Submit your Article

Raj Kishor Yadav is the current head of the six-member Rastriya Janata party-Nepal (RJPN) presidium. The Madhes-based opposition party has 17 seats in the federal lower house, joint third in the legislature with the Samajbadi Party Nepal. The RJPN has been strongly raising the issue of constitution amendment. It has also asked the federal government to come up with a clear stand on the unfolding Kashmir issue and says it rejects the report of the India-Nepal EPGs. To achieve constitution amendment, it is now in merger talks with the Samajbadi Party. Biswas Baral and Kamal Dev Bhattarai caught up with the HoR member from Siraha-4 for insights on these issues.  

What is RJPN’s position on the recent developments in India-administered Kashmir?

It is India’s internal matter. India’s decision to scrap Article 370 of the constitution was endorsed by both its houses, and the Indian President has also authenticated it. Constitutionally and legally, there is now no space for questions. As a neighboring country, we should support India’s official position. When it comes to human rights, it is a global issue that the Indian government has to be sensitive about.

Do you think Nepal should clearly say Kashmir is India’s internal matter?

Yes. As Kashmir has been dealt with within the constitutional framework of India, it would be good if Nepal government comes up with a formal statement acknowledging as much.

You spoke of human rights as a global issue. Shouldn’t Nepal speak up about the human and civil rights of Kashmiris then?

At this point, Nepal government should endorse the decision of its Indian counterpart. If tomorrow a big human rights issue emerges, Nepal could react on the basis of facts on the ground. But till date I have not heard of grave human rights violations in Kashmir.  

Madhes-based parties seem displeased with the final report of the Nepal-India Eminent Persons’ Groups (EPG). Why?

It would be inappropriate to speak about the content of a report that is yet to be made public. Nor has it been submitted to the two governments. Nonetheless, we have had some reservations since the inception of the two EPGs. One reservation was regarding representation in the Nepali EPG. When we talk about Nepal and India, it is not confined to state-to-state relation. In this relation Madhes is always a big factor. We are the citizens who live along the border, and so we are directly affected by the state of our bilateral relation. So there should be representation of Madhes in the EPG. Without this, no report would be true to the ground realities.

But what can you do? The report has already been finalized. There are also allegations that India is promoting you to reject it.

Again, we have had reservations right from the start and I have also spoken about it in the parliament. The report will be acceptable neither to Nepal nor to India. New EPGs should be formed by incorporating the views of the people living along border areas of the two countries. Even if Nepal government accepts the report, we will reject it.

Without knowing what is there in the report, how can you say it is flawed?

If you see the global context, the issue of representation comes up high in political struggles everywhere. In a process that is going to determine our fate, there should be our representation because we have a unique understanding and experience of the issue. It is related to the psychology of people living in border areas. We have better knowledge of it. So a report prepared without our representation would not be in keeping with the ground realities.

Did you communicate your concerns on the EPG with the Indian Minister for External Affairs S Jaishankar during his recent Kathmandu trip?

The issue of EPG did not figure prominently in that meeting. We express our concerns over the EPG with the Nepal government. It is the responsibility of Nepal government to address security and other concerns of its citizens. We believe Nepal government should be more sensitive to our reservations over the EPG. 

In a separate context, currently there seems to be no environment for the amendment of the constitution as per your demand or for another popular uprising in Madhes. What will the RJPN do then?

This constitution is incomplete, as we had been saying even before its promulgation. Now, everyone realizes that there are certain flaws in it that need to be removed. It would good for the country if this issue is addressed without any delay. Mainly, the prime minister should be positive on our demand.  PM Oli assures us that the constitution is a dynamic document and amendable; that it is not something written in stone unlike the Bible or the Koran. It is an urgent matter that is being needlessly delayed. For over a year we supported this government. Later, we did not find a sense of urgency to amend the constitution. We withdrew our support and are now in the opposition bench. We still hope the government takes us seriously. After the prime minister returns from Singapore, we will hold formal talks with him and ask him to amend the constitution, to withdraw cases against our leaders and cadres including against Resham Chaudhary, and to address other issues related to Madhes. If PM Oli and other parties do not listen, we will be compelled to hit the street.

But you don’t have many options, do you?

The understanding that the prime minister is not ready to amend the charter and that Madhes-based parties cannot lead another movement is superficial. First, the seriousness and sensitivity of any issue determines how we move ahead. The prime minister has never rejected our demand of amendment. As far as the concern that we cannot lead another movement is concerned, movements happen as per the demands of time and people. People expect PM Oli to correct himself and his two-third government will be ready to amend the constitution. But they are growing impatient. We will take decisions based on people’s mindset. We are convinced that people will take to the streets if we launch such a movement.

