In the previous elections, the RPP supported UML Chairman KP Sharma Oli in Jhapa-5 and the UML supported RPP Chairman Rajendra Lingden in Jhapa-3. This time, Oli has one competitor in Jhapa-5, outgoing Mayor of Kathmandu Balendra Shah.

But this time, there is no agreement between the UML and the RPP to support each other. In such a situation, the parliamentary journey of both Oli and Lingden is being watched with interest. In addition, there is also interest in what issues the RPP is going to the elections with in the post-Gen-G movement elections. In this context, Lingden and Kantipur's Jaisingh Mahara and Gaurav Pokharel had a conversation:

You were the only RPP MP in the House of Representatives after 2074. After 2079, you reached 14. How many people do you plan to enter the parliament building this time?

The RPP will show a much better presence than in the past. It will bring unexpected and unimaginable results in some places in the elections. We are preparing accordingly. In the midst of the kind of extremism that is currently developing in the country, a party like the RPP with a clear, ideologically clear, and impeccable leadership is needed. If we want to save and build the country, the RPP must come as an even stronger force. There is a general belief that the country should be led by the country as much as possible from this election.

What is the basis for the fact that the situation that the election is due now and other political scenarios match your expectations?

There are efforts to motivate people through digital 'farming' and to make them fall prey to illusions by bringing them to their side. Looking at that, it seems that the result will be similar. However, beyond that, people's thinking and understanding are increasing. I think that what comes out alone does not work.

Nepal has been trapped in the geopolitical maze in recent days. Before building roads, development and infrastructure work, the country had to be saved first. Only after saving the country can the work be done. Therefore, since voters and intellectuals have started thinking with the country at the center, there will be no bad results. The results will be in favor of the country.

Now it seems that voters are looking for an alternative force. Some parties have been seen as alternative. Does the RPP fall under the definition of an alternative force?

There is no doubt that the country is now looking for an alternative. However, the alternative is not of face, but of thought. Now, saying that this system and state structure are right means saying that this republic, secularism, federalism, and the laws under it are right. Those who say so are not new. The current alternative is the RPP, which has clearly presented its views on the state structure. The country needs an alternative. We have been saying for a long time that this system, the electoral system under this system, and the leadership that builds this state structure cannot build a country. Therefore, the leadership must also be changed. The corrupt system they brought must also be ended. Only then can the country achieve peace, stability, and development. The Nepal we envisioned will be created. 

The RPP has positioned itself against corruption and in favor of good governance. I proudly say that its leadership is the only impeccable leadership in today's Nepali politics. That is why the real alternative that the Nepali people are looking for is the RPP. The RPP may be an old party in terms of registration, but all the issues of change and alternatives that have arisen in Nepal today were initiated by the RPP and its current leadership.

Now, if we pursue something new or something new in the name of an alternative that we have never seen or heard of and that we do not even know where it will take the country in terms of ideas, perspectives, and philosophy, the country will be in even greater trouble.

There was no demand for a change in the system in the Gen-G movement on 23 and 24 Bhadra. But, why are you carrying the agenda of a change in the system in the elections after this movement?

There must have been a plan by some foreigner or some other unseen force in that rebellion. There must have been a desire. But, basically, for these 35-36 years, in the name of democracy, democracy, and republic, a few limited political parties and a handful of their leaders have imprisoned the country and misrule has been established in the country. That is what led to the rebellion.

We oppose corruption. We express dissatisfaction. We express anger. If so, we must go to the cause of corruption. Now we see some leaders as the cause of corruption. But that's not all. It's also the system brought by those leaders. This expensive election system is also to blame. You have to spend money on the election field to become an MP, then buy MPs or small parties to become the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister has to go back and forth to win the election. 

As long as this election system exists, it will continue to function as a foundation for corruption. Let's look at the other side, who does corruption? The people don't do it, the leaders do it. Who is the body that takes action against the corrupt? The authority, the court. Who is in the authority and the court? People appointed by the leaders. That's why the problem is in the system. It's in the appointment system. Even if Rajendra Lingden or Balen comes tomorrow, this is the system for appointing judges or commissioners.

