say is that this is the development of our times. And you have to see how best you can take advantage of these developments.



Moving on, what kind of relationship does Washington, another major ally, and New Delhi share vis-à-vis Nepal? 

Let me tell you again that India and Washington also have a very vibrant and robust relationship based on shared democratic norms and values. Clearly, we discuss issues of mutual interest. If we have a bilateral discussion then we might discuss developments in the region. For instance, we would like very much to know what is going on in Afghanistan. These are normal state-to-state interactions. The ambassadors here meet from time to time; I meet with the Chinese ambassador and the American ambassador.



As Kathmandu happens to be the Saarc capital, one of the major irritants for Saarc regionalism has been that India and Pakistan do not see eye-to-eye on regional issues. Where do you see this going? 

See, when Saarc was conceived, it was precisely for this reason. It was agreed that bilateral issues would be kept out of Saarc. The idea was, you may have political differences but that does not prevent you from having economic cooperation, which can be mutually beneficial.  

But the fact is that intra-regional cooperation has developed from strength to strength in Asean. Their intra-regional trade now runs in the billions. Saarc, however, is stuck where we started.

I agree with you. Our progress has been slow and not at a satisfactory pace. Ideally, as I said, we should put aside political differences and focus on the economic situation, which is win-win for all the countries concerned.

FEB 10 -Nearly three months have passed since the November 19 election to a second Constituent Assembly. The two largest parties in the CA—the Nepali Congress (NC) and CPN-UML—seem to have finally made some progress over power sharing but there are a number of potential flashpoints, not least the long-term status of President Ram Baran Yadav. Today, the House will elect a new prime minister and that will lead to talks over government formation. Anil Giri and Pranaya SJB Rana spoke to the leader of the NC’s talks team, Ram Sharan Mahat, about negotiations with the UML, the constitution-writing process and the NC’s modus operandi.



It is nearing three months since the election was held and a government hasn’t been formed yet. As part of the NC’s talks team, what are specific outstanding issues between the UML and the NC regarding power sharing?
This delay is not just because of power sharing. There were a number of reasons, including the problem created by the Maoists after the election results started coming out, the delay over proportional representation (PR), the constitutional requirement of the President’s appeal for consensus and the election of the prime minister through voting. These time-consuming procedures are not normal in parliamentary practice. But this does not mean that the political parties are not to blame. A power-sharing deal between the NC and UML should have been done much earlier. We should have been discussing ministerial portfolios, the House speakership and parliamentary committee chairmanship. But the UML brought the issue of a Presidential election upfront, which was a surprise to us. This, in our view, is extra-constitutional. A new Presidential election will require amendment to the constitution. We should be concentrating on writing a new constitution instead of amending the old one. Second, during the whole election campaign, the issue of a Presidential election never came up. Third, we cannot use the President in the power-sharing bargain. His office is above party politics.


What kind of challenges lie ahead for the NC President Sushil Koirala?
It is definitely not easy for Koirala. Negotiating with the UML has shown us that it will not be a cakewalk. We thought it would be an easy negotiation but it has not been so. Their demand for an election to a new president and vice-president, which was not on the table before, shows how new things come up during the course of negotiation. Then there is the issue of internal party management. This is certainly a challenging and testing time for his leadership. But I am confident that all these things will be sorted out in time.


How confident are you that the constitution will be written in time?
I am hopeful, provided that all parties show real commitment. But take the case of the CA rule and procedure committee. The previous rules were too elaborate and complicated so we wanted to simplify them to facilitate constitution making in one year. But there has been a delay in forming the committee itself because even parties with one or two CA members are all demanding a position on the committee. If this is allowed, it will be a jumbo-sized committee.


Will the new Assembly own up the achievements of the previous CA?
As a sovereign body, the CA is not bound to accept what was agreed in the previous CA. But the political parties that will be playing major roles in the constitution-making process have already pledged to take ownership of the agreements reached in the previous CA. If there have been formal agreements, we are ready to take ownership to that. That is part of the inter-party agreement we made and also part of the election manifestos of all three major parties.


But there’s also a school of thought that since more than 85 percent of the current CA are new faces and that they have no obligations take ownership of the previous agreements?
Yes, there are new faces but of the same party. Unless the parties change their positions, new faces will not make a difference. If parties are committed to what they agreed in the past, the faces will not matter. Furthermore, there have been few agreements in the previous CA. The only formal thing that the previous CA passed by the full House was a federal democratic republic. In some committees, there were unanimous reports. The Natural Resources and Economic, Financial Resources Committee, of which I was a part, had a unanimous report. Why do you want to reinvent that? If you want to reinvent everything then it might not be possible to complete the constitution-making process in one year. Of course, this does not rule out the possibility of fine-tuning if there are concrete reasons for doing so. Also, if some parties do not agree with what was agreed before, they have the freedom to oppose it while voting.


Let’s talk about the new government. Will you be part of the Cabinet?
We have not yet decided this. It is for the prime minister and the party president to take the decision on whom to include in the Cabinet and in what capacity.


What will be the priorities of the new government?
The immediate priority is to help the constitution-making process. There is a general perception that the government will make the constitution but this is not true. The government will only create enabling conditions to complete the constitution in time. The second priority is to improve governance through rule of law. There is too much indiscipline and anarchy in our system. You need to have a strong government to ensure rule of law. We will fight corruption and ensure stability in administration. The third priority is the economy—create a proper environment for new investments, revive economic activities and create a business-friendly atmosphere to push economic growth. We saw during our election campaign that everybody is concerned about development. You have to meet the aspirations of the people through higher growth, more development benefits going to the people and generating economic activities.


