Country’s political situation is very depressing: Prakash Koirala

Prakash Koirala is a senior political leader and elder son of the late B.P. Koirala, founder of the Nepali Congress. Prakash Koirala was elected to the House of Representatives from the Nepali Congress. Later, when the party removed the policy formulated by his father B.P., constitutional monarchy and multiparty democracy, Prakash quit the Nepali Congress and established a new party, Nepali Congress Nationalist.

Prakash, who also became the minister in King Gyanendra’s cabinet, still believes in the two-pillar system – constitutional monarchy and multiparty democracy. He believes that the present political system has become dysfunctional and the 1990 constitution should be restored for the betterment of Nepal.

People’s Review weekly interviewed him on contemporary political developments at home and abroad. Excerpts of the interview as given below:

Q. The country is passing through a very critical situation. Do you see any sign of improvement in the existing situation under the present political system?

A. I don’t see any sign of improvement. We are passing through a very serious phase of time. I see an existential problem of the nation. Either we talk about the multiparty system or a republican system or a loktantrik system, they all have been totally failed. I see this as the failure of collective leadership. I don’t see the emergence of new leadership. The situation is very much depressing. One should be hopeful but I don’t see any space for hope as well.

The entire international situation is in flux today. I am seeing the downfall of the USA. Afghanistan in our region is passing through an unstable situation. We have become the victim of climate change, we are compelled to fight against the pandemic. International politics has entered into a horrible situation. What will happen next, we are not in a position to predict. In such international circumstances, we have to navigate and our position is very weak.

The Ashraf Ghani government collapsed in Afghanistan alike the house of cards. Here, I see the worst situation than in

Afghanistan and anytime, the government may fall like the house of cards. However, Afghanistan’s context is different.

For almost two months, Sher Bahadur Deuba is the Prime Minister. He has not been able to expand his cabinet, he has not been able to carry out other appointments. He is unable to do anything. But who is the alternate to Deuba? The Supreme Court had assigned him to the PM’s post. If Deuba is failed to perform, should the Court give another order? In such a manner, we have entered into an era of anarchism.

Q. As you said, there is a hopeless situation, which system could be sustainable for Nepal like country?

A. Look, B.P. Koirala spent 70 or 80 percent of his life in an anti-monarchical stance. During the last phase of his life, he made a drastic change in the Nepali Congress’ ideology by adopting the policy of national reconciliation. The focal point of the reconciliation policy was the institution of monarchy. He had understood that the country cannot sustain itself in absence of monarchy. Today, the Nepali Congress has already dropped this policy, so far, I have the belief in this B.P. Koirala’s policy. Monarchy is the institution for the country’s stability, which, we have been seeing for centuries. I believe, for the stability of Nepal, there should be a constitutional monarchy. The present chaos is the result of the absence of the institution of monarchy. I am not a republican. The history of republican and monarchy have a vast differences. As the monarchy was the oldest institution, we had to preserve this institution.

Q. Then you support the 1990 constitution?

A. That was the best constitution. That was the constitution suitable for Nepal. That constitution had the people’s mandate; different ethnic communities’ mandate; every political parties’ mandate; the Nepal Army’s

mandate. That was inclusive. Who derailed that constitution, we know it. Without rhyme and reason, those leaders abandoned that best-ever constitution just to feel happy for the foreigners. We hope that the reinstatement of the 1990 constitution may end the present mess.

After the Nepali Congress removed B.P. Koirala’s policy of National Reconciliation, we had established the Nepali Congress Nationalist chaired by NC’s senior leader Rambabu Prasain. The party was taking proper shape, in the meantime, Prasain passed away, which became a big setback for the party.

Q. It is said that foreign interference has inclined to an extreme point and our political leaders have become the tools of the foreign powers. Today, they are perfuming as if we don’t have any foreign policy or a security policy. What is your opinion?

A. I agree with you. Sometimes, leaders are speaking in such a manner that we don’t have any foreign policy. When India gives one slap on them, they take the Chinese side, when China behaves negatively, they take the Indian side. Sometimes, they are found inclining towards the USA as well. The Foreign Ministry has become a completely ineffective organ of the government. The voting trend of Nepal on the international platforms also indicate Nepal’s immaturity and there is a lack of foreign relations experts in the Ministry. I have the conclusion that we don’t have a comprehensive foreign policy. Nepal seems to have become a ship without the captain at a time when there is a typhoon in the sea.

