In this conversation with The Post’s Purushottam Poudel, Nepali Congress Spokesperson and former Foreign and Finance Minister Prakash Sharan Mahat offers insights into the current political landscape. From government inefficiency and the growing debate around reinstating Nepal as a Hindu state, to geopolitics, to the disillusionment with the government, Mahat addresses key national concerns. He also unpacks the internal dynamics of the Congress.

Nepali Congress President and former prime minister Sher Bahadur Deuba and his wife, Foreign Minister Arzu Deuba, are leaving for Thailand. The reason cited for the visit is medical treatment. With ongoing discussions on a potential change of government, is this trip purely coincidental, or is there more to it?

Everyone has a personal life—even our party president. It’s not common for Nepali leaders to go on holiday or even take a proper break. In reality, busy people should take some time off now and then; it helps re-energise them. This trip is primarily for a routine medical check-up and a short break. Incidentally, the foreign minister also has an official engagement in Thailand, hence she is travelling as well. There is thus no need for unnecessary speculation.

The government enjoys a two-thirds majority. However, public criticism over its performance is growing. Is this because the Congress is creating obstacles, or is it because the UML finds it difficult to share power with the Congress, the larger party?

The UML has a more regimented party structure, which is different from ours. These differing organisational styles sometimes cause the two parties to fall out of sync. However, the differences are not insurmountable. In particular, there needs to be better coordination and balance in the appointment process. Appointments must be made not only with party loyalty in mind but also with a sense of responsibility towards the nation and its people. Of course, some issues create discomfort, but we have always found ways to work through them. In a coalition government, no party can expect to have everything go their way.

Recently, questions have been raised over the government even from within the Congress party leadership. Do the recent criticisms stem primarily from disagreements over political appointments?

Appointments aren’t the only reason for criticism. Some of our responsible leaders are part of a mechanism formed to support the government’s effective functioning. Rather than speaking publicly, it would be better for them to present their concerns in internal government forums, where they can openly evaluate shortcomings and present conclusions directly to the UML leadership.

If that fails to bring satisfactory results, only then should issues be taken into the public domain. Unfortunately, I haven’t seen our colleagues make such points within party and government structures—instead, they seem to be presenting their views more prominently in the public. When there are problems, it’s better to signal them symbolically in public while reserving strong statements for closed doors. If we make loud criticisms in public, it sends the message that the government may truly be in a crisis.

Political parties are being criticised for failing to maintain transparency, particularly over appointments. This has even led to anti-establishment voices on the streets. Despite this, the ruling parties seem fixated on appointing their own in top posts. Why?

Appointments are necessary—important roles cannot remain vacant. Leaving them vacant makes governance difficult. But if the process creates confusion and is accompanied by excessive debate, it naturally breeds suspicion. That’s something we must avoid.

Leadership must engage in proper discussions to ensure appointments are merit-based. Personal loyalty alone should not be the main criterion. If someone can serve the institution well, their appointment should not be delayed or thrown into uncertainty.

The demand for declaring Nepal a Hindu state is now vocally heard on the street. Even during last year’s Congress Mahasamiti meeting, this sentiment had surfaced. Is it possible the party may revise its official stance so that people advocating for the Hindu state come into Congress fold?

I was a member of two Constituent Assembly committees that helped draft the constitution. We debated whether the term “secularism” was necessary. Once religious freedom is guaranteed, people of any faith can practise freely. We argued that the phrase “religious freedom” was sufficient.

The term “secularism” was borrowed from the European context, where it originally aimed to separate church from state. That isn’t our situation. So we proposed using “religious freedom” instead. However, some communist colleagues, especially from the Maoist party, insisted on including “secularism”. In the spirit of compromise, and to ensure the constitution would be promulgated, the term was included.

This resulted in a contradiction. The constitution declares Nepal a secular state but also commits to protecting Sanatan Dharma. As Sanatan Dharma—which includes Hinduism, Buddhism and Kirat traditions—has been practised here for centuries, it is part of our national identity.

Culture, civilisation, and religion are part of what makes a state— it is not just geography. Therefore, the sentiment that religion and identity matter is present even within the Congress. Revisiting the concept of secularism is not off the table.

When it comes to the advocacy for monarchy, I see three distinct groups doing so. The first are those who yearn for a return to the Panchayat-era monarchy—we have nothing in common with them. The second group wants a constitutional monarch, similar to what existed under the 1990 constitution. They are for monarchy with limited power. However, every opportunity given to the monarchy was misused earlier—its lust for absolute control grew, which eventually led to regime change.

The third group is perhaps the most influential. They believe only a king can preserve our religion and culture. But the belief that only monarchy can ensure such preservation is not present in our party—we believe political parties are fully capable of that. We need to communicate this clearly to the people.

Before the constitution was promulgated, the government collected public feedback to accommodate it in the constitution. But those public suggestions, especially on religion, were reportedly not incorporated. Is that true?

That was the situation at the time. Our Maoist colleagues were adamant: having fought a war, they would not accept a constitution without secularism. Although we debated the issue, there could be no consensus. As a result, the suggestions received from the public couldn’t be incorporated, and we ended up with a constitution with contradictions.

The constitution says Nepal is a secular state but also commits to protecting Sanatan Dharma. That contradiction can still be corrected through mutual agreement. However, our party is yet to make an official decision on this.

Have the current leaders—who were also in charge during constitution drafting—become more religious with age?

That may be true. But you also need to look at global trends. Is our identity only defined by geography—from the Terai to the Hills and Himalayas? Surely not. Our identity is also defined by our customs, culture, dress, language, religion, and traditions.

