If all goes well, Maoist Centre Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal will head a new ruling coalition supported by the Nepali Congress (NC), the largest party in Parliament. Talks are under way to make the coalition as broad-based as possible, with the participation of a number of Madhesi and Janajati groups. Akhilesh Upadhyay and Tika R Pradhan spoke to Dahal about the need to form the new coalition, the transitional justice process, the Madhes issue and the implementation of the constitution. 

What pushed you to break the coalition with the Oli-led government? To many, this was a sudden move driven by your greed to be prime minister.  

The accusations that I broke the coalition because I was in a hurry to be the next prime minister are false. For the past four to five months, I had held several talks with Prime Minister Oli about our reservations on the way the government was functioning. Everyone knows that some months ago, we had also held talks with the NC about forming a coalition and withdrawing our support to the Oli-led government. So it is completely wrong to claim that our move was “unexpected’’ or that it was driven by greed for power. The main concern for us has always been our agenda. 

It is no secret that concluding the peace process is of utmost importance for us. But so is national unity. We strongly believe that it is imperative to address the issues of the marginalised groups. The Oli-led government failed to do so. Sadly, we and the UML had differences on both issues. Regarding the reconstruction process, the government’s performance has been lacklustre. The implementation of the constitution was also not moving forward. So questioning the present coalition was natural for us. 

Moreover, since the promulgation of the constitution, we have been in support of forming a national government. Even before forming the coalition with the UML, we had stressed the need to include the NC in the government. Later, both the three-point ‘gentleman’s agreement’ and the nine-point deal we reached with the UML were based on the understanding that while our coalition would remain intact, efforts would be made to create a favourable environment for the NC to join the government. But when PM Oli reneged on the agreements, we had no choice but to break the coalition. 

When the peace process effectively started in 2006, your party and the NC had ideologically opposite positions. Has the politics of ideology ended in the country with the NC-Maoist coalition?

We should not look at this coalition in view of the ideology the two parties hold. When the civil war came to an end, the peace agreement was signed between the NC and the Maoists. This was for a simple reason: in a war, agreements can only be reached between the combatants. But Madhav Nepal from the UML did play a positive role in creating a favourable environment for peace back then. While the peace process can only be concluded by the Maoists and the NC, the UML needs to facilitate the process. Our coalition with the NC is essential to lead the country towards reconciliation. 

There was already an agreement between the parties that after the promulgation of the constitution, a national government would be formed. Why did things go wrong?

The post-earthquake 16-point agreement signed between the major parties—the NC, the Maoists, the UML and Madhesi Janadhikar Forum-Loktantrik—was based on the understanding that after the promulgation of the constitution, all the parties would be a part of the government and work in unity until the first phase of implementation. Although we are the third largest party in Parliament, we played a key role in forging the agreement; I had proposed that Sushil Koirala from the NC should be the president, Oli the prime minister and our party should take the Speaker’s position. Everyone had agreed, and the constitution was endorsed. 

However, things did not go as planned after the endorsement. All along, I firmly believed the agreement should guide subsequent political developments as it would have upheld national unity and consensus. But regrettably, the NC reneged on its prior position, and Koirala even contested for the prime minister’s post. This was very unfortunate.

You had earlier mentioned the possibility of a larger, long-lasting left coalition with the UML. How has the context changed now?

Pushing for a left alliance was not our agenda, neither before nor after the constitution’s promulgation. It was the NC’s choices after it that compelled us and the UML to form a coalition government. But yes, when we decided to form the coalition, the two parties had agreed that we would try to make the left alliance strategic and long-lasting. Our friends from the UML were keener about this arrangement. But once the government was formed, the UML failed to live up to its 

commitments. 

What were the main issues that created a rift in the coalition? 

When we formed the coalition with the UML, it was obviously agreed that both the parties would collaborate to conclude the peace process. But within a few months in office, it was evident that many legal experts from the UML, even the ones close to PM Oli, were contriving to scrutinise our party for war-era cases, like the ones in Fujel, Gorkha and Okhaldhunga. I do not want to speak too much on this matter, but offensive actions of some UML members with regard to war-era cases made us sceptical. 

Similarly, many UML appointees started interfering in the work of the ministries under the Maoist portfolio as evident in the Rastrapati Chure-Tarai Madhes Conservation of the Forest Ministry, and the Ministry of Education.  

