Submit your Article

Why is the government performance considered so dismal?

Recent political changes created high expectations. It is not possible to fulfill all these expectations at once. The government has undertaken some positive initiatives but the results are as not evident yet.

Is it right to say that this government has no clear vision and policy?

I do not think so. In the initial days, the government pursued an independent foreign policy, and settled internal issues on its own without foreign help. The government also established balanced relations with neighboring countries based on mutual trust. It formulated laws to implement the constitution and make the federal structures functional. Local levels are also working effectively. The government must also be credited for taking decisive steps to implement the social security scheme. The policy of providing loans on the basis of educational certificates has been implemented, which helps curb rising unemployment. However, we have not been able to perform satisfactorily on the governance front. We have not done enough to curb corruption and deliver good governance.  

Is there a rift in party leadership?

The focus of our recent intra-party discussions is the fact that this government should not be allowed to fail. Its failure will lead to multiple crises in the country. Intra-party debates are thus centered on how to make the government’s works more effective and result-oriented. There is a view that the party must have a decisive say in running the government, and that the government’s weaknesses must be corrected but its positive tasks should be recognized.

Is the dissatisfaction centered on what is perceived as KP Oli’s monopoly in government?

Intra-party discussions are centered on two broad areas. First, how do we establish party control over government functioning? Second, how does the government prioritize economic prosperity and social justice? There is also consensus in the party that the current model of leadership, with two chairmen, is appropriate.

There are reports that Pushpa Kamal Dahal prevailed over KP Oli in the recent Standing Committee meeting.

Discussions in the party were not aimed at encouraging one chairman and discouraging another. The spirit of the discussions was that the two chairmen as well as the nine-member secretariat must share the blame for our recent failings. As PM Oli is leading the government, it is natural that he is criticized more.

But it is true that Dahal has of late played an apposite role in terms of party ideology, organizational structure and self-criticism. He has shown a sense of urgency. He was instrumental in making the meeting a success. But the meeting has not weakened PM Oli either. It has rather created a basis for collective leadership.

There are also demands that the party should implement a ‘one-man, one-post’ formula.

The party statute incorporates this principle. But it does not mean that one chairman should get one specific responsibility right now. Since we are in a phase of historical transition in terms of party unification, we have decided to move ahead with two chairmen. We are not in a position to assign specific responsibility to a particular chairman.

But in terms of practicality, the chairman who is leading the government should give more priority to government issues, while the chairman who is not in government should give more time to party organization. In terms of broader organizational structure, the ‘one-man, one-post’ formula is appropriate, at least until the party’s next General Convention.  

Do you think PM Oli will hand over government leadership to Dahal after two and half years?

It is not appropriate to talk about this right now. After a long time, there is hope of stability. We must support the government. The government leadership should not be confined to time frames.

But past governments in Nepal have collapsed because of intra-party disagreements over power-sharing.  

Politics and culture change with time. Now we have a stable government, which needs to be strengthened. Power issues are secondary. If there is an understanding in the party, we can take any decisions, including on government leadership.

Are there regular consultations between the party and the government?

In a multi-party democratic set-up and especially under communist party rule, it is the party that runs the government. Government policies and programs must be discussed within the party, which is not happening. The party cannot interfere in the day-to-day affairs of the government, but it should have a say in broader policy and structure.  

In a separate context, why do you think India is reluctant to receive the report of Nepal-India Eminent Persons Group (EPG)?

The Indian government’s is delay is inappropriate. It signals the perception that there has been a sea change in India’s Nepal policy post-blockade is untrue. Otherwise, there is no valid reason to delay receiving the EPG report.  

Do you think the internal politics of Nepal and India are hampering bilateral relations?

India is currently in electoral mode, with fast-approaching national elections. This has influenced bilateral relations. So far as Nepal is concerned, no internal factor is hampering relations with India right now. Some decisions of the Indian establishment have created friction between the two countries and affected India’s own interests, which is being realized in India. Again, the election season could be one reason behind the delay in receiving the EPG report.