What we have seen from the NC so far seems reminiscent of the 90s when the party was mired in intra-party conflict, which greatly affected the functioning of the government. How will you ensure that this doesn’t repeat?
Internal party management is a difficult job. When there is no consensus, an election needs to be held. That is what happened recently and we settled the issue of Parliamentary Party leader. As far as your fear about a repetition of the 90s goes, I hope that will not happen. Leaders have become more mature and we have seen that the people are sick of frequent changes in government. We pledged to the electorate that we will provide stability. The people will not spare any party that creates instability. In the recent election, we saw what happened to the Madhesi parties, which have a notorious record of splitting. They faced the music of the electorate. This time, national parties have emerged as major actors. They have led the nation in the past and have learned.


One crucial aspect of the peace process remains incomplete. The formation of two committees—of the Truth and Reconciliation and the other for the disappeared. How will you take this in parallel with constitution-writing?
We have no choice but to comply with the directives of the Supreme Court to make the TRC and Disappearance Commission bills in line with international practices. The Maoists will have to accept this too. If you believe in rule of law, you have to accept the Supreme Court verdict on these matters. Eventually, this issue will reach the Parliament. The Maoists are insisting that the TRC bill be made as soon as possible. A Maoist member made a case for this in the House just the other day. So a fresh bill will need to be made and passed through the House. 

FEB 03 - Even as the President’s deadline to convene a consensus government expired on Sunday, the political parties, mainly the Nepali Congress (NC) and CPN-UML, failed to reach an agreement. The exercise to form a majority government has now begun, though both the parties refuse to budge from their respective positions on power sharing. Meanwhile, top UML leaders—Jhala Nath Khanal, Madhav Kumar Nepal, KP Oli and Bamdev Gautam—are in a tussle over the post of parliamentary party leader and party chair. In this context, Bhadra Sharma and Darshan Karki spoke to UML General Secretary Ishwar Pokhrel regarding government formation, power-sharing deals with the NC and the party’s demand to elect a new President.

Where have talks between the UML and NC reached on power sharing?

The discussions are currently underway and party Vice-Chairperson Bamdev Gautam has been assigned the responsibility to discuss power sharing and other issues bilaterally with the NC. He has begun the process and has also informed us about the kind of proposal put forth by the NC. After going through the NC’s preliminary proposal, Bamdevji questioned the NC leaders on how they expected to coordinate with our party by tabling such a proposal.

What is the NC’s proposal?

It does not represent the mandate given by the people through the November 19 elections. Furthermore, it does not seem as though the NC seeks to discuss power sharing with us on an equal footing. I do not want to go into the details here but if this is true, it will be difficult for us to join the government. Nevertheless, we have only held preliminary discussions. I do not think that the NC’s final stand will stay the same.

What is the UML’s proposal to the NC?

First, we need consensus on the policy and principle of power sharing. We need to discuss power sharing regarding the posts of the President, Vice-President, various bodies within the Constituent Assembly (CA) and the government in totality. Saying certain posts are not up for discussed and that other posts should also follow the model we previously adopted will only create problems.

The Supreme Court says that elections to the post of the President can only be held by amending the Interim Constitution. This will require a two-thirds majority.

First, the Supreme Court verdict mentions the constitutional provision to retain the President and Vice-President until a new constitution is promulgated. But it has clearly stated that whether the President and the Vice-President should resign lies within the jurisdiction of the Parliament.

Is the UML demanding a change of the President to resolve internal power management issues?

Whenever there are opportunities to address a issue positively, it is natural to pursue that option for one’s organisational interests and gains. There is no need for outsiders to accuse the UML for doing so. It is all about capitalising on a favourable situation.

How do you plan to manage power politics within the party?

First, by electing the leadership through a democratic process. Since the party’s 8th general convention, we have a clear provision that the same person cannot occupy an executive position for more than two terms. We also have the opportunity to abide by the ‘one leader, one position’ framework.

How will you select the leader of the Parliamentary Party?

We will try to reach consensus on the issue. If not, there will be a vote on who should lead the party in the CA.

How hopeful are you on reaching an agreeable power-sharing deal with the NC?

I am optimistic because within the NC too, there are leaders who understand the fresh mandate given by the people and the changed context.  They must also understand the need for consensus to write a constitution within a year. If all these factors are taken into account, the differences between the NC and UML can be resolved.

Moving on, all the major parties have committed to writing a constitution within a year. It has already been over two months and parties are still busy with internal power management. How will a constitution be written within a year?

This should not be perceived that way. Just as a person has to do multiple tasks in a 24-hour period, the task of writing a constitution will take place alongside other activities. Writing a constitution does not mean leaving aside all other responsibilities. With regards to promulgating a new constitution, it should build upon the formal agreements from the last CA, not those which were only agreed upon politically.

Is that a possibility, given that the UML is still demanding a new President?

Shouldn’t the second CA endorse the President too? How can one keep sticking to a position when a new CA has already been elected? Moreover, periodic endorsement of leaders is an integral part of democracy. The Interim Constitution says that the President and the Vice-President will stay put until a new constitution is written. But to complete the entire process, electoral colleges will have to be made and new federal states need to be carved out. Otherwise, this would mean that the same people will continue as President and Vice-President for the next six or seven years. So the issue must be discussed with an open mind.

