KP Oli: Selective opening of corruption files is a political stunt

After the general elections held in November last year, the CPN-UML and CPN (Maoist Center) came together to form a coalition government. But the partnership was short-lived, as the two parties fell out over the presidential nominee. Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal formed a new coalition with the Nepali Congress, consigning the UML to the opposition benches. On Tuesday, UML Chairman KP Sharma Oli spoke in length with Kamal Dev Bhattarai, Akhanda Bhandari and Sambhu Kattel of Annapurna Media Network. Excerpts:

Is the CPN-UML playing an effective role as an opposition?

The CPN-UML is the only party which has a clear vision and mission of nation-building. There has been sufficient discussion on ‘Prosperous Nepal, Happy Nepali’ which is and should be the destination of Nepal. The UML has always been clear about this destination and the route to get there. We are also the only party which has a clear position on internal issues such as political, economic and social policies, as well as matters relating to maintaining the external relations. Keeping the welfare of the people and nation at the forefront, we will and have been raising these issues in parliament and streets. So, from this point of view, our role as an opposition remains effective and impactful. We are also playing a vital role to make the government accountable on national issues.

What is your take regarding the government’s anti-corruption initiative?

Selective opening of some corruption files is nothing but a political stunt. The government’s corruption drive is aimed at terrorizing and attacking political opponents. This is not a genuine anti-corruption initiative. The only positive thing is that if more corruption files are opened, there will be public pressure to investigate all corruption scandals, which means those who have evaded justice because of power and position will be prosecuted.   

You have raised the issue of alleged corruption that took place in the Maoist cantonments following the 2006 peace agreement,  could you please elaborate on it?

There have been financial misappropriations in the cantonment. Initially, the Maoist claimed that they had around 34,000 combatants, but the United Nations Mission in Nepal verified only 19,000. Approximately 1,300 combatants were integrated into the national army. But in the initial days, the Maoist leadership took the allowance for all the combatants they claimed they had. Today, the Maoist party-led government is talking about probing corruption scandals, but it has shown any initiative to investigate the corruption that took place in the management of Maoist cantonments. 

When you were in the government, you formed a panel to investigate the Lalita Niswas land grab case, but you didn’t initiate any probe into alleged cantonment corruption. Why?

I was not in a position of taking such a decision from the Cabinet at the time. Yes, I was the prime minister but the party [the erstwhile Nepal Communist Party (NCP) was, in a way, run by the Maoist factions. Later, they left the party.

Is there a chance of the case being investigated in the coming days?

The key factor is public opinion. What will the public say? The lone effort from my party is insufficient. But we believe that there should be impartial investigations into all corruption cases. There shouldn’t be a selective approach like today. Also, I would like to emphasize that it was my government that had started the investigation into Lalita Niwas land grab case.

You oppose Maoist Chair Dahal now, but you and your party did support him as a prime minister.

I took such a decision in order to correct the devastating course of national politics, not the course of our party. But the Maoists did not feel comfortable collaborating with us. So, they decided to part ways with the UML.

Do you think the current corruption investigation is aimed at the main opposition party?

Yes, it is targeted at us, but it will go in vain. Once again, I would like to stress that whoever is involved in corruption must be investigated. 

Let’s talk about the intra-party issue. You introduced the 70 years age limit for the party leader through statutory changes, which recently omitted. What is the reason?  

The provision was omitted because the party deemed it unnecessary. No other parties have such a provision, but the UML decided to put it to the test. We wanted to see whether it could be useful in our party’s context. We removed the age limit after listening to the voice of our colleagues. I can assure you that the decision has not caused any damage to the party. 

But there are talks that by removing the age limit, you want to stay in party leadership for an indefinite period.

I am always seeking an exit from the main leadership of the party. But if some individuals think that they would feel more comfortable had I not been the chairman of the UML, that is a different issue entirely. There is no need to comment on it because it was I who had introduced the age limit provision and it was removed as requested by the party colleagues.

Are there any chances of Bam Dev Gautam returning to the UML?  What position is he likely to get?

We should not focus on the issue of position. Everyone, everywhere is seeking a position and money, this is spoiling the environment. People should be free from money and position.

How do you see the emergence of new parties like the Rastriya Swatantra Party?

The people who are in the party leadership do not have political backgrounds. They are new to politics, without old people as members. So they are picking young people as parliamentarians and in other party departments. They are yet to be tested and their ideology is unclear. 

Do you think new parties pose a challenge to old parties like the UML?  

I don’t consider the new parties as a challenge. They may win some seats, but they are yet to have a robust party structure. They may form committees from the center right down to the grassroots level, but it won’t be a big deal. It is just a process of forming a party. They are criticizing the traditional political parties and their leaders now, but they don’t have anything that they can call it an accomplishment. They have no history and no ideology. But that is not to say that our party is intolerant towards new parties. 

After the election,the UML launched a grassroots campaign to rally supporters. How effectively was the mission, and is it true that the party members have gone down?

It is just a rumor spread by our detractors. The impact of mission grassroots has been very effective, and this will reflect in the result of 2027 general elections. 

You took the leadership to issue a new political map of Nepal by incorporating the disputed territories of Kalapani, Lipulek and Limiyadhura, but there has not been any progress in talks with India. What is your take on it?

We can get our land if we move ahead with substantive talks. The boundary issue should not be blown up unnecessarily and out of proportion by making it a matter of victory and defeat.

Akhanda Bharat and Greater Nepal have found prominence in recent times, how do you see it?

We should not engage in such sentimental and short-lived populist agenda. It will just increase tensions.

How do you rate the performance of the present government in maintaining international relations?   

The government has failed to conduct its foreign policy, there is a mess and there is imbalance. This government is just signing documents prepared elsewhere. We should always raise genuine issues including that of boundaries. 

Of late, there are debates that Nepal should abandon its non-alignment policy. What is your view on this?

This is an irresponsible idea. People who are saying such a thing do not understand Nepal’s geopolitics and are unaware about Nepal’s comprehensive welfare. We should remain neutral and we should not join any military blocs.