A tribute to Daman Nath Dhungana

After completing my six-year tenure as an election commissioner in July 2000, I decided not to return to teaching, my original profession. Instead of confining myself to the classroom, I decided to write articles on electoral matters to share my ideas with the people at large.

In the beginning of 2001, Padmaratna Tuladhar invited me to meet a foreigner (whose name I don’t remember) at a five star-hotel in Kalimati. There, I met Charan Parsai for the first time and a lady whose name I cannot recall. I don’t remember the subject we four deliberated upon. But this was my first interaction with civil society leaders. Devendra Raj Pandey got me associated with Nepal South Asia Center in March 2002 and I worked with him until I was made national coordinator for the Ceasefire Code of Conduct in June 2006.

However, I was in constant touch with Daman Nath Dhungana through the 22-member Civil Monitoring Committee, formed to monitor the ceasefire that the Maoists had declared for Dashain in 2005, as both of us were its members. We remained associated through several organizations like Parliamentary Foundation, Friends for Peace and Nepal Transition to Peace Institute Nepal/Nepal Shanti Pratishthan, which was established in 2014.

During this period, we used to meet at least thrice a week and share our views over phone every evening till recently. After developing a theme to write on, I used to talk about it and after publication of the article, get his comments, which were always objective. He was actually my friend, philosopher and guide. Even when he was almost bedridden after his return from Delhi, where he had been for medical treatment, I used to meet him on alternate days. Though unable to speak fluently as before, he used to infer that I must be busy with my writing. Referring to our cordial relationship, I used to tell him that it must have been fixed in our previous lives, though neither of us believed in past lives. Even today I do not know why he was so cordial and helpful to me as we were far apart geographically: I am from Madhes and he was from Kathmandu.

There were some salient traits of his personality, which I want to share with the reader. First, he was a full-time politician, though not active but always participatory. He never declined an invite for a meeting, whether called by a party or a group, and he was a true politicoholic. Second, he was a democrat by conviction and practice, and never compromised with his ideals for any gains. It was he who raised, for the first time, the issue of electing a Constituent Assembly (CA) for framing a people’s constitution, in Nepal. So, the CA was his brain-child, though India’s first PM, Jawaharlal Nehru, had included the agenda in the ‘Delhi Compromise’ signed in Delhi in Feb 1951. The agenda remained on paper until the Maoists included it in the 12-point understanding reached with the Seven-Party alliance in Nov 2005.

Third, he was a politician with a difference as he neither sought any favour for himself nor obliged anyone for profit. Perhaps, this was the reason why he got respect from others but not their support, which is required the most in today’s electoral politics and that was also the reason why his institutions always lacked funds to operate smoothly. Fourth, he was always ready to address any meetings and deliver speeches but was quite lazy when it came to writing, which deprived us of his knowledge and wide experience for our guidance.

Fifth, he was a witty orator and knew how to twist and turn the subject matter he took up for deliberations. Sixth, he was a treasure of knowledge acquired by reading books, which he used to share with us in our meetings. Seventh, he was very hospitable and used to receive visitors well before the scheduled time. Eighth, I always found him very accommodating. During the launch of my books, he used to busy himself with the management aspect of the events. Lastly, he was always worried about the low level of politics and the future of Nepal. He wanted to take the lead in improving the situation but found himself handicapped by not having any organization to support him.

He wanted the Parliamentary Foundation, the organization he had founded, to function smoothly to provide organizational support for streamlining the parliamentary system and also wished to get the initiatives of NTTPI for documenting the peace process. Sadly, his wishes remained unfulfilled.

Fulfilling his wishes through joint efforts would be our tribute to the departed soul. In his death, I have lost one of my great well-wishers, whom I will be missing all my life as the void resulting from his absence will never be filled up.