The NC has proposed that a constitution be written within a year and only then will it consider giving the President’s post to the UML. Do you see a possibility of agreement on this proposal?

Among the NC, UML and UCPN (Maoist), I do not think any single party holds the authority to hand out anything to other parties. Should the NC be presening itself as the provider and the rest as beggars? Instead, respectable discussions should be held on possible options of power sharing. Who is the NC to tell the UML that it is considering an option to ‘give’ the position of the President to us? What the Congress needs to understand is that the party only has 196 seats in the CA. The UML has 175 seats. The NC seems to be harbouring an illusion that it has 296 seats and that it only needs a few more seats for a majority through which it can arm-twist the other parties.

Does the UML actually mean it when it says that it is ready to stay in the opposition?

It depends upon the proposal put forth by the NC. If the Congress offers us a respectable deal, we will accept it. Or else, it can form a coalition with the UCPN (Maoist) and the Madhesi parties. We have no qualms about staying in the opposition. But if that happens, it will be very unfortunate for the country. If one party starts the numbers game in Parliament, others will also follow. If the NC does not offer us a respectable deal, then we will not go begging for posts. Even if the President is to stay, he must be duly endorsed by Parliament. This will help establish his legitimacy within the CA.

JAN 27 -After 14 grueling days, Dr Govinda KC finally ended his hunger strike on Friday after government officials agreed to meet three of his seven demands, including autonomy for the Institute of Medicine (IoM). Dr KC went on a fast-unto-death after former IoM Dr Prakash Sayami resigned, citing undue pressure from various quarters to grant affiliation to private medical colleges, and Dr Sashi Sharma was politically appointed. In solidarity with Dr KC’s protest, the Nepal Medical Association, an umbrella body of doctors, shut down hospitals across the country. When officials continued to turn a deaf ear to their demands, doctors at the Tribhuvan University Teaching Hospital resigned en masse, forcing the government’s hand. Manish Gautam and Pranaya SJB Rana spoke to Dr Sharad Onta, assistant dean at IoM, about the circumstances leading to Dr KC’s protest, the row over affiliations and the state of medical education in the country.

Now that Dr Govinda KC has broken his fast, how do you see the way in which the whole incident progressed?


The issues that Dr KC raised definitely needed to become a matter of national interest. We had long been discussing autonomy for the IoM and demanding that affiliations be granted in an organised manner. It is unfortunate that such a great price had to be paid for these issues to be addressed. Dr KC stayed on a hunger strike for so many days and the general public was deprived of access to health facilities. But it is in the past so there is no sense in regretting it now. At least the issues are now up for national debate.

What exactly was it that led Dr Sayami to resign as dean?

At IoM, we begin our undergraduate classes on Mangsir 1 but this time, there were elections so we had to push back the date to Mangsir 6 (November 21) but since some students might not have had time to admit themselves, we increased the admission date for affiliated colleges to Poush 10 (December 25), an additional 35 days. But what was disheartening was that even after the school year had already begun, there was great pressure on IoM to grant affiliation to more colleges and let them start teaching from this year itself. This was unacceptable. We only asked for one small thing, that the affiliation be deferred to the next school year. But even that demand was unheeded so Dr Sayami felt forced to resign.

Why did the IoM refuse to grant affiliation to these colleges?

Alongside the establishment of a medical college, we need to have certain rules and regulations, the college’s disciplines and clear guidelines for the monitoring of the college’s quality and capacity. Our universities—TU, and Kathmandu University—only have enough capacity to conduct academics. We cannot bear the additional load of monitoring the academics of other colleges. And this is not a problem that suddenly arose; it has been there since the very beginning. If certain frameworks and regulations for granting affiliations had been instituted ever since the first medical college was established, this problem wouldn’t have exploded like it did now.

But isn’t it an excuse to say that you don’t have the capacity? Can’t capacity be built by increasing the number of faculty members or contracting out to retired professors and doctors?


Yes, that is exactly what we have been trying to do. It would certainly have been better if the number of faculty members had been increased proportionally with the number of new medical colleges. But that did not happen. At minimum, we should be monitoring them once every three months. Right now, IoM is running around 54 programmes and private colleges are running around 25 other programmes. But we do not have the human resource required to evaluate these programmes and see how they are being run. So the bottom line is that need at least an additional 150-200 faculty members.

Why is there only talk of granting affiliation to private colleges? Can’t the government establish its own public colleges?

This is related to the political economy. If Nepal has fully embraced a liberal, market economy, the state will not start letting the market handle public institutions. But the state should continue to support the social sector, like schools and hospitals. Nepal, however, doesn’t have the financial capacity to run all medical colleges. It needs the support of the private sector. Even if the state replaced one or two private colleges with public ones, that would provide great relief to many ordinary students. It would be better if the private sector had to compete with the public but right now, the private sector has turned out to be far more powerful than the public.

Given the fact that every year, scores of Nepali students leave the country to study medicine abroad in China, Pakistan and Bangladesh because there aren’t enough seats in Nepali colleges, won’t the number of medical colleges have to be increased?

That our students are leaving the country to study medicine abroad should not be the only reason for us to open new medical colleges. Even if we open 50 new colleges, there still won’t be any assurance that students won’t leave the country. There must be more principled reasons than this. Medical education creates capable human resources and aids in the country’s overall development. It also provides a critical service to the people. So there must be some principles that cannot be comprised—the quality of the education provided, that medical colleges operate along the principles of social justice and that colleges be socially accountable. The quality of education also depends on the capability of those monitoring these colleges. Can a person living in the Far West get easy access to medical education? Geographical distribution needs to be kept in mind. Medical colleges also have to be accountable to society.