Separately, what did you make of Foreign Minister Pradeep Gyawali’s statement that Nepal has convinced the US not to view Nepal from an Indian lens?

One dialogue or meeting cannot deliver such positive results. But FM Gyawali knows better because he discussed these issues with American officials. He is the right person to ask if there have been any changes in America’s approach to Nepal. But it would be premature to conclude that the US approach to Nepal has changed.

Does the foreign minister’s US visit signal a fresh approach of reaching out to countries beyond India and China?

Our geopolitical location has provided us with great opportunities as well as risks. If we conduct our foreign policy with maturity, our geopolitical location will benefit us. But if we fail to do so, it would adversely affect out national sovereignty and interest. We must tread carefully. We should not be unduly encouraged by one event or incident.

The US State Department says that the US now views Nepal as a central plank of its Indo-Pacific strategy. What is your reading?

We should try to enhance bilateral relations with other countries. But I don’t think the US extended its invitation to our foreign minister only to discuss bilateral issues. America formally talked about Nepal’s role in its Indo-Pacific strategy and requested us to play a central role. We should be cautious. We should not be involved in any such strategy. When I heard the US talk about Nepal’s central role in America’s Indo-Pacific strategy, I was surprised. What does it mean? The US government seems intent on forcing Nepal to back this strategy.

Is this strategy against china?

It is obviously against China. It is not in the interest of Nepal either.

There are also reports that the US sought Nepal’s help in curbing North Korea.

The Americans are saying that they want peace on the Korean Peninsula. The US is seeking our support in its proposal to the UN on North Korea. Similarly, America has, in a roundabout way, sought our help in curbing North Korean activities in Nepal and downsizing the North Korean embassy in Kathmandu. The US also wants us to restrict visas to North Korean citizens. It is a part of their strategy to put more pressure on North Korea.

Finally, as a former foreign minister, can you tell us where the biggest threats to Nepali interests have traditionally come from?

Everyone knows the most immediate threat comes from the southern neighbor, and then from western countries. There are no immediate threats from China. China’s interest in Nepal is limited to Tibet. China would otherwise not interfere in our internal affairs.

Uma Singh. Birendra Shah. Prakash Singh Thakuri. Maheshwar Pahari. These courageous Nepali journalists were killed, at different times, as they had dared to speak truth to power.

Following the formal end of the Maoist insurgency in 2006, journalists in Nepal are comparably safer. The last murder, of Uma Singh, happened in 2009. Yet Nepali journalists continue to face all kinds of intimidations, threats of violence, and even physical violence. There have been over 100 cases of infringement of press freedom in Nepal in 2018, way more than the 66 instances in 2017.

And it’s a dangerous world for journalists. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), in 2018 alone, 53 have been killed in their line of duty, in countries as diverse as Brazil, India, the US, Syria, Somalia and Afghanistan. One of them was the 59-year-old Saudi dissident journalist Jamal Ahmad Khashoggi.

To put it bluntly, Khashoggi had to die because the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman didn’t like him. Khashoggi had repeatedly written about the kingdom’s illiberal impulses, for instance, its sponsoring of the military intervention in Yemen that has killed at least 11,000 civilians. For his crimes Khashoggi was strangled inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul and his body dismembered to hide evidence.

Khashoggi is APEX ICON 2018 because his murder is a constant reminder that we should not take freedoms for granted

The international community was horrified. Liberal democracies around the world condemned the killing and demanded international sanctions against the Saudi elite. Other governments, including Nepal’s, chose silence. Besides a perfunctory statement from the FNJ, and save for some op-ed pieces, criticism of this most horrendous killing of a journalist was largely missing in Nepal. Perhaps this was to be expected in a country that has seen a steady erosion of press freedom in recent times, so much so that government ministers are now calling the media “peddlers of fake news”.