Over time, Western education system led us to believe our own beliefs were unscientific or backward. But today, in this age of information, many aspects of our ancestors’ lifestyle are being proven to have scientific merit. Westerners themselves are now beginning to adopt our traditional ways of life.

Our religion and culture are not only inclusive but also rational and scientific. We’re beginning to understand this better now.

In that case, will the Congress make “Hindu state” a key plank of its 2027 election strategy?

We must protect our religion and culture. Doing so does not mean taking away someone else’s right to practise their faith. If we say all religious rights are fully guaranteed, no one should feel alienated. The party may eventually form an official stance on this. But what I’ve said is my personal opinion.

In your view, as a former foreign minister, how would you assess the current state of Nepal-India relations, especially in light of the Prime Minister Oli’s meeting with Indian PM Modi at the BIMSTEC summit?

Sometimes, the problem may be the prime minister’s earlier comments. Speaking publicly on bilateral matters may offer self-satisfaction, but it doesn’t resolve the underlying problem. Political leaders must be mindful of this. At times, it seems there’s a certain degree of irritation between the Nepali prime minister and the Indian side.

I sense that India is particularly concerned about security issues when it comes to Nepal. On relations with China, Nepal has already moved from a “One China policy” to embracing the “One China principle.” In the south, India became more sensitive following the developments in Bangladesh, which likely heightened their awareness around the Siliguri Corridor—what they call the “Chicken’s Neck.”

India doesn’t want any activities that raise security concerns for it along Nepal’s eastern border. Just as we’ve reassured China that Nepal’s territory won’t be used against them, we must also offer similar assurances to India. Without compromising our sovereignty, territorial integrity, and independence, we need to be mindful of their security sensitivities.

Perhaps because of some public statements made by Nepali leaders, India feels we aren’t sufficiently sensitive to their concerns. This sentiment becomes apparent, especially among Indian policymakers involved in track-two dialogue and in policy forums.

You mentioned India’s sensitivity over the Siliguri Corridor. Nepal signed an agreement with China to build an industrial park in Damak close to the corridor. Were you referring to that project in particular?

Not explicitly. India hasn’t officially stated that this is the cause of their concern, but it could be one of the reasons. If that’s the case, then we should ask ourselves—must the park be built in that precise location? Couldn’t it be relocated?

There’s no objection from the Nepali people to Chinese investment in Nepal. And thus, there should be no reason for India to object either. However, if there is suspicion about other activities in that location, why create an environment that fuels doubt?

During Prime Minister Oli’s visit to China in December, the two sides signed the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) Cooperation Framework. At the time, you and a few other Congress leaders raised concerns about the modality of the deal. What is the current status of Nepal’s engagement under the BRI?

Our position has never been one of outright rejection. We’ve never argued that Nepal shouldn’t cooperate with China or pursue greater connectivity. In fact, when I was foreign minister, we signed the BRI agreement by removing provisions that conflicted with our national interest.

Our concern now is not engagement with China per se—it’s how we secure funding. Bilateral loans, in my view, are not in Nepal’s long-term interest. I advocate for loans to be sourced through multilateral channels.

Bilateral loans tend to come with more conditions—whereby certain contractors and equipment need to be used, the interest rates are high and there is greater room for manoeuvring behind the scenes. Just look at the Pokhara International Airport—the complications we’re seeing there are instructive.

Moreover, we are yet to get even the grants that China had previously committed to. It would be better to focus on implementing existing commitments first, before adding more layers.

Let’s talk about Congress politics. Recently, it appears that Party President Deuba has started relying on General Secretary Gagan Thapa to navigate key political challenges. Yet other senior leaders like you seem to be deprived of key responsibilities.

I won’t criticise the fact that certain party colleagues have been entrusted with responsibilities. The party president must have seen the need and acted accordingly. I’ve no complaints against the president. Whenever he’s given me a role, I’ve done my best to fulfil it.

I am not a populist—I’m consistent in what I say and do. There’s a tendency here to sway with whichever way the political wind blows. That might bring short-term gains, but in the long run, it’s not good for the country.

You say you have no complaints yet in February you and several other leaders met with the party president and asked him to clarify who his successor would be. What was that about?

We did meet him—that’s true. Some of us have been with him since the beginning, and others joined along the way. Because of our long association with him, we felt continued dialogue was necessary. We also wanted clarity on the political direction of the party.

In line with the party statute, he won’t be able to compete for a third term as party president. As a result, multiple leaders began projecting themselves as his potential successor. Some even started publicly claiming his support. This created confusion among party members. So we wanted to understand his real thinking.

He told us that when the time comes, he will step aside and endorse one of the leaders who has stood beside him all this time.

But leaders like Shekhar Koirala and General Secretary Thapa have already begun campaigning for leadership, ahead of the party’s next General Convention. Don’t you worry that, while waiting for the president’s signal, you might fall behind?

We’re also visiting districts—I’ve been travelling myself. The difference is that they are campaigning in an overt style, while we are not approaching it that way.

Also, remember—the party’s general convention isn’t happening this year. It’ll be postponed by a year, at the least. So to launch a campaign this early is not healthy. If we visit the districts with the mindset of electoral competition, we’ll lose the cohesiveness we desperately need.

The Congress’ main challenge isn’t ideological—it’s organisational. We’re too individualistic. A strong leader can only emerge from a strong party. Unfortunately, we’re doing the opposite—we’re engaging in competition to strengthen individuals, not the institution.

Early campaigning for the general convention may deepen internal divisions all the way down to the grassroots level. What we need right now is not personal ambition, but unity within the party organisation.