Girija Prasad Koirala is a potent symbol of democracy with a political career spanning over seven decades. In 1950 he took part in ending 104 old autocratic Rana regime, and went on to provide bold leadership in making a historic transition from a monarchical order to a federal democratic republic in Nepal.
While efforts were on to strengthen institutional democracy in the country after the restoration of parliamentary democracy in 1990, then Communist Party of Nepal (Maoists) launched an armed struggle against the nascent democratic system. This posed a threat to rule of law and democratic governance, and forced the country into conflict. Koirala viewed the Maoist problem as the biggest ailment, and believed that “other problems cannot be tackled unless the Maoist issue is settled.” He saw democracy ‘caught between two guns’ of the Maoists and the King. He viewed the king’s power grab as crime against the people and the country. For him, democracy alone provided political and economic space “to initiate the process of national reconciliation and unity.” [break]
The Nepali Congress Central Working Committee entrusted him with the responsibility of seeking a solution to the Maoist problem through dialogue. He considered the engagement with Maoists as the biggest gamble of his political career. He took up the challenge to free the country, people and democracy from the politics of guns, mainstream the Maoists into the constitutional track, show that confrontation is pointless and that realizing Maoists’ goals is possible by peaceful means. He wanted to make the state strong and effective, and said “as a person, I can fail, but a nation never fails with the failure of an individual.”
Republica
If the 12-point understanding made the beginning of bringing the Maoists to democratic mainstream, the signing of the historic Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) on November 21, 2006 formally ended the decade-long armed conflict that took over 17000 lives, traumatized Nepali society, and caused destruction of infrastructures around the country. After signing the CPA, he said: “We have shown to the world that conflict can never be settled at gunpoint, but only through dialogue and negotiation. We have shown that Nepalis are capable of solving this problem themselves not only to the world, but also to the Maoist International Movement (MIM) and terrorist organizations all over the world.”
An overview of peace processes elsewhere in the world indicates that Nepal moved from tyranny to democracy comparatively more ably, swiftly and humanely under the leadership of NC leader Koirala. He treated the Maoists most generously, and trusted them fully. Constituent Assembly (CA) elections were allowed to be held with Maoist combatants unmonitored. However, there was a great betrayal of the trust. The number of combatants as revealed by Maoist Chief Pushpa Kamal Dahal in Shaktikhor video was artificially raised from 7,000 to 34,000, out of which the UN Mission in Nepal (UNMIN) approved 19,000. Maoists appeared increasingly reluctant to return the property seized during the insurgency.
The failure of the successive leadership in post-CA elections to conclude the peace process and write a democratic constitution is disrespectful of Koirala’s leadership. This failure is a monumental setback to the aspirations of the united people’s movement, political consensus, and culture of cooperation set in motion in 2006 following the success of People’s Movement. With failures on several fronts of the peace process, Nepal has been pushed to a more dangerous mode than it was in six years ago. There is a near complete breakdown of state institutions. What could be more insulting to the people who arduously struggled to become sovereign and institutionalize democratic pluralism than the leader of largest party telling the country that their agreement on consensual prime ministerial candidate was thwarted because of foreign powers? Dahal’s “search for a partner like the late GP Koirala to give a way out to the country” appears to be just an euphemism.
Koirala considered it a democrat’s duty to “bring all non-democrats within a democratic constitutional framework,” failing which, “democracy has no meaning or significance.” Going by the events that followed the CA election, the process of institutionalizing democratic gains and democratizing non-democratic elements has failed. It has been further marred by mistrust and constantly shifting goalposts. The elements of the peace process stand severely punctured, following the dissolution of the CA in May last year. It is time to think of the past commitments and do a thorough ‘soul searching’. Making democracy and rule of law completely irrelevant in the process poses grave risks for the future of democracy and the country.
GP Koirala’s engagement of the Maoists was perhaps guided by the evolving circumstances of the time. A new king had assumed the throne following the royal massacre. The country was tired of on again and off again negotiations that always ended in deadlock. The Maoists claimed that there were two states and governments in Nepal talking to each other. This situation required the resolution of the conflict. Koirala’s thinking early on was reflected in his address at the 35th General Assembly of the FNCCI as reported in the Nepal Samacharpatra of July 19, 2001. He had said:
“The problem in Nepal is such that we could become the playground of foreigners. In such a situation, that we should discuss issues of national interests by rising a little above the political level and party’s sphere. I am of the opinion that Nepali should (themselves) resolve Nepal’s problems. Let us not be forced to seek help of foreigners to solve our problems.”
GP Koirala maintained the consistency and coherence of the message to the international community, earning enormous goodwill and respect for him and the country. For his friends abroad, he was a hero, a ‘legendary leader’, highly respected leader and ‘very tall leader of the sub-continent’. He understood the sensitivities of Nepal’s geopolitical location and believed that “Nepal will benefit from the progress of India and China.”
Koirala feared if he “were to leave his commitment incomplete, he would be a ghost.” A positive conclusion of the peace process and completion of the writing of a democratic constitution through elected representatives would have been the best tribute to his legacy and leadership. Given the will of political leaders, their commitments, and responsibility towards the country and the people, the task was completely doable. Unfortunately, people are forced to hear from leaders that “Nepal’s key lies elsewhere.” Since people are the ultimate arbiters, we can only hope and pray that a fresh vote will punish these irresponsible leaders!
The author is a former ambassador of Nepal to the United Nations
dineshbhattarai1@gmail.com
Related story
Let’s live in peace and embrace diversity
-1776353206.webp)
