— TARANATH RANABHAT

Speaker of House of Representatives TARANATH RANABHAT is the only remaining elected representative of the parliament. When almost all members of his Nepali Congress (NC) party colleagues have given up century-old stand for national reconciliation, speaker Ranabhat have shown strong commitments towards the policy pursued by B.P. Koirala. Ranabhat spoke with KESHAB POUDEL and SANJAYA DHAKAL at his office in the House of Representatives regarding his political stand. Excerpts:

How do you see the political situation at present?

Trade activities : Source of revenue
Well, the political situation is in a very crucial stage. Nepal had not faced such a dangerous situation ever before. All the political forces are prisoners of indecision and the gap of mistrust among them has widened. There is a crisis of confidence among them. I have never experienced the situation like now in my political career. Instead of solving the political problems, they are becoming more and more complex.

When your party colleagues seem to have forgotten the importance of national reconciliation, you have been consistently defending it. Is it something you have faith in or is it only a political stunt?

What I have been speaking in the public is based on my inner commitments towards national reconciliation propounded by our great leader B.P. Koirala. I am a self-made politician. Three generations in my family have sacrificed for the cause of democracy. Even if I am alone, I will not abandon my conviction on national reconciliation.

Why do you see national reconciliation as so important?

In the context of Nepal , there are no other alternatives other than reconciliation. If we want to see independent Nepal , we must accept the presence of constitutional monarchy. Only our debate can be – whether the King should be autocrat or not and whether to compromise with the active monarch or not. There is a section of people who want to see active monarchy. Such people have clear agenda of extracting benefits in the name of active monarchy. There is another section of people that wants to teach a lesson to the King by pressing him to bow down before them. These both sections of people have similar intentions, as they want to weaken the monarchy for their own benefit. Both ideas are absolutely wrong. Whatever the circumstances, I cannot imagine the country without constitutional monarchy.

How do you view the stand of Nepali Congress now?

I think Nepali Congress has lost its identity by giving up its century-old stand on constitutional monarchy and multi-party democracy. Even in past situations when then King had taken all kinds of actions to demoralize it, Nepali Congress did not give up its stand on constitutional monarchy. We firmly stood behind monarchy when King Tribhuwan took refuge in India . The continuity of institution of monarchy as well as the prestige and glory of the institution is important for us. In true sense, institution of monarchy is emotional unifying factor of Nepal and it is an institution of national unity. Whatever the situation we face, our party firmly held this view. After amending the party statute, we seem to have forgotten these vital aspects of monarchy.

After the amendment of the statute, what does your party stand for now?

Following the amendment, our position now looks like that of other communist parties. What makes us different than other political parties including Maoists? It looks no different than other irresponsible political parties. I have different values and commitments towards the institution of monarchy. I firmly believe that Nepal does not have any alternative other than to follow constitutional monarchy and multi-party democracy. I wish Nepali Congress would correct its mistake and deviation. I don’t want the active King. We have to be vigilant whether King is moving towards the direction of active monarchy or not.

In your recent public meeting, you said don’t want to do politics by climbing over the shoulder of the King but rather do it by carrying King on your shoulder. What do you mean by it?

Present cabinet ministers are doing politics by climbing the King’s shoulder as they don’t have to take any responsibility for the actions of the King. Instead of that, I want to do politics carrying King on shoulder taking all responsibilities of the actions taken in the name of the King. The King is safe and secure on our shoulders rather than in company of the politicians who do politics climbing on his shoulder. There are many democratic forces in Nepal but Nepali Congress has its own identity and stand. Ours is the only party with time-tested faith and commitments towards constitutional monarchy. Other parties and individuals do not have such firm commitments. Many of the persons in present cabinet put all the blames on the King when they are summoned to take responsibility for the actions committed by them. Frankly speaking, the communists do not have any faith in constitutional monarchy and multi-party democracy since they are in their grand strategy of ‘using the system.’ This is not my accusation against them. What I am honestly saying is their own philosophy. Even regarding this constitution, the communists have said they only support it along with ‘criticisms.’ For Nepali Congress, the present constitution is the ultimate objective. As long as there was good understanding among our senior leaders, our party was successful. Unfortunately, Ganeshmanji was later isolated as is Kishunji now. Girijababu is also facing similar situation. His own men are trying to isolate him.

How do you see the present situation when two forces are taking opposite stand on the elections?