After the Gen-G movement, its leaders reached the battlefield. There were discussions about political change. However, they had made it clear that they were not looking for an alternative to the system but for reforms in a democratic republic, right?

Why do leaders deteriorate? This corruption will not end until it reaches the level of why leaders deteriorate. The country will not even find a way out. Not only that, the desire of foreign countries to monitor the surroundings and fulfill their geopolitical interests by making Nepal the center only finds space. 

The first need in Nepal now is to make a new understanding between all political forces. There is a need for a new understanding where no one wins and no one loses, where the entire country wins. A system where no one needs to be banned, where everyone gets along, everyone fits in and everyone is respected must be created. For this, a radical change in this system is necessary. No political party can move the country forward by banning anyone else. Once we reach a point where everyone should go together and start discussing, all issues will be resolved. If we pursue something new without knowing where it will take the country in terms of ideas, perspectives and philosophy, the country will go into even greater trouble

You are saying that the monarchy will be restored. Is the option of going back also a reasonable one?

You also have a misconception, I want to dispel it. We are not saying that we will go back. We are not saying that we will go back to the previous monarchy, the previous system of governance. It is not our desire either. We are saying that the country cannot continue to remain in this situation.

We do not even imagine going backwards. The country will go forward. But to take the country forward by incorporating the good aspects of yesterday and today, a new consensus is needed among all of us. One has forbidden the other a lot. It has been going on for 35-36 years. Therefore, we should take the country forward through the politics of consensus, not the politics of prohibition.

I want to make it clear that talking about the monarchy does not mean going backwards. The RPP is saying that the monarchy should remain only as a guardian institution. The king does not belong to the RPP, but also to the Congress, UML, RSVP or other parties. The current options are to keep the king as a common and guardian institution, to make arrangements for an executive prime minister directly elected by the people, to make the parliament fully proportional, to prevent MPs from becoming ministers, and to make the local level non-partisan.

Party recommendations and quotas in appointments to constitutional bodies should end. Arrangements should be made for appointments based on merit and ability. In a country with a geopolitical situation like ours, we have been imitating other countries or philosophies for a long time. That has made the country more unstable. It has made it more prone to accidents. Therefore, we must now build our original system.

People who say that a monarchy is needed criticize the talk of a directly elected executive prime minister. But this issue is being raised so that the government can last for five years. This means that the prime minister should not be autocratic or corrupt, and that no kind of wrong treaty or agreement can be made. If the same person is the head of state and the head of government, it is dangerous for the country. What is being said is that the head of state should have the king as the guardian institution, but the prime minister should be directly elected by the people in the process of running the government. We are not saying that we will return to the previous monarchy, the previous system of governance.

What is visible on the face of the monarchy that you are asking for is that he himself has run the head of government and the head of state. Monarchy is a dynasty, so there is also a question of who his successors are. In such a situation, what kind of monarchy are you looking for?

The monarchy is completely constitutional.

It didn't seem like that in the past, did it?

At that time, the king had a system of special rights. That must have created some problems. But now it is called a completely reformed monarchy. The constitution itself says that the king cannot violate the constitution. The law on succession is made separately. A separate constitutional mechanism is made to determine the heir to the throne. That is why tomorrow the eldest son may become king, the eldest daughter may also become king. For that, we can make arrangements in the constitution through consensus.

We must make arrangements in such a way that the mistakes and weaknesses made by the monarchy or parties are not repeated. That is why we must have a national consensus among the national powers. If the king comes from defeat, there is a risk that he may become an autocrat. Therefore, we must make arrangements through consensus and so that no one can violate that consensus.

In 2015, the halo election symbol was of the Praja Parishad. At that time, he said that the parliament should be strengthened, and the king should be powerless like in Britain. He advocated religious freedom. You, however, say that the monarchy that was thrown out by the people's movement should be brought back. Why the agenda of going back even further than the Praja Parishad?

