Krishna Prasad Sitaula, a senior leader of Nepali Congress, is very close to the spirit of the

home-grown peace process as he has been

involved in negotiations with former rebel Maoists from the very beginning. He was Home Minister before and after the Maoists joined mainstream politics — the most crucial periods of the peace process. He is also one of the most criticised as well as highly

commendable leaders, both within and outside the party circle. Sitaula

is also one of the most trusted leaders of NC president Girija Prasad Koirala. He has a calm nature and aggressiveness cannot be seen in him usually and he generally prefers to remain away from the media.

In an interview with Prakash Acharya at his residence in Baluwatar on Sunday, Sitaula said ultra left and ultra-rightist forces are becoming stronger and democracy is

becoming weaker in all the political parties and in the whole Nepali politics in

recent days. He thinks that a continuation of this will not only dissolve the peace process but will also push the country towards bloodshed. He says formation of a Maoist government is impossible until the party’s combatants and weapons are managed. Since the combatant issue is crucial, the promulgation of a new constitution and completion of the peace process are also impossible without first settling the issue. Only 3-5 thousand combatants, who meet criteria, could be integrated in different security bodies and homework should

be done on the same basis, he says.

Excerpts of the interview:

The recently-formed three-party High-Level Political Mechanism (HLPM) could not muster support like the Seven-Party mechanism, which made historical decisions during the peace process in the past. Given this, how can the HLPM work?

The three leaders have not still floated the issue into their respective parties to garner support formally. The mechanism has not got a full shape as other

parties are yet to be included in it. It

is yet to fix its modality and working procedure. So, suspicions will automatically be removed once these things are sorted out. In fact, there are no objections against it. Rather, parties and leaders are suggesting the three leaders clear skepticism surrounding it.

The skepticism centered over the HLPM “may change the present coalition”. What is your take on this?

Sitaula: The HLPM will not have any role in forming and dismantling the government. The three leaders — (GP) Koirala, Prachanda and (Jhalanath) Khanal — are clear on not involving

the HLPM in the government issue.

The leaders (in the presence of the

Prime Minister) have already discussed the issue and the PM has thrown his support to the mechanism.

But, among the three broad objectives of the HLPM, the objective of ‘ending the current deadlock’ is directly related to the change in guard. How can the deadlock end without addressing the Maoists’ demands on the issue of the President’s move on the army chief and the change in the guard?

Problems have surfaced in the country as leaders deviated from the nation’s main agendas and focused on

power-interest. The Maoists failed to run the government by taking coalition

partners into confidence. The former rebels intervened in the Nepal Army affairs. Consequently, the Unified CPN-Maoist resigned itself from the government. During the eight-month government, it could not bring a plan to manage its combatants. These were the Maoists’ great mistakes and failures. There is no chance that the two demands of the Maoists would be fulfilled. Other parties will never be ready to accept those Maoist mistakes. Rather, the Maoists should realise their mistake.

The UCPN-M and you (NC and UML) are blaming each other of being mistaken on the issue. So how can the deadlock end until both of you are flexible in your stances?

The UCPN-M has no option but to realise its mistake and give top priority to the nation’s main agendas — peace process and writing a new constitution. I want to counter question the Maoists: will the UCPN-M not write a constitution until the President’s issue is resolved? Does the party want to deviate from the peace process and the process of writing

the constitution? Is the PM’s post bigger than the peace process? Is the Maoists’ main objective capturing power? Do not they have responsibility towards

the people as the largest party? Should they not be bound to their previous commitments in practice? If the Maoists don’t realise these things, the peace process will not see a logical end while there will be no new constitution.

In this situation, are chances of

the Maoists withdrawing their

indefinite general strike beginning

January 24 dim?

Sitaula: I again want to repeat the term ‘realisation’. The Maoists will realise

and must realise the ground reality.

Since there is no chance that the President’s move could be questioned in

the way they are demanding, how

can their demand be appropriate? However, other alternatives could be sought to address the issue without questioning the President’s move.

Is the Maoists’ demand to change the guard possible?

It is quite impossible, until the

Maoists’ combatants and weapons are managed. I want to stress that the

two other tasks — completing the

peace process and writing the new constitution — will also never be accomplished until the combatants’ issue is settled. So, it is better for the Maoists to work towards resolving the issue.

