JUN 01 - Baburam Bhattarai, former prime minister, former finance minister, and UCPN (Maoist) ideologue, portends a “paradigm shift” in Nepali politics following the devastating recent earthquakes. The political leadership risks irrelevance if they fail to embody the evolving aspirations of the young and educated. The Great Earthquake could be a watershed in redefining the political landscape, leading to a social churning. Speaking to Akhilesh Upadhyay and Pranaya SJB Rana at his residence, Bhattarai commended the young, educated class for rising to meet its responsibilities, aided by information technology and social media. Drawing on his experiences in government and his professional training as an architect and planner, Bhattarai spoke on a wide range of issues—the rise of a young, capable generation that has eclipsed the political parties in response to the quake, the coming sea-change in Nepali politics, and the country’s long, difficult path to reconstruction.

The political leadership disappeared in the immediate aftermath of the Great Earthquake?

It wouldn’t be right to say that the political leadership had completely disappeared, but perhaps its capacity to deal was found wanting. The earthquake might have been a natural process but it had social, economic, and political consequences. Still, I believe that the political leadership failed to seriously deal with the dimensions of the quake’s consequences. The primary reason for this seems to be that our politics, starting from BP Koirala continuing onto Prachanda and I, has been aimed at dismantling the old political superstructure. But this process has been all but completed. Now, we are entering a phase where we need to build new political and economic institutions. The earthquake has brought the need for the creation of these new structures to the fore. But like I said before, due to a lack of vision or thought, we have failed to address this.

From what we have seen so far, it seems the entire political structure, from the top leadership down to the grassroots, needs a new orientation, a complete overhaul.

Here, it is important to make a distinction between the leadership of the state and the political leadership. Those leading the state have a bigger role to play; we, on the other hand, do not have a direct role. All we in opposition can do is draw attention to issues. That said, cadres and leaders from all political levels should have been involved in the immediate response on a volunteer basis. The very next day of the earthquake, on April 26, I visited many of the affected areas and saw that rather than the political workers, it was local youths and local clubs who had responded immediately. Political organisations were largely unable to respond effectively. Continuing from my earlier comment, our political cadres have been trained to protest and to play vote politics; they know very little about social service and helping the people. So, yes, they do lack this kind of orientation. Another reason is also that there was a lack of facts and figures. Initially, emotional responses can be adequate but to actually rebuild, we need facts to ascertain the dimension of our needs and the resources that we can mobilise.

We live in a seismically active zone and a big earthquake was never a matter of ‘if’; it was always a matter of ‘when’. Yet why were our leaders, including yourself, a former prime minister, so unprepared?

Yes, collectively, we all must be self-critical and personally, I have also expressed my own shame. We all knew that Nepal was vulnerable to a big quake. We had also worked with international organisations to prepare and plan. But what surprised me most was just how inadequate our plans were. We should have at least had a few hundred thousand tarpaulins in store. There was definitely a lack of foresight among leaders.

As a former prime minister, could you shed some light on what state mechanism should have been activated during the crisis of this scale?

Our current system is basically a Westminster system, where the prime minister is chief executive and he is the one ultimately responsible. But our laws, rules, guidelines, and work division do not strengthen the prime minister; most ministries work independently. I experienced this personally when I was prime minister. So I was forced to play a more proactive role where I would personally call in the secretaries and bureaucrats for meetings. But what I mean is that the institution of the prime minister is not very strong. But this also depends on the personality of the prime minister. The current prime minister could perhaps have been more assertive but that did not happen. We also needed a strong central mechanism to respond to disasters. We have one under the Home Ministry but the Nepal Army became crucial in the response and this institution will not respond to commands from the Home Ministry. This contradiction became apparent this time around. The security forces have to respond in times like these as they are trained for crises, but they must be mobilised as an arm of the civilian government, not independently.

This disaster showed the imperatives of devolution of authority and yet, it also displayed the need for a high-powered central body. How do you reconcile this dichotomy?

Establishing a central body for command and control does not mean that all authority will be concentrated in that body; it will only make decision-making more systematic. This central body will coordinate and monitor, with decision-making authority resting with the individual ministries. For the long-term, we need a permanent disaster response structure directly under the chief executive. In the immediate, for reconstruction, or as I like to call it, rejuvenation (“nava-nirmad”), we need a high-powered authority. In the absence of this kind of mechanism, we can see just how ineffective relief distribution has been. We need a National Reconstruction Authority, directly under the prime minister, that answers to the Parliament. It needs a mandated political leadership, along with the presence of various experts.