But it would be dangerous to forget what happened to Jamal Khashoggi. Free expression and speech have no boundaries. They are also indispensable for a functioning democracy. Jamal Khashoggi is APEX ICON 2018 because his brutal murder is a constant reminder that we dare not take our freedoms for granted. As a government amasses power, it also tends to be rather autocratic. It thus needs constant reminders of its limits. If daring journalists like Khashoggi can be so easily silenced, and seemingly with no consequences for his killers, it bodes ill for democratic freedoms in a world increasingly governed by majority-pandering populists.

His is an inspiring story of how one journalist fought a mighty state and in his untimely death ended up being the emblem of press freedom

Jamal Ahmad Khashoggi's Timeline

Jan 22 1958: Born in Medina, Saudi Arabia

1982: Graduated from Indiana State University in the US with a BBA.

1986: Began his journalistic career working for English-language Arab News and Okaz. He also wrote for influential London-based Arabic dailies Al-Sharq Al-Awsat and Al-Hayat.

Late 1980s to early 1990s: Khashoggi came to prominence for his coverage of the Soviet war in Afghanistan and the rise of Osama Bin Laden. Khashoggi is credited as being one of the first Arab reporters to profile bin Laden.

1995: bin Laden’s family asked Khashoggi to interview Osama and get him to publicly denounce violence. However, bin Laden remained steadfast about his desire to fight the Americans, and Khashoggi was forced to give up.

1999-2003: Khashoggi became the deputy editor for the Saudi-run newspaper Arab News, and remained in that position for four years. His next position as the editor-in-chief of the Al-Watan paper barely lasted two months before he was dismissed from the post without explanation.

2003-2007: He served as media adviser to Prince Turki al Faisal, the veteran head of the Saudi general intelligence service.

2007-2010: Khashoggi was reinstated as the editor of Al-Watan in 2007, but resigned again in 2010, after a row over running another controversial opinion piece.

June 2017: He went into a self-imposed exile in the US. From there, he wrote a monthly column in the Washington Post in which he criticized the policies of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

Oct 2, 2018: Khashoggi was last seen entering the Saudi consulate in Istanbul to obtain documents that would seal his marriage to his Turkish fiancee, Hatice Cengiz. He was allegedly killed and dismembered with a bone-saw on the same day by a team of Saudi agents on orders that came from the Crown Prince.

Why Jamal Khashoggi is APEX ICON 2018

If those like him who hold the power to account can be so openly silenced, and with seemingly no damning consequence, democratic freedoms around the world will be under threat. Nepal will be no exception

Between Jan 1 and Dec 14 this year, 53 journalists were murdered worldwide, nearly double the number in 2017. Packed with worrisome stats like this, the annual report of the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), an independent non-profit that promotes press freedom worldwide, makes for a grim reading.

“Journalists from Saudi Arabia to Afghanistan to the US were targeted for murder in 2018 in reprisal for their work, bringing the total of journalists killed on duty to its highest in three years,” the report says, even while “the number of journalists killed in conflict fell to its lowest level since 2011.”

One of those murdered this year was Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi. His early October assassination inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, and the subsequent dismemberment of his body, had sent shock waves around the world.

Khashoggi was a veteran journalist who in his long career had reported on the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and interviewed Osama bin Laden. Before that he had served as an advisor to the Saudi government. When relations with the House of Saud soured in 2017, he went on a self-imposed exile in the United States. In this recent columns in the Washington Post Khashoggi had been rather critical of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman whom he faulted for, among other things, sponsoring the brutal war in Yemen.

Unaware of how badly he had riled the mercurial crown prince, Khashoggi had gone to the Saudi consulate in Istanbul on Oct 2 to get documents for his marriage with his Turkish fiancée Hatice Cengiz, a doctoral student at a university in Istanbul. “The consular official, who had informed him that the paperwork had come through, had told him to be at the Saudi consulate at 1 pm,” Cengiz would write in her opinion piece published in the New York Times on Oct 13. “On our way there, we made plans for the rest of the day. We were going to browse appliances for our new home and meet with our friends and family members over dinner.” (APEX attempted to contact Cenzig for this article, both through emails and over the phone. She could not be reached.)

