Making A Difference

“Strategy To Use China Against India Is Outdated”

Nepal's PM Prachanda on China’s role in Nepal and the challenge he faces to deliver on the expectations of the Nepalese people.

Advertisement

“Strategy To Use China Against India Is Outdated”
info_icon

Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’, Nepal’s prime minister, will be in India on a three-day visit from September 15, on a mission that is widely being seen as an attempt to mend ties between the two countries. This is his second stint as prime minister—he was chosen to the post in 2008, after the decade-long Maoist rebellion that he headed came to an end and a 12-point peace agreement was reached between the rebels and major political parties. He comes here at a time when India-Nepal relations have taken a beating, following the Madhesi agitation and the economic blockade of Nepal, widely believed to have been instigated by India.

Advertisement

Will he manage to put relations back on track is a question being asked both in Kathmandu and New Delhi. He spoke to Pranay Sharma on a wide-range of issues, including the question of China’s role in Nepal and the challenge he faces to deliver on the expectations of the Nepalese people. Excerpts from the interview:

You would soon be going to India on an official visit. What would be its significance and how would you like it to be seen?

I think it will be a very significant visit. We are now trying to conclude the peace process on the basis of the 12-point agreement that had begun from Delhi. At this juncture my becoming Prime Minister and coming to Delhi has a specific significance. As we are trying to bring this process to its logical conclusion we need cooperation from all. In that the role of the Indian government, its political parties and its people has an important significance. That’s why my coming to Delhi should not be seen merely as a formal visit. Rather, this visit should be seen for its far reaching significance -- both from the point of view of strengthening Indo-Nepal ties and in terms of helping the peace process to be brought to its conclusion.

Advertisement

What are your expectations from India?

First, India should help us to conclude the peace process, which I am sure it will. Second, we seek its support on the economic front. Though Nepal is geographically located between two giant neighbours, both of which have made tremendous economic growth and development, we continue to be a poor country. I want India to generously help Nepal in its economic growth. I firmly believe India will enhance that cooperation towards Nepal. This will also send out a positive signal to the people of Nepal and help in strengthening ties between our two countries.

What role does China, the other giant neighbour of Nepal play?

Nepal and China have traditionally enjoyed good relations. We are trying to maintain good relations with both our neighbours. Since relation between India and China has a different dimension, I don’t like comparing the two. We have the Himalayan mountain range to our north and in terms of both language and culture our relations with China is at a different level. On the other hand, starting from an open border to our history, culture, tradition, language everything very clearly defines our relations with India and it has a different dimension. That’s why I don’t compare the two relations. But as a sovereign and independent nation we would like to maintain good relations with both India and China.

Advertisement

Does the Chinese leadership share this view?

I don’t think China holds a different view or tries to interfere in Nepal’s internal policy or on its relations with India. That’s because both India and China are trying to come close to each other on the economic front. Their trade ties and relations on other issues have expanded so much that both are becoming more dependent on each other. Under such circumstances neither China nor India would like a situation of competition between them that can create any unease in Nepal. In today’s world there is new thinking and progress both among people and in the government.

Advertisement

Was this ever part of your discussion with the Chinese?

In all my visits to China, both as prime minister and in subsequent trips, whenever the issue was discussed with the Chinese leadership and Chinese intellectuals they always suggested that Nepal must have good relations with India. They would always point out that our relations and our trade ties with India have also improved and we want Nepal to have good relations with India. Therefore, I don’t think there is any need for any negative thinking on this front. We live in the 21st century and in a globalised world. We witness economic progress all around us. This should force states to re-think their relations with each other. The inter-dependency among nations across the world has increased significantly and there is an urgent need to understand this and work in cooperation with each other.

Advertisement

Soon after your visit to India, the Indian President Pranab Mukherjee will also come on a state visit to Nepal. The fact that this will be a Presidential visit to the country from India after several years, will it have a special significance?

This will definitely be a historical visit as the Indian President will be coming to Nepal after many years. This in itself will convey an important message that the Indian President is coming to Nepal to take forward and strengthen relations between the two sides. But it should also be seen in the context of what has been happening in the recent past.

Last year the traditional warmth that we have in our relations had cooled off. But soon after becoming Prime Minister my attempt has been to restore that warmth in our relationship. That’s why I sent my deputy prime minister to India to normalise our relations. There he met President Pranab Mukherjee, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and several other senior leaders and came back and briefed the cabinet with much enthusiasm the Indian leadership’s commitment to take the relations forward. Therefore, I look forward to my visit to Delhi with much enthusiasm and hope that soon after that Rashtrapatiji will also come to Nepal. These high-level visits in quick succession will give a new dimension to our ties and deepen them further. It will also help them in cooperating on the economic front and address each other’s concerns and create the necessary trust. I think these visits will play very important roles.