We are talking about a complete constitutional monarchy. Saying that there should be a monarchy like Britain, Japan, and Denmark does not mean going back. Having a monarchy does not mean not being a democracy. Having a king does not mean not being a democracy. A king and a democracy are not alternatives to each other. It is wrong to say that there is no democracy when there is a king and that a king is not imagined where there is a democracy. Today, the richest and largest democracy in the world has a monarchy in Britain. Today, the most developed countries in the world have a monarchy. And wherever there is a monarchy, those countries are not poor and in chaos.

  Rather than a defeat, let's give the monarchy a space through consensus, let's keep it as a guardian, let's keep it as an institution to ask when in trouble, let's keep it as an institution to find a way out of trouble We have not imagined an active monarchy. It has been said that the monarchy and the Hindu nation were rejected by the people. If it was rejected, when was the referendum held? Were the people asked? It was said that the parliament should have been restored when he was the king. After the king restored the parliament, that parliament ended the monarchy and the Hindu nation. Where were the people asked? Was there a referendum? Therefore, whether it was accepted or rejected by the people is wrong.

So I say again, rather than a defeat, let's give the monarchy a space through consensus. Let's keep it as a guardian. Let's keep it as an institution to ask when in trouble. Let's keep it as an institution to find a way out of trouble. The rest is for the people's representatives to run the country. RPP, Congress, UML, and RSVP will run the country. Whoever the people trust will run the country.

You are a candidate from Jhapa-3. In the previous elections, you had won the election by forming an alliance with UML. Have you discussed an alliance this time?

In 2074 and 2079, all political parties across the country fought the elections in coordination and alliance with someone or the other. In my constituency, we fought in coordination with UML. In that area, Congress had coordinated with parties including the Maoists. Since the main rival was forming an alliance, we also coordinated with UML in three districts including Jhapa.

This time, all parties across the country are fighting the elections alone. RPP is also fighting the elections alone. I had said this publicly and within my party ranks as soon as the 2079 elections were over, that RPP should prepare to fight the elections without coordinating with anyone across the country as much as possible. Especially in Jhapa-3, the party chairman now wins the election alone without coordinating with anyone. He does not form an alliance with anyone.

UML chairman KP Sharma Oli is the candidate in Jhapa-5. Outgoing Kathmandu mayor Balendra Shah has also gone to compete with him. Has there been no proposal to help from anywhere?

We did not field a candidate in Jhapa-5. This time, no party has spoken. How can we help others when we have our own candidate?

In an interview with Kantipur, the UML chairman had said that we are open to an alliance and that discussions are underway, right? If it is decided to support UML, a statement will be made, a press conference will be held, right?

If we are going to help, we will help each other by vacating seats, in the elections. There is no question of helping in any other way. In Jhapa-5, we have fielded a qualified candidate, Lakshmi Sangraula, from among those we have. She had been preparing for these three years and we were preparing her. She has risen. That is a place where we have a good presence. At a time when two types of extremism are prevailing, the people are looking at us as an alternative.

But UML Chairman Oli went to Damak and met Mayor Ram Thapa, elected from the RPP. After that, there is talk at the local level that he will support UML, right?

Congress leader Krishna Prasad Sitaula has not stood up in my constituency. I meet him and ask for votes. He gives me blessings and wishes. There will be meetings and conversations during the elections. Tomorrow, I may meet KP Oli or Sher Bahadur Deuba somewhere.

It is not that I will not speak, talk, or shake hands when I meet them. It is not that I will not meet Ravi-Balen either. It does not mean that we will support by keeping photos from that time, it does not mean that things have been agreed. If a decision is made to support, a statement will be made, a press conference will be held.

You and UML Chairman Oli have reached an understanding twice to support each other in each other's areas. You even became the Deputy Prime Minister in the government. What made you angry with Oli in the meantime?

It is not something to be angry or happy about. We have neither opposed nor supported him. We do what one political party does with another. However, naturally, we stand by his political philosophy or the alternative political system he has brought.  

I have told him this in a personal meeting. And I have also told him publicly. You may have brought this system with good intentions, you may have thought it would be good, but practice has proven that this system has failed. Now it does not work. If you keep trying to forcefully bring this forward, the country will suffer even greater losses. Now, it is different for the RPP or any other party to threaten to bring a majority alone.

