Submit your Article

In custody, Ramraja Prasad Singh was asked of his whereabouts during the 40 days he was underground. He was also taken to meet King Mahendra, after which zonal administrator Bishnu Mani Acharya issued an order to jail him for two and half years. But he was then again taken to the palace. There, he was told to apologize, in which case he would be pardoned. Singh was even told that he would get a position of power. King Mahendra told him: “I’ve found you to be a suitable Madhesi candidate for the post of prime minister. But you please support me.”

But Singh rejected the offer, emphasizing he was ‘not for sale’. Obviously, that made the king angry, so Singh was again jailed. The king was by then convinced that the graduate candidates were unwilling to abide by the Panchayat rule.

Singh appealed before the Supreme Court for him acquittal from treason charges. On knowing that, King Mahendra pardoned him and he was then conferred oath of office as a member of Rastriya Panchayat. But before long, he was again expelled from the house, this time on the charge of ‘contempt of Rastriya Panchayat’. Indira Shrestha was appointed in his place.

In August 1972, Rastriya Panchayat members Krishna Prasad Bhandari and Prakash Chandra Lohani were arrested for giving speeches against the regime at Itumbahal. Both were jailed for 17 months. Former Prime Minister Surya Bahadur Thapa was also arrested for speaking on the same occasion; he did time for 14 months. King Mahendra had died few months before that. When he was alive, he was getting increasingly worried about graduate elections as it had already become a thorn in the ruler’s flesh.

Mahendra’s successor Birendra had been schooled in Darjeeling, gone to college in Britain and then to Harvard for some time. He had also been to Japan for training. The foreign-educated king was expected to ensure the representation of more educated members in Rastriya Panchayat. People thought he would relax the Panchayat rule somewhat, pinning their hope on his foreign exposure and education.

In 1975, work was underway to amend the constitution and liberalize the Panchayat regime a bit. But then Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi imposed emergency in India, giving fuel to Nepal’s authoritarians. They started arguing: “The parliamentary system has proved to be a curse in India. Otherwise the prime minister wouldn’t impose an emergency there. We should learn and refrain frombecoming liberal.”

Actually, as Rupchandra Bista termed it, the provision of graduate elections were eating up the Panchayat regime as dissidents were using them to weaken the regime. The rulers would not allow that. Through the constitution amendment of 12 December 1975, the provision was scrapped.

Angered by the treatment of the palace and Panchayat stalwarts, Ramraja Prasad Singh resorted to armed revolt by opening a party named Janawadi Morcha Nepal. Around midday on 19 June 1985, he launched coordinated bomb blasts in the Kathmandu Valley: near Narayanhiti Royal Palace in Durbarmarg, and at the gate of Singhadurbar. The latter killed Rastriya Panchayat member Dambar Jung Gurung and comptroller Bishnu Dawadi. Other members Janak Bahadur Shah, Deep Bahadur Singh, and Bholaman Singh Thapa were injured. The bomb that went off at the lobby of Annapurna Hotel in Durbarmarg killed one and injured two dozen people, including four foreigners.

Singh once again came into spotlight. The Panchayat regime got angrier with him and the Supreme Court handed him ‘death sentence’. He took refuge in India. After the restoration of democracy in the country, Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala granted him amnesty on 15 July 1991. Deputy chair of Singh’s Morcha, Khemraj Bhatta Mayalu, became a member of parliament from Nepali Congress.

Singh remained inactive until the country turned into a republic. The erstwhile Maoist party had wanted to make him the first president of republican Nepal, acknowledging his early fight for the republican system. The party fielded him as its candidate for the presidential election in July 2008. He lost to Dr. Ram Baran Yadav of Nepali Congress .The article marks the end of the ‘Vault of History’ series. Thapa will soon return with a new column
on history. 