“Khashoggi’s murder highlights the rise of authoritarian and populist leaders and their intolerance for diverse and critical opinion,” Gagan Thapa, Nepali Congress leader

The rough prince

Initially, Saudi officials denied any involvement in the murder. Later, they provided conflicting information. Only after an international outcry did the Saudi government confess to the involvement of some of its officials but the full account of what happened in the Saudi consulate is yet to emerge. Intelligence reports, including from the CIA, suggest the crown prince himself ordered Khashoggi’s murder. Such a brazen killing of a journalist—that too in a consulate on foreign soil—has predictably shocked the global media fraternity, including in Nepal.

The Federation of Nepalese Journalists (FNJ) condemned the killing and lodged a protest letter with the Saudi Embassy in Kathmandu, demanding immediate action against those involved. “We submitted a strong protest letter. But I also confess that we have not done enough,” said Ram Prasad Dahal, a secretary at the FNJ. “My observation is that our major media houses are not giving this important issue enough space. The FNJ could also have been more vocal.”

Media experts APEX contacted were of the opinion that the issues of freedom of speech and expression are universal, and all attempts to suppress them, anywhere in the world, should be condemned.  

“There are universal repercussions of this killing because it creates a psychological fear among journalists of other countries. It may also contribute to self-censorship as they fear criticizing powerful rulers fearing similar consequences,” said Tara Nath Dahal, a former FNJ chairman who now leads Freedom Forum. “Impunity on crimes against journalists is a major problem around the world. Therefore despite the intense international pressure there has been no proper investigation of the Khashoggi murder.” 

Nepali Congress leader Gagan Thapa has also been closely watching global reaction to Khashoggi’s murder. “His murder shows that free speech and expression are under threat globally.” Thapa believes the US, “as a champion of liberal democracy, should have taken a stronger stand.”

Chiranjibi Khanal, Head of Department of Journalism and Mass Communication, Tribhuwan University, sees Khashoggi’s murder as a part of “a universal trend of suppressing press freedom.”

When populists prevail

In the reckoning of Gagan Thapa, Khashoggi’s murder also highlights the rise of authoritarian and populist leaders and their intolerance for diverse and critical opinion, including in Nepal.  

He faults the reaction of Nepal government on Khashoggi’s killing. “Leaders who claim to be nationalists tend not to speak on internal affairs of other countries. They in turn want other countries to keep mum on their internal issues. Freedom of speech and expression, however, is a global issue and all sovereign countries should uphold it,” Thapa said.

Many world leaders swiftly condemned the killing and demanded an immediate probe but there was no reaction from our government or from any of our political parties. After the end of the Maoist conflict in 2006, journalists in Nepal are comparably safer. During the insurgency, many journalists had been killed, both by the state and the Maoist party.

And yet, there is impunity on the crimes against journalists as those involved are seldom punished. According to official records, there were around 100 cases of press freedom violations in Nepal in 2018, a sharp rise from 2017 when 66 such incidents were registered.

Various national and international organizations have noted a high level of self-censorship in Nepal. Journalists hold back on critical reporting on powerful politicians and businessmen fearing reprisal.

There has also been a systematic effort to portray Nepali media in a negative light—from the government. A few weeks ago, Minister for Information and Technology Gokul Banskota accused Nepali media of peddling fake news. Co-chairman of ruling Nepal Communist Party Pushpa Kamal Dahal recently accused Nepali media of being “handmaiden of capitalist forces”. Prime Minister KP Oli has chaffed at what he thinks as “constant negative portrayal” of his government. There are reports that more regulations are in the works to make the Nepali press “more disciplined.”