So medical education is not just about creating technically skilled professional but also about being accountable to society.

Speaking of social accountability, was it ethical for doctors to shut down medical services across the country in support of Dr KC’s protest?

This is not an easy question and I don’t have an easy answer. Like I said earlier, this issue should not have come at such cost. We had been raising these issues for the last year or so and they were never addressed. I wish that we didn’t have to do what we did so I don’t have any space to say that this was an ethical move. But was it necessary? That is a hypothetical question. As long as we raised our voices, we were never heard. It was only after Dr KC started his fast and we shut down services that our demands were addressed. So in retrospect, it looks necessary. But the nation paid a great price and I don’t have the moral strength to attempt to provide a rationale or justification.

This is not the first time Dr KC went on a hunger strike for the same reason. What guarantee is there that he won’t have to do this again?

There is no guarantee. To prevent this kind of thing from happening again, we need to be more alert and active. But it is not just us doctors and office bearers who should be aware, we need a more diverse stakeholder body to be alert. This time around, civil society supported us and the media supported us. So we all need to be vigilant and act in a timely manner so that this doesn’t happen again.

On a final note, what is the state of medical education like in the country?

I think there are very few countries in the world that have increased the number of medical colleges in such a short time. The first college was established in 1979 and the second in the mid-90s. But since then, 16-17 new medical colleges have been established. These colleges have made their economic contributions but the quality leaves a lot to be desired. Second, the cost of medical education has also increased exponentially. I think it is cheaper for students to leave the country and study abroad than to study medicine here. Furthermore, there is a severe lack of monitoring and accountability. For example, we have a programme called the district health programme where MBBS students in their final year are required to go into the field and work there for nine weeks. This is worth 100 marks—the IoM awards 50 and the college awards 50. Till date, no private college has sent its students on this programme. But when these colleges award their students internal marks, the numbers are irrational. We know what they are doing but we can only sit back and watch because we don’t have the monitoring capacity.

JAN 20 -
Political parties, after almost two months since election to the second Constituent Assembly (CA), have finally sorted out differences about the election results and the debate on who will call the first meeting of the CA. The date for the first CA meeting has now been fixed for Wednesday. Against this context, Kamal Dev Bhattarai and Darshan Karki spoke to Tek Prasad Dhungana, legal advisor to the first CA (2008-2012), about the shortcomings of the last CA, the way forward to ensure that a constitution is produced within a year and the role of the donors in the constitution-writing process.

All major political parties have promised that they will complete drafting the constitution within a year. Is this possible?

If the political parties are to fulfil their commitment, they will need to decide on a few things. First, the new CA should see its work as a continuation of the previous Assembly. Parties should take the decisions and work done by the first CA as reference material and head straight to the process of drafting the constitution. Preparing a draft of the statute will require finalising the defining elements of the constitution. All the issues on which an agreement was reached in the last CA were relatively simple matters. So the parties should sort out the defining elements of the constitution, ie, state restructuring, forms of governance, the electoral system and the relations between the executive, judiciary and legislature. If parties can agree to this and begin drafting the constitution, they can complete the task within a year. Else, it will be difficult to do so.

An informal agreement was apparently reached among parties in the last CA regarding some fundamental elements of the constitution. Since this is now a changed context, do you see the parties building on that understanding?

In the last CA, different concept papers and drafts were prepared at the thematic committee level. While doing so, there were differences of opinion among the various parties. The CA identified those issues and tried to resolve inter-party differences. Accordingly, many issues were formally resolved while political agreements were informally reached on others. However, since these decisions did not reach the formal process, we cannot say that they will remain the same.

The first CA sorted out simpler issues first and left the major ones to be dealt with later on. The new CA does not have the option to do the same. It should reach consensus on complex issues first and then move ahead. Completed work need not be repeated because the last CA also worked within a federal democratic republican framework. It worked to institutionalise the issues raised by the Janaandolan II and the new CA will also be doing the same thing.

What were the shortcomings of the first CA?

The last CA made two kinds of mistakes—some were procedural and others political. A grave mistake that the first CA committed was that it started drafting a constitution without reaching consensus on its defining elements. The next reason the Assembly could not work effectively was that it failed to understand that constitution-writing in a Nepali context is not an independent project. The constitution is not being written because Nepal has just gained independence or because it is a newly formed nation. We needed a new constitution to transform a

ten-year conflict into peace and to institutionalise the issues that were raised. Therefore, the peace process is an integral part of the new constitution. Though, ideally, the peace process should have been concluded before writing a new constitution. There are two important aspects of the peace process which are very important for constitution-writing—army integration and transitional justice, which is the formation of a truth and reconciliation commission (TRC) and a disappearance commission.

How did the focus on government formation affect the functioning of the CA?

This was another drawback of the first CA. Whether it was in the thematic committees or meetings, political party leaders had absolutely no focus on writing the constitution. Their sole focus was the formation of the government, which changed four times during the CA's tenure. Government formation is important and it is natural for political parties to seek a berth in the Cabinet. But when politicians do so at the expense of writing a constitution, it is a matter of concern. If we look at countries where a constitution has been written by a CA, whether it be India, South Africa or the US, leaders have led different forums and committees within the House. And when difficulties arose in writing the constitution, they rescued the process. But this was not seen in our CA. So a long-term government, which will last for at least the term of the CA, must be formed to ensure that a constitution will be written this time.

