Former President Bidya Devi Bhandari's return to politics and renewal of UML's membership were discussed overshadowing the agenda set for the recently concluded secretariat, politburo and central committee meetings of UML. Bhandari's stated aspirations to become the President of UML have been extinguished by the Central Committee for the time being. UML believes that the former president should not be a member of any particular party. But some leaders have put a 'Note of Dissent' against such a decision of the Central Committee in the meeting. One of those leaders, Vice President Surendra Pandesag, had a conversation with Kantipur's Krishna Acharya and Kishore Dahal about the reasons for the former president's entry into politics, from the cancellation of membership by UML to the possibility of renewal:

• When the constitution was made, we did not write whether the president would return to the party or not. The issue of the president's return to politics was not left unknowingly.
• In the meeting a year ago, the general secretary said that the membership was renewed, the chairman also shook his head, if it was stopped, it should have been on the agenda at that time, it should have been stopped 
• Because President Oli was expelled from the membership in the CPN dispute, he keeps saying 'I was expelled from the membership', the pain caused to him, should the other person be expelled or not?
• If there was a matter of adjusting Vidya Bhandari to a position other than the president, perhaps this matter could have been moved in a new way!
• The position of stopping membership breaks the hearts of the workers, the number may be five, twenty or a hundred now, but it damages the party 
• Yogesh Bhattarai's membership has expired in the sixth convention? Now he is the secretary of UML, the political issue should be resolved in a political way.
• Now the Central Committee has made a decision, but its decision is not irrevocable 
• 000

CPN-UML Secretariat, Politburo and Central Committee meeting was held in the first week of July. What was the agenda of the meeting, what was the conclusion?

A secretariat meeting was held on July 1 to discuss the political report, organizational report and legislation to be presented in the legislative convention to be held on August 20-22. The same agenda came to the Politburo and the Central Committee. This is the main purpose of all the three meetings. There was an open discussion in the secretariat about the existing arrangements in the legislation and the arrangements to be made now. There was a long discussion in the Seventh Congress on the transfer of leadership of the party. At that time, the current president KP Sharma Oli raised the issue of democratization of leadership. The democratization of thought was done by Jabz. It accepted the politics of competition. Madan Bhandari had put forward the idea through Jabaj that one can move forward only by proving himself to be the best through competition.

leadership transfer is also an exercise in democratization. As some countries practice the transfer of leadership based on age limit of 70 years and two terms, we have also made it a part of the statute. There was a lot of debate on this in the meetings. 

But after reaching the Politburo and the Central Committee, the issue of former President Bidya Devi Bhandari's return to the party or not entered. This was not the agenda of the meeting but the discussion focused on it. On the 6th, through the meeting of the Central Committee, it was decided that the former president should not come to the party.

How did a topic that was not on the agenda enter the meeting and reach a decision? In the

meeting, if both the agendas of the legislative convention and the working of the party were discussed together, both issues could have been discussed. But even though there was no agenda, various people started speaking. The president was also impressed. Finally, he came to the decision that the former president should be stopped.

In the end, some of us disagreed. We told them to put it in the party secretariat and decide. Because this is a serious matter. Former President Bidya Devi Bhandari has said that she renewed her membership two years ago. All was silent then. Without asking you (Chairman) that work is definitely not done. I don't think the people in the office took the money and did the renovation. In the meeting a year ago, the general secretary himself said that the membership was renewed. The president also shook his head. So it is not a question that the subject was not known. If it was to be stopped, the agenda should have been made at that time, it should have been stopped. At that time, the situation was not even that the former president had advanced so far.

membership is a sensitive topic. During the CPN dispute, Pushpa Kamal Dahal-Madhav Nepal canceled the membership of President Oli. He repeats it hundreds of times and keeps saying 'I was removed from membership'. The pain caused by expelling him from the member, is it necessary to expel the other or not? The pain is the same. That's why this topic was sensitive.

