"To Call Nepal Hindu State Is a Fraud" - B. P. Koirala (Interview) (Weekly Mirror, July 20, 1979)
Print Friendly and PDF

B.P. Koirala's recent statements have created quite a stir among the local intelligentsia, and have also given rise to certain controversies over his views on a number of national issues. The Weekly Mirror approached him last week to know his mind on some issues of international importance. He expressed reluctance to make any off-hand statement. He wanted some time to study the Weekly Mirror's questionnaire and to offer written replies to them.

Q: You have recently described India as a brother, and China as a "friends". Does this suggest if you came to power, you will change Nepal's policy of equidistance with respect to these two most important neighbors? If so, will you not, in effect, be supporting the so-called "special relations" theory with respect to India?

B.P.: I do not know what you mean by a mathematical or surveyor's term of "distance". If you mean by "equidistance" to say that if Nepal were to sign a treaty with Peking she should promptly conclude a similar one with Delhi, or that to resort to a game of numbers and match the number of agreements with one country with that of the other, then I will say that such exercise in diplomacy and international relationship would be demonstrably absurd. I am of the opinion that relationship between neighbors is governed by mutuality of self-interests. If there are more points of contacts or mutual interest with one neighbor that with another, then necessarily there will be more treaties and agreements with the former than with the later. If this state of affairs gives rise to according to your term, "Special relationship", one cannot help it.

Q: Do you consider the Nepal-India Treaty of 1950 to be fully consonant with Nepalese aspirations in the latter half of the 1970s and beyond?

B.P.: The Indo-Nepal Treaty of 1950 was signed by the representative of the regime of the then autocratic Ranas, a regime analogous to one that obtains today in Nepal. The treaty has weathered the various terms of various types of government including spells of direst rule of King himself, and witnessed there major wars in which on of the contracting parties was involved. You have yourself to judge how far the treaty has cramped Nepal's efforts to protect herself with other sovereign nation dealing on the basis of equality with other sovereign countries of the world. So far as my position in this regard in concerned, I would like you to refer to my statement on this question when I was the Prime Minister. Now, specifically, you should have addressed this question, if you were in existence then, to all the previous governments' subsequent to 1950 treaty, polintedly to the King when he ruled directly, and to the present government when you are indict very much in existent the successor government of the future. I make this suggestion to you hoping that you would get an authoritative answer to the question whether the sovereign character field is afflicted by the existence of the treaty.

Q: Do you don't you support Nepal's Peace Zone proposal which has, apart from India, been receiving increasing international support since it was first enunciated in 1975?

B.P.: I have not studied the Zone proposal carefully, but at the same time I do not think anybody has done any meaningful study of the proposal, the propounded of which too seems not to have done home work before he came out with it abruptly like a small term politician trying to win an election. I do not go by catch phrases or slogans that are only mouthful and exciting. One has to go deeper into such serious questions and oneself what national interests they serve. What interests does it serve the Chinese and in the present word context what interest it serves the Russian? What we have to do is to pause and think what coincidence of interests prompts north China and Russia-hostile to each other on almost every international issue to accept the proposal. Likewise we have to consider why India is reluctant to accept it. In my opinion not much thought has gone into the formulation of the proposal.

Q: What do you think of the Nepalese proposal for regional cooperation for the utilization of the water power resources of the region in Nepal's neighborhood "regional", in this case, including the possible participation of China, in addition to India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Bhutan and Sri Lanka?

B.P.: Why Sri Lanka, pray? If it is included in your list because of its geographical location, that it belongs to South Asia and hence a member of the family of South Asian nations then why China which is not a part of South Asia. If the idea that some of the sources of the water supply of this region fall within the territory of China then Sri Lanka does not have that claim. Broadly speaking on such questions there would necessarily be bilateral multilateral and international arrangements according to appropriate considerations.

Q: What is your general assessment of Nepal's nonaligned foreign policy during the past two decades? Have you, for instance, detected any flaws, "tilts" or aberrations in execution of this foreign policy commitment and if so could you exemplify with a few concrete examples?

[B.P. Koirala did not give any reply to this question which, it appears, he has done either quite deliberately or inadvertently. Ed.]