How do you tackle the perception that Madhes-based parties are losing the trust of their constituencies and thus are in no position to lead another Madhes movement?

The way some people see Madhes through Kathmandu’s lenses is biased, and subjective rather than objective. Let’s evaluate the current power balance in the country. The Nepali Congress, the country’s oldest party, does not have a government in a single province; but we have a government in at least one province. We carry the agenda of people so they are always with us. We also have strong organizational base which has been seen in various Madhes movements and during elections. We are also aware that people expect the next Madhes movement to reach to a logical conclusion.

Are you seeking India’s support in constitution amendment?

Constitution drafting and promulgation is an internal matter. Nepal’s government should take all internal stakeholders into confidence. We launched the 2015 Madhes movement and it hit India because of the open border. That is why India expressed its concern with Nepal government. We imposed the blockade. How India dealt with its security issues is not our concern. But when we talk of constitution amendment, India is naturally linked. If you go back to 2008, Nepal government signed an agreement with Madhes-based parties with the Indian ambassador at the time playing the role of a mediator—at the request of Nepal government. The Indian side was involved because the Nepal government sought its presence. Our demands are linked to India in order to attack us and create an illusion. But whenever Nepal government finds itself in trouble, it seeks India’s support.

What is the progress in the merger talks between the RJPN and Samajbadi Party Nepal? It seems like the RJPN wants to elevate itself from a regional party to a national one.

Certainly. We want to accommodate all the oppressed and marginalized people. We should move towards national consolidation, and there is a need for alternative political forces for this. Certainly. It has now been proven that it is difficult to resolve national issues without being a national party. The NCP carries a communist ideology, Nepal Congress is a liberal democratic party and ours will be alternative political party which raises the agenda of social justice and equality.

Various parties and groups have launched separate movements and highlighted underlying issues. But we failed to coalesce those movements into a strong political force capable of addressing all those problems. Now the RJPN should push for unification with likeminded people. We want to initiate unification talks with the Samajbadi Party and other political forces. There are some progressive leaders inside Nepal Communist Party and Nepali Congress on national agenda. We want to associate with them as well.

There are reports of rifts in the RJPN concerning the proposed merger with the Samajbadi Party.

The RJPN seeks respectful unification. We want to merge the two parties in order to form a new party with new thinking and vigor. There are some gaps in our understanding of some issues and we are trying find a common ground. In this period, there was no meeting of the six-member presidium. Only the political committee met. I was under pressure to hold the meeting to prepare party’s official position on national and intra-party issues.

What are the conflicting issues?

They are mostly organizational issues. The RJPN was formed after the merger of six different Madhes-based parties. There were conflicting understanding on several organizational issues. Some of them have already been resolved. We are discussing how to talk with the government and prepare for another movement. We will talk to PM Oli as soon as he is back in Nepal.

 Public dissatisfaction with the government seems to be grow­ing, as has been expressed in pro­tests over multiple issues. How do you see this phenomenon?

This is not something that hap­pens overnight. First, the country has never had a government that people fully owned. For the Ranas, family was the priority. The brief democratic period between 1950 and 1960 was soon undone in a coup. The Panchayat regime was only for royalists and a small coterie. Those who opposed the regime were portrayed as anti-national forces, so it was not a government of all. After the political change in 1990, people had expected such tendencies to end. But the governments formed after 1990 were those of political parties and not everybody felt own­ership. In recent days, governments have come to be confined to factions within parties. Till date, this nation has not had a government of Nepal.

There are quick political changes because people have certain expec­tations. If those expectations are not met, they support various polit­ical movements and the changes that those movements bring about. The goal is to end past bad prac­tices and start good governance. But subsequent political develop­ments could meet people’s expec­tations. Our transitional period was prolonged, and anarchism, indis­cipline, and widespread impunity took root. People tolerated those things during the transition. But when elections took place, Nepali people acted smart. They aspired for a strong government and gave an overwhelming mandate to a party. There were expectations that the strong government could take any decision in favor of the country and all its citizens, even by taking risks.

The barriers to development have been identified. Everybody knows the problems in the functioning of parties. There were expectations that the government would address those issues in its five year tenure, that it would build necessary insti­tutions, replace obsolete ones, and create an environment for good gov­ernance. In the initial days, the gov­ernment instilled some hope, such as by getting rid of syndicates in the transport sector. People supported the government in this. But public trust gradually eroded. On the one hand we have a habit of seeking immediate changes. On the other, the functioning of the government created frustrations.