Quite a few CA members were involved in various controversies but could not be prosecuted in the absence of a specific law. Will a Code of Conduct help prevent these kinds of problems?

This is related to the fourth problem of the previous CA—an absence of procedural compliance. The CA Rules of Procedures broadly outlines eight to 10 points about how CA members should conduct themselves. It also has a provision to form a Conduct Monitoring Committee, which was never formed. CA members were found selling their red passports, stealing electricity, sending someone else in their place to appear for School Leaving Certificate exams and even found drunk and passed out on the streets. Had a Conduct Monitoring Committee been formed, it could have taken suo moto action against CA members, based on the reporting of their misconduct.

This time, the ordinance for the formation of the CA has a provision that bars people convicted of five to six crimes listed in it from being a CA member. This provision will be important if an incumbent CA member indulges in those crimes. In that case, it could lead to the expulsion of a member, resulting in an incomplete CA. The Rules of Procedure for the new CA should address such loopholes. There is a need to enrich the content on the conduct of the CA members too.

Last time, we saw the involvement of the donors in different processes of the CA. What was their role?

Different organisations held various interaction programmes outside the CA, invited CA members at a personal level and held discussions on issues of the constitution. To learn of the degree to which CA members were influenced by such discussions is a matter of study. Still, as the constitution is not only a national but an international document, it is natural for such discussions to be held. It can also help CA members understand the processes of writing a constitution, its principles and international practices. However, within the CA, the Parliament Secretariat only accepted logistical support from the United Nations Development Programme, the Government of India and various other embassies and organisations. It did not accept the role of any donor or foreign agency regarding the content of the constitution.

In what areas should the donor support be concentrated on, with regard to constitution-writing?

Donor agencies could support us when it comes to transitional justice. This issue has become more complicated now because a verdict was initially given for one commission to work for both truth and reconciliation as well as disappearance. A case was filed against this at the Supreme Court and the Apex Court has now directed the government to form separate commissions for truth and reconciliation and to investigate disappearances and also defined amnesty provisions. So different organisations who have worked in transitional justice issues in Brazil, Peru, South Africa,

Sierra Leone, Haiti and Sudan should assist Nepal, not to complicate matters, but simplify them. They can help resolve transitional justice issues by taking into account the value system of Nepal's political parties. Likewise, they should also keep providing logistical support to the Parliament Secretariat.

Lastly, 26 members have yet to be nominated to the CA? Can the first meeting of the CA be held without them?


When the first meeting of the former CA was held on May 28, 2008, we told the Prime Minister and all the top leaders that the CA has three constituencies: the first-past-the-post system (240), proportional system (320) and those that are nominated by the Cabinet (26). The process through which they become part of the CA is more important that the numbers they command. If the CA meeting is held without nominating a single candidate in the 26 seats, various constitutional and legal questions can arise. But our advice went unheeded. To take that incident as a precedent and repeat it would not be good practice. However, this is not to say that 601 members must be present for the first CA meeting. Even if 601 members are elected, they can be absent from the meeting for various reasons. But there is a difference between being absent due to personal reasons and absence due to the process of their nomination being 

JAN 13 -
After being mired in a debate for weeks on who should call the first meeting of the new Constituent Assembly ( CA ), the government, the President’s Office and the political parties finally reached an agreement on Sunday. While the Nepali Congress (NC) had been demanding that President Ram Baran Yadav be allowed to call the first CA meeting, the CPN-UML, citing the Interim Constitution, argued in favour of Chairman of the Interim Election Government Khil Raj Regmi. The new agreement allows Chairman Regmi to call the meet, though some quarters have expressed reservations. In this context, Pranab Kharel and Pranaya SJB Rana spoke to a constitutional expert and newly appointed Dean of the Kathmandu University, School of Law, Bipin Adhikari about the constitutional underpinning of the dispute, the way forward for the political parties and the CA ’s structural issues.

Now that the debate over who calls the first meeting of the CA seems to have been resolved, how do you think the political parties, especially the NC and UML, move ahead?

This is a political question. The challenge of government formation certainly comes first. It will definitely be an NC-led process since it is the largest party in the House. The UML has already shown its interest to join the coalition as a principal partner. Both these parties have internal problems that limit the choice of party leadership. Hiccups in the process are therefore inevitable. The UCPN (Maoist) is also said to be aspiring to join the government. But it is in the interest of democracy that one of these three parties remains in opposition. As far as the remaining task of constitution building is concerned, it is the combined NC and UML strength which will decide part and parcel of the constitution, together with other fringe parties. Both these parties have a democratic agenda and more or less similar constitutional positions. It is for them to take on the Maoists, both in the House and the streets, and bring them on board.

The Supreme Court was moved by two petitions, one arguing that President Yadav be allowed to call the first CA meeting and another arguing for Chairman Regmi. Now that Chairman Regmi will be calling the meeting, what will happen to the petitions sub judice at the court?


