The bartering of BP’s soul

In the late 1970s, a handful of homes in Kathmandu served as clandestine meeting places for Nepali Congress members. These gatherings, often starting early in the morning, were filled with passionate discussions rooted in the party's ideals of social democracy. Despite disagreements, a strong sense of fraternity prevailed, though some attendees acted as informants for the Palace.

“

Regardless of disagreements, there was a strong sense of fraternity, though occasional political Judases managed to infiltrate these morning congregations to spy for the Palace.

The Nepali Congress faced a significant internal rift over BP Koirala's call for 'national reconciliation' with the King. This period was marked by intense pressure on Koirala from the Indian government during his exile, particularly against the backdrop of Sikkim's annexation and Pakistan's bifurcation. Koirala framed his reconciliation stance as a national imperative, cautioning that a divided or destabilized Nepal would serve no one's interests.

“

BP issued a tacit warning, framed as national reconciliation, which cautioned that an annexed or destabilised Nepal would serve no one’s interests.

The 1960 royal coup, which overthrew a democratically elected government, imprisoned Koirala, and suspended the constitution, left a deep impact on the democrats. This history naturally led to skepticism among some about Koirala's call for reconciliation. However, this strategy was deeply intertwined with regional realpolitik. It served as a warning to a fractured nation to unite against impending regional dangers, rather than a genuine olive branch to the King.

“

National reconciliation was a strategy motivated by regional realpolitik. What appeared as an extension of an olive branch to the King was, in fact, a warning to a divided nation to unite in the face of an impending regional danger.

Koirala's opposition to the hereditary feudal structure was a core tenet of his political philosophy, evident in his writings. He critiqued the traditional concept of 'muluk' where hereditary rulers owned both land and people, advocating instead for free and dignified citizenship and rejecting political subjugation. His stance against the Birta system, a form of land ownership and patronage, was central to his vision of dismantling the feudal system.

“

His definition of the concept of traditional muluk, and how its hereditary rulers who owned the land also owned the people of that land, demonstrated his strong inclination towards free and dignified citizenship.