The level of frustration is high even among party cadres. In this scenario, if someone tries to do a small thing, people support it. The case of Rabi Lamichhane is a case in point. He raised some governance issues and people supported him. In a nutshell, despite the change in system, the characters remained the same and there was no change in their working style. All these things have contributed to public dissatis­faction.

What do you think forces people to abandon personal comforts and come out on the streets?

There are multiple factors. The first is related to our political affil­iation. We are blind supporters of political parties and we are paying a price. Second, it is about caus­es. If someone comes up with a new cause, people support them, hoping they would bring about a transformation. Third, there is dis­satisfaction due to bad governance, and if someone shows something positive, the masses follow. Another fundamental issue is that all Nepalis are yet to own this country fully. So if someone sees some opportunity they join a protest to express dis­content. The groups that were mar­ginalized yesterday have their own beliefs and values. There also are forces that have raised arms against the current system. When they get a chance, those forces come togeth­er. Plus, cadres of political parties whose duty is to create a positive environment remain silent and they are also likely to join those outside forces to vent their frustrations.

Don’t the protests in the case of Nirmala Panta and Rabi Lamich­hane suggest people do not trust the police and the judiciary?

The central issue is the erosion of politics. Now there is a big question mark on the integrity of institutions such as the judiciary, parliament, constitutional bodies and security agencies. People doubt the system can work independently. The inci­dents you point out are related to trust in institutions. People do not believe that the system works prop­erly. They think the system may do wrong and they should exert pres­sure on these institutions. There is political intervention at all levels so there is no firm belief in institutions.

How do you see the unfolding of the case involving Rabi Lamich­hane on social media?

Technology is both a blessing and a curse. It is contributing to social awareness. Due to social media, even people from far-flung areas are politically empowered. On the negative side, various studies have shown that around 70 percent people who have smartphones use social media, and 60 percent of those users believe what appears on social media. Users have failed to understand the basics of social media. We do not have sufficient capacity to revisit the content on social media. Similarly, there is a tendency on social media that we are free to do anything we want. There is some anarchy. Now, our challenge at this point is to edu­cate people about the use of social media.

Do you advocate imposing cen­sorship on social media to make it more disciplined?

Instead of censorship, we should focus on the best use of social media. Compared to other countries, we are still liberal when it comes to our social media rights but we also have to think about controlling the anarchy therein. We should retain the positive aspects of social media while discouraging fake and mali­cious content.

Is there a successful model of social media regulation abroad which can be replicated in Nepal?

In advanced countries, measures are being taken to make platforms accountable. If there are some objectionable contents, Facebook and Twitter are made accountable instead of punishing users who post such contents. There are measures like redirecting, deleting and sus­pending those contents. In third-world countries, we cannot enforce such measures. Even if Facebook is banned in Nepal, there will be no big impact on its revenue but if it is banned in America and other devel­oped countries, its revenue will be hit badly. But there are other ways to make social media accountable. In Nepal, there is a tendency of attacking individual users. We need to educate the people. Digital litera­cy should be our priority.

There are new attempts to con­trol the media and other state organs. Many reckon the commu­nist government is out to impose a totalitarian system.

In my understanding, the current government is not communist. They claim to be communists to lure vot­ers but in practice, they are not. But there is a big segment in the country that cannot easily digest communism. In the constitution, we have mentioned socialism but it has not been properly defined. There is a government with a two-third majority which is capable of amend­ing the charter, and there is a fear this government could turn author­itarian. Next, there is a problem in its working style. There should be sufficient consultations with stake­holders before introducing import­ant measures. The process is not consultative and transparent. Third, the way our ministers disseminate their message is problematic. There is little transparency and communi­cation is faulty.

You’ve said there is a political upheaval in Nepal every 10 years or so. Do you see any possibili­ty of a complete reversal of the current political system anytime soon?

I am studying the basic character of this country and mentality of Nepali people. As public expecta­tions have not been met, frustration has grown. I do not see the possi­bility of immediate change but we cannot rule out such circumstances in some years.

In the nation-building process, we constituted a Constituent Assembly. In the initial phase of constitution drafting, we adopted a participato­ry process. But when we collected people’s feedback, we did not pay heed to them. During constitution drafting, there was no clause-wise discussion as mentioned in the CA procedures, and cross-party law­makers were forced to withdraw their amendment bills.