The anti-Panchayat wave seen during the 1971 graduate elec­tions was enough to unsettle the palace. King Mahendra feared dissenters entering the Rastriya Pan­chayat and making things difficult. Vote counting was then stopped, only to be resumed 35 days later after criticism from all quarters. Prime Minister Kirti Nidhi Bista gave a speech calling for a stop to the dis­senters’ march into the parliament. He was not in a mood to allow vote counting and pressed Chief Elec­tion Commissioner Purna Prasad Brahman to act accordingly. But Brahman refused to comply as he favored free and fair elections.Brahman was then summoned to the palace. He somehow con­vinced the king that Ramraja Prasad Singh could not win. Vote counting started only after that. Erstwhile Secretary of Election Commission Laxman Rimal writes: “Ballot boxes were brought to the City Hall... Vote counting continued throughout the night. Somebody tried to cut off the power. I had arranged for lan­terns anticipating disturbances... So the plot of rigging counts in darkness was foiled. The chief commissioner was able to conduct free and fair polls keeping undue influences at bay.”

Prayagraj Singh Suwal obtained most votes, followed by Ramraja Prasad Singh in the second, Krishna Prasad Bhandari in the third, and Prakash Chandra Lohani in the fourth positions. The results were declared from the City Hall itself. Lohani had then announced: “Unless polls are based on adult franchise, I will not accept a min­isterial post.” It so happened that he became a minister only in 1983 when Rastriya Panchayat elections started to be held based on adult franchise. After vote counting, chief commissioner Brahman did not enter the office of Election Com­mission. He was under great pres­sure from the king and the prime minister. On 10 August 1971, the palace issued a notice that Brahman had resigned from his post imme­diately after the results were out. But instead of simple resignation it looked more like an angry ‘dismissal’ from the palace.

Among the graduate winners, only Suwal turned out to be a Panchayat supporter. He was considered an influential leader of Nepali Con­gress and had also served six years in prison. Maybe his prominent political personality was counted when he was appointed minister for health as well as infrastructure and transport through a cabinet reshuf­fle of 16 April 1972. Generally, in the Panchayat government, one was inducted as an assistant minister and gradually promoted to minister. But in Suwal’s case, a precedent was set when he was appointed a minis­ter right at the beginning.

King orders arrest

Although the election results were out and Ramraja Prasad Singh was one of the winners, the Panchayat regime was plotting to prevent him from taking the oath of office. After all, he had gone underground after the polls. The administration was determined to track him down and arrest him.

On the day of the oath, youth lead­ers of Nepali Congress put him in a taxi and dramatically took him to Singhadurbar. Police had deployed additional patrol units to nab him. They were trying to prevent him from entering Singhadurbar at any cost. But he was already seated at the lobby of Rastriya Panchayat, and his presence came as a shock to then State Minister for Home Jog Mehar Shrestha. Inside the house, Panchayat supporters started clam­oring to forestall dissenters’ oath. They blamed Singh of being a traitor. Yet Singh remained at his ease, unaf­fected by the uproar.

Chairman of Rastriya Panchayat Rajeshwor Devkota refused to con­fer on him the oath of office, stating that it raised a constitutional ques­tion. So the police entered the house and arrested Singh. House secre­tary informed that the arrest under­taken ‘on the orders of the king himself’. Curiously, seven Rastriya Panchayat members had stood in support of Singh O

Next week’s Vault of History will dis­cuss 1985 bombings at Singhdurbar and Durbarmarg, and death sentence against Ramraja Prasad Singh

