"We Cannot Afford To Give In To Populism" - B. P. Koirala (Interview) (Bhola Chatterji, July 29, 1979)
Few leader can say this and yet retain his credentials as a democratic person, but BISWESWAR PRASAD KOIRALA to his friends, B.P. gets away with this and more because, as he says, he does not "suffer from a sense of political insecurity". Nepal's first popularly elected Prime Minister has had a chequered career, including years in jail. With King Birendra agreeing to a referendum in Nepal, B.P.'s time may have come at long last. In this interview with old friend HHOLA VHATTERJI, Koirala talks about his beliefs and hopes of India Nepal ties, of the King and of the subject dearest to his heart, democracy.
Q: During your trial on eight charges in April-May, 1977 you said a "people's revolution had become necessary to restore democracy" following the royal take-over in 1960. Would you prescribe the same action if the authorities do not keep their faith with the people regarding the people's referendum?
Koirala: I do not want to contemplate a situation where the King goes back on his commitment to referendum. When the King announced a referendum it was the total vindication of our rights, of the line which we had untidily pursued with perseverance. And when we have achieved our objective, when we have made the King say that, after all, there is an alternative to the system which his father initiated, when the King has recognized the primacy of the people in the decision-making process, I do not want to say any think that will vitiate the atmosphere. I cannot even remotely create a suspicion that I am holding out a threat that there would be trouble unless everything is done according to our scheme of things. That would not be proper, particularly when I firmly believe that that King has acted in a spirit of accommodation. accepted our line and that he has walked over to our side.
Q: Starting with King Mahendra quite a few Nepalese leaders have dubbed you "a stooge of India". What do you say to this?
Koirala: Let me explain. I am very friendly with Indians. I have worked in the socialist movement here. I have participated in your national liberation struggle against the British, for which I also courted imprisonment. All this has given me great love for this country. We come to India for various reasons, such as medical treatment, education. We have got marriage connections; social and cultural connections. Besides, there is the compulsion of geography. If there is drought in India, there is also drought in our country; if there is heavy rain in our catchment areas, it causes floods in your country. So we are bound together and we have to sink or swim together. Both India and Nepal belong to the community of South Asian nations. If the charge against me is that I am friendly with India we are prepared to meet it.
The basic question is: Where does Nepal belong? Is it a buffer State or is it part of South Asia? I do not think that we are a buffer State, just as Bangladesh or Pakistan is not a buffer State. We have got to live with the countries south of the Himalayas in amity and friendship. We may quarrel as brothers in fact we do quarrel, but we have to live in the same house this is our attitude. I am not afraid of what the people say about my connections with India.
It must be clearly understood that I am for Nepal, but at the same time we shall have to maintain the friendliest, most cordial and intimate relations with India. One just cannot wish away the fact of geography. With all respect to the patriotic sentiments of a Nepali, we cannot afford to be anti India, we cannot take up the cause of those countries which are anti India. I am not a stooge of any body. I am not pro-India, or pro-China, or pro-America. I am pro-Nepal. Mind you, all this propaganda against me has cut no ice with the people of Nepal. The fact is, I take my stand on reality, geographical and otherwise and that is that. Even as I say this I must remind my Indian friends that they are the biggest South Asian Nation. And if you are the biggest power this area, you must also have the biggest heart, you must appreciate the sentiment of the neighboring countries. That is what the Indians should do. So far as India-Nepal relations are concerned, we are in the same boat and if there is a leak init we must in our collective interest plug it.
Q: What about your relations with China? If Nepal cannot wish away India, neither can you wish away China.
Koirala: That is why I have been telling people that it is our patriotic duty to be very friendly with Peking. But it must be clearly understood that there are greaiter compulsions for being friendlier with India than with China. The friendliness of the Chinese towards us must be reciprocated. Indians should not demand that we roe their line and adopt a hostile attitude towards China. But we must also remember that what happens in Pacing does not affect us to the extent that what events in Delhi do. It is not really surprising that we are close to India than to China. The mistake of the Mahendra regime this also applies to the present Government was that it wanted to pursue a policy to playing India and China, one against the other. In the long run such a policy does not pay. By and large we support the Indian foreign policy for instance, non-alignment and all that. But on certain special issues we differ, particularly on India's China policy. We understand India's position, but India should also appreciate our position and not insist on our going the whole hog with it far as China is concerned.