I have further said that your activities must also be corrected. If they are not corrected, there will be a situation where you will have to flee, I had said that you may have to flee in a helicopter. Later, they said, "We old people cannot run, we cannot run. You have to run. I have a clear view of their thoughts and behavior. But, personally, I have respect for everyone.

After the last alliance, you had expressed that the RPP should fight alone now, so there is a concern everywhere about whether some issues have clouded your mind, right?

The alliance in the election did not go as planned. The way we voted with an open mind, it was also questioned whether they did not vote with an open mind, the way they thought about voting. We formed an alliance, but there was no 'transfer' of votes. Therefore, it was said that only leaders together can win voters.

At that time, we thought that it was not very fruitful, so we moved forward in a different way. I do not want to blame them either. However, in my mind, the president of a political party, who runs the country, who walks around thinking that he will change this system of the country, must get out of the situation of always feeling insecure and always having to coordinate with someone or something. And, after getting so much space, we decided to organize ourselves and move forward. That's why we were preparing to contest the elections on our own strength from a long time ago.

Is there a possibility of collaboration with Durga Prasai, who is running a separate campaign from Jhapa with the agenda of restoring the monarchy?

I am currently having a good conversation with him, that's all I can say. And, this time, everyone's opinion that we need a monarchy in Nepal, we need a Hindu nation, is unanimous across the country, that's all I can say.

So, is there a possibility that he will openly come out in favor of the RPP candidates? This time, everyone's opinion that we need a monarchy and a Hindu nation in Nepal is unanimous across the country, that's all.

If necessary, he may come. Right now, I am saying that positive discussions are underway even if he does this. This time, the votes of those in favor of the monarchy will not be divided. They will come out in one place across the country, that will come out in the form of a halo.

Kamal Thapa also brought the party together. When different groups were united, there were many aspirants. It also seemed like there was an internal dispute. How have you reconciled all the parties?

Not only Kamal Thapa, but from Surendra Bhandari to Swagat Nepal, they are with the RPP. In this polarization, the monarchy and Hindu Rashtra supporters are all in the same place. There is no division between the monarchy and Hindu Rashtra supporters now, and there are no separate candidates.

But earlier, Rabindra Mishra and Dhaval Shamsher Rana were holding different opinions within the RPP, how have you reconciled them?

Rabindra Mishra is our party's candidate to win the election this time and reach parliament. Kamal Thapa has also come, many things have been agreed upon. At this time, there are no complaints or dissatisfactions internally. Naturally, when the general convention comes, when taking the leadership, when taking the ticket, there are minor disputes. However, in the current situation, there is no dispute left in the Rastriya Prajatantra Party that would affect the election or make others laugh.

Many have considered this election as new versus old. In which category do you place yourself?

From the perspective of national politics, there is confusion and confusion on some issues. But as the elections approach, everything becomes clearer and the truth becomes clear to the voters. As the elections approach, public opinion increases in favor of the RPP as a permanent, patriotic and good governance-supporting force.

Does that mean that the RPP will become a force to be reckoned with?

There is nothing to say that the RPP will not become the first party. But now, it is different to make a fuss that the RPP or any other party will bring a majority alone. The RPP and I personally do not like to talk too much about air and fantasy. Therefore, I do not imagine that it will bring a majority, in the current electoral system. But in the current divided vote situation, it is not surprising if the RPP brings the first vote.

You have served in Parliament twice. You know the electoral system well. You said that the majority will not come. But the RPP is saying that it will bring 151 seats, right?

I will not comment on others. But, how many days are left? That day will come. But in the current electoral system, such an idea is ridiculous.

UML called the Gen-G movement a maneuver by foreign powers. The Congress led by Gagan Thapa said that this is public outrage, that Nepal before and after 23 and 24 Bhadra was different. Your conclusion agrees with UML, doesn't it? Especially in terms of seeing the hand of foreign powers?

Why did you have to agree with UML? I have said at the UML general convention, 'There may have been a plan by some foreigner, there may have been a desire, but the plan and desire of the foreigner alone have not worked.' Basically, you, the so-called big political parties, or those who have led the government, have worked because of your corrupt activities and inaction.