Such unhelpful behaviour by the UML members was against the idea of a coalition based on mutual cooperation. We could clearly sense that the UML wanted to further marginalise us in the government. We held many discussions to express our reservations and hoped that things would change. But they did not. 

Why did you cancel your trip to Australia at the last moment? Is the transitional justice process making you and your party 

members nervous?

Of course not; the perception that the Maoists are afraid of the transitional justice process is completely incorrect. Many people are trying to suggest that we are living in fear, but nothing could be further from the truth. We are not afraid of the justice process and I have made this clear time and again. 

Transitional justice is a big part of the peace process and our only concern is that it should accord with the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA). The issue is directly linked with the Jana Andolan II. It is also a constitutional, political and ethical issue and it cannot be linked to any particular individual’s concern. 

So how will the transitional justice process move ahead?

All the major stakeholders to the conflict—the security forces, the NC and the Maoists—are involved in this process envisioned in the CPA. Cases of grave rights violations will surely be dealt with in accordance with the principles of transitional justice. We know the process and the consequences; we agreed to them in the CPA itself.

The arrest of a Nepali Army colonel in the UK seems to have fuelled fears about the internationalisation of war-era cases?

The fear of internalisation of war-era cases might be affecting people psychologically. But then again, we are not the only actors involved in the conflict. The security officials as well as prominent leaders of democratic parties are also in the same boat with us. Talks about which country poses a threat to rights violators have always done the rounds. The arrest of Colonel Lama in a foreign land has captured the attention of the entire nation, and not just the actors of the conflict. As the case of Colonel Lama is one of its kind, we need to further analyse it. We have to keep international laws in mind and consider our options.

The government has been cautious of the fact that a number of human-rights laws are internationally binding and there can be consequences if some people associated with the war visit particular countries. Just before my trip to Australia, which I cancelled, a UML minister had called me and tried to warn me against going there. It did make me a bit uncomfortable and I called our foreign ministry to make an enquiry with the Australian government. But as the event I was participating in was not that important, I decided not to go. Later, however, the Australian government informed us that I would not face arrest there.  

Could you please talk about current developments, particularly about India’s role in and response to the change in government?

The recent turn of events has been unfortunate. At a time when all the parties should have been working together to resolve the challenges facing the nation, we are again wasting time in changing the government. It is not like I am happy about how things have unfolded, but what led to this situation is what matters. 

Moreover, as I said in the House, we have to follow the political system that is in place. And according to our system, a government change is possible through a majority vote in Parliament. We have always been against this parliamentary system of government as it led to many hung parliaments in the past.

Still, it is a democratic process and it is the numbers game that makes and breaks a government in the country. The change in government in Nepal is our internal matter and has taken place through a democratic process.  Talks about India’s win or loss were circulated very lightly. Such misperception between the two countries neither bodes well for our foreign relations nor for our domestic issues. 

It has been out in the open that some Indian officials did want the Oli-government to fall. Isn’t that so?

This might be the case, but that does not concern us. The chain of events in our efforts to form a national government has led to a government change. It is a result of our internal lapses, decisions and processes; whether other nations were rooting for it is a different matter altogether. 

What will be the position of your government about the 

agreements PM Oli has signed with China?

We have already made it clear in Parliament that all international agreements Nepal has reached with China or India that are in our national interest will not only be respected but also implemented. People should not forget that we were on board with the Oli-led government when these agreements were endorsed. I find the publicity to give PM Oli the sole credit for these agreements unfortunate. 

When I was the PM, I had seriously raised the issue of railways with the Chinese many times. And as we were the coalition partner in the Oli-led government, we have had a big hand in the agreements reached with China. The Chinese president and the Communist Party even sent us a message thanking us for our role in creating a favourable environment for the agreements to take place. We were equally responsible in mending Nepal’s ties with India. Giving credit only to PM Oli for everything is wrong. 

The Indian media have been hinting that with the change in government in Nepal, the talk of Chinese president visiting Nepal will not materialise. Is that so?

I do not think so. First of all, it was never formally confirmed that the (Chinese) president would visit the country; there was only talk of a possibility. This is still the case. We however will make efforts to make this visit a reality. 

How have you envisioned the new government?