Q. Viewing the recent developments in the globe and particularly Nepal’s situation, aren’t we heading towards the path of Afghanistan?

A. The American prediction about Afghanistan has been totally failed. The Americans were saying that at least for six months, the Ghani government can retain. But the Taliban force toppled down the Ghani government within a very short period. A similar situation I see in Nepal. The Deuba government may collapse anytime.

The Court has made a miracle by giving the order to assign Deuba as the PM. Now, I don’t see he is performing, in the meantime, I don’t see his alternate. Earlier, there was no alternate to Oli. The Court gave the alternate. The Court has performed the parliament’s job. In all aspects, there is no governance at all in all sectors. Deuba is the PM that’s all.

Q. Deuba seems committed to rectifying the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC)? A. What is MCC that should be understood first! This is a small American grant. Deuba is running behind this grant project from the beginning. Undermining strong opposition from the experts and academicians, Deuba is blindly behind this project.

Q. What is your opinion regarding MCC?

A. MCC is linked with the IndoPacific Strategy (IPS) of the USA. This is to contain China. I am not the person to say but Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said it during a press conference in Delhi. Americans themselves have not been able to define what is IPS. John Bolton, former National Security Advisor of US President Donald Trump, in his book, has explained that the USA has created a black hole by creating unnecessary trade disputes with China. It makes clear that for what purpose IPS has been initiated, Americans themselves are not sure. I agree with Lavrov and Bolton.

About MCC, I believe that a true friend will not put forward so many controversial terms and conditions while providing grant assistance. I have to say, America is not a good friend for Nepal. Personally, I have high regard for

the USA because of its ideology. America is an ideal country for me. Having the history of becoming a superpower with their own struggle of 300/400 years, is an appreciable job. I might have many expectations of this country, however, her activities cannot be appreciated. In Nepal’s context, in the 2006 April uprising, Americans had joined hands with India. Can it be an act of a true friend? Look at the statement by the then American ambassador here. Can we expect such an irresponsible statement from a matured diplomat of a superpower country? Americans started to see Nepal from the Indian prism. Nepali people blame that the European Union is responsible for campaigning Christianity, provoking ethnicity, etc. I don’t buy this idea. If the EU had given importance to Nepal do they shift their embassies from Nepal? One after another European countries are shifting their embassies to Delhi. They have accepted the Monroe doctrine that Nepal is India’s neighbour and Nepal is under the sphere of influence of India, therefore, they have decided to accept it. Since then, the Americans have also stopped dealing with Nepal directly from Washington. MCC also has been initiated in coordination with Delhi.

Q. How do you see the Indian policy in the region?

A. I believe, India should review her policy with all the neighbouring countries. Moreover, India should completely review her foreign policy. In Afghanistan’s recent problem, they don’t know what is inkling there. It seems India is heading in the wrong direction due to the lapses in her foreign policy. The present path that India is walking may not be fruitful for India.

Q. In the South Asian region also, anti-Indian sentiment is inclining among the people in India's neighbouring countries. Do you agree?

A. Of course, by default, India has herself created space for China in

the region. As I said, India should review her foreign policy in a better way, otherwise, the present policy won’t benefit India in this fluctuating world. India should improve her relations with all the neighbouring countries including Pakistan and China. Sometimes, I am surprised to see the foreign policy of the present government in India that is solely aligned with the USA. Presently, the USA is in a very odd position. In my opinion, the USA is not the moral leader in the globe. Its own allies have started to question the American leadership. American society is completely divided. Look at China, how she has advanced her influence on the globe! Look at South Africa, Latin America! Should India think that China will remain aloof from Nepal when China will feel a threat to her from Nepali soil? India cannot imagine how massively China will come here. Therefore, there should be a thaw in relations between Indian and China and also between India and Pakistan. I wish to refer to Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan’s statement in the international forums that every time he has extended hands for a handshake but he has not received a positive gesture from the Indian side. As a layman and outsider, I find, Khan is correct. I don’t know, what is India’s problem!

I wish to illustrate an example of the SAARC Secretariat meeting that in every meeting of the Secretariat directors, India is seen alone when all other directors are sided at one place, that I was informed by one SAARC director representing Nepal.

From such a scenario, India might have felt that the other SAARC countries are trying to gag India. Perhaps, from this psychology, India tried to defunct SAARC. India should understand that defunct SAARC has also defunct India. BIMSTEC got birth to counter SAARC but where is it today! Can it replace SAARC?