E-Kantipur

Ghanashyam Bhusal is supposed to be one of the ‘architects’ behind the efforts to unite the CPN-UML, a party that has been divided for the past few years between the factions headed by KP Oli (usually thought to have Madhav Nepal on his side) and Jhala Nath Khanal. The unity efforts have, surprisingly, brought together old adversaries Oli and Khanal, a move some perceive as an attempt to sideline Nepal, the former party chief. Bhusal spoke with Bhadra Sharma and Gyanu Adhikari about new and old alliances in the UML, and its stance on wider national issues. 

You’ve tried to bring together CPN-UML leaders facing three different directions. How long will this attempt last?

The party has been leaning in multiple directions after the general convention. The UML lost out because of this, and the country also lost something. It was necessary that this diversion ended.

Some people say that this current proposal is brought forward to ‘bring to size’ Madhav Nepal and Ishwor Pokhrel.

It’s incorrect to say that anyone will be excluded when the party becomes united and stronger. No one should feel that way. Our effort was not started with that intent. During the general convention, there were two panels in UML—so the primary contradictions were between the so-called JN Khanal and KP Oli group. Without some kind of understanding between the two, unity in the party would have been impossible.

Has there been a ‘gentleman’s agreement’ to induct KP Oli as a Constituent Assembly member? Or if that fails, to support Oli as the Chairman of the party during the party’s next general convention?

The thing about the CA is still under discussion. Nothing has been decided.  Regarding the chairman of the next general convention, that’s pure propaganda. No commitment has been made on it. No discussions—nothing.

How is this going to affect peace, constitution and the government?

In terms of ideology and principles, UML was in the best position to give momentum to the peace and constitution-writing process. In terms of the organisation, the disunity led to its role being less effective. Naturally, unity in the party will help with those processes. This government is based on the four-point agreement between the Maoists and the Madhesi parties. Under no circumstances will we join this government.

The contradictions in your party are the results of ideological differences on say, federalism, or personality clashes?

It’s partly a result of our internal democratisation. Leaders haven’t been able to accept a win or a loss in elections. It’s a question of political culture. We haven’t been able to maintain standards of an intelligent and principled political culture.

What’s the party’s clear stance on federalism?

We’ve been discussing federalism for the short period of time, ie two to four years. And the proponents of ethnic federalism and special rights for ethnic groups have been accusing us of being against federalism. It’s true that we’re against ethnic federalism. But the thing is Nepal is not like China—where minorities share the country with a clear majority. Nepal is a country of minorities. So we can’t copy a federal structure like others’. Also, we can’t have federalism based on ethnicity.

How do you define a ‘federalism based on ethnicity?’ Does giving a federal state an ethnic name alone base it on ethnicity?

Not only that. We’re talking about reparations and special rights based on ethnicity—special rights along with identity. They won’t be secular. I’d say they won’t even be humanistic. Either the federal union will be ethnic or it will be humanistic—humanistic in the sense of being secular. Turns out the Nepali language doesn’t have an exact word for secular. UML wants federalism to be secular.

Does secular connote religion?

No, it’s also about origin, caste, clan and religion. It’s about not being communalistic. That’s the kind of secularism we’re looking for.

But for the provinces to be secular, doesn’t the state itself need to be secular? For example, the Prime Minister for your own party, a communist, before he enters the Prime Minister’s quarters in Baluwatar, does an elaborate Hindu puja. 

One thing is that whatever we’ve historically received, we’re leaving them behind. Tomorrow, we’ll leave even more things behind. Another thing is to figure out what is culture and what is communalism. We need to have more discussions on this.

The other basis of federalism—capability—is also faces similar contradiction. How do you ask provinces to be capable when the state itself relies heavily on external sources to sustain itself?

Capability comes coupled with identity. The narrower identity gets, the deeper it gets. The wider capability gets, the deeper it gets. It’s contradictory. If we don’t take secularism as a goal, that federalism won’t see the light of the day, or if it does, it won’t last.

Post Your Comment

Please note that all the fields marked * are mandatory.
* Full Name
* Address
* Email Address
* Comment
* Captcha	Get another CAPTCHA code
Note:	Comments containing abusive words or slander shall not be published.