To lead the nation is an opportunity as well as a challenge. When I was the PM the last time, I had to resign before I could get familiar with the job. It has been a decade since then and the dismal political developments of these years are an open secret. People are tired of hearing sloganeering and want to see some concrete actions. And this is where our priority lies. The main goal for us is to deliver; I have envisioned a small but efficient government to facilitate that. 

Rather than selling big dreams, we are going to focus on resolving the immediate problems facing the nation. Addressing the concerns of the marginalised communities is an urgent matter and we will put in all the efforts to get them on board. Subsequently, we need to clear the legal hurdles for the implementation of the constitution and endorse the required laws to hold the elections. The issue of reconstruction is obviously there. People are very disappointed with the pace of it and it has become imperative to set the reconstruction process in the right direction. The conclusion of the peace process is also pending; new laws have to be drafted for that. But primarily, the issue of development is of great importance to the people. Energy shortages and poor infrastructure development, among others, do raise legitimate concerns for the nation. So development will be a big priority for the upcoming government. 

Have you sketched a road map to address the concerns of the Madhesis?

The Madhesi parties have supported the formation of a new government hoping that it will address their demands. And we have always been sensitive to their concerns. It was us in the Oli-led government who had raised the issues of paying the medical bills of the wounded protesters, providing compensation to the families who lost a member in the protests and withdrawing cases against the protesters. These proposals were agreed upon to build a favourable environment for the Madhesi Morcha to come to the negotiating table. But there were certain things that the government could not uphold; these things are still very sensitive for the Madhesis. We are going sort these issues even before we start our discussion with the Morcha. Then there is the issue of federal demarcation, which is one of the most contentious issues. Given the diverse interests of our parties, the delineation of the boundaries still remains challenging. But I have thought of a proposition that all the all the parties concerned might agree on. 

What is the proposition?

Please do not make me reveal it right now. But I am positive that it will bring all the parties on board. 

When will the local level elections take place?

The Local Body Restructuring Commission is doing its work and hopefully it will submit its report by Falgun. The political parties have also been discussing this matter. The issue of how to restructure the village councils and municipalities also remains unresolved. We are planning to urge the commission to release its report as soon as possible so that we can hold the local level elections by Chait. Conducting local level elections is necessary to hold national assembly election later. 

It is believed that you and PM Oli share a love-hate relationship. How do you view your relationship with him?

This question is a bit difficult. Within the UML, I have been in contact with Madhav Nepal and Bamdev Gautam since the Panchayat days. During that period, I had never spoken to PM Oli. The war had already begun when I first met Oli. After our first interaction, we both had good impressions of one another. But once the peace process started, the relations between us soured as he tried to undermine our presence in national politics. After the second Constituent Assembly elections, our relations were at an all time low. But after the earthquake, the UML realised that without us on board, the conclusion of the peace process was not possible. And we realised that without the UML on board, the promulgation of the constitution was not possible. So keeping national interests in mind, I supported his bid to be prime minister. Then with the formation of our coalition, our relationship reached new heights, to the extent that talk of a merger between our parties was raised by the UML. 

How is your relationship with Sher Bahadur Deuba, the leader of your new coalition partner, the NC?

Before that, let me talk a little more about PM Oli. I have mentioned earlier the reasons behind our differences. But I want to finish by emphasising that without PM Oli and the UML on board, we cannot complete the peace process or implement the constitution or address other challenges facing the nation. We are hopeful that our relationship with the UML will improve in the coming days.

Talking about Deuba, we have had a very interesting relationship. Before going to war, we had submitted a 40-point demand to the government headed by Deuba. Then after five to six years of war, it was also under his leadership that we sat down for negotiations for the first time. In fact, we were in touch when we were underground and he was so excited with our conversations that he publicly called me a brave politician. From then on, we kept growing closer. In fact, for past few years we have even been having family gatherings. Now we have formed a new collation with Deuba’s party.

Coming back to an earlier question, does this mean that the politics of ideology has come to an end in Nepal?

Although one might get such an impression, claiming that our national politics is no longer driven by ideology would not be completely correct. At the moment, concluding the peace process and moving ahead with the new constitution are crucial. Hence, the priority right now for us, the general public, and all the parties involved is to work together and move forward. Political parties still have their ideologies intact, but at the moment addressing the challenges facing the nation is more important. This is not possible without everyone on board. So although it might seem that the parties have compromised their ideologies, this is just for the time being. Our core beliefs have not and will not change.