DEUBA SAYS SISTER WINGS DISSOLUTION UNJUST

INTERVIEW

DISSOLUTION OF SISTER WINGS UNJUST; DEUBA

The Nepali Congress, which is struggling hard to heal the wounds of a bitter split after the unification of Nepali Congress and Nepali Congress (Democratic) in 2007, has once again plunged into a deep feud over the party´s decision to dissolve four sister organizations -- Nepal Tarun Dal, Nepal Mahila Sangh, Prajatantra Senani Sangh and Aadhibasi Janjati Sangh -- by a majority vote. Former Prime Minister and senior leader Sher Bahadur Deuba has led a protest against the dissolution and has even threatened to launch nationwide campaign against the decision. In this context, Republica´s Ameet Dhakal and Kiran Chapagain in Sunday’s edition of the newspaper. Excerpts:

What is the root cause of the present feud in the party?

The majority decision [of the central working committee] to dissolve the [central working committees of] the sister organizations is the main cause of the present feud in the party. The decision has taken us aback. It has saddened me.

But it is being said that the sister organizations in question had become non-functional and that they were dissolved so that new bodies can be elected. What do you say in this regard?

If so, even the Nepali Congress has not worked effectively. The sister organizations should be made to work effectively. They should be allowed to hold general conventions and elect new working committees as soon as possible.

You do not disagree that the elections of the sister wings should be held as elections have not been held for over four years since the party unification. Do you?

No.

Do you mean that these sister organizations should be allowed to work even when they have become non-functional?

Instead of dissolving the wings, they should be allowed to hold their general conventions. As far as the argument that they have not been working goes, even the Nepali Congress has not been working. Not only [party president] Sushil Koirala, but I am also equally responsible for this. It is our weakness not to be able to make the party organization work. The party should come up with programs but that has not happened.

It is not good to dissolve sister organizations merely on the pretext that they have not been functioning. Again, the party had extended the term of then central committee thrice when Sushil Koirala was the acting president of the party.

Do you mean that the terms of the sister organizations in question should have been extended?

The terms of the sister organizations should not have been extended but they should have been allowed to hold their convention within six months. But the majority decision of the central working committee has decided to form committees to hold the convention of the sister wings in question.

What would be the difference between a convention held by such committees and the sister wings themselves?

Again, why were they [sister organizations] stripped of their elected central working committees?

But the term of the sister organizations in question had expired?

Had not the party itself extended its own term?

Does not it mean that their terms should be extended?

Why can´t the terms of the sister organizations be extended? It is not a technical matter. It is rather a political matter. The sister organizations wanted to hold their conventions and had even fixed the date for their respective conventions.

But it is said that the sister organizations are not in a position to hold their conventions as they are divided and have not held central committee meetings.

Tarun Dal, Mahila Sangh and Janajati Sangh had decided to hold their elections.

So you wanted the sister organizations to hold conventions within six months?

Those [dissolved ones] were the elected working committees. They cannot be dissolved.

So, the sister organizations have been dissolved much in the way the King removed you from the post of prime minister though you were elected.

Yes, it seems so. BP [NC legendary leader] was also removed by the king, accusing him of being incapable though he was an elected prime minister.

Then it is your argument that the elected bodies should not have been dissolved?

Absolutely. This issue is related to party unification as well. We had agreed to elect new leadership for the sister organizations through conventions. For instance, Sushil Koirala was elected though a convention by defeating me. I have accepted his leadership.

There is an allegation that you had reservations over accepting Ram Chandra Paudel as the party vice president. Is that true?

That is not true.

But you didn´t want to accept him as the party´s parliamentary party leader.

How have I not accepted him? I voted for him.

How will the present feud be resolved?

Many party leaders had made efforts till 10:30 to 11:30 pm [on September 18] to work out a compromise. Leaders including Narahari Acharya, Ram Sharan Mahat, Gagan Thapa, Arjun Narsingh KC, Arjun Joshi and Dhanraj Gurung had urged [the party establishment] not to dissolve the sister organizations and take a couple of days to reach a decision. They had suggested that the party form a powerful body to oversee neutrality of the convention. Even [general secretary] Krishna Sitaula held the same view.

Was a solution possible had the leaders waited for two more days?

I am not sure if a solution would have been worked out. But they [the party establishment] showed extreme intolerance. All had suggested them to do whatever they wanted after two days.


But is it not true that there were no signs of a compromise even after you and the establishment made serious efforts for ten days?

Sushil Koirala did not have a majority in the party when he nominated Ram Chandra Paudel and Krishna Sitaula [as party´s vice president and general secretary respectively]. We had agreed that the sister organizations would be allowed to hold their conventions. Similarly, we had also agreed that I would be made the party´s parliamentary party leader once Ram Chandra Paudel became party vice president because he would have greater party responsibilities.

