We should honor public sentiment and declare a Hindu state
The Kamal Thapa-led Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP) just completed a nationwide campaign to garner public support for their pet agendas of reinstating the Hindu state and monarchy. Of late senior RPP leaders have been speaking confidently about the prospect of restoring the Hindu state and monarchy, even though doing so would be unconstitutional. What explains their newfound confidence? Shashwat Acharya and Kamal Dev Bhattarai met RPP chairman Thapa for some insights.
We should honor public sentiment and declare the country a Hindu state
The Kamal Thapa-led Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP) just completed a nationwide campaign to garner public support for their pet agendas of reinstating the Hindu state and monarchy. Of late senior RPP leaders have been speaking confidently about the prospect of restoring the Hindu state and monarchy, even though doing so would be unconstitutional. What explains their newfound confidence? Shashwat Acharya and Kamal Dev Bhattarai met RPP chairman Thapa for some insights.
Your party suddenly seems very upbeat about the revival of the monarchy and Hindu state. Why?
Since the very beginning, the RPP has spoken of the utility of the monarchy and democracy for a country like Nepal, and of a Hindu state with complete religious freedom. We have been campaigning on these issues since the party’s establishment. In the past couple of years, because of the growing crisis in the country, people have started showing greater interest in and even support for our agenda. Naturally, when there is a surge in popular support, we are encouraged by the prospect of restoring the monarchy and Hindu state.
Your party just concluded a nation-wide campaign in favor of a Hindu state. What was the response?
Wherever we went, we were greeted by huge crowds—both in Pahad and Madhes and regardless of people’s faith and caste—and they explicitly expressed their support for our agenda. We found people are unhappy with the current dispensation, and are looking for an alternative. Since our agendas differ not only from those of the current government but also from the political ideologies of our major political parties, people are naturally coming out strongly in our support.
If your agendas have such public support, what explains the RPP’s electoral drubbing in 2017?
Those elections were not referendums on the monarchy or a Hindu state, but a competition between various political parties with different political agendas. We do not think the last election reflects people’s support for or opposition to the monarchy and a Hindu state. Our experience of the past 12 years has also proved that the roadmap the country has followed after the 2006 political change has failed. It has failed to deliver, and people have not been able to feel substantive changes in their living standards. So they are looking for an alternative.
What is wrong with the current political system?
People had expected that after the promulgation of the constitution in 2015 and the elections in 2017, political stability, peace and economic development would be a priority. Unfortunately, even after the three-tier elections, people have not experienced fundamental changes in their lives. Moreover, although the government has a two-third majority in the parliament, that strength has not been translated into concrete action, and public trust has been betrayed. In my opinion, this represents the failure not just of Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli or of this particular government. In fact, there are serious flaws in the roadmap we followed after the 2006 political change.
If the 2017 elections were poor indicators of people’s opinion on a Hindu state and the monarchy, what do you propose we do to gauge true public opinion?
During the time of constitution-drafting in 2015, there was overwhelming public support for a Hindu state. When we sought people’s suggestions on the draft constitution, an overwhelming majority were in favor of a Hindu state. But their sentiments were not honored.
As far as federalism is concerned, people still struggle to understand the concept. We are in the phase of implementing the federal formula and we can already see contradictions. The best way out would be a referendum on federalism.
We know a big section of the population is in favor of a republic. We cannot give them short shrift and impose monarchy. Rather we have to arrive at a compromise, which in our view means democracy with a ceremonial monarch. When we talk about the monarchy, we should not forget the geopolitical realities of Nepal. We cannot simply ignore the limitations imposed by geography.
What is the link between monarchy and Nepali geopolitics?
Nepal is situated between two giant neighbors that have completely different political systems. Both aspire to become a global power. It is natural for them to have interests in the neighborhood, including in Nepal. When those interests clash, Nepal runs the risk of disintegration. As a last custodian of sovereignty and national independence, we need an institution which can remain above party politics and issue a clarion call at a time of emergency. We are not talking about going back. It is impossible to have the kind of monarchial system we had before 2006. Considering people’s aspirations, we must give some space to traditional forces. The best solution to the present-day crisis is a blend of revolutionary and traditional forces. That is what we are trying to explain to the people.