Speaking of strong central leadership, when you as prime minister aggressively expanded roads in the Capital, were you thinking of a potential disaster?

Yes, definitely. At first, I decided to expand roads because of the extreme traffic congestion and given my background as a planner, also because of the extremely unplanned manner in which Kathmandu was developing. So when I was demolishing buildings that did not abide by the building code or flouted regulations, I faced resistance and criticism from local and civil society leaders. Then, I had told them that a large earthquake is due in Kathmandu and if we don’t do this now, hundreds of thousands could die. I presented them with an equation where you suffer some inconvenience now but in the long term, it will help save lives. I kept in mind the fact that roads are arteries that need to be kept open in times of crisis, and looking back, I think that was the right thing to do.

The widened roads of the Capital no doubt helped during the quake, but what about the major highways and the only international airport? What has been the thinking concerning these vital lifelines?  

I had listed the construction of a second international airport and the Kathmandu-Tarai Fast Track as National Pride Projects and was working on getting these built soon. As it would take at least five to six years for their construction, I thought to modernise the existing Tribhuvan International Airport in the meantime. But in the absence of long-term vision, there were only conspiracy theories and an extreme kind of nationalism. There were reports that attempts were being made to completely hand over the airport to foreigners. Furthermore, the process of building the second international airport and Fast Track (linking the capital to Tarai) took longer than expected, despite my attempts to prioritise them.

Coming back to reconstruction in the aftermath of the quake, you stressed ‘nava-nirmad’ (rejuvenation) over reconstruction. What exactly does this entail?

All the buildings that have been destroyed will need to be built back up, but that should be done according to a plan. We need to conduct geological surveys and come up with a land use plan and zoning. Then, we need to come up with a settlement and infrastructure plan. Rural settlements that are scattered all over are not practical so they must be clustered. Urban settlements must also be planned, including building houses according to a new, updated building code. This code must be strictly enforced. This is all part of reconstruction. My ‘nava nirmad’ concerns buildings and areas that were not affected by the quake. Let’s not forget that we are still at risk of earthquakes. All buildings have a lifespan and old buildings that are fragile must be destroyed. New buildings must be erected in their place, along with infrastructure that takes earthquakes and natural disasters into account.

We seem to be headed down a path to urbanisation, with VDCs being upgraded to municipalities, under the understanding that big cities equal development. Do you think we need a change in perspective?

Yes, exactly. We need to plan everything now. Mountains, hills, and Tarai all need specific regional plans for development. Building codes must also be expanded to the villages. So perhaps we need a temporary moratorium on the construction of permanent buildings while we come up with a plan and building codes. The reconstruction authority that we were talking about earlier will need to do this.

You speak of planning, but what kind planning will this be? At a time when debates are churning on federalism and devolution of power, where would a central planning body fit in?

This crisis showed the necessity of federalism. We are all committed to federalism and the devolution of power; our only disagreement is in the form of federalism. But settlements across Nepal are varied. While the high mountains might have cluster settlements, they are very scattered in the hills. These settlements also have their own geological and cultural history. So a central body can come with a general plan that takes into account local cultural sentiments and the history of the settlements. But the implementation of this plan must rest with local bodies.

Across Nepal, people have their own reasons for settling in various places, no matter how dangerous such places could be. In a democratic society, how difficult it is to move people and how best do you handle these immigration patterns?

Settlements have always been linked to employment. In Nepal, people live in such dangerous areas because the country’s economy was largely based on subsistence farming. But now, we are heading towards an industrial and service economy and even farming is becoming commercialised. Nature has actually given us a push to move from feudal subsistence agriculture to an industry-oriented age, or in Marxist terms, from feudalism to capitalism. So we cannot afford scattered settlements, especially as now, there is a need to provide services to all of them.

Let’s come back to the response to the earthquake and what it means to our national life. In the aftermath of the quake, we saw thousands of young people, an apolitical class, taking immediate responsibility, answering the call for national duty. Could this be a turning point for our nation’s history?

