Ishwar Pokhrel, senior vice-chairman of the ruling CPN-UML, is also one of the eight members of the high-level political mechanism formed to help the KP Oli government’s smooth functioning. In this interview with the Post’s Purushottam Poudel, Pokhrel discussed the March 28 royalist demonstration, the government’s handling of it and the possible return of former President Bidya Bhandari into UML politics.

The police have been heavily criticised, along with the Home Ministry, for ‘excess’ use of force during the March 28 pro-monarchy protest in Kathmandu. As a member of the high-level political mechanism formed to advise the government, how do you view this incident?

A meeting of 10 republican parties was held on March 30 at the prime minister’s invitation in Singha Durbar, where the protest issue was discussed. The positive aspect is that, although the political parties may have different perspectives on various issues, we all shared a unified stance on the conspiratorial involvement of former King Gyanendra in the protest that day. His involvement did not just begin on March 28—it started much farther back. He continues to engage in activities reminiscent of his time as king. From public speeches to the use of letterheads, his behaviour mirrors the past. However, as political actors, we did not take this matter as seriously as we ought to have. His video message, delivered on the eve of Democracy Day (February 19), seemed to attack our political system. This, in our view, was a blatant display of arrogance. The March 28 protest can be seen as a continuation of that message, and the republican parties are on the same page on this.

Isn’t the current situation also a result of the failure of political parties to deliver on the promises made to the people? Isn’t it public frustration that has been spilling out in the streets in the form of pro-monarchy protests? Why can’t the mainstream parties accept their mistake?

Yes, there may have been mistakes. There could be issues with delivery and governance. If there are shortcomings, they must be addressed through due process. However, the current political system cannot have monarchy—a hereditary and unelected institution—as its alternative. That is not an acceptable substitute. As for political parties that came to power through democratic processes, of course, they can make mistakes, but those mistakes are meant to be corrected over time through continued effort.

The government had allowed the pro-monarchy rally to take place in a highly sensitive area—from which both the Parliament building and the international airport are close by. Was it not a mistake to permit a protest in such a location?

Call it a lapse or a mistake, but what is clear is that there was no proper assessment of the level of protest that would unfold, nor were adequate preparations made. Tinkune is an extremely sensitive zone, and permission should not have been granted for a protest in such a location. The protest reached a level of lawlessness, something we failed to foresee. It was under the direct leadership of the former king—because he had appointed the so-called “people’s commander” to lead the protest. Since the protest directly involved the former king, the state apparatus might not have thought it would unfold as it did. It was under this leadership that the chaos unfolded. Hence, Gyanendra must be held accountable for his role in it.

Is there clear evidence that the former king was directly involved and that he appointed this “people's commander”?

The day before the protest, the individual designated as the commander, Durga Prasai, and others visited the former king’s residence. It was after that meeting that Prasai was appointed as the commander of the protest. This points to Gyanendra’s involvement.

Given your acknowledgement that the government failed to assess the scale of the protest, does this also reveal a failure of our intelligence agencies?

I cannot speak on what responsibilities were assigned to which security agency or whether they succeeded or failed—nor would it be appropriate to comment on that. But from a general public understanding, yes, there were shortcomings. For such a protest, there should have been thorough preparedness on the kind of disturbances that might occur and how to handle them. Valuable medicines produced at the Jadibuti industry were destroyed; the Bhat-Bhateni supermarket was looted; political party offices were vandalised. Two people lost their lives, and private properties were damaged. Relevant authorities did not anticipate the scale of the disorder.

There are also questions being raised about the prime minister’s statements. The day before the protest, he said it would be a minor and unimportant event. Two days earlier, at a programme of the party’s youth wing, he said that if someone attacks the government, it should be countered like a tiger. Didn’t such remarks work as provocation?

In terms of sheer numbers, there weren’t many people at the monarchist rally on March 28. It was just that the ones who did attend acted recklessly and worsened the situation. There were two separate events that day—one at Bhrikutimandap by the Socialist Front and the other by the monarchists at Tinkune. The prime minister perhaps gave his comments in that context. At the youth wing event, he responded as a political leader to the need to resist any unruly attempts against the system. What he said should not be twisted and exaggerated. If there’s an attempt to spread anarchy against the government, it is natural to call for resistance. He expressed that in his style, which shouldn’t be controversial.

Videos have surfaced showing tear gas being fired directly at the stage the royalists had set up for their event. Was it appropriate for the police to fire tear gas like that?

These matters should not be conflated. When the organisers urged protestors to breach the restricted zone, security personnel used tear gas only to control the situation. Whether or not it was appropriate will be known through proper investigation.

Are the government and the coalition parties ready for such an investigation?

What the government will do is up to them, but this incident must be investigated. However, there is no need to form a judicial commission. Established state institutions can carry out the investigation.

When it comes to party politics, it appears that factionalism—particularly among second-tier leaders—has quietly started to emerge again in the CPN-UML. Is that the case?

Currently, within our party, there is no disagreement on ideology or leadership. When there is no division on these core matters, it is inaccurate to say that there is factionalism. At the local level, disagreements can occur in the course of work; such differences may also be reflected at district or provincial levels. But if the implication is that there is a parallel factional structure at the party’s central level, that isn’t the case. From its early days, our party has grown by facing and overcoming various challenges. As the party has expanded and become one of the country’s major political forces, naturally, the complexity of its problems has also increased. However, we have the capacity to face such challenges. That capacity comes from systematising our ideology, building the party organisation in a structured and disciplined manner, and advancing those individuals within the party who enjoy widespread support among the people.

How valid is the claim that former President Bidya Bhandari seeks a political role within the party?

Bidya Bhandari has been associated with our party from its foundational days. She has worked from the underground phase of the party to the leadership level. She also holds the legacy of Madan Bhandari, which is significant to the party. Furthermore, she is soft-spoken but firm in her convictions. As for her political engagement, there’s no need to exaggerate the matter. Whether she can return to party politics depends on whether the state constitution allows it and whether the party charter permits it. Our constitution does not prohibit a former president from engaging in party politics, and neither does our party’s charter. Internationally, there are no prohibitions on former presidents re-entering politics either. The crucial point is how she expresses her intent and what the need of the moment is.

Personally, I do not subscribe to the idea that someone elected national President through a party system must remain politically neutral or detached from their own beliefs. During their term, they must act in a non-partisan, statesman-like manner, but that does not erase their political identity or thinking.

There was a time when party chairman KP Sharma Oli was greeted wherever he went. But now he tends to be booed. Is the recent discussion on bringing former President Bhandari back into active politics driven by a perception that she could provide inclusive leadership when Oli’s popularity appears to be on the wane?

Even after someone is elected President from a political party, that person remains a political figure. They should be allowed to think politically—and they do. They analyse national events from a political perspective. To say they cannot do so is wrong. Such individuals must be seen through a political lens. When Bidya Bhandari became president, she was at the time working as elected vice-chair of the party. That political connection is not entirely severed the moment one assumes the presidency. Ultimately, however, it comes down to her desire—how she wishes to engage and what role she hopes to play.

While it may not be a constitutional issue, wouldn’t it raise moral concerns if a former president re-engaged in party politics—significantly when public trust in political parties and their leadership is declining?

How do you define “morality” in this context? Moral concerns must be grounded in some logical basis. Is there an established standard that prevents someone who has fulfilled a past political responsibility from re-entering politics? No, there isn’t. This line of thinking is flawed. Some people may choose not to return to politics after serving in high office, while others might. It is ultimately a personal choice. This is more of an emotional issue. Whether or not the former president re-enters politics is up to her. However, such issues must be approached not with emotions but through political reasoning.