Khashoggi’s murder represents the extreme to which those in power can go to silence their critics. Again, as those we talked to suggested, freedom of speech should have no boundaries, real or artificial. This is why Khashoggi’s killing must be condemned in the strongest possible way and there is a need for concerted international pressure on Saudi Arabia to come clean.

Khashoggi is APEX ICON 2018 because if those like him who hold the power to account can be so openly silenced, and with seemingly no damning consequence, democratic freedoms around the world will be under threat. Nepal will be no exception. We therefore we need to endlessly champion his cause.

To address war-era human rights viola­tions, a five-member Truth and Reconcil­iation Commission was set up in Febru­ary 2015. The commission was formed with a two-year mandate—which has been extended by a year two times—with the objective of resolving conflict-era issues and providing justice to conflict victims. The extended mandate of the TRC will expire on February 10, 2019. In TRC’s four year existence, there has been lit­tle progress in dealing with war-era cases. Reports are that the government will not further extend the TRC mandate, and replace the TRC and the Commission of Investigation on Enforced Disappeared Persons (CIEDP), the two transitional justice bodies, with political mechanisms. In this context, Kamal Dev Bhattarai talked to TRC member Manchala Jha.

Interview

MANCHALA JHA

 I have come to a conclusion that the TRC formation process was faulty

How do you measure the progress made by your commission?

We were unable to complete our mandated tasks in the past four years. First, the con­cept of such a commission in Nepal was something new. In initial days, we faced logistical problems such as shortage of human resources and offices. Once those problems were resolved, the earthquake struck, diverting attention. The TRC reg­ulation was delayed.

Right now, the TRC togeth­er with the CIEDP has received around 63,000 complaints. Last year, we established offices in all seven provinces and appointed experts to study the complaints. We completed investigation on 800 cases from Province no 1, which is good progress.

There are reports of lack of support from political parties.

Nepal’s conflict was unique. It was not a racial or caste conflict, nor was it a conflict over natural resources. The Maoist conflict had a political dimension, which was backed by marginalized communities. The conflict was resolved through all-party con­sensuses and moreover, Nepal’s peace process was homegrown. The Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) in 2006 had envisaged the formation of the TRC within six months. Due to the lack of political consensus, it took eight years.

When the commission was finally formed, we met top political leaders to solic­it their help in our task. They had assured us every kind of help and had committed not to interfere in our work. Both these promises were broken. Nor did frequent change in government help our cause.

In February 2015 the Supreme Court annulled the amnesty pro­visions of the Transitional Justice Act, saying that it was against established principles of justice and international law. There was no attempt to amend the law in line with SC verdict. This made our work difficult.

Are you implying that political parties are not serious about settling TRC issues?

I think so. I have come to a conclusion that the TRC for­mation process was faulty. The then Maoist Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal has said that the commission should never have been formed, which gives us some hint of our politicians’ seriousness to the cause of tran­sitional justice. Not only Dahal, political leaders from other par­ties are also not interested.

The TRC component was incorporated in the CPA follow­ing UN pressure. Then, in 2012, the UN human rights commission came up with a detail report on rights violation in Nepal that prompted parties to set up tran­sitional justice mechanisms. I think the commission was set up only so that our politicians could save face in front of the international community.

But there is also a pos­itive side. The parties started distributing relief package to war-era victims after 2006. One million rupee was provided to the family of each person killed during the conflict. Similarly, their children got scholarships to study.

Do you think the commission had too broad a mandate?

This commission should have been mandated only to find out the truth. We had a very broad mandate but the right condition to fulfill it was not created. For instance the Act allows us to identify perpetrators of conflict-era crimes as well as their victims. But when we tried to identity the perpetrators, the parties felt uncomfortable.

Did the political parties directly intervene with the functioning of the TRC?

The leadership of the TRC is sluggish, as is its working style. This suggests our leadership is under pressure.

There are also questions over the efficiency of TRC team. Why has it failed to assure conflict victims?