Advertisement

Soon after that Chinese President Xi Jinping is also scheduled to visit Nepal. Does India need to worry about his visit?

I definitely don’t think so. Instead of worrying India should be happy. I think even India feels that this is necessary and it will help in creating a positive atmosphere for cooperation between all three countries. India will not feel any discomfort from this visit. As I have stressed Nepal will act as a bridge between these two countries. Under no circumstances shall we allow Nepalese territory to be used in activities against either of these countries as had happened in the past. This will not happen again.

Advertisement

Is it necessary for Nepalese leaders to play the ‘China card’ to deal with India?

This was the culture in Nepal when it was under feudal and autocratic rule. I agree that this happened in the past. But after change, both at the political level and also in people’s attitudes, this culture does not exist and it should not be there. Instead we should focus on our own strength and use it to coordinate better with both India and China. The strategy to use China against India or to use India against China is an outdated strategy. This will ultimately help nobody.

Advertisement

But till a few days back you had a government in Nepal which was trying to do exactly that?

As on the issue of nationality or federalism there is a lot of debate. There are those who equate nationalism with the interest of those who had been traditionally the rulers of Nepal. But what I have tried to do is include all sections of people of different ethnicity, caste, creed and linguistic categories to develop nationalism. We want to develop a progressive outlook on this crucial issue of nationality. There is a debate on this issue on the basis of these two lines of thinking and ideologies. When I and my party were in the government we tried to raise this with issue with a lot of seriousness. We argued that the definition of nationality that the government is trying to give does not reflect the ground reality of Nepal and the proposed policy of the government will not work. We had a massive debate on this in the last government. We had argued that if we pursue with this policy it will be harmful for the nation and it will lead to anarchy. I agree with you that this debate is still on and till last year there were apprehensions that we are fast approaching towards a situation of anarchy.

Advertisement

Has the situation changed?

This is no longer part of the mainstream thinking. Most people in Nepal do not think like this any longer, neither do the political parties. Though it continues to be in the thinking of some sections and gets reflected at times. I call this the remnant of the old thinking and what we call feudal-nationalism or pseudo-nationalism. But in the overall thinking there has been change in the attitude of the people and all sections have come together to define a new and progressive approach to the nationality issue.

Do you see a situation in the future when India, Nepal and China all work together for the progress and development of Nepal?

Advertisement

I don’t only see such a possibility but also push for it wholeheartedly. From the time I came into the peace process and became Prime Minister of the Federal-Democratic-Republic government I have been talking about this as a historical necessity. I have spoken about this trilateral-strategic partnership both in Delhi and also in Beijing. I am happy to see that gradually we are now moving in that direction. There are times when people have conservative thinking but objectively when we look at it we see increasingly a movement towards cooperation and partnership. In the coming days we will see more and more people talking about partnership and cooperation between the three countries for Nepal’s economic development and progress. Irrespective of whether some sections approve of it or not that is the direction in which we are now moving.

Advertisement

Soon after Narendra Modi came to power he gave a lot of stress on improving and strengthening Indo-Nepal relations. But then we saw the relations headed in another direction. What went wrong?

When Modiji first visited Nepal as India’s Prime minister and addressed the parliament there was tremendous excitement and expectations in the minds of people. It was a magical situation. He went and met people out in the streets and there was a lot of encouragement and a lot of warmth was injected in the bilateral relations. But unfortunately soon after the declaration of the new constitution the situation changed and relations turned tense. There were definitely some weaknesses and shortcomings.

Advertisement

info_icon

On whose part?

India is a very big country and Modiji as the Prime Minister of that country had raised tremendous hope and expectations here. Therefore, the situation should not have been allowed to decline so rapidly. India needs some serious introspection on this. I think this issue needs to be clarified. When the constitution writing process was on we were trying to take everybody along on the basis of maximum consensus to write it. But despite best efforts full consensus could not be achieved and there were still disagreements among sections on some issues. But we had already completed signing the document and the President was due to declare the constitution in two days.

Advertisement

At this juncture India came up with its suggestion to stop the constitution declaration process. That was definitely not the appropriate time and it sparked off a lot of confusion and misunderstanding. It then led to the blockade and a lot of hardship for people. This should not have happened. But it happened. Therefore, there is need for proper introspection on all sides in order to create a conducive atmosphere to help us move in the right direction. We all need to do proper introspection and draw the correct lessons from it.

