CJ-led Government-20

Siddhi B Ranjitkar

The pro and anti elections groups have been flexing their muscle in a showdown. The CPN-Maoist has instructed its cadres to be prepared for launching guerrilla-style attacks to disrupt the elections while other parties including the UCPN-Maoist have been training to tackle the attempts of the opposing political parties to disrupt the elections. If both the parties were not to do something to remedy this confrontational situation, cadres of these parties would fight against each other at districts in course of the election campaign. Such fights will reach climax when the election date closes in.

On July 25, 2013, General Secretary of CPN-Maoist Ram Bahadur Thapa ‘Badal’ demonstrated how to break a ballot box using a sledgehammer in public. Mr. Badal either did not know breaking ballot boxes means a serious crime or he simply ignored it. Breaking ballot boxes means violating the rights of people to vote. It is a serious crime of human rights violation. The Election commission has warned Mr. Badal of breaking ballot boxes is a serious crime, and anybody doing so will be legally dealt with following the election code of conduct.

Mr. Vaidhya has indirectly hinted at the country going to merge with India. He has repeatedly said that Nepal was going to be sikkimization. Sikkim was a small independent Himalayan country before it was merged with India. It had its own reasons for merging with India but Nepal has no reasons for merging with India or any other country. Nepalis fought against the mighty British army to save the country from the British occupation while one Indian state after another gave in to the British army. Nepalis would neither merge their country with any other country nor would let anybody doing so. Mr. Vaidhya should understand it.

Chairman Vaidhya declared that he was ready to join hands with all the nationalists including the former king Gyanendra Shah to save the country from going to the hands of the foreign hands. Mr. Vaidhya however, made it clear that his party would not compromise on federalism, republic, and identity-based federal states. What does nationalist means Mr. Vaidhya does not make it clear. Does it mean anti-Indian feeling? If it is so then Mr. Vaidhya does not know the meaning of the word ‘nationalist’.

Chairman of Rastriya Prajatantra Party Surya Bahadur Thapa has said that he is ready for going together with all nationalists but not with the communists. Mr. Thapa also did not explain what the ‘nationalist’ means. His party had been for a constitutional monarchy but recently his party removed that provision from the party constitution, and became the republican. Mr. Thapa also did not bother to explain what ‘nationalist’ means.

Chairman of Rastriya Prajatantra Party-Nepal Kamal Thapa was ready to cooperate with the CPN-Maoist if they were to put the monarchy back. His party also has made the provision for a constitutional monarchy not for an absolute monarchy in its constitution. Even if Mr. Thapa would be successful to reinstate the monarchy he would face a conflict with the monarchy, as the monarchs had been always for the absolute rule.

Nepali Congress (NC) had been for a constitutional monarchy since its birth until 2008. NC leader BP Koirala had even said that his neck was conjoined with the neck of king Mahendra but Mahendra did not want to have his neck conjoined with that of BP Koirala. NC leaders suffered from the monarchy more than any political parties until its end in Nepal in 2008. Ultimately, NC opted for a republican setup and removed the provision for the constitutional monarchy from its constitution forever in 2008.

Why Mr. Vaidhya wanted to go with former king, he did not make the reasons for it clear to the public. If we take a look at the history we find that politicians that have benefited from the monarchs have opted for the monarchy. It is quite natural. We also find other politicians that have no courage to run the administration on their own want the shadow of the monarchy. They feel safe under the shadow of the monarchy. Does Mr. Vaidhya need such a shadow of the monarchy?

Concerning the meaning of ‘nationalist’, we find the meanings of it in a dictionary such as 1) a person who advocates political independence for a country, 2) a person with strong patriotic feelings. Our country has never been under a foreign administration. We have got rid of the despotic dynastic rule. Nepalis have strong patriotic feelings.