Q: What would you do if the referendum goes against your demand for a multiparty system?
Koirala: I cannot visualise this, but if the verdict does go against us, we shall take it in our stride. The King has put us to the test. Now I cannot go to the people and tell them that if we do not win we will not accept the judgment. We shall not wait for another opportunity to convince the people.
Q: Who would be the likely choice for Prime Minister if your party won the election that would presumably be held if the people opt for a multi-party system?
Koirala: I don't know what the position will be. Objectively speaking, perhaps my party colleagues would insist on my accepting that responsibility. Personally, that is not a great temptation for me, for two of three reasons. First, the Prime Minister will have to be in the best of health which I am not. Secondly, I do not wish to be cramped as a Prime Minister. I want to play a more meaningful role on a national scale. I want to soothe the injured feelings which would be the inevitable aftermath of the elections. Also, I want to play a role that would help bring about a better and happier relationship with the King. And then (my wife) Sushila is dead against my becoming Prime Minister. My difficulty is that, except Ganesh Man Singh and Krishna Prasad Bhattarai, there is none in our party who can shoulder this responsibility. The rank and life of the party may generally want me to take up that responsibility.
Q: What role do you have in mind for the monarchy? Don't you think that the institution of monarchy is incompatible with democracy?
Koirala: We want monarchy, not absolute but constitutional. The King should be the constitutional head of State with some discretionary powers. But he must exercise those powers on the advice of the elected Prime Minister, not in his personal capacity. Both democracy and its corollary institutions will be safer with a constitutional monarch as head of State rather than an elected head of State, because an elected person will always shave the propensity to think of himself as the real representative of the people. The worst of the world's big dictator's wren elected people Hitler was elected, Mussolini was elected and so mere many others. I do not believe there is any incompatibility between democracy, socialism, socialism and constitutional monarchy.
Q: How do you propose to combat the vested interests that have entrenched themselves in the present panchayat system?
Koirala: The protagonists of the party less panchayat system owed their political authority to the fact that they enjoyed the support of the King. Now that the King has withdrawn his support, they have collapsed like a house of cards. The panchayat people are disintegrating; they are resigning their office en masse in various designations. We are asking them to stay where they are and work for a multi-party system which would be more effective than resigning their office. They are no longer a political force. Of course, the faithful will campaign for party less democracy at the time of the referendum, but they know that the verdict will go against them. Perhaps they will then form themselves into a kind of conservative Democratic Party. So I am not afraid of them.
There are people who are interested in sabotaging the referendum, but they are not the panchayat people. They are rather individuals alarmed at the prospect of the King joining hands with us. They might create some confusion, some difficulties.
Q: Is the King sincere about the referendum?
Koirala: Absolutely sincere. True, in politics one should not take everything on trust alone. But you must realise that the King did not have any alternative to what he did on 24 May when announced a referendum. He knew that if he did not take the people into confidence. Involve them in a big way in the nation's political life and give them primacy in the matter of making their own judgment, then perhaps his throne to would be in danger. The recent happening in Iran must have been a great lesson to him. Also, due to combination of factors the recent student movement in Nepal, though small, became some kind of a national revolt. This too must have had its impact on him. Whatever decision he made on 24 May was not a mere stratagem on his part. I have absolutely no doubt about his bonfires.
Q: Would he abide by the verdict of the referendum if it favors' multi-party system of government?
Koirala: He will certainly be in a happier position when he finds that by relinquishing power to the people's representatives he ensures the stability of the throne. The choice before him is whether to rule for some more time and then vanish from history altogether or to gain the confidence of the people and ensure the continuity of his throne. He has opted for the second choice. It is in his own interest to be a reigning and not a ruling monarch. It was very wise of him to decide that he should reign not by virtue of the strength of his army but by that of the people's affection and regard for him. I think that is better for him than to rule the country ruthlessly and be hated by the people.