You talk about taking every section of Nepal along in defining nationalism. But during the writing of the constitution did you move away from your ‘core principle’? Do you regret having done that?

Advertisement

I understand the validity and the significance of your question. In Nepal identity of every ethnicity, sections and groups of the society must be recognised. For this reason, in support of their rights I had launched such a big insurgency and war. Later after the peace process I also took up its leadership role to ensure these rights and identities are also enshrined in our constitution. After the second election for the constituent Assembly I was also Convener of the 30-party alliance to highlight the issues of the Madhesis, Tharus, Janjatais and all the sections that had so far been marginalized by the Nepalese government and society. I had spearheaded the movement to correct this injustice against all these sections and give them protection and recognition in the constitution. Why I compromised from my stated position and went along with others to complete the constitution writing process and get it declared is a valid question.

Advertisement

So why did you compromise?

It must be kept in mind that our first attempt at writing the constitution in the first Constituent Assembly had ended in failure. One of the conditions for me to come into the peace process was to ensure that the new constitution be written by the Constituent Assembly and a document that will reflect the mood of the federal, democratic republic. This had always been my attempt and was also my approach when the 12-point formula was agreed. But when there was a threat that even the second Constituent Assembly might end up in failure-signals of which was becoming clear to me from the developments. I realized that in the current situation it will be best for our movement to accept as much as possible now, rather than allowing the second Constituent Assembly also to end in failure. This under the situation became a necessity otherwise Nepal would move towards political instability.

Advertisement

What about the other political parties?

The other major political parties like Nepali Congress or the UML would not have allowed the whole of what we were demanding. They could have stopped it because they have two-third majority in the Assembly. They are not even in favour of federalism, either they are totally opposed or are ambiguous about it. If this debate went on and if I had not taken the initiative the very concept of a federal, democratic, republic would have been under threat. At this point I consulted my other colleagues who were part of our movement and told them we should accept as much as we can for now and ensure the constitution process is completed. But we continue to have serious reservations on this constitution and these were made clear even during the constitution writing process. I have not given up on any key issues. There is confusion among people who think I have given up on all of them. This is not true. What I did was to accept as much as possible under the present situation and decided to continue our movement in future for their full realization. Otherwise a failure in this process would have posed a big threat to the constitution and all the demands for which we fought. This in itself would have posed an existential threat to the Maoists more than anyone else.

Advertisement

What do you plan now?

I am already in consultations with Madhesi leaders and others on how to take the issues forward. So from all this effort it is clear that Prachanda has not given up on his core principles. Rather, he accepted what was feasible under the situation so that he can continue the movement and take it forward into the future.

What lessons have you drawn from your first stint as Prime Minister now that you have that coveted position again?

When I was first elected Prime Minister, our party was the largest group in the Constituent Assembly and it had just come out of a revolution. I was full of revolutionary-romanticism. To learn the dynamics of competitive, democratic politics and its different aspects perhaps, I needed more time, experience and understanding. Moreover, my expectations and revolutionary desires were also very high. Some steps I had taken were not right. For example, I refused to make Girija Prasad Koirala the President. This was definitely a mistake, since me and Girija Prasad Koirala were both signatories to the agreement that had set in motion the peace process. The first mistake was committed at that point. It may be because of my subjectivism.

Advertisement

So you regret these decisions?

I talk about them now because to use an oft used quote of Girija Prasad Koirala, when a person loses his way while traveling through a forest, he must return to the point from where he started his journey. I think that is my situation. I was moving forward but somewhere I lost my way and that’s why I returned to the point from where I began journey to restart it with more experience. The reason I keeping referring to the 12-point agreement is so that I can restart the journey.

What is the role of the army in Nepal today?

Advertisement

Historically the army has always worked with the political leadership respecting the country’s constitution and legal provisions. It has also managed to internalize and understand the tremendous political change that Nepal has undergone. The proposed changes that I want to bring on issues of nationalism and federalism, even in those issue or in my effort to build good and strong relations with both India and China, I am confident of getting the army’s support and cooperation.

Is it fair to say Prachanda in his second stint as Prime Minister has become more pragmatic?

You can say I have become more mature. Earlier there was a lot of revolutionary-romanticism and subjectivism or you may call it idealism. It took me 10 years to understand the dynamics of war and peace. Now I understand that dynamics as well as that of competitive politics. Now I can confidently claim that I have that understanding to take the peace process forward and with maturity.