Are you confident that if a referendum is held, people will vote in favor of your party?
Let me make it clear that we are not asking for multiple referendums. We are asking for a referendum only on federalism. Religion is an extremely sensitive issue and there should be no polarization in its name. We can directly address the issue of the restoration of a Hindu state without resorting to a referendum. As I said, in our signature campaign across the country, regardless of their caste, faith and party affiliation, people came out in big numbers and expressed their support for a Hindu state. Since such an overwhelming majority are in favor of a Hindu state, we can honor their sentiment and simply declare the country a Hindu state.
On monarchy, we have proposed a roundtable conference, one that includes former king Gyanendra, Biplab Maoists and other political parties. Such a conference could produce a widely-acceptable solution. In the past also, Maoist leader Prachanda had floated the idea of a roundtable, but it could not be realized for various reasons. Now the time has come to seriously consider this option. We cannot hope for lasting peace and stability by neglecting important political forces.
There are reports of your growing proximity with Prime Minister KP Oli and a section of the Nepal Congress on the agenda of a Hindu state.
We are a responsible political party. Although we have fundamental differences on major constitutional issues, we have accepted the charter with certain reservations and are operating within its framework. So we have excellent relations with all political parties. I have good personal relations with all their top leaders. But after the last election, we have not had extensive discussions on the country’s problems and how we should go about solving them.
How is your relationship with former King Gyanendra? Do you have his backing?
There is an ideological relationship with the former king but there is no financial backing of any kind. We run our party on our own and make decisions independently. Before 2006, all major political parties worked with the palace, and maintained relations with the king. But after 2006, they abandoned this relationship and ditched the monarch. We, on the other hand, continued our relationship and ideological links with the king. I meet former King Gyanendra time and again. We exchange ideas and opinions. At the same time, we are cautious because a single party cannot own the monarchy. It has to be neutral. If it leans toward a particular party, its role will be damaged. We do not want to drag the king into our day-to-day affairs.
How do you think the upcoming Indian elections will affect Nepali politics, if at all?
I am following Indian politics with keen interest. The upcoming elections are going to be very competitive. India is the largest democracy in the world, and has supported democratic movements the world over, including in Nepal. We want to see a stable, peaceful India and the upcoming elections will help in that direction. So far as Nepal-India relations are concerned, my experience says India has always been consistent in its neighborhood policy. So regardless of which party comes in power, I do not expect a major shift in Nepal-India relations. Individual priority and working style will have some impact, but so far Indian policy is concerned, I do not expect any major changes.
When the BJP came to power in 2014, there was a perception that it would support the agenda of a Hindu state in Nepal.
My party firmly believes the political, economic and social system of Nepal should be decided by the people of Nepal. Though I have an excellent relationship with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and other BJP leaders, we have never discussed Nepal’s internal politics. There are some misconceptions. People think that during the Madhes agitation, I had some understanding with Indian leaders on certain domestic issues. But I only briefed them on the happenings in Nepal when they asked me. Otherwise there was no mention of domestic affairs, including the agenda of a Hindu state.
Quick questions with Ishani Shrestha
Q. A quote you live by?
A. Said by a dear uncle, “Whatever you want to become, be the best at it”. Over the years, it has taught me to love my best, work my best, and live my best.
Q. Something your fans wouldn’t believe about you?
A. I am very homely. I enjoy being home, cooking, chilling with loved ones, cleaning, and just hanging around doing something—or absolutely nothing.
Q. If one of your wishes were to be granted, what would it be?
A. Eradicate suffering of any kind, from everywhere in this world.
Q. What’s the best part of your day?
A. Coming back home to my dog, Daisy, after a long day. Nothing beats the feeling of being smothered with sloppy kisses and cuddles.