Q: Most of your present opponents are your former friends and colleagues? How is this?
Koirala: Even living organism even a plant during growth has to let go of some of his limbs. In a natural process either they wither of their own or have to be chopped off. It is only a nonliving body which carries the same shape all the time. If some people have left the party, hundreds of new men have come. What the Nepali Congress is today is because of the fact that it has adhered to certain principles. For 19 year, it has been Nepali Congress which has been consistently opposing the present system. All that I would say about those who have fallen away from us is that they have knuckled under the King's repression. It is because we did not yield and a young generation infused new blood into the party that we alive. So I am not very much worried that some of our erstwhile friends and colleagues are not with us today. Of course I should be happy if they returned to the fold but if they do not, that would be no great loss. That does not mean that we will not try to seek their cooperation. The whole question is that we have stood by certain principles which the others have not.
Q: What is the attitude of the Nepali Congress towards the communist parties in Nepal?
Koirala: The pro-Moscow groups have been sometimes very friendly with us and sometimes very hostile. It is more or less the same with pro-Peking groups. The whole problem with the pro-Peking groups, I don't know whether they are pro-Peking or not, but they call themselves Maoists, is that there are five or six groups. They fight among themselves more bitterly than against others. And there are severe differences between the pro-Peking and pro-Moscow lines. So far as Nepal's politics is concerned they are not of much consequence at present; they may have the potentiality but that is about all. In the context of the referendum or of the election that would follow they are of no consequence.
The Naxalites are opposed to the referendum, but in this they are one with those who are not interested in the democratic process because they feel they cannot come to power that way. I don't think the Naxalites have any strategy to power; their sole goal is to create chaos.
Q: Newspaper report that the referendum would be held in the April or early May, 1980. Should the preparatory work take so long, or are there other considerations?
Koirala: There has been no official confirmation of the date you give. We have been insisting on holding the referendum immediately after the monsoons. Of course, they have no election machinery, but one can be built up fast. The political parties also would like to have some time to gear themselves up. I think October or November would be the best time and there is no reason why it should be delayed beyond that. I would try to meet the Kong and impress upon him the desirability of going through the process of referendum as quickly as possible, so that we might go ahead with another election.
The period between now and the installation of a fully elected government should not be unnecessarily long, for this will understandably be a period of uncertainty when all kinds of mischief might be done. The present government is a caretaker one and as such cannot continue in office for such a long time.
So far as the King is concerned, I have told you that he is not interested in prolonging the present state of affairs. If he were he would have adopted other methods. Even some of our party leaders had suggested that the present government go, the King take power into his own hands and arrange a round table conference. The King could have adopted that and thus prolonged this process. In that case my voice would have been smothered by so many other voices, and the King would have been the main actor.
Q: won't your unreserved endorsement of the King's stand expose you to being outflanked on the left? Isn't the King playing for time, giving time to the panchayat supporters to get themselves organized?
Koirala: That risk has to be taken, I cannot take a step which I think will be detrimental to the cause of democracy in order to curry favor with the extremists. Then again, I do not suffer from, I am speaking for myself as objectively as possible, a sense of political insecurity. Therefore, I don't have to indulge in populism. If you read the history of Third World politics you will see that the bane of it has been that the leaders are not leaders; they just pander to the sentiments of the people and call it democracy. After having risked my neck I don't propose to say or do anything which I think is not correct, even if it popular. If democracy has to be saved we cannot afford to give in to populism. To save democracy we may at times have to take unpopular decisions and make the people accept them. Of course that will have to be done not through autocratic methods but by convincing the people.
Citation: B. P. Koirala, "We Cannot Afford To Give In To Populism", (Interview) in Sushil Koirala (ed.), Democracy Indispensable for Development 41-49, (Varanasi: Sandaju Publications,1982)
Back