Before elections, Ramraja Prasad Singh, Shankar Ghimire, and Nirmal Lama were already a nuisance for the Panchayat regime. Rishikesh Shah became the new troublemaker post-elections. In the Rastriya Panchayat, he started talking about rule of law. He demanded that the government be accountable to the people through the legislative, not to the king. His demand for an ‘opposition bench’ in the parliament rang alarm bells in the palace. For even the thought of opposition was inconsistent with the Panchayat ideal. Shah even gave a memo to King Mahendra demanding direct public elections to the Rastriya Panchayat.
Evidently, King Mahendra didn’t like that. He had appointed Shah to the posts of permanent representative to the United Nations, foreign minister, and finance minister. The king had even made him a member of the Royal Privy Council, which was more powerful than the Rastriya Panchayat. So it was natural for the king to be unhappy with Shah. He was sent to prison for criminal offence on 10 July 1969. The court released him
a year later.
The election of graduates gave a clear message: “Educated and intellectual people are against Panchayat.” The four members elected under this provision became more influential than the 121 Panchayat supporters in the house. The palace and the Panchayat regime could not restrain them. It boosted the morale of the liberals and discouraged the conservatives. The third elections of graduates was scheduled for 8 June 1971 where more of the radical youths had filed candidacy. Ramraja Prasad Singh was one of them. Twenty-two candidates including Rishikesh Shah, Ramhari Joshi, Krishna Prasad Bhandari, Shankar Ghimire, Rupchandra Bista, Prakash Chandra Lohani, Prayagraj Singh Suwal, Birendra Keshari Pokharel were running for the four seats.
Many of the candidates had links with Nepali Congress. Most of them were fighting against the state control of fundamental rights, and pushing for direct elections to the parliament. Singh had already left a mark in the previous elections. He had also pleaded before the court in favor of arrested student leaders of Nepali Congress, which brought him closer to the party’s youth wing.
For his second campaign, Singh had drafted an even fiercer electoral manifesto. Calling King Mahendra’s move of 15 December 1960 undemocratic and unconstitutional, he said the year before that under Nepali Congress was a ‘golden age’ for the country. Naturally, Congress got interested in him. His manifesto was termed revolutionary. Rajendra Kharel, Haribol Bhattarai, Anar Singh Karki, and other Congress leaders openly supported him.
The candidacy of Krishna Prasad Bhandari was also not to the liking of the Panchayat regime. The Panchayat wanted to ensure, by all means, that dissenters got defeated. According to the erstwhile secretary of Election Commission Laxman Rimal, civil servants were given written orders: “Don’t cast your votes to the dissenters, you can vote for anyone else.” Rimal, however, says he didn’t himself see these notes (Biteka Ti Dinharu, 2012).
From Congress, socialist leader Ramhari Joshi was a candidate, and his manifesto also opposed the Panchayat regime. “The king should not rule directly. For, if there is any mistake in governance, the blame goes to the king. To save the king from such blame, the country should be run by a government elected through adult franchise. In that case, the government would be blamed for everything that goes wrong, not the king,” he wrote in his manifesto. (Atmakatha tatha Nepali Congress sanga Gasiyeka Samjhanaharu, Ramhari Joshi, 2010)
Rupchandra Bista, the famous non-conventional leader of the Panchayat era, was also a candidate for the graduate elections. “This election for graduates is a small hole in the big wall that goes by the name of Panchayat. I am here to scream out from that small hole,” he had said. (Himal Khabarpatrika, July 1999)
Ghimire, Joshi, and Bista were arrested shortly after the elections. Ramraja Prasad Singh went
underground O
Next week’s Vault of History will discuss the disturbances created during vote-counting following the third graduate elections

The second elections of Ras­triya Panchayat created prob­lems for the Panchayat regime as some political enthusiasts had entered the electoral fray with dem­ocratic agenda.The second graduate elections were scheduled for May 1967. The month leading to the polls was filled with anticipation. Among the contestants were people like Rishikesh Shah, Ramraja Prasad Singh, Bashudev Dhungana, Nirmal Lama, Shankar Ghimire, Birendra Keshari Pokharel, and Prayag Raj Singh Suwal.

Shah was among the framers of the Panchayat constitution but had gotten fed up with the Panchayat regime a few years after the constitu­tion’s promulgation. The palace had kept him at bay.

During the second graduate elec­tions, most conspicuous was the rise of Ramraja Prasad Singh. He did not have a political background and he wasn’t a known figure. He was pur­suing a legal career, having obtained an advocate’s license three years earlier and then running a law firm at Putalisadak in Kathmandu. Out of the blue, he filed candidacy for the polls with a two-page electoral manifesto entitled “Elect Ramraja Prasad Singh. Here is why.”

