‘ India has lost its ground in Nepal because of their own wrong policy’ - - PRAKASH KOIRALA

http://www.nepalnews.com/contents/2007/englishweekly/spotlight/dec/dec14/interview.php

PRAKASH KOIRALA, son of the legendary leader, B.P. Koirala, is a politician with years of experience in turbulent Nepali politcs. Koirala had been elected twice to the House of Representatives in the past. He became a minister in King Gyanendra's government also. He is in spotlight lately for the talks he had had with top Maoist leaders for what the latter see as an attempt to forge a unity among the nationalists. Koirala spoke to KESHAB POUDEL on Monday afternoon at his residence in Galfutar. Excerpts:

So, what did you discuss with the Maoist leaders? You reportedly met Krishna Bahadur Mahara at least thrice in recent months?

Current political leadership must understand that the country's situation is fluid and anything can happen any time.

How long can you keep on blaming the leadership? Haven't we seen the same thing during Panchayat system, multi party system and the royal regime?

What I am saying here is that all of the leaders have failed including leaders of multi party democracy.

After multi-party democracy, the King took over and he also failed. Now the present leaders are also facing same charges. Why is it so?

If you ask me, why the King failed, my reply would be that he did not fail because of the street agitation. He gave up power under pressure from India and the United States. At the request of Indian special envoy Karan Singh, the King handed over the power. What the King said was that if the international community gives assurance that the situation will improve, he would leave the power. But, the situation has further deteriorated.

But the political parties had been looking for a gesture of reconciliation from the king till the last minute. The king ignored them.

That is completely wrong. Then, as a minister I was asked to start dialogue with Kishunji and Girijabbau. But, what happened has happened. Let’s leave that to history.

Your meeting with the Maoist leaders is shaking politics. What issues did you actually discuss with them?

My relations with Mahara dates back to a long time. We were together in the first parliament in 1993. I had first met Mahara when he was minister and spokesman of the cabinet. He wanted to renew the contact. When I asked him why he wanted to meet me, Mahara replied that our leaders do not know international situation. Thus, he wanted to know the implication of changing international scenario on Nepal. He totally agreed with my assessment.

What was your assessment then?

Ten years ago, India was a lone power in Nepal and it was quite influential. Many countries have entered into the fray now. I don't say it is only America, India and China. There are many other powers now. Why all of a sudden the energy-hungry America entered into Nepal and why their interests have grown in Nepal is not difficult to understand. The simple reason behind the growing American presence here is to contain the rise of China.

What specific issues did you discuss with Mahara?

What Mahara told me was that the Maoists want unity among all nationalist forces scattered in various parts. They see unity among nationalist forces as necessary to prevent political catastrophe. In an obvious reference to India and America, he wanted unity among nationalist forces to contain growing move by foreigners.

Did you meet Prachanda and Dr. Baburam Bhattarai?

No, I met Mahara only.

What kind of nationalists did Mahara mean? Did it also include the King?

It includes everybody including the King. They are also meeting other leaders. Mahara clearly said in his recent interview that if they can form unity with Girija Prasad Koirala, Dr. Shekhar Koirala and Sujata Koirala, why not with Prakash Koirala.

Till a few days ago, they accused Prakash Koirala as a feudal and a King's man? Why is there a sudden change?

All those utterances and remarks were given when they were in jungle and in exile. Now they realize the ground reality. It seems reality has bitten them now.

You were the person who once said that the Maoists were the puppets in the hands of India. You called Maoibaadi as are Raobadi during the prime ministership of P.V. Narsimha Rao. How did Raobadi turn into nationalists now?

It was the statement of twelve years ago. Maoists were pro-Indian so I termed them Raobadi. After joining open politics, Maoist leadership understood the reality. Now I see there is a rise of nationalists. Maoists are clearly divided in two camps. There are pro-Indian groups led by Dr. Baburam Bhattarai or Raobadi and another group is pro-Chinese. There is also a third group, which is pro-Scandinavian. I told Mahra that I don't trust Dr. Bhattarari. There are two lines - pro-Indian and pro-Chinese - that are in majority.

What about Prachanda?

Prachanda is now in the middle path as he is balancing both the sides.

How can you prove your arguments?

In the last one and half years, many Chinese delegations including scholars have visited Nepal. Influential Chinese scholar like Professor Wang even visited Maoist cantonment in Kamidanda. When Maoist leaders met with the Chinese, they complained that Indians were displacing them from terai. Chinese professor Wang said that China knows it. H warned China will be meeting India not in Nepal's terai but on the Mechi Bridge (on Nepal’s eastern border with India’s troubled north-eastern region). Chinese are not coming from Kodari now.

Maoist who waged armed struggle to overthrow monarchy in Nepal and they see the royalists as a feudal force and threat to democracy. Now, they say they want an alliance with nationalist monarchists like you? Don't you think they have betrayed the country in the past by launching war to weaken the monarchy and the state from foreign soil?

They have now realized the international games. They also see Indian moves to displace them from terai.

How can you trust them who have destroyed the statue of Prithivi Narayan Shah, the founder of the Nepali nation?

I don't know whether they met the King or whether the King trusts them. But I trust the Maoists.

What about their relations with the King?

I don't know.

Do you think Maoists now want to save the monarchy?

Yes. Maoists are well aware that it is only the monarchy that can protect them because internationally they will not get support. Maoists know that western countries will not support them.

Do you see any role for the King now?

He has a role to play. Even the international community wants a role for him. They don't want to see the King joining hands with China.

Given the past track record of the Maoists and their relations with India in signing 12 points pact, what is your basis to trust them?

