Mr Parshuram Pokhrel,
I wish to congratulate you for having been appointed the chairperson of Sundarijal-Jail-turned-BP-Koirala museum. I must also thank you for converting the prison into a museum. I believe that the establishment of the BP museum is important. BP was an important figure in the building of modern Nepal. I remember meeting him on different occasions between 1977 and 1982 and how he inspired me.
Today, as a revolutionary communist, I have fundamental differences with BP's philosophy and politics but I do not hesitate to declare that BP is indeed one of the most influential and multidimensional personalities of modern Nepal. As a matter of fact, both BP and PL (Pushpa Lal) are two unrivalled pillars of Nepal's democratic/leftist movement. It is ironic that these great thinkers were never successful politicians. Today, it is just the opposite: successful politicians of Nepal aren't great thinkers. Opportunists without calibre are so-called leaders.
A subjective study and investigation on the wide gap between thoughts and politics has become our immediate need. No society can make historic changes without appropriate identification and proper use of knowledge. The reason behind the crisis we see in Nepali society today is due to the dearth of thinkers in political movements.
As long as we try to look bigger than we really are, finding a solution to the country's crisis is almost impossible. It is in context to this that we must believe the museum will help younger generations study a great thinker and politician such as BP.
As far as BP's national tolerance policy is concerned, instead of idealising, we need to analyse it scientifically to reach a subjective conclusion. History has shown that development of knowledge and science takes place on the basis of negation. For instance, the relative materialism and scientific thoughts of Arastu in the west and of Gautam Buddha in the east during the ancient period was barred by unscientific thoughts of the materialistic middle age. In similar ways, the relative progressive ideal of BP's earlier part was not there in the latter part of his life.
We need to decide which part of BP's life to follow. Considering the Sikkim scandal and feudal nationalism in Nepal then, BP's saying ('I am joined at the neck with the king') is an illusion. We must understand that today's national and international scenario has changed significantly.
After the royal massacre, feudal nationalism has vanished. That is why talking about a handshake with the establishment, like BP did, would not be reasonable. Today's establishment is a broker for foreign powers. Discussing any program other than a people's republic would be suicidal for any nationalistic and democratic power.
The new phase of protest by the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) against reactionary India ruler's expansionist character and policy means that there will be no compromise with lackeys. This is something everyone must understand. Those who call themselves BP's followers should forge national unity on the basis of a real people's republic.