Q. If you could be anything, what would you be?
A. Mindful.
Q. Your favorite getaway?
A. Every place I have been to, has a story of its own. The Caribbean, the Turkish Palaces, or the crazy Philippines—every travel has been a memorable one.
Q. What is one outfit you cannot go wrong with?
A. For me, it’s a well-tailored black cocktail dress.
Q. One Nepali celebrity you absolutely admire and why?
A. Priyanka Karki for her outstanding professionalism.
Quick questions with Satish Sthapit
Q. What makes a great show?
A. Good crowd.
Q. What is your alternate career choice?
A. None.
Q. If you could give one message to your fans, what would it be?
A. Be yourself and don’t hurt anyone for your personal gain.
Q. What would you like to be remembered about you?
A. Nothing much.
Q. What’s the funniest or weirdest question you have been asked?
A. No one has ever asked me anything stupid, really.
Q. What is your pet peeve?
A. Arrogance.
Q. If you could have one of your wishes granted, what would you wish for?
A. More guitars.
Q. What is your unpopular opinion?
A. Not sure. I’m not famous!
Q. What is a superpower you would not want?
A. Political superpower. It destroys people’s minds and turns them into evil beings!
The government should not treat Biplob as if he is in a war against the state
Many political observers in Nepal believe that the government has adopted double standards in its dealing with what was until now a secessionist party led by CK Raut and with Netra Bikram-Chand led communist party which had no such secessionist agenda. Why did the government ‘coddle’ the former and ban the latter? For some insight, Biswas Baral and Kamal Dev Bhattarai talked to Mohan Baidya ‘Kiran’, the chairman of the Communist Party of Nepal-Revolutionary Maoist, who is also thought of as a political mentor of Pushpa Kamal Dahal, Baburam Bhattarai as well as Chand.
How do you see the recent political developments, mainly the 11-point with agreement CK Raut and the ban on Netra Bikram Chand Biplab-led Maoist party?
These developments are of serious nature. The government should have dealt with those issues with a long-term vision but it has failed to do so. The handling of CK Raut and Biplab-led Maoist smacks of double standards. This reflects government’s weakness, intolerance and arrogance.
Why do you say there has been double standards in dealing with Raut and Biplab?
Many issues related to CK Raut are unclear. Raut is talking about dividing the country. Biplab-ji is raising issues related to nationalism. The party which is taking up nationalism is banned, while there has been an agreement with secessionist Raut.
How do you evaluate the content of the 11-point agreement with Raut?
Point number 2 of the 11-point agreement, which talks about ‘Janaabhimat’, has double meaning. In the press meet with Prime Minister Oli, Raut defined it as a referendum, which is problematic. If there has been no such agreement, why did Raut mention referendum? Similarly, PM Oli signed the agreement with Raut without consulting anyone, even his own party members. It is good if Raut is now in favor of national sovereignty. As it is, there are suspicions the agreement could affect the country’s sovereignty and independence in the long run.
What should have been government’s approach in dealing with Biplab?
First, think of the nature of the Biplab-led Maoists. The party has not reached the level of waging an armed conflict. They have not attacked army, police and other armed forces. But the government’s treatment of it has been no different to the treatment of the mother Maoist party at the start of the Maoist insurrection in 1996. This is wrong. The ban on party, and suppression and arrest of leaders are wrong. Such activities reflect an authoritarian bent. The government should be serious. The issues raised by Biplab are of political nature so they should be resolved through peaceful means and in a political way. The government for instance has not sent any official letter to Biplob Maoists asking them to come to the negotiating table. Why the sudden decision on the ban then? The government should immediately withdraw the ban and start a process of dialogue.
But Biplab-led Maoist party has exploded bombs in public places and there was even a human casualty. What other option was there for the government?
If the government thinks innocent people died, the same rule applies to all political parties who have launched movements in the past. Look at what the former CPN-UML or Nepali Congress did during the Panchayat regime, or what happened during the Maoist movement, Madhes movement and other political movements. Such incidents, as unfortunate as they are, happen during political movements.
