Submit your Article

Why is the government performance considered so dismal?

Recent political changes created high expectations. It is not possible to fulfill all these expectations at once. The government has undertaken some positive initiatives but the results are as not evident yet.

Is it right to say that this government has no clear vision and policy?

I do not think so. In the initial days, the government pursued an independent foreign policy, and settled internal issues on its own without foreign help. The government also established balanced relations with neighboring countries based on mutual trust. It formulated laws to implement the constitution and make the federal structures functional. Local levels are also working effectively. The government must also be credited for taking decisive steps to implement the social security scheme. The policy of providing loans on the basis of educational certificates has been implemented, which helps curb rising unemployment. However, we have not been able to perform satisfactorily on the governance front. We have not done enough to curb corruption and deliver good governance.  

Is there a rift in party leadership?

The focus of our recent intra-party discussions is the fact that this government should not be allowed to fail. Its failure will lead to multiple crises in the country. Intra-party debates are thus centered on how to make the government’s works more effective and result-oriented. There is a view that the party must have a decisive say in running the government, and that the government’s weaknesses must be corrected but its positive tasks should be recognized.

Is the dissatisfaction centered on what is perceived as KP Oli’s monopoly in government?

Intra-party discussions are centered on two broad areas. First, how do we establish party control over government functioning? Second, how does the government prioritize economic prosperity and social justice? There is also consensus in the party that the current model of leadership, with two chairmen, is appropriate.

There are reports that Pushpa Kamal Dahal prevailed over KP Oli in the recent Standing Committee meeting.

Discussions in the party were not aimed at encouraging one chairman and discouraging another. The spirit of the discussions was that the two chairmen as well as the nine-member secretariat must share the blame for our recent failings. As PM Oli is leading the government, it is natural that he is criticized more.

But it is true that Dahal has of late played an apposite role in terms of party ideology, organizational structure and self-criticism. He has shown a sense of urgency. He was instrumental in making the meeting a success. But the meeting has not weakened PM Oli either. It has rather created a basis for collective leadership.

There are also demands that the party should implement a ‘one-man, one-post’ formula.

The party statute incorporates this principle. But it does not mean that one chairman should get one specific responsibility right now. Since we are in a phase of historical transition in terms of party unification, we have decided to move ahead with two chairmen. We are not in a position to assign specific responsibility to a particular chairman.

But in terms of practicality, the chairman who is leading the government should give more priority to government issues, while the chairman who is not in government should give more time to party organization. In terms of broader organizational structure, the ‘one-man, one-post’ formula is appropriate, at least until the party’s next General Convention.  

Do you think PM Oli will hand over government leadership to Dahal after two and half years?

It is not appropriate to talk about this right now. After a long time, there is hope of stability. We must support the government. The government leadership should not be confined to time frames.

But past governments in Nepal have collapsed because of intra-party disagreements over power-sharing.  

Politics and culture change with time. Now we have a stable government, which needs to be strengthened. Power issues are secondary. If there is an understanding in the party, we can take any decisions, including on government leadership.

Are there regular consultations between the party and the government?

In a multi-party democratic set-up and especially under communist party rule, it is the party that runs the government. Government policies and programs must be discussed within the party, which is not happening. The party cannot interfere in the day-to-day affairs of the government, but it should have a say in broader policy and structure.  

In a separate context, why do you think India is reluctant to receive the report of Nepal-India Eminent Persons Group (EPG)?

The Indian government’s is delay is inappropriate. It signals the perception that there has been a sea change in India’s Nepal policy post-blockade is untrue. Otherwise, there is no valid reason to delay receiving the EPG report.  

Do you think the internal politics of Nepal and India are hampering bilateral relations?

India is currently in electoral mode, with fast-approaching national elections. This has influenced bilateral relations. So far as Nepal is concerned, no internal factor is hampering relations with India right now. Some decisions of the Indian establishment have created friction between the two countries and affected India’s own interests, which is being realized in India. Again, the election season could be one reason behind the delay in receiving the EPG report.

Separately, what did you make of Foreign Minister Pradeep Gyawali’s statement that Nepal has convinced the US not to view Nepal from an Indian lens?

One dialogue or meeting cannot deliver such positive results. But FM Gyawali knows better because he discussed these issues with American officials. He is the right person to ask if there have been any changes in America’s approach to Nepal. But it would be premature to conclude that the US approach to Nepal has changed.

Does the foreign minister’s US visit signal a fresh approach of reaching out to countries beyond India and China?

Our geopolitical location has provided us with great opportunities as well as risks. If we conduct our foreign policy with maturity, our geopolitical location will benefit us. But if we fail to do so, it would adversely affect out national sovereignty and interest. We must tread carefully. We should not be unduly encouraged by one event or incident.

The US State Department says that the US now views Nepal as a central plank of its Indo-Pacific strategy. What is your reading?

We should try to enhance bilateral relations with other countries. But I don’t think the US extended its invitation to our foreign minister only to discuss bilateral issues. America formally talked about Nepal’s role in its Indo-Pacific strategy and requested us to play a central role. We should be cautious. We should not be involved in any such strategy. When I heard the US talk about Nepal’s central role in America’s Indo-Pacific strategy, I was surprised. What does it mean? The US government seems intent on forcing Nepal to back this strategy.

Is this strategy against china?

It is obviously against China. It is not in the interest of Nepal either.

There are also reports that the US sought Nepal’s help in curbing North Korea.

