Communist Party of Nepal (NCP) Chairman and Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli has prepared a counter-proposal with a circular warning to take Executive Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’ to The Hague as a heinous criminal and human rights violator if he does not apologize. The 38-pages long proposal has not yet been made public.
Earlier, a proposal signed by Prachanda and submitted to the secretariat meeting on October 12 and taken ownership by four other members of the central secretariat who were dissatisfied with Oli, Oli was accused of serious allegations including corruption.
In his proposal, Prachanda alleged that Oli’s individualistic, factional and monopolistic thinking and style were the main cause of the crisis in the party and that Oli had not taken any meaningful steps towards controlling and ending corruption, malpractice, adultery and commission fraud.
In response, Oli and his party leaders Subash Nemwang, Pradip Gyawali, Ishwar Pokhrel, Vishnu Rimal and others finalized the 40-page proposal, denying all such allegations. Prachanda has committed crimes against humanity, which is a global issue and if he does not apologize, international criminal law may be drawn into him. This proposal will be presented in the secretariat meeting to be held at 1 pm today.
In the proposal prepared to be presented at the meeting of the Central Secretariat, it has been questioned what is the statement made by Prachanda that he will take responsibility for 5,000 out of the 17,000 people killed in the ‘armed insurgency’. In particular, it has been claimed that the incident of bus ambush that killed at least 42 people 16 years ago in Prachanda’s election zone in Badarmude in Chitwan could be linked to that.
Coincidentally, Nemwang, a member of the House of Representatives, had ordered the government to sign the Rome Statute recognizing the international jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in criminal cases.
The resolution focuses more on Prachanda’s past activities and indicates that the proposal is trying to separate leaders from the former UML background. Oli has also accused Prachanda of patronizing factions, repeatedly breaking agreements and changing his words, and conspiring against him for power.
In his proposal, Oli asked Prachanda, “What did you say about the constitution, the form of government and federalism at that time?” What did you believe? Do you remember all?
“What have you done to save the Chief Minister in Karnali?” What does this mean that you intervened in Karnali? ‘Oli also asked Prachanda further questions.
Oli has accused Prachanda of being corruption oriented and defend the fake accusation of corruption to him. Along with this allegation, Oli has also claimed that the allegation made by someone that he is corrupt will not be registered in the history court.
“I have been accused of corruption,” Oli wrote in the proposal. But what will happen if your past and present desires are clearly reached to the people? This is such a serious issue, which cannot be left out without noticing. You have not insulted me only on the question of party policy or legislature. You have also accused of being attracted the country’s constitution and law on the criminal nature. A person with such serious allegations cannot escape by self-criticism only. ‘
Oli has accused Prachanda of misbehaving even during the peace process and of unnecessarily interfering in the state’s sensitive organization when he became prime minister for the first time.
From this, Oli has reached the point of dismissing the then Chief of Army Staff Rukmangat Katuwal by Prachanda.
Oli said, “Why did you suppresed Girija Prasad Koirala and Madhav Kumar Nepal in the frenzy of election success?” Just a few minutes before filing his candidature, why did you called Jhala Nath Khanal in the office of the parliamentary party and tell him not to support Madhav Kumar Nepal for the presidency? At whose behest did it happen? ‘
At the same time, how did the government fall when he interfered in the state mechanism to focus on constitution drafting? Prachanda has been questioned.
Oli has also accused Prachanda of violating the agreement reached on May 15, 2012 to draft the new constitution. Similarly, they have questioned the formation of an investigation committee for ‘Face Saving’ as they could not accept the defeat of the second Constituent Assembly election. They have even accused Prachanda of not being loyal to the constitution. However, it has been concluded that Prachanda is still trying to amend the constitution under various pretexts.
Oli has mentioned in the proposal that the obstacle of the previous government was Prachanda. He accused Prachanda of trying to overthrow his government, which had worked in the national interest in an unfavorable situation like the blockade.
Oli asks Prachanda, “Haven’t you tried to overthrow the government under my leadership in seven months?” Oli also accused Prachanda of using various tactics to destroy the former UML.
Oli said, “UML became the first force in the local elections by breaking all the blocks.” The situation was such that in order to win election your own daughter had to resort to shameful means of tearing the ballot paper. At that time, the question was whether you would join the Congress or move in a new direction. ‘
“The transaction took place at that time,” Oli wrote in the proposal. Have not you had a chance to be the Prime Minister? Remember “The Federal Socialist Party, led by Upendra Yadav, which has 16 seats, has taken a stand that it would be wrong to form a government by excluding the largest party only then the situation go smooth,” he said in the proposal.
He said, “As the leader of the party that fought the election with the same election manifesto and the coalition, did you have the morality to try to become the prime minister with the support of the other party?” The party chairman, who has reached the status of a third party after the election, was reluctant to say that he had given me the opportunity to become the prime minister.
“On the day I was taken oath as Prime Minister, I was not able to form a small team with friends from both parties together,” Oli wrote. People felt as the serious obstruction in the first step.’ Oli said the government was not complete until the two presidents reached an agreement on the night of Falgun 07 (February 19).
He also accused Prachanda of sending a message of political instability of turn wise agreement by visiting India less than three months after the unification. At that time, Prachanda had revealed the agreement with Oli in an interview to the Indian media. Oli has made it clear in his proposal that mistrust with Prachanda started from there.
In addition, Oli writes: Why is the Council of Ministers repeatedly rumored to be changing? Questioning, Oli replied that both of them are executive chairpersons. However, he clarified that one will be focused only on government and the next chair will handle the party. I understand your strategy to remove me anyway. But it’s not going to happen the way you think.’
The proposal has registered in the secretariat, the leaders of Oli’s camp have drawn the conclusion that it will be Prachanda’s destiny to stay in corner in the party. In the proposal, an attempt has been made to quote Prachanda’s open and secret statements against leaders including Jhala Nath Khanal and Madhav Kumar Nepal.
