The 11th General Convention of the UML is being held in Kathmandu from Mangsir 27-29. Since the political report and the statute were passed at the statutory general convention on Bhadra 20-22, this general convention will focus more on selecting the leadership. Chairman KP Sharma Oli, who has led the UML for two terms, is preparing to become the chairman again.

Senior Vice President Ishwor Pokharel has announced his candidacy against him. Focusing on the general convention, Kantipur's Ganga BC spoke to Pokharel. What is the meaning of UML holding the general convention a year in advance?

There are some arguments behind the decision to hold the general convention a year in advance. Earlier, the election was to be held in 2084. It was decided to hold the election a year in advance, thinking that it would make a positive contribution to the election by organizing the party in terms of ideas and organization before the election. 

Will the general convention reorganize the party and its leadership before the election to be held on 21 Falgun, or is it just a general change? 

The main thing is that the party should become dynamic. That means it should continue to be reorganized according to the needs. Reorganized means reorganization in leadership and ideas, reorganization in the style of work. That does not mean destruction. It means giving new life. New questions have been raised about the issue of ideology. It is necessary to restructure the party leadership and ideology in order to answer those new questions. For that, it is necessary to reorganize the organization and reorganize the leadership. Only then will the party become dynamic. Only such a party can face challenges.

Does the reorganization of the leadership mean a change in the leadership of Chairman KP Sharma Oli?

That is just one issue. I said that there should be an overall reorganization of the party. Yesterday, a party committee was formed in a specific situation. Now we need to see whether it is functioning in a practical manner. It had to be reorganized according to the time. That means reorganization. Naturally, during the reorganization, questions also arose about the leaders in the party leadership. The question is not from a negative angle. When new challenges are coming, the issue of leadership reorganization should not be viewed otherwise.

It has been 11 years since Oli became the party chairman. After he became the 'first man' and 'led', important work has also been done. Work has also been done to raise the prestige of the party. No one can ignore these things. But problems have also been seen. It is not that he alone is responsible for them. Other people in the leadership also have a stake in those problems. If a question has been raised, an answer is needed. An answer must be sought. Similarly, in thinking, after the change in yesterday's 'course', there is also the question of how to proceed in a new way. There was a situation until Bhadra 22, 082. The movement of Bhadra 23-24 created a new situation. An interim government was formed. The constitution itself was injured. Many such questions have been raised.

The elections were also supposed to be in 084. However, they have been scheduled for Falgun 21. The state mechanisms have been affected in various ways. This is a completely new situation. Therefore, the analysis and approach up to Bhadra 22 are not sufficient in the current situation. Now, we need to find ways to proceed in a new way.

For that, discussions are needed. At the same time, it is necessary to rearrange the style of work. For that, our ideas must be put into practice. If there are mistakes/weaknesses while engaging in the movement and building the organization, the important question is how to 'realize' them and go among the people and workers at the grassroots level and address the following issues effectively. What we have been practicing may require us to go beyond what we have been doing. Therefore, reorganizing the party is for the progress and progress of the party.

You have announced your candidacy for the presidency when you retire. Why claim to be in the leadership of the UML? 

When I was announcing my candidacy, I first 'visualized' the challenges facing the party. What problems are there in the ideas? Where should they be fixed? Where should the organization be fixed? Where are the problems in the style of work? I have experienced these issues. Identifying the problem correctly is half the solution. That is why I have been able to 'visualize' the problem well. Another thing is that I have also proposed a solution. What should be done in terms of organizing such ideas? I have proposals on what should be done in terms of organizing the organization and how to organize the style of work. 

I have been working with this party continuously and unwaveringly since day one. I have been continuously active in the party even in the midst of many upheavals. That is why I think I 'deserve' the chairmanship. With my history, loyalty, continuity, perseverance, and my unwavering commitment to identifying and solving the party's problems, I also have some concrete proposals. The chairman's political contribution is in its place. That contribution should not be ignored or underestimated. However, he was the party chairman for 11 consecutive years.

