Opinion Forgetting Bhattarai

Major parties in the CA are yet to come anywhere near on crucial,contentious issues,including the model of governance,political system and federalism. The Unified Communist Party of Nepal-Maoists (UCPN-M) recently said it would accept a bi-cameral parliament,but has so far refused to commit itself to the Westminster model of democracy,nor has it given up its demand for a caste- or ethnicity-based federalism. The consolidation of radical left forces,with the formation of a left government with the UCPN-M as dominant partner,has only enhanced fear that democratic forces would be further marginalised.

The fear was more palpable at the people’s level,as well as in Delhi that brokered a truce between the Maoists and pro-democracy parties some five years ago,about the promise that Maoists would henceforth adopt the democratic system and give up violence.

Thousands of people attended the funeral of K.P. Bhattarai on March 6,despite major political parties,including the Nepali Congress he had founded,having discarded him as “regressive” since he dissociated from the party,opposing the shift to “federal and republican” Nepal. The cabinet,after initial reservations,felt compelled to give him full state honours.

Bhattarai,a Gandhian,twice prime minister and an active participant in India’s freedom and Nepal’s democratic struggle,had led the interim government that successfully delivered a highly admired democratic constitution and conducted the general election within the stipulated period in 1991.

The Maoist insurgency that began in 1996 resulted in the scrapping of that constitution in 2006. While his longtime colleagues,including G.P. Koirala,the Nepali Congress and all the other parties joined hands with Maoists,Bhattarai refused to budge from the party’s long-stated position that “Nepal’s independence,stability and prosperity will be possible only if the constitutional monarchy and pro-democracy forces worked together.” Through a statement issued a few months ago,he said that the revival of the 1991 constitution was the only way out. President Rambaran Yadav broke protocol and defied his secretariat’s advice not to go personally to Dasrath Rangashala where Bhattarai’s body was in state for public homage. Not only was never a finger raised at him for corruption during a long public life,but Bhattarai was perhaps the only PM in South Asia who died homeless,living his last three years at an ashram run by a trust named after him. He was the longest-serving prisoner of conscience — altogether 14 years — during the king’s regime; but he always asked the kings,one after another,to be democratic,nationalistic and not greedy. His belief in people’s right and ability to reform was amazing,and he was known to forgive his adversaries easily.

The fact that the Indian political spectrum chose not to send any representative to his funeral — in contrast to their participation in Koirala’s exactly a year ago — and that not Prime Minister Manmohan Singh but External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna sent the government’s condolence message to the Nepali Congress is not free from debate in Nepal’s political circles and hardly appreciated. It seems Bhattarai almost became a persona non grata for Delhi after he refused to conform to the radical changes. Surya Bahadur Thapa,a four-time PM and friend of India,flew to Delhi for a high-level meeting with India’s officialdom on the day of Bhattarai’s funeral. The message was clear: there was no looking back on the course Nepal has adopted,and that it should be institutionalised by delivering the constitution.

Frequent high-level seminars with representatives from South Block and retired authors of the 2005 change concur there is no reason to panic,but appear worried about China’s increased presence in the north,which they think is likely to prove detrimental to India’s security interests. But how will the delivery of the constitution and continued leftwards polarisation take care of the situation? There seems to be no clear answer. Yet,Delhi seems to be toying with the idea of encouraging the Nepali actors to go for a hurriedly thrust and even incomplete constitution,and not let the achievements of the 2006 movement go in vain.

But that hardly takes into account the public mood in Nepal. They are clearly not willing to forgive the CA and its leaders,nor are they likely to compromise on liberal democratic values. The CA may not have outlived its utility,but has proved it is not capable of delivering.