It is good that they did not wait for the Supreme Court decision. Even though the logic of Article 69 is doubtful, the provision that the Prime Minister has been given the role of calling the house is as clear as crystal. No court on earth can disown a constitutional provision even though it disagrees with its sanctity in constitutional theory. The political questions doctrine does not allow the Supreme Court to take on any case that builds on political issues without constitutional controversies. In the constitutional system, based on Westminster conventions, the differences between the Prime Minister and the head of the state are internal, confidential and not for any court consumption. In a case like this, whatever is the decision of the Prime Minister is the decision of the President. Since they have managed it in their own terms, and managed them well, I think the Supreme Court will take judicial notice of these developments and wrap up the case with a dismissal note.

This case is just one example of parliamentary norms and standards not being carefully implemented. It shows that we are gradually moving away from constitutional processes and towards areas not clearly defined by the constitution. We are heading towards more uncertainty as the constitution is no longer being treated as setting out the roles of governance. This is being decided more and more by politics. This is a very risky way and it will vitiate our culture of legality and constitutionality, which must be maintained on all occasions.

In the past, political decisions have often taken precedence over legal ones. How do you see this trend?

This will continue to happen because no one is serious about rule of law or legality. Constitutionally, there are hardly any examples of a case like ours. In British history, there is no example of the monarch going out to consult the political parties against his/her own prime minister. Even powerful prime ministers like William Gladstone never spoke out publicly against the monarch. It was not that they didn’t have differences in opinion but they settled such differences between themselves. The monarch never tried to influence the prime minister by creating alternative public opinion. Our case shows that the concept of ‘President and council’ is not working. Even the government is not working in a way that meets the legitimate expectations of a constitutional regime. This means that we are headed for more chaos. Even if we have a good constitution, if this political culture continues, then we won’t have a good environment for its implementation.

The last CA failed primarily due to the inability of the political parties to work together. Given this election’s mandate to work together, how will the constitution-drafting process be realised?


Nepal is in a vicious political cycle. I do not think that the reasons behind the failure of the political parties were only the instabilities created by the parties. There were many other reasons, and some of them beyond the capacities of these parties to handle. For example, geo-political issues have always been decisive in the internal problems of Nepal. None of these parties has been autonomous in their decision-making. They have to understand this and work together for a democratic constitution. No democratic constitution will work in Nepal if the core national interest of the Nepali people are not protected. The real challenge is there.  

Questions have been raised about the last CA ’s structure where a small number of senior leaders held a disproportionate amount of power and sway over the decision made. How can the structure of the CA be made more inclusive so that this doesn’t happen again?

It was not the structure of the CA which was a problem during the first CA process. I think there was a workable structure. It was, however, the issues that came up that delayed or circumvented the process. There was crisis of confidence between parties. There was even a proposal to change the name of the country. So many decisions were made without putting them to a referendum. Efforts were made to bring the judiciary under a parliamentary majority and eliminate opposition in the House. The changes in Nepal did not establish either the revolutionaries or their partners. Many of the leaders found that core national interests were being challenged. These are the things that resisted change.

As far as the challenge of making the house inclusive is concerned, it must be worked out as a national endeavour. Those who are not in the House and those who are not in the government should have more opportunities to participate in the process. It is possible to create an additional machinery outside the CA to make decision making more inclusive. The Maoists in the streets, who did not join the elections, can also be accommodated in this structure. Additionally, the CA Rules, to be devised by the new CA , can create provisions which compel party leaders to take responsibility within the House and make sure that nobody is left behind in the decision making. There has already been some review work done in this regard.

On a final note, since the President was elected in 2008, he has already been in office for five years now and his tenure could effectively last another four years, which is the tenure of the new CA . What kind of example does this set?

A very poor example. Constitutional provisions should not be interpreted in such a way that gives an undemocratic result. All the provisions were created to ensure good governance and periodic elections are a must for good governance. When you can hold an election for 601 people, it is very inappropriate to say that the President is an exception. The rule of law demands that there be an election for another President.

JAN 06 -
Chairman Jhala Nath Khanal led the CPN-UML from the third largest party (108 seats) in the last Constituent Assembly (CA) to the second largest party (175 seats) in the new CA. Amid conflicts with the Nepali Congress (NC), the largest party in the new CA, over power-sharing and the current President, Bhadra Sharma and Darshan Karki spoke to Khanal about the UML's position on working with other parties, the constitution-writing process, and the party's upcoming 9th General Convention.

The CPN-UML was very vocal that President Ram Baran Yadav be replaced but now seems to have stopped raising the issue. Has it given up the demand?


This is not an issue to be raised at the children's playground. The UML will raise this issue in the Constituent Assembly. If there is a need to raise that concern elsewhere, it will be amid the major political parties and will be addressed accordingly.

The NC has said that no discussions can be held on the issue. We have been raising issues about other problems in the constitution too. Since we are attempting to write a new constitution for the country, how can one say certain questions will be raised and others won't? Discussions can be held on any issue in order to take the nation ahead.

Is the UML's demand for a new President  aimed at managing its internal power dynamics?

This is total false. The UML is ready to stay in the opposition too. We are ready to become a part of the CA without getting any position in government. But the UML wants to write a new constitution at any cost. A constitution that will aid social and economic transformation, establish peace and stability in the country, accelerate the process of social and economic development and make the country prosperous while also strengthening the sovereignty and democracy in the country.

Has this issue created a rift between the NC and UML?

The media, some journalists and columnists have tried to create a rift between the two parties but they have not been successful. There is a very good relationship between the NC and UML.

Though you blame the media, the relation between the NC and UML seems to have run into trouble from the very beginning. How will you move ahead?