From 072 BS to 082 BS, he became the Prime Minister for about six years in the 10 years after the constitution was promulgated. This tenure is an important period for one person (Oli). During this period, he has fulfilled all the roles he had to show and play. He also received many important opportunities and contributed. Along with this, there were weaknesses. I think that weaknesses should not be continued now. That is why he will not continue. Now it is better for him (Oli) to remain as a guardian, as a protector. It is necessary not only for him but also for the party, the movement and the country.

Some are saying that competing with KP Oli means facing a big challenge and standing against him will lead to the same fate as Bhim Rawal and Madhav Nepal, right?

There are also experiences within our party in this. UML is the party that has accepted the politics of competition in its 'guiding principle'. We have accepted the politics of competition, activism, initiative, public service, competition and superiority. I understand what you are trying to say. But we take competition as natural. There is one problem. That is talking about competition but not being able to accept the results of competition. We have specific experiences. There are examples of parties standing in favor of party unity even after the results obtained through competition. On the other hand, there is also an experience of not being able to accept the results of competition and going in a negative direction. We should all be aware that we should not go in a negative direction.

Some are saying that UML is KP Oli, KP Oli is UML. Is Chairman Oli still saying that he will take the leadership of the party himself?

In which context does which leader say what? It is not appropriate to generalize or interpret it. No matter who the leader is, if it is interpreted as so-and-so being the party, and the party being so-and-so being the party, it is unnatural. This is a crude presentation. What did Chairman Oli say? In which context did he say it? We should understand that.

Another thing, competition is natural in the life of UML. It should be taken naturally. A person who has reached the standard can compete with anyone. Those who cannot take competition naturally cannot be supporters of the people's multi-party democracy. Those who advocate for competition but cannot accept its results should not show the weaknesses that are revealed. I am ready to accept any result obtained from competition. 

Former President Vidya Bhandari had come to compete with Oli, but her membership was kept pending. She was prevented from competing, wasn't she?

I had a belief from the beginning about the former President's membership. A person who has reached that position may not come into active politics. She may come. My chairman himself once said in an interview that if Vidya Bhandari wanted to come into active politics, she would be 'most welcome'. Not only that, she went to the party office and renewed her membership after consulting with the head of the party's organization department and a member of the party's standing committee. Vidya Bhandari also paid the membership fee. However, later, she was not given membership for various reasons. Later, it was said that the method and process were not sufficient. Stopping her membership in such a way was not only unfair, but also wrong. And, unjust. Even if her membership has been 'dropped' for now, this issue will continue to arise from time to time. This issue will continue to haunt the party leadership. 

Looking back, you supported Jhalanath Khanal in the 8th National Convention. He became the general secretary. You supported KP Oli in the 9th National Convention. He won. You became the senior vice president after Oli in the 10th National Convention. But, now you are competing with Oli. How easy is it?

It is not a matter of what is done once, it will always be done. My argument when supporting Jhalanathji in the 8th National Convention was. Which I had also made public. I thought that if Jhalanathji comes to the leadership of a person who works ideologically and intellectually, the party would become dynamic. At that time, I understood Jhalanathji in that way. I had told KP Oli everything clearly. I will not support you this time. Later, some problems were seen in Jhalanath's delivery. It was concluded that in the 9th National Convention, KP Oli should now be given an opportunity and everyone should support him.

I was influenced by his thoughts and stances and I also felt that KP Oli should be made the chairman in the ninth general convention. I was in favor of KP based on what was proven by facts. Now, not only within the party but also outside the party has become complicated. In such a situation, we need to manage the leadership wisely and respectfully and move in a new direction. Some friends are saying that leadership should be defended in times of crisis. How should leadership be defended? There can be different methods of defending leadership, right? Defending by keeping it as it is or by 'shifting' the place a little? I am in favor of defending leadership by 'shifting' the place. 

Even if you compete, in the current situation, the UML leadership will be selected according to Oli's wishes, right?

That is an exercise that should not be done. People can freely express their wishes. They can take responsibility. They can express their reactions in the context of fulfilling their responsibilities. It is wrong to not be able to digest competition and take it in an unnatural way. Competition should be taken naturally. It should be accepted but should be within the bounds of dignity.

Your audacity to rise up against so-and-so, against such-and-such a leader? Your audacity? This is actually unthinkable. Is this the culture within the Communist Party or not? Therefore, there is a need for a culture and tradition to accept the results.