The government and political parties are on the extreme sides. Of course, everyone likes elections and the election is a way to activate the present constitution. The political leaders in my party with whom I have a long association do not have any negative attitude towards the elections. Their demands only seem to be in the process of holding it. The ruling side announced the elections hoping that parties will be compelled to take part in it. This was their wrong assumption. Had the government announced elections by creating conducive environment by consulting them, the parties would not have boycotted it. Technically and legally, the present government can hold the elections mobilizing all the forces but it will not have political legitimacy. This is the government’s mistake. At a time when there is widespread protests throughout the country, there is no political sense in holding the municipal elections.

Don’t you think political parties can expose fairness and impartiality of the government by participating in the elections?

The thinking of the government side to sideline major political parties is non-political and irresponsible strategy. At a time when the government is already in war with Maoists, widening political gap with major political parties will be unbearable. The opposition parties, too, failed to accept it as a political challenge. Of course, this is a good opportunity to show international community and people and to test their own strength. If all seven agitating political parties had taken part in the election by naming collective candidates, they could have swept the elections. In case the government rigged the elections, parties would have gotten good opportunity to expose the government.

But the seven agitating parties have already announced that they will boycott the elections. How do you look at it?

It is a democratic right of the people to boycott the elections. If one has right to vote, other has right to boycott it. In a peaceful manner, individually and collectively, one can boycott the elections. However, it would be grossly wrong to talk about disrupting the elections. It will be counter productive for the leaders of major political parties to announce the disruption of elections. If they do so, people will see them as anti-democratic. I know that major political parties will not disrupt the elections but their mere announcement would create a situation where certain elements could enter the scene and disrupt the polls making the parties unpopular.

How do you see the overwhelming gathering of people in the rallies of the political parties as well as the King?

I see crowd in all political fronts. We can see large crowd in the rallies organized by seven parties. We can see the same people in the King’s meeting. Except some diehard supporters and workers, almost all the people who come to attend the rallies and royal visit are from the same stock. You cannot judge popularity on the basis of head count in the program. Our people are traditional. There is no single meanings of this gathering. Nobody can claim they are the force behind them. In fact, they are the silent majority. They have strong commitments towards democracy.

It was widely reported about two years ago that the King had offered you the post of prime minister. Was it true?

It is true that the King offered me the position of prime minister. I declined to be a prime minister by vacating the position of Speaker of House of Representatives. In fact, the King had agreed to appoint me as a prime minister keeping the position of Speaker intact. However, when palace officials demanded my resignation to become prime minister, I had to decline the offer. Since then, I started saying that the King and palace are two different things.

How do you see the possibility of revival of the House of Representatives?

The King was very positive towards the demand to revive the House of Representatives when Lokendra Bahadur Chand was prime minister. At that time, the King had even asked me to arrange a meeting with our leader Girija Prasad Koirala to discuss the issue. The King also asked me to fix the venue and date for the meeting with Koirala through prime minister Lokendra Bahadur Chand. When I enthusiastically took this message to Girijababu, he did not make any comment. When Lokendra Bahadur Chand made similar effort, again Girijababu did not respond. The possibility of revival ended when seven party alliances endorsed 18-points agenda with a demand to scrap the royal prerogative.

As the Speaker of House of Representatives, you frequently meet with the King. How do you see his commitments to democracy?

My impression about King Gyanendra is extremely positive. He sincerely expresses his commitments to constitutional monarchy and multi-party democracy and the Constitution of Kingdom of Nepal 1990. I had a conversation with the King along with several senior leaders; King firmly said that he does not have any interest to scrap the constitution and be an active king.

Some of your party leaders and workers openly say that you are defending the institution of monarchy to continue as Speaker of House of Representatives?

(Laughs) This is just a false allegation against me. There are certain vested interest people in our party who even misguide our party leader Girija Prasad Koirala. I have sacrificed whole of my career for the cause of democracy and I am here as a worker of Nepali Congress. If you ask me personally, I am not interested to continue as a Speaker. As long as I am here as a speaker, the demand of my party to revive the House of Representatives will have some meaning. I continue as a speaker because of my leader Girija Prasad Koirala’s suggestion.

How do you see the demand of your party leaders about the election of constituent assembly?

If this constitution is scrapped, a liberal party like Nepali Congress will be the first victim. As I have mentioned earlier, followers of active monarchists and republican communists will be the happiest ones to see the back of this constitution. I don’t think constituent assembly will bring a better constitution than the present one.