KATHMANDU: A couple of months ago, Janata Samajwadi Party Chairman Upendra Yadav seemed to be never tired of branding CPN-UML Chairman KP Oli “regressive and retrogressive”.
In his party meeting, Yadav presented a lengthy document calling Oli “arbitrary, anti-constitutional, anti-Madhesh and regressive”.
His political report, which heavily criticized Oli, was rejected by Mahanta Thakur’s faction, which was having a soft attitude towards Oli during that time.
Yadav was critical of Oli. On January 24, 2011, Yadav branded Oli’s move to dissolve the House of Representatives as a “coup against the Constitution”.
At the unity declaration meeting with the Nepal Lotantrik Party, he said, “Oli assaulted democracy and the republic by disbanding the supreme body elected by the people due to internal disputes within the Nepal Communist Party.”
Yadav said, “The attack on the Constitution by the executive head of the country is a conspiracy to push the democratic republic backward and lead the country towards regression.”
Among the two Chairmen of the JSP, Mahanta Thakur was close to the then Prime Minister KP Oli while Upendra Yadav was Oli’s staunch opponent during that time.
After the participation of the Thakur faction under the leadership of senior leader Rajendra Mahato in the Oli-led government, the intra-party wrangling within the JSP intensified.
Yadav even did not hesitate to say that “Oli has created a rift in JSP under the instruction of a foreign force”.
To recall, on May 18, 2021, there was an agreement between Chairperson Thakur and Yadav to stay in the opposition except in the case of forming a government of national consensus or a government led by their own party.
In fact, Yadav took a firm stance that under no circumstances should he join the Oli government.
Yadav had then stated that since the Thakur-led faction participated in the government, the party headed toward two distinct factions.
“The country is in favor of democracy, secularism, inclusiveness and federalism,” Yadav said.
On the other hand, there was a section to end the federal democratic republic, secularism and federalism, and finally, to push the country back by ending this Constitution itself, he said adding, “Currently, the struggle between these two thoughts and two forces is being continued. We are in the leading category.”
When the Thakur faction joined the Oli government, Yadav accused the Thakur faction of joining Oli’s regression.
Yadav had then asked, “How could Rajendra Mahato and Mahanth Thakur, who have been making speeches alleging Oli of being a regressive leader, join the government led by the same ‘regressive’ leader?”
“Until recently, they were alleging Oli for being anti-Madhesh and UML an anti-Madhesi force that is hell-bent on ending democracy. How did they now join Oli’s camp? Isn’t this a mystery?”
The question, which Yadav raised against the Thakur faction (currently Loktantrik Samajwadi Party) has now been pointed toward Yadav.
The people of Saptari-2 are questioning Yadav, who has abandoned the ruling alliance to align himself with the UML in the November 20 elections.
“How could he (Yadav), who never got tired of criticizing Oli have joined hands with the same person?”
From Baluwatar to Balkot
This is the incident of October 6, 2022, when a meeting of the ruling alliance was underway at the Prime Minister’s official residence in Baluwatar.
The ruling alliance gave only 16 seats to Yadav’s JSP in the November 20 election.
Yadav, who is still claiming that JSP is the largest party in Madhesh, was not satisfied with 16 seats. He boycotted the meeting of the ruling alliance and went to Balkot to meet KP Oli whom Yadav repeatedly branded as a “regressive royalist” until the previous day.
He suddenly reached Balkot from Baluwatar and forged an alliance with Oli in the middle of the night.
Prabhu Sah of his own party was dissatisfied with Yadav’s attitude and revolted immediately.
After all, why did Sah was critical of Yadav? Sah alleged Yadav for joining Oli for his personal gain, he also gave remarks that were aimed at disturbing communal harmony, tried to disturb the unity among Nepalis, and worked toward causing division among communities.
“The victims of the Gaur massacre are still awaiting justice. Instead of punishing the murderers of the Gaur massacre, my morals did not allow me to carry him and vote for him,” said Shah.
Sah also came down heavily on Upendra Yadav for playing a double-standard role.
Now come and do anything for the chair? Is it not the same Madhesh party, which made the mountain villages deserted? The hilly Madhesi mixed villages are now deserted. Should I carry those who should be punished in the Gaur massacre?’, Shah asked.