What is your view on the political line adopted by Biplab?
There are some political differences with him. There were divergent views about the party’s future course when he split with us. We were in favor of settlement of differences through intra-party discussions. But Biplab left us and formed a separate party. It is not only about Biplab-ji but also other political forces. The divergent views do not mean that we have to view Biplav-led party in a negative way.
Isn’t it an irony that Home Minister Ram Bahadur Thapa and Biplab who worked so closely during the insurgency are now at loggerheads?
History seems to be repeating itself. During the 10-year insurgency, parties in government labeled our activities as looting and extortion. But on the foundation of the same insurgency, Maoist leaders reached positions of power. But now, almost overnight, they have changed their line 180 degrees. This is a surprise. Also, in politics, personal relations do not matter much.
But it is said personal reasons have contributed to strained ties between Biplob and the government.
No, not because of personal reasons. The main thing is that the political line taken of ruling parties is completely different to the one Biplab is walking on.
Has Biplab-led Maoist emerged as a threat to this government?
We do not know what happened between them. It is obvious that the ruling parties and their leaders face various threats. It is up to responsible leaders who are in power to think of how to tackle those threats. In politics, everyone faces threats everywhere. Such threats should be dealt with politically.
The government is saying that Biplab was even forming a militia and that the party has prepared a hit-list of political leaders.
I do not know these things. The government has not officially informed such things even though there have been some rumors.
Do you think there are international forces at play in recent political developments?
There has always been international meddling in the internal affairs of Nepal. The main thing is what we do internally. If we are united and issues are resolved through consultations, there would be no international meddling.
Prachanda has been saying that there have been attempts on his life. Why is he saying so?
I don’t know. I have not talked with him about it. It is up to Prachanda to tell people.
Are there any chances of your party uniting with Biplab-led Maoists?
In the past, we held several rounds of talks on unification. But some ideological issues have emerged as obstacles. In the future, the fate of unity will be decided by our political line and political course. If there is uniformity in ideology, we are ready to unite, not only with Biplab-led Maoists but also with other revolutionary communist forces.
What is your party busy with right now?
Now, we are focusing on strengthening our organizational base. We are taking up the issues related to nationalism and those faced by common people. We are preparing for a mass movement on the same issues. We just completed a 15-day Mechi-Mahakali campaign. We want to establish communism through the path of socialism.
How do you evaluate the performance of communist government led by KP Oli?
We do not think it is a communist government. It is a government of parliamentary parties. The old power and old system have been perpetuated. The government that introduced the ‘Prosperous Nepal Happy Nepali’ slogan has failed to deliver. Development expenditure has not exceeded 25 percent. The trade deficit has further widened and there is imbalance between export and import. Unemployment remains rampant and the border dispute with India is unsettled. Now, the government is projecting regular lawmaking as its achievement, which is a shame.
You were considered an ideological guru of Prachanda and Baburam Bhattarai. But now the three of you occupy three opposing poles.
We had not even imagined such a situation. We were one in ideology and other political issues and we were committed to building a new Nepal. We had thought we would move ahead as co-fighters. Unfortunately, the opposite happened. I find it very odd. But in politics such odd things happen.
Can your party play a mediator between the government and Biplab-led Maoist party?
First we are not willing to mediate and I do not believe talks would take place under our meditation. So, we have not thought about it. Our advice to the government is that talks should be initiated by shunning the current approach of suppression. Political issues should be resolved politically.
What is your advice to Biplab?
I cannot give advice to Biplav because it is difficult to do such things in politics. But Biplab should make his political line clearer. He should clearly define his future political course. Biplab should move ahead with clarity on how to emancipate people.
Where is Nepal’s communist movement headed?
The communist movement has not ended in Nepal. Now it is weak. But it will again gain strength. Neoliberalism is crumbling, the parliamentary system is in crisis. The next option is scientific socialism. Now the oppressor is dominant and revolutionary forces are cornered. But things will change.