They were not given time to speak. A few leaders dictated the process and took decisions and now we are witnessing the consequences. Due to the flawed process, dissatisfaction of people continues to increase. A section of the population was of the view that there should be a ref­erendum on monarchy. That view was given short shrift. The rights of the monarchy were stripped before the first meeting of the Constituent Assembly. If the current political leadership realizes that there has been a mistake and commits not to repeat them, people will still give it time to do good. But first the leader­ship has to accept its mistakes.

The government has a five-year mandate but it is limiting dem­ocratic space through new leg­islations.

Our fundamental character is that people stick to their party during elections even if they are not sat­isfied with the party. The swing population is small. Our future will depend on whether there will be a sizable swing population. Four par­ties hold majority votes. Also, there is democracy in our blood. People do not easily tolerate attempts to curtail democratic rights. However, the decay of the four major parties is rapid. They are being alienated from the society and dissatisfaction is rising. There are indications that parties may not be able to retain their votes. I am still not clear who will benefit from the degeneration of these political parties.

Lastly, how do you see the func­tioning of the parliament in Nepal?

The problem right now is we made political parties very powerful, and so we suffer. In our context, political parties became strong everywhere, damaging the system. The parlia­ment is mandated to make all state machinery accountable but in our case the parliament remains the weakest of the three state organs. We have to revisit certain things to make the parliament strong. The parliament should be a center of excellence. First, our lawmakers, instead of being nationally-minded, are constituency-specific. They have a mentality of winning elections at any cost. Lawmakers struggle to be ministers to develop their constitu­ency. See what the prime minister is doing in Damak, Jhapa. So, we have to revisit the current electoral system. The election has become costly and genuine politicians can­not fight them. Elections are in the hands of criminals as they have all the money.

Power is concentrated in the hands of non-state actors. We exer­cise our sovereign rights through our lawmakers but the sovereign powers of the parliament are being exercised by the leaders of four or five parties. Whatever leaders say goes; the voices in the parliament are not heard. The current whip system in the parliament should be revisited. Except when a no-confi­dence motion is registered against the PM, there should be no whip. That would allow the parliament to function independently. Another major factor is that ministers are selected from the parliament. Law­makers run after leaders seeking ministerial positions. This means lawmakers are losing their author­ity. Therefore, lawmakers should perform legislative work and make government accountable. Their focus should be on how to make the best legislation. Ministers should be selected from among technocrats who have knowledge of their field and who can govern on the basis of their expertise. 

Has the Nepal Communist Party  settled all organization-related disputes?

During the unification, we had pledged to complete organizational tasks within three months. But it has already been 15 months. The incom­plete task affects both the party and the government. But we hope to wrap it up very soon.

But new factions are emerging and there seems to be a lot of dissatisfaction.

In a communist party there should be internal democracy to debate and discuss ideology. However, in our context, factions are formed on the basis of personal interests, which act as a roadblock for the party’s development. So we have to discourage factional politics. But individualism is flourishing in the party, giving rise to new factions and affecting the party’s ideological and policy-based discussions.

Are the new organizational struc­tures in line with the agreement reached between the two parties during the unification process?

There has been some violation of the principle of ‘one man, one post’. The same people occupy multiple positions. On other issues, we are forming certain criteria and taking decisions accordingly.

There are reports that former Maoist leaders and cadres are unhappy with the organizational reshuffle.

These issues should not be viewed through the prisms of former CPN (Maoist) and CPN-UML. Now there are no former groups or parties, only a united NCP. Even the factions are formed on the basis of personal interests and benefits, not along former party lines. In terms of ideol­ogy, we have to kick-start an ideolog­ical debate from a new perspective, not on the basis of past ideologies.

There are reports of increasing friction between Prime Minister KP Sharma and party co-chair Pushpa Kamal Dahal on organi­zational issues.

At the recent Secretariat meet­ing, the situation was just the oppo­site. Both PM Oli and Dahal are in a mood for reconciliation. They are even coming up with new consensus proposals, which was unexpect­ed. They are coming closer. But it remains to be seen whether these developments are ideological and in line with the party’s reformation process. As far as dissatisfaction is concerned, leaders have their own issues. Some may be dissatisfied that they didn’t get certain posts, while other senior leaders may be worried about the party’s ideologi­cal transformation. Similarly, we are worried that steps taken by the cur­rent government are not sufficient to meet people’s expectations and to engineer the kind of social and cultural transformation we seek.

Are you implying senior leaders like Oli and Dahal are prioritizing power and position over ideolog­ical development?

What I am saying is that there are two types of dissatisfaction in the party. First, some leaders are of the view that party and government functioning are not satisfactory. Our end goal is socialism but there has been no debate on how to get there. Second, some leaders were angling for certain position that they didn’t get.