Until the eighth and ninth general conventions of UML, the issue of internal democracy and competition was considered easy. Has it become complicated since the tenth general convention?

A situation made our weaknesses disappear. We were under siege from all sides. There was a need to restructure the party in a new way. When we focused on that need, we said that other things were secondary now. That is why the issue of competition did not come to the fore much in the tenth national convention. The environment was the same. We handled it in that kind of environment in the same way as a whole. But now the situation is not the same. Another kind of 'crisis' has come, and it is impossible to move forward with the status quo to manage it.

After the Gen-G movement, there is a demand for leadership transfer to the younger generation. However, the main competition is between leaders who are over 70. Isn't this the demand of the time?

You are right. According to the party's statute, there was an age limit of 70 years and two consecutive terms in the executive post, and they would not remain in the post. However, later, the 70-year-old was removed for various reasons. There was also talk of two terms, but what happened to the provision of two terms later (I call it a technical mistake). The statute that said that after running for the executive post twice, one cannot run for a third time has been 'written up'. Instead of saying that after running for the executive post twice, one cannot run for a third time, it has been 'written up' and made it so that if one runs for the executive post twice, one cannot run for a third time.

When this came before the Tenth National Convention, we were very surprised to see it in the statute. Then, there was a blunder in the statute. That clause itself was removed from the statute. The clause itself was removed when it needed to be corrected. After the clause itself was removed, the age limit of 70 years and the provision of two terms became open. In the context of ‘democratization’ of the party, when talking about democracy, there should have been a two-term issue. This is not a matter of politics, this is a task to be done in the process of managing the party organizationally. After the two-term and age limit were removed, it was removed for everyone.

It was removed for everyone. But in fact, if you ask me personally, that was the decision made at that time by the majority. But I still think that those two terms are necessary.

Has the practice of multi-party democracy also stopped as internal democracy and competition in the party have weakened?

There has not been a debate and discussion on this issue as needed. It is necessary to debate the implementation of multi-party democracy in the changed situation. The School Department Policy Studies Institute believes that it should be debated and discussed across the country to see if that aspect has started to weaken a little.

People's multi-party democracy is an idea developed by using Marxism in Nepali specificity. Our programs are also guided by this idea. Overall, there is a need to reconcile all these things with this idea. Some things are starting to fade a little. So is the idea a bit hollow?

Has Oli already said that the Madan Bhandari Foundation has no connection with the party?

Chairman Oli is one of the main leaders who established the Madan Bhandari Foundation. Although it is not affiliated with the party as a mass organization of the party, this organization was established so that it could play a role in interpreting, analyzing, and expanding the people's ideas of multi-party democracy.

Chairman KP Oli is preparing to enter the leadership selection process without debating the political report at the general convention. Has political debate also been banned?

We have adopted the practice of holding two general conventions, the National General Convention and the Legislative General Convention. There is a danger that if the work of law, policy, and leadership is done at the same time, there is a risk that there will be no healthy discussion. That is why the Legislative General Convention was started so that we can discuss policy and law separately. Then, it was decided to hold a separate National Convention with the argument that the leadership would be selected based on that policy and method. But what has been seen is that the practice done in the meantime is dragging the issue of leadership while passing the policy and method. It seems that it would not be relevant to hold two Conventions. Therefore, in the changed context, the National Convention should also discuss policy. As we people involved in the Communist Party understand, this is what the Convention does. In the current situation, the policy and method still need to be upgraded. For that reason, there is a debate on method and policy in the National Convention. There is also a matter of selecting the leadership.

Chairman Oli is preparing to bring a report to the Convention. Will you bring a report to counter it?

Not a ‘counter’ report. The idea that I have presented. It will be distributed at the Convention. Friends will read it, discuss it. It will focus on what needs to be discussed in the context of reorganizing the party in that changed context.

A campaign has been launched to save UML saying that KP is needed to move forward in the upcoming elections, right?

There is no talk of upheaval here by questioning and competing with the leadership. It is not about trying to disrupt the organizational life of UML. This is to make the method and system more organized. One of his roles to make the party more organized is to remain as a protector and guardian and let other friends take the lead. The leadership was decided by consultation. The leadership came through friendly competition. When we talk about what should be done in this way, it is not irrelevant to raise this issue (that Oli is needed) when this challenge is coming.