You have seen the peace process

very closely. How responsible did

you find the Maoists?

In the beginning, the Maoist leadership showed courage to embrace the peace process and democratic values and leave the armed war. The party, however, could not change itself in the open politics. Its leadership failed to give democratic and peaceful schooling to its cadres, who were groomed in war. It also failed to meet a number of its previous

commitments such as returning

seized property and stopping extortion, intimidation and killings.

Don’t you think the Maoists are using the peace process as a strategy to achieve power by hook or crook?

They might be guided with that objective. We cannot exactly say for now. But we used the peace process as a strategy to democratise and mainstream them.

What are the things — Prachanda’s video tape of Shaktikhor cantonment, his recent speech at Khanna Garment, Dr Baburam Bhattarai’s interview to a foreign online media and the Maoists’ other forceful activities — which reveal the Maoists’ intention to capture power?

We can easily assume that the Maoist party is facing an internal problem due to its two diverse views. One group still wants to capture power by hook or crook, while another wants to adopt the democratic and peaceful process to achieve power. In such a situation, if the democratic line of the NC and the UML could prevail, the growing influence of the ultra-left and ultra-rightist forces of the country, the Maoists’ ‘mission of forcefully capturing power’ will weaken and ultimately die out. However, a serious thing is that the Maoists’ recent activities show they are heading away from the peace process. If they completely deviate from it, the peace process will also end.

What will be the situation like if the peace process was dissolved?

It will invite a situation of encounter, clash, anarchy and bloodshed. It will be harmful to the whole nation.

Who is posing as a major threat to the peace process?

The growing influence of ultra-leftist and ultra-rightist forces are the main threats. They exist in all

political parties and in the entire national politics. It is sad that the democratic values in all the parties are weakening. If the situation continues, the peace process could break up any time. As this is a sign of danger, the democratic line must prevail over the extremists.

Some say the Maoists used congress president Girija Prasad Koirala to establish their agendas and emerge as the largest party. What do you say?

I don’t think so. All the agreements were meant to establish peace. It is

open for all.

You attended almost all meetings between Koirala and Prachanda? Could you elaborate some interesting aspects of their ways of dealing with each other?

Their dealing ways always remained simple. Girijababu always spoke

boldly, sharply and fearlessly. He has a tendency of keeping his views before other leaders without thinking that that it might raise anger. Prachanda also put forth his views always clearly and humbly. Girijababu sometimes snapped at Prachanda for the latter’s aggressive speeches aired by televisions. Prachanda, most of the time, presented his views and logics diplomatically and calmly.

You are criticised within your party and accused of misguiding and misinforming the octogenarian party president. Some accuse you of becoming more flexible with the Maoists than necessary. What do you think?

I have some friends who still say that the 12-point agreement with the Maoists was a mistake. I think I worked very carefully and responsibly to see to it that the fluid situation is not distracted. It was Girijababu’s wish while the then ground reality was also fragile. The criticism might have come because I am unable to make understand those friends the ground reality or they don’t want to understand it. A tendency of trying to lift one’s own career by assassinating other’s character is also rampant among political parties. Although I worked with utmost honesty and responsibility, I have been targeted by ultra-leftist and ultra-rightist forces. Such forces have started to attack those who are supporting the democratic process and this is unfortunate.

Why do you think are the Maoists aggressive against India and other international community in recent days?

Such behaviour against a friendly country does not suit the largest party. It also does not augur well in the mutual relations between the two nations. If the UCPN-M thinks it had to leave the government because of India, it is merely an illusion. I have always found India and other friendly nations positive to Nepal’s democratic process.

How do you assess UNMIN’s role?

I don’t want to comment much on UNMIN. But it was unable to accomplish its mandate — monitoring combatants and weapons. It remained a mute spectator even when combatants came out of cantonments with weapons and involved in criminal activities.

How many combatants could be integrated in security bodies?

Maoist chairman Prachanda had agreed with Girijababu to induct only three to five thousand combatants,

while agreeing on management of combatants and weapons. We could not

make a written agreement then as combatants were yet to be sent to the

cantonments. As such, the government should come up with a work plan to integrate the same number of combatants. Neutrality and professionalism of the security forces should be given utmost priority while inducting them.