In an electoral rally at Battisputa­li in Kathmandu, he said: “King Mahendra orchestrated a coup in 1960. The challenge is upon us to fight that coup. Every revolution has to go through phases. You tell the people that something wrong has happened. You tell them that it wasn’t good and should be cor­rected. But you need a legitimate platform from where you can tell the people. That is called ‘repre­sentation’.” (Ganatantraka Laagi Sangharsha, Ramraja Prasad Singh’s autobiography published in 2010)

That was a highly-charged speech calling for educating the people, taking out rallies and, if that didn’t work, starting an armed revolt against the regime. Obviously, the Panchayat regime could not tolerate such bold words—and that was just his first speech!

When he delivered the speech in English, the Panchayat support­ers began to hoot against him. It brought Singh into notice and the administration put him under sur­veillance. The police had come to arrest him immediately, but they couldn’t recognize him as he was still an unknown face. He then went to the Tarai, hiding from the author­ities. The police eventually did nab him in Mahottari, and his candidacy was cancelled. He was later released on bail.

Nepali Congress showed an inter­est in the 1967 elections as well. Shankar Ghimire, who was close to the party, was a candidate. He too had an electoral agenda of ‘resto­ration of democracy’. But he, along with Nirmal Lama, was arrested before the polls.

The Election Commission sud­denly announced that elections were postponed. It also published a notice that dissenters were barred from contesting. Former general secretary of Nepali Congress Bish­wa Bandhu Thapa, who had then gone into the Panchayat fold, was arrested as he was planning to issue a statement that the action breached people’s fundamental right of con­testing elections. Congress leader Surya Prasad Upadhyay, who was considered close to Panchayat, was also arrested. Surya Bahadur Thapa was the prime minister at that time.

The election of graduates was rescheduled three months later, on 25 August 1967. Of the 24 candidates who contested this time, Bashudev Dhungana, Birendra Keshari Pokha­rel, Rishikesh Shah, and Prayag Raj Sing Suwal were elected.

Next week’s Vault of History will discuss the third elections of Rastri­ya Panchayat where pro-democratic leaders had further tussles with the Panchayat regime

 Although Nepal this year has fared better in Transparency International’s ratings and climbed up its list of least corrupt countries, the country remains in the red zone. By getting 34 out of 100 ranking points, Nepal is 113th among 180 countries. The TI cate­gorizes countries with less than 43 marks as corrupt. The TI’s ‘Corruption Perception Index’ is considered a credible global rating, with foreign investors, consultants, and contractors closely tracking it. Clean companies choose less corrupt countries. Ailing and corrupt ones look for places where they can manipulate politicians and bureaucrats. Commission agents who have good contacts with such unscrupulous contractors and con­sultants come into play.

This corrupt nexus is the rea­son big projects involving foreign consultants and contractors suffer. Their budget keeps rising but works never get done on time. Contractors run away, work is sub-standard, and unscrupulous parties are spared punishment. But the TI ranking does not consider such contractors and consultants.

Be it Kaligandaki or Melam­chi, Middle-Marsyangdi or Sikta, big projects face many crisis. The Kulekhani-3 hydro, which was to be ready within three years, took 11 years for completion. Upper Tama­koshi is already three years behind; it is 98 percent complete, the con­tractor’s wrongdoing stalls the rest of the work. The delay adds a daily cost of Rs 50 million on state coffers.

The initial cost estimate of the Middle-Marsyangdi hydropower was Rs 13.65 billion (174 million euro). The German government had pledged 128 million euros in grant and Nepal government had to pitch in only 46 million euros. Nepal was happy, and the project took off. But then, because of variation order, contractor claims, inflation, exchange rate changes, and added interests due to delays, the cost increased by Rs 14.4 billion. The grant amount did not change but Nepal’s share leaped from 46 million to 190 million euros.

On the other hand, the contractor of Melamchi ran away when the drinking water project was about to be completed. The contractor of Tanahu hydro followed suit.

Most projects meet with similar fate. But nobody seems to question the roles of the political actors and bureaucracy in them. Nobody seems to be concerned about the roles of foreign consultants and contractors. No one ever tries to figure out: “Why do contractors abandon projects in the middle?”