The Maoists accepted India's proposal to sign twelve point agreements and joined the political mainstream when they were desperate to come out of the jungle. They took Indian strategy to come out in public but once they did it the Maoists realized the ground reality. Indians did not tolerate them.

So, had India continued to back the Maoists as in the past, the Maoists would not have disassociated from India?

It is correct. Even my father B.P. Koirala returned from exile in India following the pressure of Indira Gandhi. If this applied to BP, why can't it apply to the Maoists? Once again the reality bites.

How can you compare the Maoists and your father B.P. Koirala who even in his hard days in prison in 1964, had firmly held the view that Nepal needs Kingship arguing that it is necessary to unify Nepal. Koirala in his own diary jail journal writes how country's interest guides him rather than personal disputes? However, Maoists are still demanding the overthrow of the monarchy and the establishment of a republic. How can you compare the Maoists with your father B.P?

I will tell you one thing straight. Again, I am repeating that realty bites. It is biting them. India and America both are biting them. Former US ambassador James Moriarty once told me that the credibility of political leaders had gone down in Nepalese masses whereas the constitutional monarchy was very popular. I asked if there is a coup, what would be your response. He replied that they would support the King. Why did Moriarty say that to me and why, all of a sudden, there was a U-turn. Americans wanted some kind of base. Why they needed such base? Because they are here to contain another rising power, China.

Do you mean that the King did not permit them to open the base?

That is right. If the Indians are toeing American policy in Nepal to contain China, China will teach a big lesson to Indians

Coming back to Nepal, as you used to say in the past that India is a major factor in

Nepal but now is it America which is a key player here?

Along with America, many other countries have also entered into Nepal.

Have you met King Gyanendra recently?

I met him three months ago. He is normal. The King does not want to act.

Almost all political leaders, foreign diplomats and foreign officials said this King is a liar.

I don't believe that. I know this King well. He knows international situation very well. The mistakes of the King are that he wanted to have an independent policy between India and China. This was the reason he proposed China as an observer in SAARC. When the King tried to balance, Americans and Indians started to suspect that the present King to pro-Chinese.

During King Gyanendra's rule, Nepal agreed to permit opening of the Consulate General Office in Birgunj for India, Nepal permitted the Indian embassy to spend money on projects across the country including Terai and agreed to sign extradition treaty. The party-led governments did not dare to do those things which many saw as anti-national. But the king did it.

I don't think that is correct. If the King had made a bargain, he would not have to face such criticisms. What we need to look at is the King's actions and the opposition from the Indian media against the King.

If he was democratic, why did he dismiss elected prime minister and became absolute ruler?

It was the circumstances, which compelled him to act. When the country's constitutional process was derailed, he acted to bring the country on right track. His aim was to bring the country's democratic process back on the track.

But he repeatedly and deliberately ignored the persistent call for reconciliation with the parties. The Americans, the western countries and even Chinese leaders were asking him to reconcile with political parties?

The Americans opposed the King's move when the King denied them from opening some kind of base. Otherwise, Americans had supported the King when he exercised Article 127.

The royal takeover widened the gap between the political forces and the monarchy and made the king unpopular. Didn’t it?

When the King took the step, I was in Mumbai.

Do you think India was not in favor of the King?

That is absolutely right. India was not in favor of the King. Indians were dead against the royal move from the beginning. They were angry with the King because he did not inform them in advance about his drastic step to impose state of emergency. At that time, I was in India and I read many articles and news in Indian media directed against the King. I had never read such low graded articles in Indian media against Nepalese monarch as if he was a pariah.

You keep on saying that in India, what the left hand does the right hand does not know. If that is the case, India's right hand might have been supporting the King, even as the left hand opposed him?

May be. That could be true.

If that is so, why did he take such step and tried to be a leader of a small coterie instead of becoming the monarch of twenty-three million people? His move ultimately tarnished the image of monarchy, bringing it to almost elimination?

We must give him the benefit of doubt. Based on my interactions with him, I find the present King as more democrat than his brother late King Birendra.

Many experts say it was the King's proposal for observer status for China in SAARC, which angered India?

That is not the only reason. Even before the summit, Indian media had vehemently opposed the King's moves. As we know, Indian media cannot write against its national interest. If India had supported the King, Indian media would not have done so.

As you used to say in the past that India is the major player in Nepal and India opposes presence of any outside power in Nepal, do you now mean that America has replaced India in Nepal?

The situation is not like a decade ago when India was the only power. India is there but other international players are also active in Nepal. Even a country like Denmark has its own influence in Nepal. No single international power is in decisive position in Nepal at present. Thanks to the Indians, the UN came to Nepal. Nepal is now no more under the sole grip of India.

What is India's policy towards monarchy?

Nepal has already gone out of Indian grip. Their 60-years-long investment has been like putting water in the sand. The situation now is that Nepalese have become anti-Indian. No Nepali will speak against China. Just now a new regional party has been constituted in terai with the tacit backing from India. It shows that India wants to disintegrate Nepal. Opening up a new regional party in terai is a part of that strategy.

Why is India doing so?

As I said earlier one of India's problems is what its right hand does, left hand does not know. India has lost its ground in Nepal because of their own wrong policy towards Nepal.

What will be the Chinese response to such move?

Chinese have been repeatedly speaking that they will not interfere in the internal affairs of Nepal and that China respect Nepal's sovereignty. The new Chinese ambassador has clearly spelled out that China respects territorial integrity of Nepal. This means China will not tolerate any move to disintegrate Nepal.

How do you find Girjababu now?

Girjababu is nervous. He is worried what will happen after him.

Newspapers often report that you guide Dr. Shekhar Koirala and Sujata these days. What do you say?

They come to visit me. They are my cousins and both of them have their own mind and they don't need my guidance.