Chairman Oli has said from time to time that UML is under siege from all sides. Who has done the siege?

One thing is that the siege is something that is happening, it is necessary to say what has happened, but it is not necessary to keep saying it over and over again. It is important to understand the seriousness of the issue and do things.

How much cooperation and struggle have there been between you and Oli since the past?

How do I view Comrade KP Oli? He is a leader with a strong will, strong morale and the ability to put forward his views in a logical, very forceful manner. I understand him as a leader who takes a clear stand on the issue of nationalism. When he was in Nakkhu Jail, Central Jail (2045), I took some food with me. At that time, I was also underground. Later, after he was released from prison, I developed a good relationship with him. Coincidentally, I was the in-charge of Lumbini. After he was released, he went to be the party in-charge in Lumbini.

I came to Kathmandu Valley. After the multi-party system came, he went to the elections, and he did. He is a leader who has a sharp mind and is able to present his views in a logical manner to establish his views. I am a person who always stands in favor of the establishment. A person who believes that it should be run in an institutional manner. There was a period when he felt that he was a bit left out, devalued.

That was a little bit of a bad situation in the relations with the major leaders. But even then, he and I were in the task force on the democratization of party life. He was the coordinator of the task force formed after the Seventh National Convention in 2059 BS and I and other friends were members. We had unanimously reached a conclusion on the democratization of party life in the task force. That proposal went to the party center. The center accepted it unanimously. A phase of the party's democratization began at that time. Which was led by him (Oli). At that time, we were 100 percent in agreement with him.

Did you and Oli go together in the ninth and tenth general conventions, are you competing in the 11th?

There was a different situation in the tenth general convention. Because at that time, we all had to go together. Within our all-round party, various political parties within the country were in one place. There was such a situation when the UML was divided. At that time, we had to go together in unity. We still have a friendly relationship. I respect you. Age is a factor. He has lived a tortured prison life. I too have worked underground for 15 years in party building. We have our own backgrounds. He sometimes talks about my role and background.

Is there a possibility that Chairman Oli will accept you as the chairman?

What is difficult for me to accept him? What is difficult for him to accept me? He understands. But when you say accept, you probably mean accept as the chairman. We will discuss that, if there is competition, accepting competition is also accepting each other.

Should the government and the party leadership take responsibility for the Gen-G movement and the situation that arose after it?

At that time, whatever things were brewing inside. Even if there was a little bit of an idea of ​​it, it seems that it was not seriously guessed. But in the way that external forces and internal forces were brewing on the basis of dissatisfaction, those things were brewing. Until Bhadra 22, we were in a state of confidence. There was no preparation for the possibility that something like that would happen on Bhadra 23 and 24. Now the question of the common man is whether the National Investigation is under the Prime Minister's Office.

There is the Nepal Police. There is the Armed Police. There is the Nepal Army. There is the administrative apparatus of the state. Why are those organs unaware? Did they not inform or were they unaware? It is a serious question, isn't it? Let's not go into this question today. We may not want to hear this question. Let's not seek an answer to this question, but this question keeps coming up in history. Just as the good deed goes to the one who is in charge, the share of the disgrace also naturally goes to the one in charge.

Since it was the UML leadership at that time, the entire UML should take responsibility. Perhaps the level of leadership at that level that we were in didn't have the kind of alertness and vigilance that should have been there? As the executive head of the country, the question is directed to the Prime Minister. This does not mean that he should be told that this is the opportunity. But naturally, what the 'lay man' also says is whether the person in charge is accountable in such an incident or not? Should we take responsibility or not? We should take it. We should say it in a way that people can hear, understand, accept, and believe.

What kind of preparations has UML made to participate in the elections on Falgun 21?

UML is a party that accepts the democratic system. It has faith and trust in democracy. For that reason, we cannot even imagine that it will be separated from the elections. Even if no one asks questions or inquiries about UML from that angle, it will happen. But the question we raised from the beginning is that the current government has not worked for an environment conducive to the elections. This did not happen. The criminals who escaped from prison are out.