How would you respond to the criticism that President Bhandari often oversteps her constitution­al limits?

It is the president’s duty to abide by and protect the constitution and to promote national unity. As far as the issue of the president meeting ministers or leaders is concerned, they take place at the request of these ministers and leaders. If an individual or group seeks an appointment, the president has to give them time and listen to them. If the president cannot even meet political leaders and people from various walks to discuss contempo­rary national issues, why do we need the president’s office at all? What she is doing is entirely constitution­al. You cannot give a single example of President Bhandari acting like an executive president, as she has been criticized in some quarters of doing. In the past, too, President Ram Baran Yadav used to meet polit­ical leaders, also on constitutional matters. Such meetings and consul­tations come under normal practice. So let us not protest for the heck of it and drag this hallowed institution into controversy.

What about the allegation that she has tried to influence the functioning of the ruling Nepal Communist Party, for instance by inviting its top leaders for a meeting when a separate NCP standing committee meeting was going on?

We have to be clear on these issues. First, the NCP standing committee meeting got extended beyond the scheduled time. Some of the com­mittee leaders had already sought an appointment with the president and they kept their appointment. Other government officials were also pres­ent at the meeting and they together discussed issues of national interest.

Did the president call the meet­ing or did the leaders seek it themselves?

The leaders sought an appoint­ment with the president, and not the other way round. Those leaders who met the president had also informed the party’s standing committee that they would do so.

The president has also been accused of trying to run the gov­ernment by proxy, for instance by picking her own favorite as the next House speaker.

The president has no such right. It is the responsibility of the parlia­ment and political parties to elect the new speaker. In democratic countries, political parties drive the parliamentary process. The presi­dent has no role in this whatsoever.

Did President Bhandari act as a guarantor of honest implemen­tation of the gentleman’s agree­ment between PM KP Oli and Pushpa Kamal Dahal?

No, the president played no such role. PM Oli and party Chair Dahal frequently go to meet the president. In fact, Nepali Congress President Sher Bahadur Deuba and senior leader Ram Chandra Poudel can also meet the president. I don’t think either PM Oli or party Chairman Dahal consider themselves so polit­ically weak that they have to seek the president’s mediation. They are capable of settling these issues on their own.

You deny every allegation lev­eled against the president. If she is blameless, why the constant barrage of criticism against her?

See, Nepali Congress has not spoken about it. Even other fringe opposition parties including Mad­hes-based parties have not said any­thing about the president. Most of the criticism against her comes from within the ruling Nepal Communist Party. Some leaders who are not sat­isfied with PM Oli are venting their ire on the president. They forget that the president is an institution, the protector of the constitution. It is not about a particular individual.

What about one after another media report about the presi­dent’s alleged extra-constitution­al steps?

The media should play the role of watchdog. They should not indulge in yellow journalism. If there are bad things happening, they can write about them, but only on an objec­tive basis. Journalism is a sensitive area and even a small mistake can create huge problems. Look at what happened with the Hrithik Roshan incident. All reporting should be fact-based. Without fact-based jour­nalism, the society will face many troubles. The problem right now is that negative mindset prevails everywhere.

We also get to hear rumors about the ailing PM Oli handing over executive powers to President Bhandari.

How can the president exer­cise executive rights? Is there any constitutional provision to do so? Absolutely not. It is possible only if you destroy the current consti­tution. The constitution provides all executive rights to the prime minister. To be prime minister, first you have to be a member of par­liament, and the president is not. Without becoming an MP, how can she become an executive? Until and unless this constitution is function­al, the president cannot take up executive rights.

But can’t the constitution be amended?

Is it possible to amend the consti­tution for the same? Will all parties agree to it? I do not see any such pos­sibility. Even if the parliament does so, the people and the society won’t accept it. Our president has not even thought about this issue. It is a ploy to defame the prime minister as well as the president’s office. The prime minister is somewhat sick but he is still very capable of steering the country in the right direction.

Who then is benefiting by drag­ging the president into contro­versy?

There are many people and con­servative forces that are displeased with the current political dispen­sation and the constitution. Some external forces too are against this constitution. Soon after the consti­tution was promulgated, there was a blockade. People who opposed the constitution in 2015 now accept it. In history, there have been several instances where internal and exter­nal forces worked to sabotage the constitution and democracy. There is another factor as well. In the histo­ry of Nepal, almost all governments that were toppled were brought down not due to opposition parties but due to intra-party rifts. Now, KP Oli is facing difficulties from his own party leaders.

So the ruling party leaders are themselves trying to drag the president into controversy?

Yes, there have been such attempts. As I said, opposition par­ties have no problem with the func­tioning of the president.

One common criticism of the president is that her caval­cade often obstructs traffic and makes people’s life difficult. Why doesn’t the president’s office lis­ten to public criticism?

Nepal Army has taken the full responsibility for the president’s security as she is their ceremonial chief. We even consulted the army chief about the traffic issue. “If there is a security lapse tomorrow, who will take responsibility?” the army chief asked us in return. He added that the army will have to give full-fledged security to the president. We proposed some concessions to provide relief to the people but the army was adamant. This is not only the case of Nepal, it happens in oth­er countries as well. It is the security bodies that assess security risks, and it is not for the president to say what level of security they need. Even in normal times, people face traffic jams. But if there is 10-20 minute delay during the president’s visit, we get agitated. We have to respect the organization. Again, this is not about an individual.

Does the president heed the sug­gestions of advisors like you?

The president spends hours seek­ing advice from us on respective areas. She is very receptive to our ideas.

There are also complaints about the president’s opulent lifestyle, for instance about her penchant for new vehicles, her helicopter travels, and her office seeking greater space.

The only vehicle added in the president’s office in the past two years is one electric car, which costs no more than 5-6 million rupees. All other vehicles are old. There are talks of the president getting a new helicopter. But the office has not bought any. She uses the army’s heli­copter, which is old and without any air-conditioning. So far as the issue of land for Sheetal Niwas expansion is concerned, the process was ini­tiated during Ram Baran Yadav’s tenure when there was a Nepali Congress-led government. Now, if the president stops this process, people will say the president has become active.

How difficult is it for the presi­dent to stay completely neutral in a thoroughly politicized soci­ety like Nepal?

There is saying that democracy is one of the worst systems but there is also no better system. The political system remains within the demo­cratic framework. It is also true that a president cannot be elected with­out the support of political parties. As the president comes from a par­ticular party, the party always seeks some benefit from the office. This is so everywhere. There is always party pressure.

Why have the president’s advi­sors like you been largely silent when she is being so widely crit­icized?

If we speak, people say that the president is becoming active. They say that the advisors are supposed to give suggestions to the presi­dent, not defend her. Yet, they crit­icize us when we speak. It is not easy for us