The Internal Crisis of the Nepali Congress: A Legal and Political Analysis

Once, Nepali Congress President Girija Prasad Koirala took disciplinary action against Sher Bahadur Deuba for defying party decisions. At that time, Koirala faced severe criticism and was portrayed as the villain of the Congress. Today, when Deuba takes similar action against Gagan Thapa and Bishwa Prakash Sharma for acting against the party's statute, the Nepali society is attacking him in the same manner.

Such negative trends persist in a society living in delusion. This ailment is not limited to party leadership and cadres but also affects professionals who claim to be independent. By undermining the cadres, Deuba and his circle have repeatedly committed injustice and exploitation within the Congress. In response, the cadres have risen to rebel and seek retribution. The unjust Deuba has been penalized.

There is a Hindi film, Section 375, which suggests that in reality, constitutions, rules, and laws are merely tools. Justice and injustice exist above and beyond these. It is understood that justice is not achieved solely through legal battles or the interpretation of laws. Sometimes, justice can be found even against the provisions of the law and without evidence. When an aggrieved person seeks retribution by accusing the oppressor, justice is served in that manner.

One cannot read a person's mind. It is unknown what crosses the minds of Deuba, Gagan, or Bishwa. They are human, too. However, to read and understand the Constitution of Nepal and the Congress statute, written in simple Nepali, one does not need to wear a black coat, nor does one need to be a government employee. Both are only required if one intends to misinterpret them.

First and foremost, what this section implies, though not explicitly stated, is that there are two types of Congress conventions: the first is regular, and the second is special.

We generally understand the provision of 17 (2) in the Congress statute. It states, 'If the Central Committee deems it necessary, or if forty percent of the members of the Central General Convention submit a written request to the center specifying special reasons for calling a meeting of the Central General Convention, a special central convention must be called within three months of the application.'

First and foremost, what this section implies, though not explicitly stated, is that there are two types of Congress conventions: the first is regular, and the second is special. A regular convention must be held at the time provided in the statute, while a special one is held under two conditions: if the working committee deems it necessary, or if 40 percent of the convention representatives deem it necessary.

In such a case, Article 17 (2) of the statute speaks only about the special convention.

Let us look at the general Nepali syntax to understand the meaning of 17 (2). According to Nepali sentence structure, a verb requires a subject, and a subject requires a verb. A sentence cannot exist without these two. Here, let us first find the subject and the verb. Then we will look at the object. In this sentence, the verb is 'must be called' and the subject is 'Central Committee'. Generally, in the active voice, the 'le' suffix is used. Therefore, 'Central Committee-le' is written. Now let us write it with the subject and verb: 'The Central Committee... must call.'

'The Central Committee must call.' This is a sentence with only a subject and a verb. It is a sentence, but it does not convey a meaningful message. For that, an object is needed. The object, or the work to be done, is to call a meeting of the 'Central Special Convention' as written in the statute. Now let us place the subject, object, and verb according to Nepali sentence structure: 'The Central Committee must call a Central Special Convention.' The sentence is now clear.

Here, the verb 'must call' carries a mandatory meaning. It means the subject must perform that task. The words 'if deemed necessary' before 'or' and other words following it clarify when, why, and for what reason such a convention should be called. This is the easily understood meaning of Article 17 (2) of the statute.

There is a different context after the 'or' in the sentence, but the verb remains the same. The context is that a central special convention must also be called in other circumstances.

Now let us look at the sentence formed by placing the two words 'if deemed necessary' before 'or' after the subject. 'If the Central Committee deems it necessary, it must call a Central Special Convention.' This sentence is also complete. Its meaning is not difficult to understand.

This sentence implies that if the committee deems it necessary, it must call it; if it deems it unnecessary, it does not have to call it. Therefore, this is only regarding the Central Committee's opinion. Thus, there is no dispute regarding calling the first special convention. If the Central Committee deems it necessary, it calls it; if not, it does not.

There is a different context after the 'or' in the sentence, but the verb remains the same. The context is that a central special convention must also be called in other circumstances. This refers to the second condition, i.e., calling it upon the request of 40 percent of the convention representatives. If 40 percent request it by specifying reasons, the working committee must call the convention based on their opinion/right. That is its duty.