On the other hand, she is also the wife of Madan Bhandari. Madan is the pioneer of Jabaj. After Madan died in a mysterious incident, Vidya was promoted by the party. At that time, the UML party was formed to 'turn mourning into power' by taking Madan's contribution among the people. In such a background, some leaders in the Central Committee protested that we should not make a decision based on the comments of the members in the meeting, let's have a friendly discussion in the secretariat, and let's not end it like this now. I am one of them.

Yesterday, a person who has fulfilled the responsibility of the highest position of the country, being independent in terms of party, does the dignity of such a position remain when he returns to the party and tries to become the president?

is practiced differently in different countries. There are also examples of former president running for mayor. Our president has sometimes commented on the current president that he should not become a leader of the Congress. Practically speaking, is the position that the President is detached from all closeness and accepted by all the people and political parties? If you want to find a person acceptable to everyone, you should not take a person from a political party. A question arises if a person who has worked in a party for decades, is going to take a person who is trying to become the leader of that party.

In some countries, it is customary to appoint people who cannot be politically active to the highest office. That is a different matter. We have not had such a practice. One can look at the National Assembly itself. The National Assembly was created so that it would be easy to take in people who are intellectuals, who are not party leaders, who cannot win elections but who can contribute to the country. But that is not the case in practice. This could not happen for various reasons.

We knew that presidents in India did not return to politics. We did not write here whether the president will return to the party when the constitution is made or not. The issue of the presidential party returning to politics is not something that has not been seen, heard or known elsewhere. Our practice is different. If there was a provision in the constitution or the law not to return to politics, even those who want to become president would think five times. But there is no such provision in the constitution. Once Girijaprasad Koirala became Prime Minister and Head of State. But even then he remained the President of the Congress. The sitting Chief Justice of Nepal was brought in as the Chairman of the Council of Ministers. The specific conditions of our country have created these conditions. The current situation within the UML has also been brought about by a similar situation.

Whatever happened in the case of Koirala or Regmi, is taken as a weakness or an exception. Repeating it in many covers is not like jumping into a hole because you feel like it? It can also be said from a

angle. I can feel that way in private too. But we have to look at the reality. Events should be viewed from the ground of reality.

What are you trying to do by renewing the membership of the former president?

He renewed his membership just because he was coming to the party. I don't know who you consulted during that time. I only found out later. He may not have renewed his membership at that time only because of his desire. Someone must have done it. It must have been discussed with the top leaders of the party. I don't think that a person like Vidya Bhandari, who has been president twice, renews his membership immediately without understanding anything. 

No matter how and for what purpose the membership was renewed, it should now be concluded through open communication. If our president thinks that Vidya Bhandari is going to contest for the presidency, then can membership be stopped on that basis? People ask whether the membership would be renewed if the chairman came to the next position without looking for one. It doesn't match that way.

Vidya Bhandari publicly said on June 14 that her membership has been renewed. Similarly, President Oli must have been stressed when he said in an interview that he was going to become the president. The personal meeting between them was not known to others. But if there was a matter of adjustment to other positions other than the chairman, perhaps this issue could have been moved in a new way!

According to President Oli's information, the former president may have renewed his membership, but you expressed the intention that an unexpected decision was taken as the president himself will compete. In the beginning, this topic was well thought out? 

They worked closely together in the same team for a long time. Therefore, people thought that Vidya Bhandari may have gone ahead after consultation between them. Some of the top leaders may have had a conversation with him. Recently, I watched a video where General Secretary Shankar Pokharel said that the President's wish was to bring Vidya. But what had transpired between them (Oli-Vidya) could not be known unless they brought it out.

Oli had said to Vidya that I am the president in the eleventh congress, you are the president in the twelfth or did he say yes to Vidya in the eleventh! Maybe something happened between them and they renewed the membership. So the accident we have reached now is not good for the party and the movement.

If Vidya Bhandari's membership is not renewed, what will make a difference to the party?

Such a situation breaks the worker's heart. That number may now be five, twenty or a hundred. But such incidents harm the party. Like, in the year 2039, when our party was developing very much in the then Mala, CP Mainali fell into the minority. He had to step down as Secretary General. After that, the party did not carry his ideas either. At that time, many activists did not know whose opinion was right. But many felt that leaving the leader who broke the jail and the founder of the movement would destroy the party itself. Finally, the big row itself was made inactive within the party. Some left the movement.