We were short on resources, including logistics and human resources. Our chairman often took up this issue with political parties and the government. But it is also true that we could per­haps have done a better job of giving hope to conflict victims. We should do some soul-search­ing on this. I am ready to take my share of the blame.

What are other reasons for lack of progress?

We take money only from the government. Donor agencies offered to help but we shunned them. We thought the TRC was a sensitive issue and there should be no outside influence. Now I feel that without the interference of donor agencies and rights activists, it is difficult to get any­thing done in this country. The same is applicable in the case of the TRC.

How do you see the issue of transitional justice going forward?

I now think the conflict vic­tims will not get justice. I feel guilty I could not provide justice to the rape victims I had assured otherwise. Conflict victims them­selves are in a state of confusion and are divided, which is not a good sign.

There are many hurdles in transitional justice process, and it will get even more com­plex from hereon. The politi­cal parties settled the issue of integration of Maoist combat­ants and constitution promulga­tion. They should now take the lead in settling transitional justice issues.

At the ongoing meeting of Nepali Congress Mahasamiti, the party’s second most pow­erful decision-making body after the general convention, over 40 percent of the delegates petitioned party leadership to change Congress charter to again designate Nepal a Hindu state. The leadership of the main oppo­sition party is divided into three camps. The first comprises sec­ond-rung leaders such as Bimalen­dra Nidhi and Krishna Prasad Sitau­la, who are of the view that the party should stick to secularism. In their reckoning, NC cannot give up secu­larism as a secular constitution was promulgated under its leadership.

The second group includes Gener­al Secretary Shashank Koirala, who has publicly asked for a referendum on the issue, and central working committee members such as Shan­kar Bhandari and Pushpa Bhusal, all of whom want to restore the country’s Hindu character.

Likewise, the third group includ­ing senior leaders like Ram Chandra Poudel and Shekhar Koirala, have taken a middle-of-the-road position and are in favor of mentioning ‘reli­gious freedom’ instead of ‘secular­ism’ in the national constitution.

Advocates of Hindu state in Con­gress argue that during the writing of the constitution people were not consulted on religion. Party Presi­dent Sher Bahadur Deuba and other senior leaders don’t want to criticize the advocates of Hindu state as their support will be crucial if they hope to keep their leadership roles.

This attempt of the main opposi­tion to turn the clock back has not amused political analysts. They say Congress would be flogging a dead horse and that such an approach would be electorally suicidal. But on current form, this dispute over reli­gion will continue to dog the Grand Old Party, and could be a defining issue at the next general convention due in March 2020.

Nepali Congress and a Hindu state

Of 1,600 party delegates assembled in Kathmandu for the meet, around 700 (over 43 percent) supported a signature campaign at the Mahasamiti venue to press party leadership to support the Hindu state

A decade after the coun­try was declared a secular republic, a sizable section of Nepali Congress (NC) is pressing party leadership to rethink secular­ism, a demand that goes against the new constitution.The demand has surfaced during the ongoing Mahasamiti meet as well (the meeting continued as we went to press). NC’s second biggest deci­sion-making body after the general convention is mandated to discuss party policies and programs but not to change party leadership. Of 1,600 party delegates assembled in Kath­mandu for the meet, around 700 (over 43 percent) supported a sig­nature campaign at the Mahasamiti venue to press party leadership to support the Hindu state.

Up against a potent communist force, they believe religion can be an effective tool for the party’s reviv­al during the next electoral cycle. General Secretary Shashank Koirala leads this front.

On religion, party leaders are in fact divided into three factions. The first group is comprised of sec­ond-rung leaders such as Bimalen­dra Nidhi and Krishna Prasad Sitau­la, who are of the view that the party should stick to secularism. In their reckoning, as a secular constitution was promulgated under NC leader­ship, the party cannot deviate from this line.

The second group includes Gener­al Secretary Shashank Koirala, who has publicly asked for a referen­dum on the issue, as well as central working committee members such as Shankar Bhandari and Pushpa Bhusal, all of whom want to restore the country’s Hindu character.