Yes, it could. We are seeing a young, educated class that is quick to take action and the proliferation of information technology that is making communication much easier. The internet and social media have made things easier, with the coordination of relief to many areas and in some cases, even saving lives. But I would especially like to commend the young, educated class which seems to have risen to meet its social responsibilities. Our political cadres used to come forward for protests and demonstrations, but this new unaffiliated class of young people seems to be more conscious about social issues. It is important that the political leadership understands this evolving phenomenon. If we are unable to tap this new force, its concerns, and aspirations, we might not be able to lead in the future.

You seem to imply that if the political leadership is not able to tap the educated youth, parties risk being irrelevant. Conversely, if the parties are able to internalise the new social churning, they will become much more vibrant institutions plugged to the public opinion. Which of these two scenarios do you see happening?

This earthquake is a paradigm shift for Nepali politics, which I consider an opportunity. Politics itself will need to be redefined. We will need to focus more on development, economic issues and cultural issues. The political leadership will also need to reinvent itself. Those who are able to reinvent themselves will come forward and those who cannot will be left behind. We need to rise above our old party-centric orientation. The coming years look to herald the rise of a new political force. Either the existing parties will transform themselves into a new force or in a churning of these parties, a new force will arise.

As a people, we have long been deeply fatalistic. Do you see a change in this mindset, where the younger generation especially seems to believe that it can master its own fate?

Yes, I do. This has much to do with the flow of information. Knowledge has led people from fatalism to materialism. And now the quake has destroyed much of the old structures and infused a new understanding. Mankind has always progressed and advanced by confronting nature and adapting to it. It is a kind of social evolution where we learn to survive. So we must see this moment as an opportunity to discard the fatalism of old and move ahead.

So what do the parties need to do to discard fatalism in the days ahead?

Knowledge was already transforming the minds of our young people but the nudge that the quake gave us should be seen as an opportunity to change the culture and psyches of our political parties. We need to start with a transformation in mindset and orientation. This is where need to begin. Our political leadership needs to be visionary and seize this opportunity. Then, we can move to a national unity government.

Where exactly are we with this national unity government?

A unity government needs to be seen as an objective necessity, not just as a subjective choice. Now, the earthquake has added to the political transition and increased awareness about the necessity of unity. But we need a conscious effort towards this end and that effort has been started by the political leadership. My understanding is that it will take concrete shape within the coming weeks.

The Nepali Congress wants to transform the existing government into a unity government while the CPN-UML and your party seems to be in favour of a complete change in leadership.

First, all parties need to be on the same page. Only that can be considered a national unity government. Second is the question of leadership. I do not think that performance of the current government will justify continuing with it. Even before the quake, its performance has been very lacklustre. Given the scale of the problem before us, I do not think the current leadership will be able to tackle it. The best thing would be for the prime minister to respectfully step aside. A national unity government means a government consisting of all the political forces and a new leadership.

Would you be open to someone else from within the Nepali Congress replacing Sushil Koirala as prime minister?

Yes, we have to be open to this. But we cannot just look at it as a party’s leadership. We need someone with the capacity to tackle the challenges before us. There are many others issues here too, including the numbers game. Right now, there is also talk of the UML leading government as the second-largest party. We are open to that too. But first, there must be an agreement between the NC and UML on leadership.

We hear that you have expressed interest in leading the proposed Reconstruction Authority, given there’s agreement from all parties.

Yes, I have. My background and interest is in architecture and planning. I have experience as a prime minister and a finance minister. I also wish to work in development politics. But it is not just about my interest; there needs to be agreement from everyone else too.

How long until this authority and a national unity government are formed? Can you offer us timelines?

We need to see this as an emergency. We need about 800,000 temporary shelters before the monsoon arrives, and the thousands of buildings that have been demolished will need to be rebuilt. Economic losses are estimated to be around Rs 1 trillion. So things need to progress on a war footing. Not a single day can be wasted. We need to form a unity government within a week. A reconstruction law must be passed through a Presidential ordinance and a reconstruction authority formed immediately.

Many assert that relief operations would’ve been much more effective had there been local representation. So there have been demands to hold local elections at the earliest.

The national unity government will have three tasks. First, the constitution process must continue.

An agreement should be sought on the content of the constitution and if that is not possible, then at least an agreement on a timeframe. Second, reconstruction will require agreement among the parties. And third, we need to hold elections to local bodies. But this is not possible without a constitution. First a constitution and then local elections.