The government has announced ‘zero tolerance’ on corruption, which buttresses the slogan of ‘Pros­perous Nepal and Happy Nepali’. But the government has to con­stantly grapple with multiplying project costs, perennial delays, and inability of state mechanism to spend capital money. Six months into the fiscal year, the government can make only 13 percent capital expenditure. Frequent transfers of project chiefs and accountants due to consultant-contractor ploys and political interest is one big reason.

Despite the government’s liberal policy, spending in productive sec­tors is declining. Factories are clos­ing down. Investors complain of government red-tape, unsupportive attitude of officials, corruption, and bribery. They say they have to ‘buy’ even the rights enshrined in the law. This discourages investors.

Not only does corruption hinder economic development, it also cre­ates unequal societies. Money gets piled up with a handful people, while the poor get poorer. But there is another consequence of it: The money earned through corruption travels abroad. It drains national capital. The trend of accumulating money and taking it abroad started from the time of Rana Prime Minis­ter Bir Shumsher when the rulers used to transfer Nepal’s vast riches to India and Britain. The practice got institutionalized and it continues till date. Businessmen and their allies in high offices siphon off black money to foreign lands via hundi. Black money earned in Nepal is exchanged for money earned abroad by migrant workers, which they keep there.

In 2002, the CIAA started taking action against public officials who lived lavishly but were unable to show a credible source of income. That encouraged corrupt officials to keep properties in the names of family members or to ferry them abroad.

The Transparency International Index shows that the most corrupt countries are also the poorest. Con­trolling corruption is the first con­dition for economic prosperity. For corruption breeds underground and parallel economies. The fate of our development projects, industries, and government-owned enterprises is a good indicator of this.

Nepal suffers from both big and petty corruptions. Big-scale corrup­tion is institutional, and associated with big infrastructure projects, aircraft purchase, project licensing, equipment purchase, leasing out government land, among others. To avoid investigation, these decisions are made by council of ministers. Petty-scale corruption is seen in police and administrative officials, as bribes are sought from service seekers at labor, land revenue, immigration, and transport offices.

This is not something we want. There will be good governance in the country only when it is corrup­tion-free. And only then will Nepal prosper O

The author is the Editor-in-Chief of Annapurna Post and frequently writes on corruption

The party-less Panchayat regime had adopted a policy of attracting educated men and women into politics by reserving four seats in the Rastriya Panchayat for university graduates. In the 125-strong parliament, 90 would be elected from zonal panchayats and 15 from class-based organizations. The king used to nominate another 16. At least four more of the elected MPs would be bachelor’s
degree-holders.

In its early days, the Panchayat system had four tiers of government: villages/towns, districts, zones, and the Rastriya Panchayat at the top. Holders of bachelor’s degree would contest direct first-past-the-post elections, whereas others fought indirect elections or were nominated for the post. For the graduate seats, not only the candidates but the voters were also required to have a bachelor’s degree from a university or similar
educational institution.
A total 105 members of the Rastriya Panchayat were indirectly elected, after going through the successive village/town, district, and zone levels. Only members of zonal panchayats qualified to be Rastriya Panchayat members. So elections for the Rastriya Panchayat was held among the limited members of zonal panchayats. This provision also applied to the class-based organizations.
But the bachelor’s degree-holders were allowed to contest direct elections. A month prior to the poll, an election officer was appointed, also a bachelor’s degree-holder. The officer would supervise, control, and direct the preparation of voters’ list. The officer would also designate a polling station. Salaried government employees did not qualify as candidates but they could cast a vote as government employees above the officer level were also university graduates.
The graduate provision was a unique experiment in the Panchayat system. The indirect elections for 105 seats didn’t ignite much excitement. Only the loyal Panchas were involved there. On the other hand, politically conscious enthusiasts entered the fray for university graduate seats. The contest gave a different vibe to national politics.
There used to be only limited voters in the zonal panchayats. The contestants were chosen on the orders of the zonal administrator who took orders from the palace. Votes had to be cast as ordered. For the graduate contestants, neither the palace nor the zonal administrator had much influence. While other contestants made rounds to the zonal administrators to curry their favor, the graduates toured the country accompanied by educated men and women. They visited different districts for a month looking for university graduates, meeting them, and handing out election
manifestos and pamphlets.
One sad thing about the provision was that the prospective candidates had to pledge ‘allegiance to the party-less system’ while filing their candidacy. After signing the candidacy paper, they were considered to have come into the party-less fold. Upon election, they had to take oath of ‘complete loyalty to the king and his successors’.
The graduate elections were held thrice—in March 1963, August 1967 (the April elections were postponed), and May 1971. The constitution was amended and the fourth elections did not happen. Panchayat supporters had by then concluded that the anti-Panchayat elements were misusing
this provision.
The first graduate elections in 1963 were held to little fanfare. Nepali Congress members were not interested as the party was pursuing armed revolt at the time. However, Nagendra Prasad Singh, who was close to Nepali Congress, contested the election. Advocate Krishna Prasad Dhungana, who was close to the communist party, had also filed candidacy. There were only a few other contestants. The candidacy of Singh and Dhungana got some attention due to their political backgrounds. The first time, Kumar Das Shrestha and Ramji Prasad Sharma got elected besides Singh and
Dhungana O
Next week’s ‘Vault of History’ will discuss emergence of some pro-democratic and pro-republic leaders through graduate constituencies