Here, the Central Committee cannot declare the 'relevance ended' by viewing the 40 percent request based on 'if deemed necessary'. In that situation, the mandatory order of the verb 'must call' must be obeyed. It cannot be interpreted that the Central Committee will also decide whether such a request is necessary or not.

Now let us look for other subjects in that statutory sentence. Let us remove the clearly visible subject 'Central Committee'. A sentence has already been formed by placing the object and verb required by the subject before 'or'. After that, there is another context after 'or'. In this sentence, the word with 'le' denotes members. Therefore, the members themselves are the subject.

Let us first assume '40 percent of the members of the Central General Convention' as the subject and then the verb. The sentence becomes: '40 percent of the members of the Central General Convention must call.' A sentence with a subject and verb is formed.

Let us assume this and look for the object. There is talk of calling a special central convention. Let us place that. '40 percent of the members of the Central General Convention must call a special central convention.' Now let us add the causal word '40 percent' and the time-bound word to complete it: 'If 40 percent of the members of the Central General Convention submit a written request to the center specifying special reasons for calling a meeting of the Central General Convention, a special central convention must be called within three months of the application.'

The sentence becomes like this. The question arises: who is the subject that calls it once 40 percent of the members request it?

When 'members' are considered the subject that calls, the party making the written request is not clear. It is understood from the clear intent of the statute that the word 'members' is only the requester, not the convener. According to Nepali sentence structure, this is exactly how it should be understood.

Looking at this, it is clear that in essence, when 40 percent of the members request it, the Central Committee itself is the one to call the convention.

That is, the responsibility of the first subject is to call it. The right/authority of the subsequent subject is to reach 40 percent and request it. Here, the first subject rejected the request made by the second subject according to the procedure. It was an act of high-handedness. By doing what should not have been done, Deuba and the working committee led by him have caused the problem.

What happens if someone who is clearly mandated to perform a task by showing conditions or processes does not do so? Can another person perform that task? The one who was supposed to call it did not. It did not fulfill its duty. Should one go where it was not called? Should one do the calling task oneself and move forward, or should one just sit back? These are the only options.

Here, it appears that the working committee declared the relevance of the special convention ended by making a decision even before the three months had passed.

The word 'must call' for a special central convention if 40 percent of the convention representatives demand it is in the Congress statute. This is a mandatory situation. It cannot be avoided. Therefore, the Central Working Committee of the Nepali Congress had to call a special convention within 90 days. Deuba and his committee did not call it.

The question is also for whom is that 90-day deadline? Is this deadline for the subject working committee or for the requesting members? Here, the requester has to wait for three months; they can sit after the time has passed. This deadline does not apply to the requester. In fact, to say that the convention should be organized within three months is to snatch the right of the one who calls it. The statute has given it the right of a three-month grace period to call the convention. This is the time for the requester to wait, not to snatch the right. It can say, 'We were preparing to call it, but they did not wait until the time.' After three months have passed, one waits/watches according to the statute, it does not call, and then it is done. To say 'your request is no longer useful/relevant' after three months have passed is dishonest.

Here, it appears that the working committee declared the relevance of the special convention ended by making a decision even before the three months had passed. In that case, the requesting side is free to hold a special convention even if three months have not passed since that decision.

Nowhere in the statute is it said that the relevance of a special convention requested in due process ends after a regular convention is called or when its process has started. The declaration of 'relevance ended' for the special convention was made by the working committee. That is a subjective interpretation. Legally, it does not appear to fall under the jurisdiction of the Central Working Committee. Its jurisdiction is to 'call a special central convention if 40 percent of the convention representatives demand it.'

Whether the relevance of any subject or work remains or not is determined or confirmed by time/context/circumstances/situation. It does not become appropriate when someone feels like it and inappropriate when they do not. There is no relevance for a feast when one is full. Even simple greens have relevance on an empty stomach. This truth does not change just because the majority says so.

Generally, when a person or institution entrusted with responsibility does not fulfill the duty received formally, the concerned parties have to fulfill the duty even by going outside the law. Such a situation arises. The emergence of such a situation is called a movement in other words. In the country, people protest against injustice; within a party, cadres do it. The one who is a victim of injustice is the one who should protest. Deuba and his team have indeed done injustice to the Congress. Congress cadres have awakened against that very injustice happening within the Congress under Deuba's leadership.