The Americans are saying that they want peace on the Korean Peninsula. The US is seeking our support in its proposal to the UN on North Korea. Similarly, America has, in a roundabout way, sought our help in curbing North Korean activities in Nepal and downsizing the North Korean embassy in Kathmandu. The US also wants us to restrict visas to North Korean citizens. It is a part of their strategy to put more pressure on North Korea.

Finally, as a former foreign minister, can you tell us where the biggest threats to Nepali interests have traditionally come from?

Everyone knows the most immediate threat comes from the southern neighbor, and then from western countries. There are no immediate threats from China. China’s interest in Nepal is limited to Tibet. China would otherwise not interfere in our internal affairs.

To address war-era human rights viola­tions, a five-member Truth and Reconcil­iation Commission was set up in Febru­ary 2015. The commission was formed with a two-year mandate—which has been extended by a year two times—with the objective of resolving conflict-era issues and providing justice to conflict victims. The extended mandate of the TRC will expire on February 10, 2019. In TRC’s four year existence, there has been lit­tle progress in dealing with war-era cases. Reports are that the government will not further extend the TRC mandate, and replace the TRC and the Commission of Investigation on Enforced Disappeared Persons (CIEDP), the two transitional justice bodies, with political mechanisms. In this context, Kamal Dev Bhattarai talked to TRC member Manchala Jha.

Interview

MANCHALA JHA

 I have come to a conclusion that the TRC formation process was faulty

How do you measure the progress made by your commission?

We were unable to complete our mandated tasks in the past four years. First, the con­cept of such a commission in Nepal was something new. In initial days, we faced logistical problems such as shortage of human resources and offices. Once those problems were resolved, the earthquake struck, diverting attention. The TRC reg­ulation was delayed.

Right now, the TRC togeth­er with the CIEDP has received around 63,000 complaints. Last year, we established offices in all seven provinces and appointed experts to study the complaints. We completed investigation on 800 cases from Province no 1, which is good progress.

There are reports of lack of support from political parties.

Nepal’s conflict was unique. It was not a racial or caste conflict, nor was it a conflict over natural resources. The Maoist conflict had a political dimension, which was backed by marginalized communities. The conflict was resolved through all-party con­sensuses and moreover, Nepal’s peace process was homegrown. The Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) in 2006 had envisaged the formation of the TRC within six months. Due to the lack of political consensus, it took eight years.

When the commission was finally formed, we met top political leaders to solic­it their help in our task. They had assured us every kind of help and had committed not to interfere in our work. Both these promises were broken. Nor did frequent change in government help our cause.

In February 2015 the Supreme Court annulled the amnesty pro­visions of the Transitional Justice Act, saying that it was against established principles of justice and international law. There was no attempt to amend the law in line with SC verdict. This made our work difficult.

Are you implying that political parties are not serious about settling TRC issues?

I think so. I have come to a conclusion that the TRC for­mation process was faulty. The then Maoist Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal has said that the commission should never have been formed, which gives us some hint of our politicians’ seriousness to the cause of tran­sitional justice. Not only Dahal, political leaders from other par­ties are also not interested.

The TRC component was incorporated in the CPA follow­ing UN pressure. Then, in 2012, the UN human rights commission came up with a detail report on rights violation in Nepal that prompted parties to set up tran­sitional justice mechanisms. I think the commission was set up only so that our politicians could save face in front of the international community.

But there is also a pos­itive side. The parties started distributing relief package to war-era victims after 2006. One million rupee was provided to the family of each person killed during the conflict. Similarly, their children got scholarships to study.

Do you think the commission had too broad a mandate?

This commission should have been mandated only to find out the truth. We had a very broad mandate but the right condition to fulfill it was not created. For instance the Act allows us to identify perpetrators of conflict-era crimes as well as their victims. But when we tried to identity the perpetrators, the parties felt uncomfortable.

Did the political parties directly intervene with the functioning of the TRC?

The leadership of the TRC is sluggish, as is its working style. This suggests our leadership is under pressure.

There are also questions over the efficiency of TRC team. Why has it failed to assure conflict victims?

We were short on resources, including logistics and human resources. Our chairman often took up this issue with political parties and the government. But it is also true that we could per­haps have done a better job of giving hope to conflict victims. We should do some soul-search­ing on this. I am ready to take my share of the blame.

What are other reasons for lack of progress?

We take money only from the government. Donor agencies offered to help but we shunned them. We thought the TRC was a sensitive issue and there should be no outside influence. Now I feel that without the interference of donor agencies and rights activists, it is difficult to get any­thing done in this country. The same is applicable in the case of the TRC.

How do you see the issue of transitional justice going forward?

I now think the conflict vic­tims will not get justice. I feel guilty I could not provide justice to the rape victims I had assured otherwise. Conflict victims them­selves are in a state of confusion and are divided, which is not a good sign.

There are many hurdles in transitional justice process, and it will get even more com­plex from hereon. The politi­cal parties settled the issue of integration of Maoist combat­ants and constitution promulga­tion. They should now take the lead in settling transitional justice issues.

Q. What are three adjectives that best describe you?

A. Fun, chill, bhullakad

Q. A career decision that you regret?

A. Not yet... Let’s see what the future holds.

Q. Your favorite Nepali politician?

A. Very difficult question. I don’t have an answer for this.

Q. Best compliment you’ve received?

A. ‘Kya dublo dekheko! You’re looking so fit!’ This always works on me.

Q. Words that keep you motivated?

A. Live life to the fullest.

Q. The number 1 song on your current playlist?

A. Iris by Goo Goo Dolls is always my number one.

Q. The best celebrity or socialite you’ve hosted on your show?

A. Paras Khadka