We will sit together and discuss. All issues, including the thorny ones, will be raised and resolved. Neither the NC nor the UML has any alternative to working together. The first priority is unity between the NC and UML. The second is larger unity among all other parties.

How will the discourse on power sharing between the NC and UML move ahead?

The deliberations held between the parties while trying to find a solution are not matters to be discussed in the media. Rather, they are entirely internal matters of the two parties. I do not think it is appropriate to bring out these issues for discussion in the press.

The UML was waiting for a proposal from the NC but they have not come up with any. Any progress on that regard?

I met NC President Sushil Koirala and requested that the party come up with a proposal. We do not know why the Congress is delaying this. There is a limit to waiting for their proposal. Once that limit is crossed, we will take necessary steps to address our concerns.

What kind of proposal are you seeking with regards to power sharing?

We want to reach a consensus that is beneficial for both us and the NC. It should be a win-win situation for both. And we can definitely reach such a consensus as we have plenty of bases. We are for unity, coordination and consensus. People want the NC and UML to sincerely collaborate with each other.

Moving on, why has there been a delay in the formation of the CA?


Post-elections, there was difficulty bringing one party within the CA. In order to make them part of the political process, we had to repeatedly postpone the date for submitting the Proportional Representation (PR) lists.  This delayed the CA formation process. However, all the 30 parties have now submitted their lists to the Election Commission. The CA has taken shape. It is now compulsory to call the first meeting of the CA within the next 21 days.

Parties are now debating who should call the first meeting. In this situation, will the UML's commitment to write a constitution within a year be fulfilled?

The first meeting of the CA must be called within the allocated time. The political parties should have addressed the question of who should call the meeting first. However, the case is now sub judice in the court. So unless the court gives its decision we cannot do anything on this regard.

What kind of constitution will be written?

The new constitution will empower all Nepali people with their rights. Second, it will open the door to eliminate all forms of discrimination in society. Third, it will provide a direction for the social and economic transformation of the nation. Fourth, it will establish a constitutional basis to strengthen Nepal's freedom, sovereignty and unity. It will open doors for an economic revolution in Nepal.

How would you address the worry that the rise of the NC and UML could mean discarding progressive agendas?


There is no basis for this worry. All the issues raised by the 2006 Janaandolan II are our agendas. The agendas were the same in the last CA and they are still the same. We will work to establish those agendas and transform society. Bad agendas like 'One Madhes, one Pradesh' and single-identity based federalism have been rejected by the people. So only good and progressive agendas like federalism based on multiple identities will be established.

The Rastriya Prajatantra Party-Nepal has argued that new CA is a sovereign body and it should start fresh.


The new CA is definitely a sovereign body. Whatever decisions it takes, they will be implemented. If it decides that we should take ownership of the decisions taken in the last CA, that will happen. But if it says that we need to start from scratch, that has to be done too. My belief is that the new CA will take ownership of the decisions made by the last CA and move ahead.

What about the recent agreement to form a new high level political committee? Will it not affect the functioning of the sovereign CA?


This new body will only exist until the new CA holds its first meeting. After that a new chapter will begin. And in the new context, a new political body will be formed according to the need.

On a different note, the 9th General Convention of the party is around the corner and all top leaders within the UML are in a position to lead the party. How will this situation be handled?


In the convention, there will be many party representatives. A person cannot become a leader just by saying 'I want to be a leader'. They must be able to win the trust of party representatives in the Convention and clarify their plans, policies and ideology. Similarly, the person must be able to mobilise the organisation accordingly and win the trust of the party cadres. We want to hold the convention as soon as possible. So we are engaged in sorting out ideological and organisational issues that need to go in tandem with the national level political scenario.

You led the party from a dostamt third largest party in the last CA to a strong second position. Will you fight for the leadership of the party again?

I think it’s is natural for me to do so. I am an important leader in the UML. Our constitution allows for one person to become party president for two terms. So why should I not claim the position?

What about claims that other leaders in the party have emerged as more powerful after the elections?

This is another absurd thing raised by the media. If a person leads a party that secured merely 33 seats in the previous CA under direct elections to 91 seats now, how can that leader be weak and the others strong?

What of the disproportionate number of seats that were allocated to supporters of other leaders within the UML in PR?

This is completely false. All people selected by the UML in the recent CA election belong to the party. They are all cadres of the party. We will move ahead as a party and it is wrong to see them as cadres of one faction or another. 

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.

DEC 23 -
Even as other parties are busy preparing their list of proportional representation candidates for the Constituent Assembly (CA), the UCPN (Maoist), the third largest party, has refused to take part in the CA unless consensus is reached on a number of outstanding issues, including on leadership of the High-level Political Committee (HLPC), the to-be-formed truth and reconciliation commission and the tenure of the current Constituent Assembly/Parliament. Darshan Karki and Kamal Dev Bhattarai spoke to UCPN (Maoist) Vice-Chairman Narayan Kaji Shrestha about the road ahead for the parties, ways to bring the CPN-Maoist into the political process and his party’s concerns about the Nepali Congress (NC) and CPN-UML backtracking from earlier commitments.

How can the parties ensure promulgating a constitution within a year?

All the parties that have signed the 12-point agreement, the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) and the Interim Constitution, and who were together in Janaandolan II as well, should move ahead by forging consensus. They should institutionalise the changes till date by writing as quickly as possible a new progressive constitution, which will complete the peace process and end the transition.

The UCPN (Maoist) has expressed concerns that other parties might backtrack from the commitments made in the 12-point agreement and the CPA. What gave rise to this fear?