The agreement was reached at the residence of Sushil Koirala. Prakash Man Singh, Sashank [Koirala], Kirshan Sitaula and Bimalendra Nidhi were present when the agreement took place. I thought that the party was moving ahead with the spirit of unification. But the agreement was disregarded. Is it not a lie that no agreement was reached in the party to make me the party´s parliamentary leader. How can I believe the liars? Sitaula had taken the responsibility for implementation of the agreement. So I am not expressing my discontent. By the grace of god, I have not lied and will never lie.

How will this feud be resolved?

The decision to dissolve the sister organizations should be withdrawn.

What will you do if the decision is not revoked?

We will launch nationwide campaign against the injustice.

It has been heard that you would even boycott the central committee meetings? How far is this true?

We have not yet discussed whether we would boycott the central committee meetings. We will raise the issue of dissolution in the central committee meetings as well.

It seems that the establishment and you would be occupied with the issue and the issues of peace and constitution drafting would be thrown on the back burner.

This is my compulsion. I had extended my support to Girija Prasad [Koirala] and have extended my full support to Sushil [Koirala] as well. There is no reason for Sushil to be afraid of me.

Don´t you think that peace process and constitution drafting will be affected if the party remains embroiled in the feud?

This should not affect the peace process and constitution drafting.

Don´t you think that the Nepali Congress will not be able to play an effective role in the concluding the peace process and constitution drafting due to the row over dissolution of party wings?

It should not affect our role.

What can be a compromising point of this controversy?

The decision on dissolution of party wings should be revoked.

So there is no alternative?

Yes. It is a matter of principle.

What will happen if the party establishment holds elections of the dissolved sister organizations?

We will not accept that.

Will you boycott the elections?

We will not accept them.

Then the party establishment will not be able to hold the elections?

How the election can be held in this situation?

What will happen if the elections are held among those who accept them?

Let us see how they will hold the elections! We will keep on fighting.

The bond in the party had become stronger following the unification convention [in September 2010]. Where will this feud lead the party?

The two congresses no longer exist. There is no Nepali Congress (Democratic) [Deuba had led the NC (Democratic) after the party split in 2002 until it unified with mother party in 2007]. I am not the only who has been taking exception to the dissolution issue. There are leaders from the establishment who have objected to the dissolution of sister wings.

Will the party split into Nepali Congress and Nepali Congress (Democratic) due to this feud?

Sher Bahadur Deuba alone is not involved in this issue. Arjun Narsingh [KC] is also involved. He [KC] is the man from their side [the establishment]. This is a fight for justice.

But the central committee dissolved the wings through a democratic system of voting. Why do you object to the decision then?

I was the one who had rallied behind Prakash Man Singh [party general secretary who proposed to dissolve the party wings in the central committee] when then central committee removed him from the post of district president of Kathmandu. Can an elected body be dissolved by a majority?

Does it mean that the decision of the majority is not acceptable to you?

How can I accept? Such a decision cannot be taken. What crimes had they [the dissolved wings] committed? What discipline had they breached? A committee should be formed even to punish someone.


But there are precedents of the party dissolving its wings.

I am against such decisions. Mistakes should not be repeated. I had also protested in the past.

Let us talk about national politics. Why is the peace process not gaining momentum?

Speaking in my capacity as the student of political science, it is not an easy task to conclude the peace process.

But five years have elapsed since the peace process began.

It is the matter of happiness that the Maoist leaders have expressed their commitment to conclude the peace process.

But there are no signs if the peace process will conclude.

[Laughs], you better ask the Maoist leaders. It is a difficult task.

But the prime minister has accused the NC and the CPN-UML of being rigid. They have also accused the NC leaders of obstructing the peace process. What do you say?

NC has not obstructed the peace process. Why are they trying to blame us when intra-party feud in UCPN (Maoist) is actually to blame?

The Maoists had proposed to begin categorization by finalizing the number of combatants. But why did you stress on settling all contentious issues before starting the process?

We want to settle all the issues. How many times should we take up the same issues? So we want to settle all the issues at once. Rather, let us take some time. Let us sit together for 15 days and discuss the issues. Let us take three months instead of a month. No one benefits by prolonging the disputes.

How many ex-Maoist combatants would be integrated?

I will not share it with you now.

But the number is not the problem?

Yes, it is not a problem.

What will happen if the peace process does not conclude in the extended three-month term of the Constituent Assembly?

The peace process will conclude. Both Baburam [Bhattarai] and Prachanda [Pushpa Kamal Dahal] have committed to completing the peace process.

Do you personally believe that commitment?

It is not easy. But why should I doubt their intentions? I wish them success.
nnnn



________________________________________