Advertisement

What about the Maoist rank-and-file. How do they react?

It must be remembered that we had not brought the Maoist cadres from war to the peace process after educating them properly or after subjecting them to the debates. They only had trust on the leadership. Whenever a decision was taken hundreds and thousands of cadres obeyed the decision taken by the senior leadership and followed instructions. They had faith the leadership would take them to the right place. But once the peace process began their original dream about a revolution got a jolt and this led to a lot debate and confusion. Though, I was clear about my strategy having reached that stage after making compromises to achieve a comprehensive peace agreement. I tried to convince the cadres as well as those who were in jail about my line. When we started talking about integrating the armed cadres and managing the ammunition etc there was a lot of debate. Many felt I had destroyed the revolution. The ensuing confusion led to a split in the party.

Advertisement

But as I begin my second stint as Prime Minister you can say almost all the Maoist groups have re-united again. This is an unique achievement in the communist movement, not only in South Asia but even internationally. Under my leadership we launched the war, it was under my leadership that the peace process began, under my leadership the party had split and again under my leadership we have re-united and are now once more in a position to play the lead role in government formation. This is really unique.

How are your relations with other leaders like Mohan Vaidya and Baburam Bhattarai?

Advertisement

The process to re-unite the party has been on for a long time. Due to differences on some issues Vaidyaji remained outside though, most of his cadres and other leaders have united. But he has begun to think in a more pragmatic and mature manner and I am hopeful that soon we will unite. But Baburamji has declared taking a fundamentally different path. I don’t see the possibility of uniting with him soon. Ideologically there is a big difference between us. However, after a few years he too, will realise that his strategy is not working and it has very little chance of success. I think this will force him to rethink and reassess his position and strategy and return to the path that he had been advocating for the last 35 years. Then we will have a chance to reunite. At a personal level I don’t have any enmity with him and we still to talk to each other.

Advertisement

You were known as ‘Prachanda’, leader of the Maoist rebellion. But now you are in governance and want to build Nepal through other means. By which name would you like to be known?

There has been a debate on this issue and it is also a sensitive question. With the name Prachanda comes the association of the one who wanted to end the miseries and exploitation of all those people in the Madhes, the mountains, Himal and every other marginalized and disenfranchised sections in Nepal. They all knew the name Prachanda, most did not even know my real name Pushpa Kamal Dahal. Though some are now familiar with it after I joined the government, but they don’t feel any involvement with this name. They identify with the name Prachanda as one that is intrinsically a part of their movement and struggle. Even today I think the name Prachanda has relevance and that is why even after becoming Prime Minister I continue to sign my name as Prachanda. It has now become a symbol of social justice, Today I think in the dynamics of war and peace both the names Prachanda and Pushpa Kamal Dahal have become one.

Advertisement

Nepal continues to suffer from a structural political problem, it does not have a Prime Minister who can stay in office for long. A new leader is elected frequently in that post making it difficult for others like India or China to seriously engage with a Prime Minister as they are not sure how long he can survive in office. Do you think this to be a major problem?

I acknowledge this to be a major problem but in our political system I think this threat will remain for some more years. That is why at the political level we will have to learn the culture of coalition. Though I personally believe that whoever is elected as Prime Minister should be allowed to serve full five-year term and run the government the way he wants. But there is no support for this from the majority and therefore, we need to build consensus and get used to the culture of coalition politics. Even today I am making efforts to take everyone along and build a coalition culture. I think if there is good governance, employment generation and economic progress and development then people will realise its benefit and continue to support the leadership that has succeeded in delivering on its promise.

Advertisement

You have said that this tenure of yours as the Prime Minister may be your last chance. What did you mean by that?

The position of our party in parliament is not like what it was earlier when we had a majority. Moreover, ten years have already passed in the peace process. So the expectations people had which led them to choose me once again as the Prime Minister is because of trust and expectation of delivery. Perhaps Prachanda will be able to deliver, they say and therefore I see this as a challenge. This could well be my last opportunity. If I can fulfill on the promise I may be able to go far. This means if I can make a difference in the lives of those marginalized and disenfranchised people then they will have renewed faith in my leadership. But if I falter again in delivering what I promised I may not get another chance. I am already 63 years of age and it will be difficult for me to get another chance. That is why I need the support and cooperation of everyone who had significantly supported the peace process. I think the situation demands mutual support and cooperation so that both Nepal and INdia can move forward in an atmosphere of trust and confidence. This is what the essential requirement is in our relationship.

Advertisement

Tags

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement