Remembering BP Koirala

Remembering BP Koirala

Siddhi B Ranjitkar

The nation marked the 35^th death anniversary of BP: one of the outstanding politicians on July 20, 2017. It has been 35 years since BP left this world for the better probably even heavenly realm but Nepalese have not forgotten him. That has been his greatest asset in this world BP had earned and left. He was better remembered as a novelist or a storyteller than a successful politician.

If we were to measure the success of a politician by the touchstone of how many times a politician managed to be a prime minister he was one of the least successful politicians, as he managed to be the directly elected prime minister only once, that also for only 18 months despite the fact that he was elected for four years and his party had more than two-thirds majority in the parliament elected in 1958.

Within the short period of one-and-a-half years, BP managed to lose the popular support from the two-thirds majority to almost non-existence except for his party cadres because of his policy of narrowing down the circle of the ruling class ignoring the aspirations of the common folks that had voted for his party for the good governance and the rule of law. On top of that he practically gave the approval of making money to his ministers, and the party cadres at different levels of administration. BP gave such an impression to the party cadres that his party and he had simply replaced the then tyrannical Rana rule. So, they could enjoy the power and the rule, as did Ranas in the past.

His foreign policy had been disastrous. He could neither keep Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru nor Chairman Mao of China satisfied not to mention happy. He practically had not extended his foreign policy beyond these two neighboring countries seriously. The result had been neither Nehru nor Mao spoke out against the massacre of democracy and removal of directly elected prime minister and the government when the then authoritarian king Mahendra removed him forcibly from power. Mao must be even happy with the death of democracy in Nepal, as he did not believe in the bourgeoisie parliament and democracy. In addition, Mao believed that the democratically elected government was tilted to India. Nehru was not happy with BP because Nehru felt that BP was arrogant.

On December 15, 1960, the then despot king Mahendra deposed BP, and sent him along with his rival and colleague Ganeshman Singh to the Sundarijal Army jail where they stayed for seven years. Nepalese were stunned but did not come out against it because of the arbitrary rule of BP that had let his party cadres heavily interfer in the administration. Common folks could not feel the democratic rule or the rule of law.

Thereafter, the then Pancha government released him and Ganeshman Singh in 1968. They fled to India where they enjoyed the status of the national leaders of any foreign countries. He had been supporting the then opposition socialists rather than the Indian Congress: the ruling party. BP went on campaigning against the ruling party during the emergency rule the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi imposed in India provoking Indira Gandhi to do something against the activities of BP in India.

Then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi gave BP the choice of stopping the opposition activities or leaving India. BP chose to come back to Nepal. Ganeshman Singh and he came back with the slogan of reconciliation means he wanted to reconcile with the then tyrant king Birendra in 1977. Birendra was not for talking to BP rather his lieutenants called Panchas demanded the death penalty to BP. However, nobody dared to touch him.

BP had a few chances of leading the people’s movement to reinstate democracy and even claim the right to rule democratically. He was so badly demoralized after the coup in 1960 that he could not believe that his party could make comeback and he held phobia of the left politicians taking over if he were to lead the people’s movement. So, he directly went on supporting the monarchy even saying that he and the monarch were conjoined at the neck.

His one mistake after another did not give him any opportunity to reinstate democracy and lead the country to democracy. He had lived most of the life either in exile or in the country neglected. His wrong political strategy gave the birth to the no-party dictatorial Panchayat system that lasted for 30 years causing tremendous retardation of political, economical and social development of the common folks. Nepalese had to remain under political and economical and social repression during the Panchayat period. Panchas had the monopoly on everything. They did everything possible for strengthening the monarchy and keeping it for harvesting the benefits from the monarchy at the huge cost of bettering the lives of the common folks.

BP had even retarded the possibility of reinstating democracy. The students’ movement in 1979 was to topple the then governing system Panchayat if BP were to be wise and lead the students to fight to the finish but he easily accepted the referendum on choosing between democracy and Panchayat, putting down the enthusiasm of the students to end the authoritarian Panchayat system, and encouraging the Panchas to act more courageously on disregarding the people’s aspirations for reinstating the democratic system of governance.

Thereafter, the referendum held in 1980 had been manipulated but BP simply watched doing nothing against it. BP did not speak out rather quietly accepted the victory of Panchayat over democratic system: the alternative system for which people had overwhelmingly voted. The Pancha rulers had delayed counting votes for printing new ballot papers and then stuffed those papers into the ballot boxes without signatures of the election officers clearly indicating the referendum was rigged but BP refrained from speaking out against such malpractices of the Panchas.

BP was an authoritarian leader. He did not follow even the party decision while approving the current four-star flag of his party. He tried to remove his rivals or contenders for the top party position. For example, after Ganeshman Singh managed to break up the jail and leave the country for India, and join BP and other colleagues but BP sent Ganeshman Singh back to Nepal knowing that Ganeshman Singh would immediately get arrested and imprisoned in Nepal. Ganeshman Singh had to be in jail again. Ignoring the vehement opposition of the tripartite agreement brokered by Nehru in New Delhi in 1951, BP signed off the agreement stopping the people’s movement and the armed revolution against the Rana regime. BP also agreed on transferring the power from the Rana prime minister to the then puppet king Tribhuvan. The result had been Nepalese had to wait until 2008 to end the monarchy once and for all.

When BP became a home minister in the cabinet of Prime Minister Mohan Shumsher formed immediately after the collapse of the Rana regime after the tripartite agreement signed among the NC, Rana prime minister Mohan Shumsher, and puppet king Tribhuvan in New Delhi, India in 1951, Mohan Shumsher told BP to hold an election to a Constituent Assembly, as his party NC had a good reputation and could garner two-thirds majority easily, and then he could write a constitution of his choice but BP obviously did not listen to Mohan Shumsher even though it was a terrific advice that had come from the man that had been the absolute prime minister, and then became the first prime minister of the democratic Nepal.

Not taking the advice of Mohan Shumsher, BP surely missed a chance to be a strong leader, and transfer the power to the people rather than to the king. The puppet king became a real king whereas BP and his colleagues that led the powerful people’s movement and armed revolution against the absolute Rana regime gradually lost the power. Ultimately, the king once was in the cage set by the Rana prime ministers, and freed by the people’s movement and the armed revolution became an absolute king whereas the real heroes of the revolution were placed on the back burner.

The second chance BP missed to hold an election to a Constituent Assembly was in 1957 when his party NC under his leadership launched a non-cooperation movement demanding to hold parliamentary election. BP did not fight for a Constituent Assembly election rather for the parliamentary elections even though BP was very powerful at that time and he could dictate king Mahendra that became the king after the demise of his father Tribhuvan in 1955.

One of the conditions mentioned in the tripartite agreement BP signed with Mohan Shumsher and Tribhuvan in New Delhi, India in 1951 was to hold a Constituent Assembly election, and on turn to Nepal, Tribhuvan had told the public through the public address that a Constituent Assembly election would be held for crafting a new constitution.

It was clear that the king did not want to hold a Constituent Assembly election because he would certainly lose the power he had recently enjoyed, and Mohan Shumsher did not care about the Constituent Assembly election, as he had neither to gain nor to lose anything from it. So, why should he take a trouble to hold a Constituent Assembly election?

However, BP did not want to hold a Constituent Assembly election also was not so strange. He was an egoist, and he believed that once the Rana regime had gone then his party and he were the claimants of the power; traditionally the kings were not so powerful, and most of the time of the Shah dynastic rule, prime ministers became powerful and sometimes even absolute as the Rana prime ministers. So, BP thought why he needed to take troubles for holding the Constituent Assembly election when he was having the power without it anyway.

His vision and his thoughts of receiving power automatically proved to be utterly false, and the consequences of not holding a Constituent Assembly election had been the great suffering to the common folks caused by the absolute monarchs that BP upheld up until his demise. Probably, BP would not need to endure the life-long suffering, too if he were to hold a Constituent Assembly election and craft a new constitution that would surely give him power through the periodic elections.

After the successful non-cooperation movement, king Mahendra agreed to give a new constitution and then hold parliamentary elections. BP not only very wrongly accepted the constitution king Mahendra gave but also the Article in the constitution that gave the king to dissolve the elected parliament at any time. How a person like BP a leader of not only national stature but also of international could make such an unbelievable mistake and take the country to the absolute rule of the king again pushing the country back to poverty, and the people to destitute?

Unfortunately, BP became the victim of the Article of the constitution that gave power to the king to dissolve the elected parliament and the government within 18 months of becoming the first elected prime minister. Then, the king became so powerful he did not like even the democratic constitution he crafted. He threw the constitution to a trashcan, and crafted a new one that gave the birth to the no-party Panchayat system in 1962, and the system had lasted until 1990.

BP was a successful storyteller and a novelist. He managed to write a few short novels while serving a jail term at the Sundarijal army jail in Kathmandu after the coup in 1960. He also had written several stories in the past, too. Nobody could challenge his literary talent. He is one of the literary talents of Nepal.

While remembering BP, we need to remember BP not only as a politician but also as a literary figure. Thus, BP has two faces: one political face that has been heavily smeared with the unsuccessful strategy of going with the monarchy rather than with the people; consequently he had to be out of power as he could not totally surrendered to the monarch and he could not totally detached from the monarchy. However, his literary works will shine forever despite his absence in this world.

July 21, 2017

updated July 22, 2017