Running the government was not an easy task for Tulsi Giri who had been out of power for 11 years. On 9 September 1977, Prime Minister Giri was planning to meet a Japanese delegation after receiving Yugoslav ambassador at Singha Durbar, who had paid him a courtesy visit. Right at that time he was informed that the cabinet had been dissolved.

The palace notice shocked Giri. As if the dismissal was not enough, the palace later dragged him into a corruption case when, in 1978, he was charged on a ‘carpet scam’. The palace had in 1975 formed the Commission for Control of Abuse of Authority to control high-level corruption and the carpet case was its first: 91 bigwigs including politicians, businessmen, and bureaucrats were implicated.
Following the incident, Giri became disillusioned with the Panchayat regime. But a conservative section of Panchayat used to adore him and wanted him to stay in politics. With the announcement of referendum in 1979, conservative Panchas brought him back into active politics. He gave stirring speeches at public rallies in support of Panchayat. But he also said he was victim of conspiracy and was ready to be hanged if corruption charges against him were proven.
During the Panchayat regime, Giri was projected as a firebrand politician. In the referendum rallies, he used to say, “If the King so orders, we Panchas should be willing even to put on a saree.”

On 14 May 1980, when the result of the referendum was published, Giri made a surprise announcement of quitting active politics. He said he had taken ‘political retirement’ as he wanted to live a peaceful civilian life. Many did not buy it. After all, city walls were still wet with the slogan, “Giri is the mother of Panchayat system.”
Three years after his ‘retirement’, Giri gave a famous speech on 16 December 1983: “I am worried that the party-less system is under threat. But I will keep fighting for its longevity.” In 1985, the country was geared for year-long celebration of the silver jubilee of Panchayat system. Giri was made the coordinator of the celebrations but left the country for good before the celebrations ended.
Many interpreted Giri’s leave as a case of sulking as he was no longer in a position of power. Out of the country, he was gradually slipping into anonymity. But still some people went to meet him during his 19 years spent between Sri Lanka and India’s Bangalore. The message they carried back was: “Giri will never return to politics.” It served as a useful reference for people to criticize those who clung to power: “They better learn from Giri.”
On 1 February 2005 when King Gyanendra took over, he thought of using the same people whom his father Mahendra trusted. He appointed himself the chairman of the council of ministers, and chose Giri and Kritinidhi Bista for the two vice-chairmen’s posts.
The palace regarded Giri as a ‘sharp horse’ and Bista as a man of morality. But Gyanendra failed to realize that the once ‘sharp horse’ had now grown senile. Giri was already 78 when he was appointed cabinet vice-chairman.
Giri used to say he was a man without ideology, from the start of the Panchayat era till the February 1 royal coup. Addressing reporters after assuming office following the coup, he said, “My personal opinions are not important. I surrendered my opinions to the king way back in 1960.”
In fact, one can call him an ‘extremist’—in religion and in politics. In each case, he jumped from one end to the other. He was involved with the Hindu ‘Swayamsevak Sangh’ in India, a Hindu nationalist militant group, in his
early years.
He later ditched Hinduism to take up Christianity. Once an opponent, he turned into a staunch supporter of monarchy. From one extreme, he easily went to another. This ‘flexible’ politician died on 18 December 2018, aged 93 O
Next week’s ‘Vault of History’ will discuss the Panchayati-era system of picking four MPs to the national legislature from among Bachelors’ degree holders.

