Had Kishunji won in 1990, politics would have taken positive course: PM Khanal

REPUBLICA

(Prime Minister Khanal, who has on his shoulders responsibility for taking the country forward from the transitional period and delivering the constitution, was minister for agriculture, forest and land reform in the cabinet led by Krishna Prasad Bhattarai in 1990. Bhattarai successfully transformed the country from an autocratic Panchayat to a democratic system and delivered a constitution.)

Nepali Congress (NC), the then CPN-ML and other left political parties jointly spearheaded the people´s movement in 1990. Institutionalizing the achievements of the movement was not possible without unifying them and properly managing their political differences. A personality who would stand for democratic values with unflinching determination and unify other political parties and progressive forces was the need of the time.

In fact Kishunji aptly played that role. He didn´t compromise on the basic democratic principles and never forgot to accommodate all the others as well. The CPN (ML) also played a central role in accommodating others.

He correctly understood that promulgating a new constitution and holding general elections was not possible without proper coordination and cooperation with our party, CPN (ML). Therefore, he always maintained a special and dynamic relationship with us-- be it within the cabinet or outside. That cordial relations between the two parties made it possible to deliver the constitution and holding the general election.

We had differences too. But his dynamic and flexible nature helped us find common ground and settle the differences.

Monarchy was one of the major forces at that time. It tried to create obstructions to transforming the country into a democratic society. We planned to form a commission to draft a new constitution. But the royal palace declared a commission in advance. We rejected that and declared a commission for the purpose from the cabinet. After that, the commission started the statute-drafting process. Again the royal palace prepared a draft and distributed it everywhere.

At a cabinet meeting, Kishunji brought that draft along. I took the draft from his hand and torn it into pieces right then and there. It created an awkward situation at the meeting. I told him that he should not have entertained such things, the prime minister shouldn´t bring such things to a cabinet meeting.

He presented himself in an angry mood there. But immediately after the meeting, he called me to his chamber. When we reached there, he thanked me. "I must thank you because you did exactly what I had expected. Such drafts will not find entry into a cabinet meeting in future," he said. He said that from now onward no one will dare to forward such drafts, thinking that Jhalanathji would tear them up. In fact, he had very strong ground to argue with the royalists because we were there [in the cabinet].

As Kishunji would feel pressure from the royalists, he would argue that it was not possible to pass their agenda because of the presence of the communists. Next day, I would get a call from the palace. I always stood firm in our stance. Such a situation continued for long and the constitution in 1990 was promulgated after a complicated struggle. Drafting a constitution became possible because of Kishunji´s skills and abilities in formal and informal ways.

It was two-way. He also shared the views of the king with us. We [communists] were outspoken against the monarchy. Kishunji persuaded the royalists, saying that striking a compromising deal was a must to accommodate the communists. We made compromises on many issues because we understood the complications before him.

We became ready to promulgate the constitution with reservations on 27 provisions. He welcomed our move saying that registering differing views was a healthy practice in democracy. He had told us that this would hold special significance in future. The statute was a document of compromise among the three major political forces-- royalists, the NC, and the left alliance including CPN-ML.

It was in 1990 that I met Kishunji for the first time at the residence of Yog Prasad Upadhyay. We met in connection with making preparations for a movement. We discussed about the main slogan of the movement. We finalized the slogan as per my proposal as Ganeshmanji seconded my idea.

He used to crack jokes even at the cabinet meetings. At one cabinet meeting, he said all of us ministers would get elected in the general election and he would be glad to welcome us again as ministers to his cabinet after the poll. "Whoever from among you want to become ministers in my next cabinet, let me know in advance," he had said.

But, when the election campaign was in the last stage, I heard that he was going to loose in Kathmandu constituency 1, where he was competing with our then general secretary Madan Bhandari. I felt strongly that a leader like Kishunji must be get elected and he should play a leading role in parliament. I called him from my home district Ilam and proposed an agreement with our party. But he was confident of his victory and suggested to me to make good preparations for my own election.

Later he was defeated. I still believe that had Kishunji won the election in 1990, the course of politics in our country would have taken a positive direction. Had he won, Nepali politics wouldn´t be in confusion over institutionalizing democratic values as per the objectives of the movement of 1990.

There is a mountain of challenges and historic opportunities before me as well. I have some advantages too. Since 1990, many leaders including Kishunji have played important roles on their part in connection with institutionalizing democracy in the country. The work done and roles played by them can be a guideline for me. I can learn from them.

There are similarities and differences between the transitional periods at present and in 1990. There are similarities because we are in transition, we are moving ahead in more democratic age and we have to empower the people with more rights and more prosperity.

There are drastic differences in the power structures then and now. We have witnessed a sea change and there is a huge prospect for opportunities as well at the present.

In view of the changed context, I will move ahead accommodating all the forces.

As told to Thira L Bhusal and Tilak Pathak