Even when the party split in 2054, a large number left. A part of it went to the Maoists. Many leaders from UML background later became MPs from Maoists. The partition of 2078 also caused damage. Division weakens the party. These are not references we are not aware of. We have gained a lot of experience from long practice.

Parties with no experience of ideological inter-party struggle can sometimes crash. There were examples of many other parties splitting as soon as there were differences, even when the then Male was moving forward while protecting himself. The then CPN Masal itself was broken into pieces. The Maoist came to parliament after the People's War and it has been divided into many parts. With the partition, the movement was scattered. It has weakened him.

now mentions references to 2039, 2054 and 2078. You also discussed the Sixth Congress in the Central Committee meeting. All these are references to vigraha or division. If you do not renew the membership of the former president, do you mean that UML will go in that direction again?

The reason I bring the reference to the sixth convention is that if someone is prosecuted from the convention hall, the action cannot be reversed without holding another convention. The decision of the Congress cannot be revoked by the Central Committee. Actions cannot be taken from the hall of the convention, whatever needs to be done must be done from the central committee. But due to provocation, the Congress took action (Yogesh Bhattarai, Rupnarayan Shrestha). As a result, the party itself was divided. Because it was a small thing then. But throwing it out and expelling it from membership had a big impact. 

President Oli himself repeatedly expresses concern that he was a member around 2025 but lost his membership due to the then CPN controversy. That is, people are being touched by this topic. A member from a difficult background and situation is loving his membership. Earlier it was difficult to get membership. By 2046, Male had become very strong. We had already won 5/7 people in the National Panchayat as people's party. We won 12/13 thousand at the local level. Swaviyu across the country was under the control of Maleki. Wherever there was a movement, there was a garland. But when the National Convention was held in August 2046, the number of members was only 750. At that time even people who were underground could not get it. Even people who have been in jail for years could not get it. Strict faith was attached to membership.

is now very easy to subscribe to. Jamaats are also found which subscribe to five parties simultaneously. But we subscribed to the movement as a product of it. We did not join the movement by joining the movement, but we were built from it after joining the movement. People like us have different attitudes towards membership. I mean don't eat it.

Vidya Bhandari's 'chapter closed' in UML or is there any left?

There will also be a discussion about this in the secretariat. There will be a discussion in the convention as well. Because Yogesh Bhattarai's membership is over when the membership is revoked in the sixth convention? Now he is the secretary of UML. Roop Narayan Shrestha is the central member. In politics, events based on one place and one event do not remove the membership. Political issues should be resolved through political means. Numbers also matter in

politics. But Vidya Bhandari was strongly in favor of membership renewal, numerically, she looked very weak!

It doesn't matter how many people disagreed. It is important to agree or disagree with the opinion.

Then the case of Bidya Devi Bhandari party returning to politics is not over? No

. He has said that his membership will continue in Friday's press conference. He may have a reason for saying so. But political issues are not solved technically. Now the Central Committee has made a decision. But his decision is not irrefutable. The political journey will not stop if the Central Committee makes a decision. The current president Oli was once in a very weak position within the party. Where, when, which person, in what condition and how it will become later cannot be said.

If you look at the history of UML, there have been controversies and disagreements in many periods. There were conflicts in 2039, 2046, 2049, 2054 and subsequent periods as well. The same person is sometimes close to one side and sometimes to the other side. At one time we used to say – Let Netatraya decide. At that time, Netatraya included Madhav Nepal, KP Oli and Vamdev Gautam. The group of three leaders was said to be the same. But in 2054, Vamdev did not stay there. After reaching 2059 Madhav and KP also had differences. The then president was in the minority. KP raised the voice of democratization saying that Madhav did not want to leave the leadership.

In 2065, Jhalnath Khanal came. Madhav and KP again sided. In 2071, there was a competition again between Madhav and KP. This is the fact and history! This is natural in a dynamic party. 

It is clear that Vidya Bhandari tried to return to the party to become the president. Did you see no other than Vidya Bhandari as an alternative to KP Oli and supported him?