Would it be right to say the new party’s fate depends on the pow­er-sharing agreement between PM Oli and Dahal?

That will not happen. The two of them played a vital role in party unification and its significance can­not be underestimated. Similarly, they played vital roles in bringing about political changes and taking the communist movement forward, which are now duly recorded and recognized in history. But our party does not function based on individu­al interests. Again, we respect KP Oli and Prachanda as senior leaders. Yet it would be a tragedy if the party’s fate depended on their personal power-sharing deal.

As per the agreement, Oli will have to hand over party or gov­ernment leadership to Dahal two and half years after the govern­ment was formed, won’t he?

There has been a lot of talk about the agreement between the two leaders. We can speak about these issues when they become part of the official agenda on party platforms and subsequent discussions. What we can say now is that the party and the government should function as per the understanding/agreement reached during the unification. It should become a party agenda. No one benefits from an unstable gov­ernment. Our key priority at this point is to make this government a success. No one benefits if we start counting down its days.

But you are one of the very few leaders who were supposedly privy to the power-sharing deal.

The main thing is whether the agreement will become an official party agenda, whether there would be discussions on it in the party and whether such discussions will be translated into concrete decisions.

Are you suggesting Oli can remain prime minister for five years?

For this there needs to be broad discussions in the party and deci­sions should be reached at the appropriate party platforms. For now the party will move ahead on the basis of the agreement between the two co-chairs.

Can the party revise the ‘gen­tleman’s understanding’ on power-sharing between Oli and Dahal?

The party would take a final call on this. The par­ty is our sovereign plat­form for all decisions. If the party thinks that those agreements are beneficial, it will decide accordingly. If party thinks otherwise, that will be acceptable too.

Again, it can be revised, right?

Whatever happens will happen based on consensus.

In a separate context, you claimed the lead­ership of the party’s School Department but were denied.

I would not say I claimed it, but I was interested. There are a couple of reasons behind my interest. I have been involved in ideological issues for a long time. In the Maoist party, I was leading the Foreign Affairs Department and the School Department. After party unification, I was involved in prepar­ing all the party-related documents, including election manifestos. But it does not mean others are not qualified to lead the School Department. It should not be viewed as someone’s win and someone else’s loss.

Our attention at this point is focused on two broader issues. First, how to unite the party and make it more rev­olutionary and pow­erful. Second, how to make the government a success. So I have easily accepted the decision.

Of the various factions in the par­ty, which one do you belong to?

I do not belong to any faction. I will not join any faction and I will not create any faction. But I have certain agendas and will work to bring the party in line with those agendas.

What about the disputes over the order of precedence in the party? Senior leader Madhav Kumar Nepal has been relegated to fourth position from third. Why this sudden change?

Earlier, Madhav Kumar Nepal was in third position and Jhala Nath Kha­nal in fourth position. Now they have swapped positions. During party unification, there was an understanding that leaders in the new party would occupy the same positions they did in their respective parties pre-unification.

After the UML’s ninth general convention, Khanal was senior to Nepal. But he was absent during the final round of talks on party unifi­cation and Nepal got the third posi­tion. Now Khanal has regained his earlier position.

How do you see the note of dis­sent registered by senior leader Nepal?

In a communist party, registering a note of dissent is not abnormal. It would be better to take decisions in the party through consensus but sometimes we have to decide even amid dissent. There should be dis­cussions about such proposals and they should be forwarded to the party rank and file for discussion in order to help maintain party unity.

What about his demand for one-man-one-post?

The provision of one-man-one-post has been mentioned in the party statute. However, we have not been able to fully implement it now because we are in a tran­sitional phase of party unifica­tion. In the days to come, we can discuss it .

Q. What is one thing that you can’t tolerate in a relationship?

A. I think any form of disrespect is a huge red flag for me.

Q. How would you describe a perfect day?

A. Good sleep, good workout, good company, good food, good movies/ TV shows

Q. What makes up your comfort outfit?

A. V neck tees, sweatpants and trainers.

Q. Modeling or acting?

A. Acting any day.

Q. Your favorite travel destination?

A. Thailand for its islands all the way.

Q. What’s your hidden talent?

A. I can avoid questions. Talent?

Q. If you could travel to either the future or the past, where would you go?

A. I’d love to live in the 80’s.

Q. What is your alternate career choice?

A. This is it for me. No backups.

Q. An unpopular opinion you hold?

A. Game of Thrones is overrated. Sue me.

Q. Your female celebrity crush?

      A. Natalie Portman.