Patriotism is not the concern of only Mr. Vaidhya, Thapas, and their royal master but the concern of all Nepalis. If Mr. Vaidhya reads the history he will find that Nepalis have kept the independence of the country fighting against the British Army. Nepalis faced the mighty British army and fought against the British army to the end for keeping the independence of the country at the time when one country after another fell to the British army.

Recently, former prime minister also the leader of UCPN-Maoist Dr Baburam Bhattarai has revealed that former king Gyanendra has been going to the foreign leaders begging for reinstatement of the monarchy in Nepal. Is Mr. Gyanendra a nationalist that has gone to the foreigners begging for his reinstatement? Mr. Vaidhya should know that Gyanendra is certainly not a nationalist by any definition or the meaning of the word ‘nationalist’.

Now, the question is whether Mr. Vaidhya is a nationalist or not? Mr. Vaidhya has rushed to China whenever he needs to make a crucial decision on the national issue. Mr. Vaidhya left Kathmandu for Beijing on Monday, July 8, 2013 on the eve of the visit of Indian External Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid to Nepal. Why Mr. Vaidhya rushed to Beijing when the Indian External Affairs Minister was visiting Nepal? Has Mr. Vaidhya gone to China to consult with the Chinese leaders whether just to boycott the elections or even to disrupt the elections?

After his previous visit to Beijing, Mr. Vaidhya came up with the idea that federalism based on the identity would be harmful to the country because Chinese leaders said so but the Chinese leaders later refuted it.

Indian government has invited one Nepalese leader after another to visit India. Dr Baburam Bhattarai visited India as a prime minister. Then, Chairman of UCPN-Maoist Prachanda visited India after visiting China. Senior leader of NC Sher Bahadur Deuba visited India. Then, senior leader of CPN-Maoist Madhav Nepal visited India at the invitation of the Indian government in the third week of July 2013. President of NC Sushil Koirala received an invitation from the Indian government to visit India. Soon, Mr. Koirala also is visiting India. Only chairman of CPN-UML Jhalanath Khanal has neither received an invitation nor visited India as a prime minister or as a leader of his party.

It is a regular diplomatic process for the leaders of the neighboring countries to make a visit to each other’s country to keep the relationship up-to-date. China and India have their interest in Nepal. China wants to make sure that Nepal keeps the Tibetan exiles under control whereas India wants Nepal to stop the international terrorists from making Nepal as a transit to India. Both of these neighboring countries want to offset the influence of another on Nepal.

So, Mr. Vaidhya heavily tilting to China cannot claim to be a nationalist. If Mr. Vaidhya is really a nationalist he must be able to keep both the neighboring countries at an equidistant, and treat them equally courteously, and take benefits from the fast economic development of both these countries. Hitting India hard in the name of nationalism, and taking shelter on the laps of Chinese leaders, Mr. Vaidhya cannot be a national and nationalistic leader.

Mr. Vaidhya should learn a lesson from Chairman of Nepal Workers and Peasants Party Narayan Man Bijuckchhe that Bijuckchhe could not be a national leader and he had remained a district leader despite his caliber of being a national leader because of Bijuckchhe taking a persistent stand against India throughout his political life. Mr. Bijuckchhe saw every political evil in Nepal as a making of India. He remained loyal to China throughout his life.

Mr. Vaidhya sees the elections to a new CA scheduled for November 19 as a crisis. Certainly, it will be a crisis if his party launches guerrilla warfare against the State for disrupting the elections. Vaidhya does not want to talk to the four-party political mechanism, and refuses to recognize the current government whereas the four political parties and the government are for holding the elections scheduled for November 19.

Chairman of CPN-Maoist Mohan Vaidhya has been repeatedly saying that the four-party leaders have put the country in crisis unilaterally declaring the elections to a new constituent Assembly (CA) and suspending the 22 Articles of the Interim Constitution of Nepal of 2007, and then unconstitutionally forming a new government led by the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Nepal. It has certain truth. Chairman Vaidhya believed that the sovereignty has been at risk, and the country might fall in the hands of the foreign power. It has no truth at all.

