The rapidly growing voices within the Nepali Congress heavyweights favouring the king’s place and the complete silence of the prime minister in this regard signify his feeble appreciations and support to these voices.

BY Prakash C. Ghimire

Some people get it with their competencies, commitments, contributions and recognitions, others achieve it by virtue of their capacity to bow and scrape, however, for Mrs. Sujata Jost, it was neither of these when she got appointment as a minister in the cabinet led by her father. Playing many fouls in the game of politics, throwing her weight around and flexing her muscles, she has finally run the show. She might be feeling on the top of the world with this achievement, however, her inclusion in the cabinet followed by her repeated shriek in favour of the redundant monarchy has hit majority of the Nepalese where it hurts most. She has become successful to twist the octogenarian prime minister around her little finger. In a situation when everybody’s eyes were focussed towards the ailing prime minister to see him lean backwards in favour of the country and its people, he has kicked everybody in the teeth. What could be the underlying reasons for the prime minister behind the induction of his own daughter as the minister without portfolio endangering his glorious political career? Is this the outcome of some coercion to counterbalance the internal power struggle within the Nepali Congress or a calculated move to fulfil a hidden motive? Or is this the result of a mere changed power equation within the Koirala family?

Nepalese political amphitheatre has been affected, positively as well as adversely, time and again with the rise and fall of political players in and around the Koirala family. The power equation within the Koirala family has changed significantly after the death of Nona Koirala, who was considered to be the major source of inspiration as well as a close political aide for prime minister Koirala. The prime minister was reported to be taking political decisions acknowledging the instructions and appreciating the aspirations of Nona Koirala. He never dared to challenge the prepositions of his beloved sister-in-law. Despite being the first daughter, Sujata was not able to surpass the politically heavy weight Nona. The unexpected entry of Dr. Sekhar Koirala in the political arena as a heavyweight player regardless of the approval from majority of family members including Sujata, and his projection to play a pivotal role in the peace process was an indication of the supremacy of Nona Koirala during her heydays. The political anguish that was nurturing in disguise within the anti-Nona camp suddenly found its way after her death which was manifested in the unsolicited remarks that Sujata made time and again. The present day’s marginalisation of Dr. Sekhar despite his potentials and the emergence of Sujata as a strong political figure even without any aptitude is the pinnacle of the dominance of anti-Nona camp in manipulating the prime minister. This change in power equation has now reached the climax with the awarding of a berth in the cabinet for Sujata despite her repetitive assault to the interim constitution.

Sujata has been powerfully lobbying a space for the king in contrary to the mandate of her own party Nepali Congress which, through its general convention, had decided to go for republican system. She has been standing firmly in favour of the king sidelined even by the political parties of the royalists, at a time when her own father, the prime minister who used to advocate strongly a levelled ground for the king, had positioned himself, at least in words, against the continuation of monarchy in Nepal . Sujata’s open support to the so-called Madhesi movement which is considered by many to be the conception of the royalists to foil the Constituent Assembly (CA) poll and serve the interest of India, is the evidence that she is favouring the king not only in words but also in deeds. The present care-taker government has in its shoulder the important responsibility of conducting CA election, which has been believed as the only remedy to so many chronic diseases prevailing in the Nepalese society, in free and fair manner. Inclusion of a controversial person like Sujata in the cabinet has raised many eyebrows as she has been ardently advocating for the revival of the 1990 constitution rather than the CA polls. The statement of a cabinet member against the spirit of the interim constitution is not only a serious violation of political norms and values but also an offence against the state.

The attribute of the present cabinet is so delicate that it can stop functioning at any time even with a minor grudge from any of the coalition partners. The prime minister has in his shoulder a gigantic responsibility of managing the conflicts and controversies to prevent the cabinet from derailing. However, the inclusion of his own daughter, having controversial track records, in the cabinet without seeking consensus within the collaborating partners is certainly a move that does more harm than good for the interest of the country. The discontents sprouting in the parliament against the statements that are being articulated by Sujata and her contentious character indicate that her inclusion in the cabinet will be very costly not only to the prime minister but also for the peace seeking Nepalese. More controversies and confrontations are expected in the days to come if Sujata does not correct herself by acknowledging the spirit of the peoples’ movement that has been instrumental in placing her in the present position.

Is this a deliberate move of the prime minister and his allies – a part of the grand design to save the monarchy? Or a despondent move to establish his own daughter as a political inheritor? Is the prime minister, through the inclusion of a strong advocate of the monarchy in the cabinet, giving clear and strong message to those who are lobbying for republican Nepal that he, too, stands firmly in favour of the king? Possibility of this assumption could not be ruled out. After all, he was also strongly advocating a space for the king despite the verdict of the popular movement which paved way for him to become the historic prime minister and head of the state. How can anyone believe that the prime minister was not warned by the advisors when he was going astray? The rapidly growing voices within the Nepali Congress heavyweights favouring the king’s place and the complete silence of the prime minister in this regard signify his feeble appreciations and support to these voices. A berth in the cabinet for his ‘royalist’ daughter might be the desperate effort to rationalise such voices and capacitate them either to thwart upcoming CA polls or to lobby strongly in favour of the king’s place. If the intention is to obstruct the CA polls, the prime minister is betraying the people and playing against the sentiments and aspirations of all those who are expecting good to happen under his leadership. If Sujata’s becoming a minister is to counterbalance internal power struggle within the Nepali Congress and ensure safe landing of the peace process, it might be excusable. In contrary, if the move is to encourage and strengthen the royalists’ capacity to thwart the CA polls or guarantee the king’s place in the Nepalese constitution, the prime minister will be compelled to pay the cost of betrayal in the future.

The prime minister, who is in the last inning of his political life, should realise the fact that there is no other proper way than to believe in peoples’ power, tell them the truth and treat them like human beings. History has shown that Nepali people are not intimidated by danger and they are far more willing to sacrifice for the country than most politicians suspect. If the sentiments of people are not taken care, another accident will surely happen. The prime minister need to learn from the past and should not rely on the historic clichés to dictate future actions when it comes to the fate of the monarchy in the country. He should utilise the last golden opportunity provided to him in this critical juncture of his political career wisely and obediently complying with the mandate of the people’s movement. To be a great leader he has to appreciate the sentiments of the majority of the people. Greatness does not come by pursuing greatness; it comes through the steady application of intelligence, guts and nerve to the pursuit of honourable ends. For the ailing prime minister, the ‘time’ has been giving many opportunities to be established as a great leader and, if he fails to respond to this last chance wisely, history will not forgive him.

(Civil Engineer by profession, Prakash C. Ghimire is associated with Netherlands Development Organisation (SNV) as a Senior Advisor for Renewable Energy Programmes in seven Asian and African countries with the duty station in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. He can be reached at: prakashchgh@gmail.com)