As the 13th General Convention (GC) of the Nepali Congress (NC) comes to an end, there is little clarity on the direction the party shall be heading in post convention. Some have been critical of the party for being too fixated on the presidential and Central Committee elections, at the cost of the party's ideological compass, its position on the new constitution and the grooming of its future generation leaders. Mukul Humagain and Binod Ghimire spoke to Puranjan Acharya, a long-time NC member and political analyst. Acharya was a confidant of and advisor to former NC president Girija Prasad Koirala and has been closely following the developments within the NC and the Nepali politics for a long time.

What is your take on the different groups contending for the NC leadership at the convention?

It is important to understand the characteristics and ideals of the groups. The first group consists of Ram Chandra Poudel and Shashank Koirala. Poudel, one of the progressive senior leaders within the party, is a reformist who strongly believes in socialism and his personality has always been centre to left. But his candidate for General Secretary, Shashank Koirala, son of BP Koirala, is centre to right, and his thoughts are still that of the 1970s and do not follow BP’s socialism. So there are ideological differences between the top leaders of the group.

Most of the senior technocrats of the party belong to this group. They have played a vital role in defining the party’s and country’s policies since the 90s, and will definitely steer the party if the group comes into power. But there is a possibility of conflict among them as well. With such characteristics, there is a huge possibility that the Poudel group will further push the country into confusion and inequality.

What about the other two groups?

The second group consisting of Sher Bahadur Deuba and Arjun Narsing KC seems to be moving towards the right. Like Shashank, Arjun KC has good interpersonal skills, because of which Deuba must have selected him for the position of General Secretary. But Deuba is an interesting character in the group. Although he is viewed as a right-leaning leader, there have been radical reforms such as land reforms and commissions for Dalits, among others, during his tenures as prime minister. He is sort of titled towards the left but his allegiance is still with the right-leaning leaders, such as Khum Bahadur Khadka, Taranath Ranabhat and Kul Bahadur Gurung, who can challenge the 2006 People’s Movement and the progressive developments achieved in the constitution.

The last group of Krishna Prasad Sitaula and Gagan Thapa was representing the left. Sitaula has always maintained cordial relations with the left forces and BP Koirala used to say that the NC is a party that is left to centre. Gagan Thapa also is a proponent of socialism. This group was undoubtedly the most progressive group at the convention.

Are you implying that that Sitaula’s group was closest to BP’s ideals?

The political strategies that BP used initially are outdated as the monarchy against which he struggled is no more. BP strongly believed that the party should not unite with the communists. This has already happened since the 1990s. BP had fought against feudalism and other remnants of the old order and had brought radical changes during his time. If he were alive today, he would have been the most radical leader.

Moreover, there are different doctrines that BP endorsed in different eras. So at present there are many interpretations of BP’s doctrines and people conveniently choose the ones that fit their agenda. For instance, some claim that BP was a royalist and believed that political parties should maintain closeness with the monarchs, but people like me believe that his support for the monarchswas a political tactic. So some sections within the NC have not understood all the dimensions of his doctrine.

In which direction do you expect the party to move post convention?

The NC is becoming more of a pragmatic party. The mixed groupings that we have seen within the party in this convention prove my point and this will have repercussions for the future. Moreover, the party was not able to articulate its policies or ideals in the run up to the convention. After the convention, although the party and its members might try to articulate their agendas, it will remain a challenge as there will be conflict among the members. This could again create a rift, if not an outright split, in the party.

This was the first time in more than two decades that a Koirala was not contending for the leadership position. Do you think after the convention, the family will lose its stronghold over the party?

All the Koiralas have an alliance with the Poudel group and as the late Sushil Koirala’s voters were committed to Poudel, it made him the representative of the Koirala dynasty. The highest number of Koiralas were in the race for party positions, including in the Central Working Committee. In the other two groups, the Koiralas have little role to play.

Do you think the flawed objectives of the active party members hindered the reforms within the party?

To a certain extent, yes. The environment has become such at all levels of the party that members are constantly eyeing for positions or some personal gain. The nexus between crime, corruption and party politics should have been addressed in this convention, because such links in one of the largest political parties in the country could fail the nation. But these issues were not dealt with.

Is it a time-honoured tradition in the NC to keep from discussing ideologies at the party conventions? Isn’t it an opportunity squndered?

Most of the people in the party are still stuck with BP and his strategies. BP and his ideals have now become a protective shield for the party that the leaders keep resorting to but do not care to internalise. They fail to comprehend that he was a smart leader and kept improvising himself according to the evolving situation. If in India, for example, he supported Satyagraha as a socialist; in Nepal he took up arms twice to usher in democracy. When the bullets proved

ineffective, he then pushed for ‘national unity’.

BP also had a larger ideologicalroadmap in place, didn’t he?

He repeatedly emphasised how in a developing country like Nepal with widespread poverty, only the parties tilted towards the left can survive. But one thing he never supported was cohabitation with the communists. He strongly believed that if the NC supported the communists to remove the monarchy, then in the absence of monarchy, the communists could easily make the NC the rightists, rendering it difficult for the party to survive. But sadly, many within the NC, including his own son, have a very conservative understanding of BP’s ideals and they have failed to differentiate between his ideals and his tactics.