In the last CA, a two-third majority could not be attained without our party and neither could it be achieved by keeping the NC and UML out. But in the new CA, a two-third majority can be achieved without the support of the UCPN (Maoist). The Rastriya Prajatantra Party-Nepal (RPP-N) has also emerged as a new power. The RPP-N supports the revival of the monarchy and is against secularism and federalism. Given this context, we have  doubts, rather than fears, that there could be problems in institutionalising the gains made in the past. After holding multiple consultations with the NC and UML, our doubts have lessened. A certain level of agreement has at least been reached, particularly on institutionalising republicanism, federalism, secularism and proportional inclusion in the new federal republican democratic constitution.

On the opposite end, there is also concern that your party, because of your reduced strength and leverage, might not cooperate in the constitution-drafting process.

The UCPN (Maoist) is completely committed to the peace process as well as the constitution-writing process. We want to complete a new constitution regardless of the changed circumstances. One part of the peace process was integration of former Maoist soldiers. While the technical and military component of the peace process has already been completed, the political aspect of the process is writing a new constitution as per the people’s wishes and institutionalising the gains made through their sacrifice. A third component of the process is to establish a transitional justice mechanism. We are currently working on both the incomplete components of the peace process: primarily constitution-drafting and the formation of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission and a Disappearance Commission.

Which party’s stance currently worries you the most, the NC’s or the UML’s?

We do not want to indulge in any kind of blame game. We had certain doubts and concerns, which, in the process of discussion, are gradually being removed. Our party is definitely the one that led the struggle and proposed the CA, federalism and secularism. So if we had secured more seats

in the recent elections, it would have helped us institutionalise the progressive changes in their entirety. But a positive atmosphere is currently being created to safeguard those changes.

What kind of agreement is being sought among parties regarding constitution-writing?

We had some differences in the past and there are some even now. But there is a misunderstanding that the UCPN (Maoist) is trying to seek consensus on those issues before even taking part in the CA. That is not true. For instance, we have differences with other parties regarding the structure of federal states. While discussing, we will do our best to reach consensus. If consensus cannot be reached, we will follow due procedure. What we are saying is that federalism has already been agreed upon. It was promulgated by the first meeting of the last CA under the provisions of the Interim Constitution. This has to be established in the new constitution. So an agreement has to be reached on the issues of federalism, secularism and proportional inclusion. Our party wants all signatories of the 12-point agreement, the CPA and the Interim Constitution to agree upon the aforementioned issues and express their commitment in writing with regard to institutionalising them in the new constitution.

On a different note, do you see any possibility of reunification with Mohan Baidya’s CPN-Maoist?

The party divided due to differences in political ideology, though there were some institutional reasons as well. The differences between the two parties have become even more clearer in recent times as per Baidyaji’s latest statements. Nevertheless, the UCPN (Maoist) is of the opinion that the division of the party was wrong in the first place and that it would be good if reunification took place, though I do not see that happening any time soon. We are trying to work out a plan in coordination with other parties to include Baidyaji in the constitution-writing process. I had said that keeping the CPN-Maoist out of the election would be a historical blunder. I believe that that claim has been vindicated as the parties are now discussing ways to include the CPN-Maoist in the constitution-writing process. It would have been a lot better if this discussion had taken place earlier with the same degree of seriousness.

So what would be the best way to bring the CPN-Maoist into the constitution-writing process?

It would be best if the political parties can form a mechanism that both Baidhyaji and the rest can be part of without undermining the new CA. Discussions about the foundations of the new constitution can take place there. But the mechanism should be able to formally direct the constitution-writing process through the CA. If that is done, consensus can be reached among the political parties and endorsed through the CA, a body of the people’s representatives. By doing

so, a new progressive constitution can be written while also ensuring the participation and ownership of the new constitution by all and bringing the slightly derailed political process back on track.

Is expansion of the HLPC an option?

Expanding the HLPC might not be a good option. This HLPC can work until the CA formally begins its work and a new government is formed. But it might not be democratic to continue with the HLPC after that. However, it makes sense to form a mechanism that includes all the major parties plus new forces, including those that stayed out of the election.

Moving on, you openly argued against your party’s call to amend the Interim Constitution for consensus and also criticised some of the party’s decisions post-election. How certain are you about being able to guide the party towards successfully writing the constitution?

As a revolutionary party committed to the people, the UCPN (Maoist) cannot escape from its responsibilities. The party has a clear line, which is to successfully complete the peace process by writing a constitution and ending the transition. The only thing that the UCPN (Maoist) has been saying is that it has concerns about electoral fraud. Let an investigation be conducted and the facts presented to the people. This will ensure faith in the electoral process and strengthen democracy. It should not be linked to our loss in the election.

With so many issues yet to be resolved, do you think it is possible to promulgate a constitution within a year?

Two things can happen. Either a constitution will be written within a year or this CA will not write a constitution at all. This is because we have reached an agreement on foundational issues. And parties already know the matters on which they differ with the others. So there is no other task left other than to seek consensus on matters where differences exist and if that is not possible, find other ways to reach an agreement.

To conclude, some leaders, including outside your party, have you been suggesting that as a senior leader of the party, you need to be a part of the CA process.

Under normal conditions, I don’t think it suits one to join the CA after being defeated in the election. Second, I don’t think it suits a person of my post either. I do not see the need for it. But if the country thinks in a new way and I receive a formal proposal, I will give it a thought.