The general who never retires

Former Army Chief Rookmangud Katawal’s biography will be released next week.  Katawal became the focal point of Nepali politics in 2008 due to his tussle that year with the UCPN (Maoist) Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal-led government.  Dahal, the first prime minister of a newly republican Nepal, had to resign after President Ram Baran Yadav reinstated Katawal following Dahal’s sacking of Katawal for violating the government’s directives. Kamal Dev Bhattarai talked to Katawal about his book, and he has translated an excerpt for the Post from the general’s work. 

What are the key contents of your biography?

It includes many of the events I have seen and lived through.

One of the key events in your life was the tussle you had with the then Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal in 2008. How have you portrayed that in the book? 

I have presented the daily accounts of the 16 days from Baisakh 6 to 21. Everything I witnessed during that period has been included.

Are all the issues you’ve written about in the book true?

That’s a very difficult question. But I’ll give you an honest reply. There have been questions raised in the past about the accuracy of books penned by dignitaries, including Nelson Mandela and Churchill.  I am not seeking to appease specific people or irk others. People who were happy with me will always remain so. I have tried to incorporate what I have seen and lived through. As it is, we cannot judge anyone on the basis of one book. But I’d like to say that the decision taken by Nepal Army in 2008 was the correct one. 

What are the major highlights of the book?

That would depend on the interests of the reader. Some may be interested in my childhood.  Others may be interested in the politics and so on. I wrote the book because some people told me that if I did not write a book, Nepal’s modern political history would remain incomplete.

There are many who argue that a new constitution would have been drafted if there had been no tussle between the army chief and the prime minister. What do you make of that assertion?

The constitution could have been drafted, but we should consider what type of constitution would have been drafted. Do we need a constitution that would impose a one-party dictatorship, or a constitution that ensures a competitive democracy?  We are not seeking a Stalin-type constitution, but a democratic one.  My institution was very clear on this issue in 2008. 

So, your understanding is that if Prachanda had been successful in sacking you, there would have been a one-party dictatorship in the country?

This is not just my understanding. This was the understanding of the Nepali people, the political parties, the international community, our neighbouring countries, and professionals like you.  Nepal Army took a firm stand in favour of the constitution and the people. Among the 24 parties in parliament, 22 parties and the judiciary supported the army’s move.

When the government decided to sack you, your second- in-command was going to replace you; do you mean that your second-in-command was going to establish a one-party dictatorship?

He had submitted some documents to the political leaders, including the Maoist parties, about the things he wanted to do. Some people do not care about the country and democracy; they just seek personal benefits. History has proven that all people do not think about the welfare of the state and democracy.  In our context, the Maoist party tried to benefit from such people.

You will become the first general in Nepal to have written a book. You could thus be viewed as a political general. What would you say about that?

Many people have said that I am going to register a political party. But to run their organisation, the security chiefs of all the countries, even developing countries, need to understand regional and international politics. I am not a politician and I do not do politics; but I do try to understand politics. 

The political process is smoother this time around, compared to 2008-2009. What is your observation?

It is more open. But the UCPN (Maoist) is still in a state of confusion. The UCPN (Maoist) has forged an alliance with seven Madhes-based parties who are already in the Constituent Assembly (CA).  At the same time, the UCPN (Maoist) chairman has forged alliances with five splinter groups that are against the idea of drafting a new constitution. The two groups are opposed to each other and such alliances give the message that the Maoists are still confused.

You have been blamed for breaching civilian supremacy and refusing to work under the elected government.

First, we should be a clear on the definition of civilian supremacy. Are there any examples in democratic countries where the army and police chiefs have been changed after a change in government? Security agencies run as per the rules and regulations of the country.

Furthermore, there are no examples of the NA’s violating the country’s law and constitution. Instead of security-sector reform, there should be civilian-sector reform here.