The Nepali New Year’s Day 2028 (14 April 1971) brought joy to Tulsi Giri. It was the day King Mahendra nominated him a mem­ber of the Rastriya Panchayat. But Giri’s happiness was short-lived. Mahendra’s successor, King Biren­dra, did not like Giri. So, on 9 Octo­ber 1972, King Birendra forced him to quit Rastriya Panchayat. Nonetheless, the palace did not want to drive the ‘sharp horse’ away, as it could later be put to use. A little later, Birendra appointed Giri his personal ‘political adviser’ where­upon he became entitled to state perks equivalent to a minister.

In 1975, the constitution was being amended to introduce liberal reforms to the Panchayat rule and in order to bring the Subarna Shum­sher panel of Nepali Congress into the Panchayat fold. But right then Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi imposed a state of emergency and curtailed democratic rights. On 11 June 1975, she had Indian political leaders arrested.

Developments in India gave strength to Nepal’s conservatives who started asking, ‘If democratic India can be so illiberal, why should we be liberal?’ So the palace drafted a conservative constitution even though the recommendations it received were overwhelmingly in favor of liberal reforms. When it needed the right candidate to implement the conservative consti­tution, Giri was appointed the prime minister in a surprise announce­ment on 30 November 1975, 10 days before the constitution’s promulgation.

That day, Giri was getting his car fixed at a workshop when he got a message from home: “Call the palace secretary.” He did, and was told to go to the palace imme­diately. He hurried to the palace in a safari suit and sandals. King Birendra sent him to cloud nine by telling him that he was the new prime minister. Rejoiced, Giri pre­sented ‘daam’ (token) to the king. Then, King Birendra issued a stern warning: “I will not spare you if you trouble me as you troubled my father.”

Giri’s joy instantly turned into horror, for ‘sword’ and ‘palace’ were considered to come together, as epitomized in the saying: “Jasko Tarwar Uskai Darbar” (He who owns the sword also owns the palace).

Meanwhile, Bishwabandhu Thapa had been active in politics since 1966, proposing liberal reforms in the Panchayat rule. When his pro­posal was rejected, he resigned as Rastriya Panchayat member. He was about to make a statement against the Panchayat rule when he was arrested and sent to Nakkhu Jail on the midnight of 13 May 1967. His political colleague Surya Bahadur Thapa was the prime minister at the time. The inci­dent established that there was no permanent foe or friend in politics. Thapa would spend four months in jail.

He was later appointed the chair­man of Gau Farka Rastriya Abhi­yan (Return to Village National Campaign) in 1969. While in office, he wished to be a Rastriya Panchayat member and went to Chitwan to contest election, where he was defeated right at the ward level. Back then, a Rastriya Pan­chayat member had to win elec­tions at village and district lev­els as well. He then resigned as the chairman of Gau Farka on moral grounds.

Five years later, Thapa was again appointed the chairman of Gau Farka. In the run up to Janamat San­graha (referendum) of 1980, he quit Panchayat rule and started support­ing multi-party system. He returned to the Panchayat fold again in 1983. In his later years, he was limited to the role of heading the Panchayat’s ‘Elder’s Club’. Despite being at the forefront of the Panchayat regime, he couldn’t get the coveted prime minister’s post, largely due to his flickering loyalty.

Next week’s ‘Vault of History’ will discuss corruption charges against Tulsi Giri and his disillusionment with the Panchayat rule