Q: How would you rate the chances of a repetition of Sikkim, Tibet or Afghanistan in Nepal?

B.P.: If Nepal achieves a real national unity on the basis of (1) constitutional monarchy (2) a democratic political system, (3) a growing economy serving not merely a tiny segment of the population but the people as a whole, then there is absolutely no danger to our national integrity. The lack of achieving the national unity is solely, wholly and exclusively ours; and we should concentrate on it, rather than on other to do the job for us.

Q: Would you like to comment on the differences, if any, between the one in Sikkim a few years ago and the proposed national referendum to be held here to determine the framework of the national policy?

B.P.: I think you know that there was no referendum in Sikkim either to decide its international status or for any other purpose. The coming referendum in Nepal is to determine the polity of our country which is not analogous to the election to the national assembly held a few years ago in Sikkim.

Q: What is your position on the question of peace in the Middle East? Or, more specifically, do you subscribe to the stand taken by His Majesty's Government that the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty is an important if only preliminary, step in the direction of a comprehensive peace settlement in the region?

B.P.: I agree with the stand of the government as succinctly enunciated in your question.

Q: How do you view the role of Cuba, in Africa and elsewhere, against the background of the non-aligned summit slated for Havana in September? Do you subscribe to the Cuban viewpoint that the socialist bloc is the "natural ally" of the non-aligned states?

B.P.: On this question I agree with the general feeling among the non-aligned nations, particularly that of Yugoslavia and India.

Q: What do you have to say about Vietnamese in tervention in Kampuchea and about the subsequent armed intervention in Vietnam by China?

B.P.: The five principals of Panch Sheel should be the guiding principle on these questions.

Q: You have been reported as being in favor of making Nepal a secular state. Won't this alarm Nepalese conservative elements and make it difficult to convince the people that if you come back to power you will indeed transform Pashupati Nath temple into a museum?

B.P.: Nepal is not a Hindu State. To call it such is a fraud. Nepal is definitely a secular state. In a secular state their freedom of worship and hence the question of desecration of temples or places of worship does not arise.

Q: Do you really expect the Nepalese people will endorse your claim [vide your recent interview with AP] as the legitimate claimant to power, if for some unforeseen circumstances there cannot be a referendum. Don't you think that this will particularly be disputed by the Leftist forces who have assumed an importance far greater than could be said on the basis of their humble showing during the 1958 general elections?

B.P.: I have never expressed any doubt the holding of the referendum according to His Majesty's declaration; it is to come and it must come without unconscionable delay. This must be clearly understood. However I have been expressing myself through answers questions put to me by the men of the press pertaining to the interim arrangement-interim arrangement before the holding of the referendum. I feel in the place, that it is not necessary to disband the present governmental set up and that the govt. Of Thapa can carry on as interim Government whose main responsibility is apart from running the administration, mainly two fold, that is,[1] to maintain Law and order and [2] to told referendum as soon as possible. In case the Thapa Govt. fails to do it, then rather than trying unconstitutional and irrational schemes for setting up an interim govt. the King should call upon as for the job. We are prepared to shoulder the responsibility. I hope I have made myself clear that I am referring, in this connection, to the interim arrangement and not to permanent arrangement will follow the referendum whose verdict we have absolutely no doubt it going to be overwhelmingly in favors of a multi-party system.

Q: Given the political chaos in India, can you envisage a return to authoritarianism a la Mrs. Gandhi in the months ahead? But even f the end result is nothing as drastic as all that, how would a weak or instable Government in India affect, if at all, this country's future policy options and here relations with India?

B.P.: I don't want to discuss the politics of India particularly in the present juncture when the political situation is very fluid and uncertain.

Q: Where do you expect to get the funds necessary for your campaign in the context of the referendum? Would the Socialist International be a potential or actual source?

B.P.: From the people, perhaps from you too. We do not need any foreign source for our fund, however open frank and untainted.

Citation: B. P. Koirala, "To Call Nepal Hindu State Is a Fraud", (Interview) in Sushil Koirala (ed.), Democracy Indispensable for Development 50-55, (Varanasi: Sandaju Publications, 1982)

Back