Likewise, the third group including senior leaders like Ram Chandra Poudel and Shekhar Koi­rala are in favor of mentioning ‘reli­gious freedom’ in lieu of ‘secularism’ in the constitution.

Advocates of Hindu state in Con­gress argue that people were never consulted on religion and the deci­sion to do away with the country’s Hindu designation was made by a handful of leaders. Party Presi­dent Sher Bahadur Deuba and other senior leaders cannot criticize these advocates because their support is crucial if they hope to remain in leadership roles.

Political analysts say raising the issue of religion now is irrelevant and the Hindu card is an outdated political instrument

At the 13th general convention, late NC leader Khum Bahadur Khad­ka had made the party’s backing of Hindu state a condition for support­ing Deuba’s candidacy for party president. For a long time, Khadka had led the campaign for Hindu state in the party. Before that, late Nepali Congress leader Krishna Prasad Bhattarai had notably left the party when NC officially ditched monarchy and Hindu state.

To appease Hindu loyalists in the party, Deuba, during the last par­ty convention, had publicly said that the party was failing to honor Hindu sentiments. Deuba thinks that a volte-face now could do him political harm.

The signature campaign in favor of Hindu state during the Mahasami­ti meeting clearly shows a big sup­port to reverse the course. “A plural­ity of Mahasamiti members want to turn the country into a Hindu state,” said Min Krishna Maharajan, a dele­gate from Kathmandu district who had taken the initiative of signature campaign. During the Mahasamiti meeting supporters of Hindu state were seen putting up posters and handing out pamphlets to support their cause. They were also urg­ing central committee members to stand in favor of Hindu state.

Congress leaders say such voices were always there in the party. “The government decision to support and organize a program of a Chris­tian organization seems to have given new fuel to these dormant voices,” NC leader Nabindra Raj Joshi told APEX. “We are commit­ted to secularism but I think it will become a major agenda at the next general convention.”

Political analysts say raising the issue of religion now is irrele­vant; the Hindu card cannot be a political instrument to revive the party’s fortunes.

“NC leaders must learn from Ras­triya Prajatantra Party-Nepal which had gone into the last round of elec­tions with the Hindu state agenda. People rejected it,” said political analyst Shyam Shrestha. “People are not in favor of any religious or caste conflicts in Nepal. That certain Con­gress leaders are bringing up this issue is indicative of the weak lead­ership of Party President Deuba.”

As the Hindu agenda gathers momentum in Congress, it has raised eyebrows in the ruling Nepal Communist Party. Speaking at a function in Pokhara on Dec 10, NCP co-chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal said, “Even though NC played a vital role in the peace process, its current role is suspicious. Many of its lead­ers are unhappy with the changes.”

RPP-N, a party which has long been advocating a Hindu state and monarchy, is upbeat about the recent turn of events in Nepali Congress. “We can collaborate if NC officially decides on Hindu state,” its chairman Kamal Thapa said recently.

Nepal was formally declared a secular state in 2006 by the rein­stated parliament through a House proclamation, a designation which was later cemented in the Interim Constitution 2007. During the con­stitution drafting process in 2015, it was one of the disputed issues. Nonetheless the country’s new sec­ular character was retained.

Reportedly, one of the reasons India imposed five months of block­ade on Nepal during 2015-16 was that top Nepali leaders had reneged on their promise to remove the pro­vision on secularism during the 2015 constitution-making process. During the process, RPP-N’s proposal that the country be made a Hindu state again was snubbed by two-third Constituent Assembly members. The new constitution adopted on September 20, 2015 declares the country a secular state, and defines secularism as “protection of the age-old religion and culture and religious and cultural freedom”.

On November 20, Mahanta Thakur, the reigning presidium coordinator of the Rastriya Janata Party Nepal (RJPN), was replaced by Rajendra Mahato, in what has been described by Thakur’s supporters as a ‘coup’. Thakur supporters also blamed Mahato for compromising Madhesi agenda in his rush to join the federal government. Kamal Dev Bhattarai caught up with Mahato to get his inputs on the federal government’s performances, his chances of joining it and the intra-party rift in the RJPN.