The CPN-Maoist has been for annulling the 25-point Removal of Constitutional Hurdles Ordinance, dissolving the current government, and postponing the elections scheduled for November 19 for holding talks with the four-party political mechanism whereas the four-party leaders are not for postponing the elections, and not for dissolving the current government. Both these parties are ready for a showdown.

Talking to the anchor of the morning program called ‘antar-sambad’ of the State-run Radio Nepal on July 28, 2013, Vice-chairman of CPN-Maoist CP Gajurel has said that his party is not against the elections to a new CA but against the unconstitutional means of holding the elections; the four-party political leaders have unconstitutionally suspended the 22 Articles of the Interim Constitution of Nepal of 2007 but none of the intellectuals has raised any voice against such unconstitutional actions of the four-party political parties; only the Nepal Bar Association has been against such unconstitutional actions, and has declared March 14, 2013 as the black day in the judicial history of Nepal because on this day the president issued the 25-point Removal of Constitutional Hurdle Ordinance suspending the 22 Articles of the Interim Constitution of Nepal of 2007, and appointed the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Nepal as the chairman of the Interim Election Council of Ministers.

Responding the saying of the anchor of the Radio Nepal that opposing the elections is undemocratic, Mr. Gajurel has said that nobody has said the opposition of the NC and the CPN-UML to the elections announced by Prime Minister Dr Baburam Bhattarai is undemocratic; now, four-party leaders are holding the elections to a new CA unconstitutionally, opposing such unconstitutional elections is undemocratic, then what is democratic?

NC and CPN-UML leaders had vigorously opposed the elections to be held by Prime Minister Dr Baburam Bhattarai: democratically elected prime minister. Dr Bhattarai was the only head of government constitutionally eligible to hold the elections to a new CA after the dissolution of the CA but the so-called democratic and parliamentary political parties such as NC and CPN-UML did not agree on Prime Minister Dr Bhattarai holding the elections. The president supported the opposition of the NC and CPN-UML, and accepted the unconstitutional means of forming a government presided over by the chief justice for holding elections. This is what the CPN-Maoist leaders say that they will not let happen this unconstitutional means of holding elections to a new CA.

One thing readers should know is that Dr Bhattarai has not quit the position of prime minister. He has simply side stepped to pave the way for the chief justice to hold the position of the chairman of the interim election council of ministers. The president cannot fire the interim Prime Minister Dr Bhattarai. The question is whether Dr Bhattarai can redeem the position of prime minister or not.

The CPN-Maoist leaders want a round table conference of all political parties represented in the past CA, and they also want to build a consensus on forming an all-party government to hold elections to a new CA. This is the only way of doing the political business constitutionally, as the Interim Constitution of Nepal of 2007 has made the provision for building a consensus of all political parties on the major issues, say the CPN-Maoist leaders.

The Federal Democratic Front (FDF) of eight political parties also have been saying that the four-party leaders have been doing everything ignoring the provision made in the Interim Constitution of Nepal of 2007 for building a consensus of all political parties represented in the dissolved CA on all major issues. The FDF wants to make an amendment to the 25-point Removal of Constitutional Hurdles Ordinance, and it also wants Chairman of the Interim Election Council of Ministers Khil Raj Regmi to quit the position of the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Nepal, as a single person holding both the positions of the chief justice and the chairman of the council of ministers seriously violates the principles of the separation of the power between the executive and the judiciary.

Even though the Election Commission is successful to hold the elections to a new CA, the legitimacy of such elections will be questioned. First, a number of political parties will boycott the elections if not disrupt the elections. Then, the current unconstitutional government holding elections is unconstitutional according to the CPN-Maoist leaders. So, the opposition parties even though they might lose in a showdown but they might win the question of legitimacy of the elections. As Mr. Vaidhya has said that the elections to a new CA might invite a political crisis rather than resolving it.

August 1, 2013