Sometimes people need it. There are specific reasons for that within the party. Madan Bhandari has a story. He was sought to be made the General Secretary in place of CP in 2039. Madan said at that time – 'Male is Jhapali's party. I am from Pushpalal's Muktimorcha. If I become the general secretary, they will not let me stay. Dissension starts within the party because Pushpa Lalaka captured Jhapali. Jhapali should be the head of the party now, Jhalnath Khanal is better.

can sometimes be coincidental. Specific circumstances may arise. Leadership is a political matter. No matter what comes, it will not happen. Look at the Congress. BP Koirala was the president during the Panchayat period. Krishnaprasad Bhattarai led after him. Later Girijaprasad came to Koirala. Sushil became Koirala. Now it is Sher Bahadur Deuba. Pushpa Kamal Dahal has been in the same post since 2044. There are other instances where the same person has been the head of the party for a long time. I mean, leadership is a political matter. Not just a personal matter. Acceptance is also required. Different situations create the need.

Sahna Pradhan came to the leadership of the party after the death of Pushpalal. While there were many leaders senior to him in that party. But everyone agreed to give Sahna the lead. He was the leader of the panchayat during the special period. So it can happen. This is what practice shows and explains.

means that Vidya Bhandari leadership is needed in UML at this time?

It doesn't seem that one person tried to come to Vidya just by saying 'you have to come'. Instead, it seems like President Oli also said that you are the one after me, and other leaders also said that you should come. In today's meeting also, General Secretary Shankar Pokharel said - 'After the President, we are not in a place where anyone can support anyone. So let's continue with the president.''What to do if no one obeys anyone even if they come from the path of tyranny and democratization? In other words, the leadership is decided in this way!

It seems that Vidya Bhandari did not want to come to the party without talking about anything with KP Oli. Their cooperation is long. He has been in constant communication since becoming the president. And you came without saying anything? Who would believe that there was no conversation between them? Something may have happened in their meeting.

In the dispute within the then CPN and UML, some leaders including you initially stood in favor of Madhav Nepal. But later, when the party split, they did not support Nepal. Criticized as ten brothers. Is it not the same in the case of Vidya Bhandari? Because, few wrote 'Notes of Dissent' in the Central Committee. Ishwar Pokharel remained silent. Instead, there is talk that he reached Baluwatar and reconciled with President Oli!

I don't think so. Because I heard his interview. I was getting ready to speak, I also have a note of dissent, the chairman hastily stopped the meeting, saying that I could not write it.

Do you agree with his argument?

I have to believe him when he says that. Because there was a sudden situation in the meeting. After I spoke, Karn Thapa was saying that he will speak. The atmosphere was a bit like that. After the chairman walked away saying that the meeting was over, Ishwarji was not allowed to speak. I also had a talk with him. He has clearly said that he will send his note of dissent. Shankar Pokharel has also been informed. In the

meeting you also raised the issue of Joseph Stalin and Nikita Khrushchev. Does the current position within the UML match the then Soviet Union position?

I just reminded him of the topic he spoke about. It was he who told the story of Stalin-Khrushchev at the Seventh Central Committee meeting. As long as Stalin was Khrushchev, he admired him very much! Later, in the meeting, he started abusing him a lot. A leader raised his voice in the meeting - 'Earlier you were very appreciative, why are you protesting now?' Khrushchev said - 'Who is going to speak?' But no one spoke. And Khrushchev himself said, 'You know, why didn't I speak first?' 

Since Oli was in the minority at that time, he might have brought that context. I also reminded you that you were once in the minority in an event, but at that time you said that we should not make a decision by the majority. He has experience both in the minority and in the majority. There is also the experience of being removed from membership. Earlier, the issue of democratization was raised. I could not say all these things there. But I want to say that all such aspects should be taken seriously while taking a decision. The

president should see and think about every subject from a higher level than the average member. We should think about the future of the movement. As the prime minister and the party president are also the president, we should look at the damage caused by such decisions, but the biggest loss is the president himself. Therefore, there is nothing to do with excitement and enthusiasm, I said let's reach a decision by sitting in the secretariat in an amicable manner.