The Gaur massacre that took place on March 21, 2007, was the result of the then Madheshi Janadhikhar Forum led by Yadav.
That incident in which 27 people were brutally killed was created by the clash between the then CPN (Maoist) and the Madhesi People’s Rights Forum, which held a program at the same place.
UML strongly condemned the incident. Subodharaj Pyakurel, the then chairman of the Informal Sector Service Center (INSEC), who is considered to be very close to UML Chairman Oli, called the Gaur massacre brutal in the report prepared after the on-site study visit.
Anything goes for position and power. The same Oli faction who described the Gaur massacre as brutal is now colluding with Yadav, while Yadav, who never got tired of calling Oli a regressive, is looking at the stake of winning the election by using UML’s strength.
The danger of UML not voting for Yadav
Due to the Gaur massacre and the harsh criticism of Oli in the past, doubts have been raised that UML will not vote for Yadav even if there is an electoral alliance.
Since Yadav is a candidate who has widely criticized Oli in the past, there is a possibility that the votes of pro-UML voters will not be ‘transferred’ to Yadav’s box.
Currently, both sides are furious with Yadav. A large section of UML does not seem willing to vote for him because of his strong opposition to Oli and the scandal of the Gaur massacre.
On the other hand, the JSP’s federalism, secularism, and republican progressives are also dissatisfied with him saying that he has “forged an alliance with the regressive Oli”. Some leaders and workers have even left the JSP.
Yadav is getting in trouble due to the fact that UML votes are not ‘transferred’ enough, while disaffected cadres within JSP are not cooperating.
After quitting the “safe zone” of the ruling coalition and aligning with the UML, Yadav has been pushed into the ‘red zone’ as the elections are approaching, and Yadav seems to be getting worried.
In Madhesh, the Madheshi forces do not seem to dominate as they did when there was a Sanghiya Samajbadi Forum.
It is not easy for Yadav to win the elections based on the strength of Madhesh in the harsh reality of the Congress, UML and Maoist Center, which took first, second and third place in the last local elections in Madhesh province.
One of the heroes of the latest uprising in Madhesh, Yadav will also have to face CK Raut and the candidate of the ruling coalition, Jayaprakash Thakur of the Loktantrik Samajwadi Party, and this would prove to be really difficult for him.
UML is a cunning, crafty and ‘money-based’ party. It has become a victim of its character of strengthening its own side, but not helping the other parties in the alliance.
UML is not as honest as Nepali Congress is in the coalition culture. Therefore, there is an increased risk that Yadav will face the consequences.
UML and JSP, which had a hostile and bitter relationship until a few months ago, did not even think of developing a harmonious relationship in a jiffy.
On top of that, seeing Upendra’s unstable nature, Oli does not believe that he can go together with JSP in the power equation tomorrow.
Therefore, there is no guarantee that the UML, which is making a strategy to tighten its pockets, will not betray Yadav.
The position is important, the movement is secondary!
Terminologies such as the “Madhesh movement”, and “democracy and progress” are just words for Yadav. Especially when he got to power, he went to any extent for power and money.
The then commander of the Madhesh rebellion was Bhagyanath Gupta of Birgunj.
While Bhagyanath was raging the agitation, Yadav reached an agreement with the then Girija Prasad Koirala without giving him a clue.
Leaders like Bhagyanath Gupta and Kumar Biswas left him after taking the movement to compromise, just like Mohan Vaidya and Netra Bikram Chand Biplav left Maoist Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal.
Being defeated by Yadav’s ruling style, heavyweights started to separate from the Madhesh-based party.
Bijay Gachchdar also separated from him and established the Tarai Madhesh Democratic Party.
After some time, Jayprakash Prasad Gupta and Rajkishore Yadav also separated.
Meanwhile, Pradeep Yadav of Birgunj and his faction burnt Upendra’s effigy, in a bid not to make him a minister.
There is a widespread complaint that the agenda and demands of Madhesh have not been fulfilled because Yadav is more interested in the power game than in addressing the voices of the people of Madhesh.
The Madhesh-based party seems to be angry with Yadav because he is anti-Madhesh, does not agree to address Madhesh’s demands in the constitution, and has aligned himself with the anti-citizenship bill party.
Comment