Right after the promulgation of the new constitution, former Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai resigned from the UCPN (Maoist) party, making a case for a Naya Shakti, new force, in the country to focus on development and prosperity. He has also been advocating for youth and non-partisan civil society leaders to join him in his ‘effort to set the stage for decent and ethical politics’. He has already started a two-month campaign 'Naya Shakti Abhiyan' for the formation of a new political force. Kamal Dev Bhattrai and John Narayan Parajuli spoke with Bhattarai about his vision for a new political force, the ongoing political deadlock between the political parties regarding the constitutional amendments and the Indian blockade.

When do you think the current political deadlock will end?

The current political deadlock is a consequence of our own internal insufficiencies. The Madhesis had started protesting against the constitution even before it was promulgated. As the Chair of the Political Dialogue and Consensus Committee of the Constituent Assembly (CA), I had clearly told the major political parties—Nepali congress (NC), UCPN (Maoist), CPN-UML—that the Madhesi concerns should be addressed before promulgating the statute. It was risky to not do so because protests were taking place along the Nepal-India border. And this created an opening for our southern neighbour to step in. India did get pulled into our internal issue. As a result, the ongoing political stalemate in the country has three parties to it—the Madhesis, the ruling parties and India. Neither side is willing to compromise due to their egos. Unless each of these sides takes a step back, the political stalemate will continue. So to resolve the deadlock, the government and the ruling parties in Kathmandu, first, need to take responsibility for the ongoing crisis and make serious efforts to address the issues in the Tarai/Madhes. Second, the government needs to take meaningful diplomatic initiatives to resolve the matter with Delhi. As long as this trilateral conflict persists, it will be difficult to end this crisis.

The political stalemate between the ruling and Madhesi parties is Nepal’s internal matter. How did India get involved?

During my lifetime, I have experienced three Indian blockades. During 1970-71, under the influence of the Naxalite Movement in India, the UML in Jhapa and NC leaders had started an armed agitation against the Panchayat regime. King Mahendra tried to contain these revolutionaries and strengthened Nepal-China ties while playing up the nationalist card. His prime intention was to preserve his regime by declaring the Jhapa and Nepali Congress movement as anti-national activities influenced by India. Under these circumstances, India imposed the first blockade on Nepal. Then again in 1990-91, the NC and communists came together to protest against the Panchayat regime. King Birendra again tried to portray the protesters as pro-India and himself as a true nationalist by purchasing arms from China. India imposed a blockade on Nepal once again.

Now, analysing the current context, the revolutionary forces after the restoration of democracy in the country—first the Maoists, then the Madhesis and Tharus, among others—pushed for a constitution in line with previous agreements but they weren’t successful. This led to protests in the Tarai against the draft constitution. But the major political parties in Kathmandu, under the pretext of nationalism have turned against the protesters, accusing them of being influenced by external forces. Due to its strategic interests and hegemonic nature, India has once again declared a blockade on Nepal. So there is a distinct pattern in all these three blockades. The fault mainly lies on the part of the ruling parties of Kathmandu that raise the issue of nationalism only for their vested interest. But even India is at fault and it has interfered in the internal matters of Nepal time and again by taking advantage of our internal disturbances, using economic blockade as a weapon.

Analysing past patterns of Indian blockade, when do you think the current embargo will come to an end?

The ruling parties will bargain to stay in the government while India will try to secure its strategic interests in return. There is a big danger that the rulers of Kathmandu and Delhi will work out a deal at the cost of genuine demands of the dissenting parties. So to prevent such a situation, the protesters—the Madhesis, Tharus, Limbuwan, Magarat and other Janajati groups—along with the civil society should try to change the nature of the ongoing protests. The obstruction in the border areas should stop and the disgruntled parties need to instead pursue peaceful demonstrations, mainly in Kathmandu, along with struggle in Parliament. The ruling parties need to carry on the dialogue with the agitating parties, while continuing diplomatic negotiations with India. It is also important to resolve the issue of provincial boundaries by taking past agreements and suggestions provided by the State Restructuring Commission of the first CA into account-with a bit of give and take.

Don’t you fear fulfilling Madhesi demands on delineation will open a Pandora’s Box?

Their demands are not new. These claims were established by the State Restructuring Commission of the CA. The ruling parties had agreed to these demands then. Moreover, the demarcation is more divisive for the Tharus and Magars than the Madhesis. The Magar cluster has been divided between Province 4 and 5 whereas the Tharu cluster has been separated between Province 5 and 7. For the Madhesis, it is only parts of Sunsari and Morang that are problematic.

The major political parties argue that the demands made by the Madhesis regarding the delineation of boundaries cannot be fulfilled as it can harm Nepal’s sovereignty in the long term. What is your opinion?

Even before the Madhesis, it was the UCPN (Maoist) that raised these demands. The report of the State Restructuring Commission, which recommends two provinces in the Tarai and to keep the Magar cluster intact, was mainly approved due to the backing of the major political parties. If the political parties are to claim that their past commitments regarding the delineation was wrong, then the whole idea of federalism will get tainted by such logic. They should not blame others for the present consequences.

Sovereignty of small and weak countries has always been violated by bigger and stronger nations in the international arena. Prior to the Second World War there was colonialism, after that semi-colonialism existed and currently it is the era of neo-colonialism. Thus, in today’s world, economic might and power is used as leverage against other countries instead of military might. So if small countries do not remain united and attain economic prosperity, bigger nations will continue to interfere in their internal maters.

Nonetheless, federalism does not disintegrate a country or harm sovereignty; it just decentralises the power from the centre to the periphery. As long as there is unity between the Khas-Arya cluster, Adhivasi-Janajati cluster and Madhesi-Tharu cluster and the country moves in the path of economic development, its sovereignty will remain intact.

Coming to Naya Shakti, you were the ideologue of the UCPN (Maoist) with ethnic agenda at the core of your political ideology. Now you speak of a new political force where economic growth is its underpinning agenda. How do you reconcile the ideological contradictions?

Initially the Nepali Congress was a new political force, after which UML came as a new force and then UCPN (Maoist) was a new party. But with time, these new parties became old and new agendas have started to evolve which demand a new force. Earlier, there was a need for a change in the political structure of the state. Now it is the age of economic revolution.  Until now, Nepal has gone through various political changes and I was part of the previous revolution led by the UCPN (Maoist). But times are changing and I believe that to attain economic development, a new force is required.  

You are not the only one talking of a new force. Is there a possibility for convergence?

This process has started and I have had discussions with people from different sectors, youths, and people from different political parties. But we have decided that rather than creating a new party immediately, we need to first establish an agenda properly and then forces that share a similar line of thought should be brought together. That is why we have currently only launched the Naya Shakti campaign and we are trying to get in touch with different people and take their suggestions and create unity for a common agenda. We shall institutionalise the Naya Shakti into a political party after proper deliberations.