Yes, as Gopalman said, Deuba had become a dictator. Sending the list of proportional candidates to the Election Commission under his own signature even after giving the acting responsibility to another is an example of that.

Let us return to the statute again. If we assume that the center also means the central office and that the central office is under the General Secretary, and therefore the General Secretary can call a special convention without the working committee's decision, then the matter is over. Why look for the meaning of words? It is enough to understand the meaning one likes.

Otherwise, running the office means implementing the decisions made. It is the responsibility of the General Secretary, who is entrusted with the responsibility of running the office, to implement the decisions made by the convention, Mahasamiti, or the working committee. That is also the jurisdiction of the Congress General Secretary. He cannot call a convention.

The President and Vice-President cannot do it together either. It cannot be called even if all members of the committee sign without making a decision through a formal meeting. The Congress statute has not given anyone the individual right to call a convention. A convention is to be called by a decision of the formal meeting of the working committee. In such a case, when requested formally, one cannot even decide not to call it. Raising questions about relevance is beyond the limit. The center had to call it but did not. The conflict started from here.

After a situation was created where the request made to call a special convention became abandoned, the two General Secretaries decided to call such a meeting. They did not let it be abandoned. General Secretaries Gagan Kumar Thapa and Bishwa Prakash Sharma called a special convention. This is a purely political decision, which has addressed the rebellious consciousness of most Congress cadres. It is not legal.

Rebellious consciousness gives birth to movements. It does not have to be said that all movements born from such consciousness are not violent and destructive. There is also a movement in silence.

In history, peaceful non-violent movements have brought about major changes. Gatherings, conferences, processions, demonstrations, hunger strikes, and strikes are forms of movements. Once in Japan, workers in a factory protested by working overtime without taking wages. They produced so many goods that there was no place to keep them in the warehouse, nor were they consumed in the market. Eventually, the owner gave up and met the workers' demands.

Generally, when a person or institution entrusted with responsibility does not fulfill the duty received formally, the concerned parties have to fulfill the duty even by going outside the law. Such a situation arises.

Yes, therefore, this special convention of the Congress is also a form of movement. An internal movement of Congress cadres.

Dictators cannot be removed without a movement from within the prevailing statute, constitution, or rules and laws. There is no history of it being possible. They can be removed peacefully without bloodshed, but the statute must be crossed. This is because they remain dictators by using the loopholes of the provisions of that same constitution or statute, or sometimes by acting against the law. They are committing injustice.

Generally, when a person or institution entrusted with responsibility does not fulfill the duty received formally, the concerned parties have to fulfill the duty even by going outside the law. Such a situation arises. The emergence of such a situation is called a movement in other words. In the country, people protest against injustice; within a party, cadres do it. The one who is a victim of injustice is the one who should protest. Deuba and his team have indeed done injustice to the Congress. Congress cadres have awakened against that very injustice happening within the Congress under Deuba's leadership.

Therefore, the gathering of cadres within the Congress is a movement to end the injustices that occurred during Deuba's time. Seeking this in the path of law, statute, and constitution is to kill the essence of the movement.

Just as the subject of the Central Committee declaring the relevance of the demand for a special convention ended is illegal, the act of the requesters calling a special convention is not legal. Both acts/decisions are not recognized by the terminology of the Congress statute. These acts/decisions of the Congress are political. Interpreting them as being according to the provisions of the statute is subjective. Nowhere in the Congress statute is it mentioned that if the working committee does not call a special convention, the requesters themselves can call such a convention. But many Congress members are free to move, gather in one place, and work in a new form.

For example, the essence of the 'Bhadau' movement done by the youth is dead now. It was killed by Sudan and Sushila, who took ownership after the movement. And, even if it is illegal, the achievement of that movement has not been rejected. Elections were held, and everyone participated in them. What the court says about this is under its own jurisdiction. This is certain, no judicial body holds the authority to reject the achievements of a movement.

In short, the principle of the Congress is democracy. Even if something is lacking in form, the Congress statute teaches in essence to 'practically apply democratic values, norms, and ideals within the party'.

