The daughter of a well-known film producer in Bollywood, Rajyalakshmi Golchha moved from Mumbai to Nepal after marrying Mahendra Golchha and has been running the family business ever since her husband’s death. She has zero experience in politics, apart from donating large sums to parties.
Ram Kumari Jhankri was born in a Magar family in Myal Pokhari, Gulmi, 40km away from district headquarters Tamghas. Active as a UML student leader all her life, Ram Kumari went on to become the first female president of the Free Student Union in 2008.
The Golchha family has been the patron of Nepali Congress for a long time. And yet it was the UML which readily gave Rajyalakshmi a Proportional Representation seat, while keeping a young, capable junior leader like Ram Kumari out of the constitution making process.
However, it’s not Rajyalakshmi’s fault. The way PR seats are allocated in Nepal is deeply symptomatic of our corrupt political culture where money has the final say. Plenty of parties have auctioned their PR seats to businessmen and entrepreneurs have been more than willing to oblige because they see their time in BICC hall as a way to earn back the millions they have invested in the parties in the form of donations.
The Ram Kumari versus Rajyalakshmi case shows us that if we want to protect our nascent democracy, we must urgently change the PR process to make it more transparent. We must break this unholy nexus between politics and the corporate world. But for this to happen, ordinary Nepalis need to support clean and professional candidates like the Americans did with Barack Obama and Indians with Arvind Kejriwal.
Since the first mass uprising in 1951, major transformations in Nepal’s polity have come from the lower and middle classes. Politics must, therefore, remain within the reach of this group. In the battle between Rajyalakshmi and Ram Kumari, the latter must prevail.
Interview with UML student leader
Ram Kumari Jhankri, Ghatna ra Bichar, 1 January
Many were expecting you to be on the UML’s proportional representation list. Why didn’t the party nominate you?
Ram Kumari Jhankri: I am just as shocked as everyone else by the UML’s PR list. However, my complaint is not personal; I understand that not every member can make it to the Constituent Assembly. My main concern is rather with how senior party leaders went about finalising the list.
You have been vehemently protesting the party’s decision through various media outlets.
It’s not just me. All of us who value transparency and fairness have been questioning the UML’s decision to nominate controversial candidates when there are people within the ranks who are far better qualified and who have sacrificed a lot for the party. I talked to senior leaders after the closed list was announced, but I wasn’t convinced with their explanation.
Do you want the UML to modify the list?
Of course, only then will the party’s loyal cadre be convinced that leaders are willing to mend their old ways. I am not saying that all 84 PR candidates are undeserving and need to be changed, but those with tarnished reputation or those who got seats because they made hefty donations must be removed to protect the UML’s standing. My message is clear: the public mandate cannot be misused by incompetent candidates to loot the country.
Has the PR process been turned into a money game?
The PR mechanism was introduced so that people from marginalised communities would have an equal say in the drafting of the new constitution as well as to bring them into the national mainstream. Unfortunately, the parties have made a complete mess of the process. Those with money, those who are close to party heads, or those who funded individual election campaigns are handpicked to sit in the CA, while deserving candidates are easily disposed of. Our short-sighted leaders have turned this inclusive mechanism into just another way of making more money for themselves.