How do you view the federal government performance in past 10 months?

The performance of a government with two-thirds support in national parliament is unsatisfactory. It has failed to meet people’s expecta­tions, and has invited a lot of anger and frustration. The two-thirds gov­ernment has neither been able to deliver on its promises nor to speed up the development process.

Your party supported Oli-led gov­ernment in return of a promise that the constitution would be amended. What is the progress?

When the government was formed, PM Oli had sufficient sup­port of lawmakers in federal par­liament, and there was no need of our support to secure majority votes. PM Oli, however, sought our help to widen his support base. We supported him with some con­ditions though: one of them was regarding constitution amendment. At that time, PM Oli had assured us that the constitution would be amended on the basis of necessity and relevance. Madhesi, Tharu and Janajati, Dalit and other marginal­ized community are eagerly waiting for the amendment but there has so far been no progress.

Are you planning to withdraw your support to the government?

In terms of arithmetic strength, our support does not make any dif­ference as the ruling NCP has suf­ficient numbers in parliament. At the same time, even if we support the government, we are free to pro­test and criticize it. However, if this government is not serious about our demands, we could think of withdrawing our support. We are currently in intra-party discussions, and are also considering withdraw­ing our support to the government.

Some RJPN leaders close to Mah­anta Thakur say that you have been particularly keen on joining the government. Is this true?

This is not true. Until and unless our demands are fulfilled, we cannot join the government. In the current situation, there is no point in joining the government. The focus of our party is to press for constitution amendment at the earli­est. During different Madhes move­ments, many have sacrificed their lives for the rights of Madhesis and other groups and it is our responsi­bility to honor their sacrifice.

There are media reports about ongoing unification talks between the RJPN and Upendra Yadav-led Sanghiya Samajbadi Forum.

There are some fundamental differences between the two par­ties on how they view the constitu­tion. We marked the Constitutional Day (Ashoj 3) as a black day, while Yadavji celebrated the occasion. Currently Sanghiya Samajbadi Forum is in the government. That is why I do not see the possibility of unification. There are far too many ideological differences between the two parties.

Aren’t the core Madhesi agendas being diluted due to constant rifts and splits in Madhes-based parties?

I do not think so. Our first priority is to resolve all agendas through peaceful means and we are urging major parties to heed our demands. There is a perception that the Mad­hesi movement can be strong only if we hit the streets. If necessary and if the government continues to ignore our demands, we will even do that. Right now, we are drawing the gov­ernment’s attention to our demands through peaceful means.

In 2015, there was strong Indian support for the demands of Mad­hes-based parties. It now seems that India has abandoned you.

The international community sup­ports all political movements of Nepali people. There was interna­tional support for the 1990 move­ment as well as the 2006 movement. There was also support for other movements launched by the peo­ple. If people again come to the street demanding their rights, they will once again get international support. Our major demands are change in provincial boundaries, more autonomy for the provinces and, guaranteed rights of all mar­ginalized communities such as Dalit, Madhesi, Janajati, Tharu and others.

How do you plan to push for that elusive constitution-amendment?

We are in consultations with stake­holders on how to move ahead. Instead of going separately, we have realized a need for a unified move­ment among the proponents of iden­tity politics. I think that only a uni­fied movement of Madhesi, Tharu, Dalit, Janajati and other marginal­ized community would yield result.

There is no point in joining the government. The focus of our party is to press for constitution amendment at the earliest

In a separate context, dissatis­faction seems to be going in the RJPN after you took the post of its presidium coordinator?

I do not think so. Now, we are making preparations to hold the party’s general convention. That done, the party will be stronger and more united. We want to develop the RJPN as an alternative political force of the country. That is why our priority is to strengthen the party at the grassroots level.