Where the movement ends and what achievement it results in depends on the capability of the movement participants. The same is true in the context of the Congress. Whatever the Congress, which is the movement-maker in the form of a special convention, decides, the Congress of now will do the same. This is the supreme body of the Congress. There is no body or person above this body. This was revived by the official cadres of the Congress through a movement.

Constitutions, acts, rules, and laws are made to run the country in a systematic way in a framework. Statutes are made to run institutions or parties in the same way. Whatever the principle is, legal provisions are made by clarifying the working style and framework to protect and promote it. The party's principle is owned by its statute. A path against the principle is not made in the statute, but rather it is stopped.

In short, the principle of the Congress is democracy. Even if something is lacking in form, the Congress statute teaches in essence to 'practically apply democratic values, norms, and ideals within the party'.

Such constitutions, rules, laws, and statutes are not complete anywhere. If they are made with democratic thinking, they are even more incomplete. One should keep adding according to time and keep removing ambiguities. Rules are made more democratic according to time and circumstances. The door for amendment always remains open in democracy.

In the context of the special convention, the provisions written in the Congress statute appeared incomplete. But the party's political principle is clear. There is no dispute about its values, norms, and ideals. Those who believe in this party must accept democratic values and norms. There is no place for undemocratic practice within the party. It would not be wrong to say that the statute was made on this basic thinking. But the statute was not clear about the special convention. Now an amendment appears necessary.

Making a decision by going outside the intention of saving the party's principle when a dispute arises due to not being clearly written in the statute is an injustice not only to the cadres of that party but to all voters who believe in the Congress.

In democracy, elections and the decision of the majority are acceptable. This is the formula. There are many ways to gather people. One goes door to door and calls. One sends people and calls. One sends letters, nowadays one calls by phone, email, or by issuing a public notice. Four people can also go. One can go alone and call. Once it becomes necessary to call, it must be called regardless of how or by whom. Whether it is a wedding procession or a funeral procession, they do the work they have to do once they gather. If they don't agree, the majority does it.

40 percent of the Congress convention representatives deemed it necessary to call a special central convention and requested it. In such a time, the person who calls is like a servant who is angry and does not want to go anywhere, then the master goes himself or assigns others to complete the work of calling. After that, whatever happens, the many people gathered together make the decision, whatever is to be done. If they don't agree, the majority does it.

Does the body that conducts the election have the right to take a decision by searching/understanding the interpretation that is not in the statute but is according to the party's principle? That is to be known by looking at its own statute. The court also made the subject stale and created a place to doubt its intention. The decision now is an expired medicine for Congress members.

Democracy says 'run by majority', the statute says 'walk by looking at the path'. Generally, the shell goes in circles. But the core is clear and flat—democracy does not allow the act of violating the statute.

There is no meaning or intent in the Congress statute to insult the political decision/selection made by the majority of Congress convention representatives, and the Constitution of Nepal also does not recognize acts contrary to democratic culture.

Does this mean that it is no longer necessary for parties to make statutes? The constitution does not accept this question. That is, if there is a directive of the constitution that parties should make their own statutes and act accordingly, then can one say 'they did not listen, we will also do it even if it is not in the statute'?

The understanding is that acts done by crossing the implemented statutes, acts, laws, and rules do not get legal recognition. Whoever commits a foul in a game inside the ring, all of them are punished. The statute speaks, not the majority. The umpire cannot make a decision by looking at the majority of players or spectators, whoever they are.

Democracy says 'run by majority', the statute says 'walk by looking at the path'. Generally, the shell goes in circles. But the core is clear and flat—democracy does not allow the act of violating the statute. It says 'change the statute by majority and make it democracy-friendly'.

The legal right exercised by a certain percentage of 4635 of the Congress, 40 or 65/75 or 100 percent, was blocked. It took the form of a rebellion/movement. The foundation of that rebellion is the grassroots Congress, which is 800,000 by the Congress's own data. Who knows who will raise their rights! Which the special convention in the form of a movement has snatched.

The matter of Congress supporters, well-wishers, and voters is separate. In the previous election, it was perhaps around 2.7 million. This time it seems to be around 1.8 million. Gagan and Bishwa Prakash, who are trying to establish themselves through an internal movement, have not respected those millions of Congress members. By blocking the path of the new and changing the old ones, no institution changes.