Former President Bidya Devi Bhandari. (Photo/Video: Saroj Nepal/Saugat Dahal)
Former President Bidya Devi Bhandari has been in the spotlight, of late, due to her active political engagements, along with growing suggestions from within her party urging her to return to politics.
Two years after the mandatory cooling-off period for former heads of state, she is preparing to re-enter active politics. However, she has yet to finalize a clear strategy for her next steps. Nepalkhabar spoke with Bhandari about her future political plans, recently. Excerpts:
Media reports about your return to active party politics have sparked both excitement and polarizations within the CPN (UML). How do you respond to these reactions?
As the leadership will be chosen through the general convention, it's positive that party members are thoughtfully considering leadership options. However, this process shouldn't lead to polarization, as there's no substantive reason for it. While there has been general discussion about me, no formal decision has been made yet. Further, this issue depends on the demands of the cadres. Above all, the nation comes first. Everyone must contribute from their respective positions for the country. If necessary, one must even be ready to sacrifice their life for the nation—there’s no question about failing to contribute as a citizen.
Parties represent the people and wield state power. In this sense, parties are in a decisive position. Who can think more deeply about the nation’s sovereignty and overall interests? In this context, I do not find it unusual to consider my name. I also do not believe that the consideration of my name creates divisions in the party. I, too, have a long legacy. I joined this party at a young age and have come this far.
On a personal level, I married Madan Bhandari. The UML has always followed multi-party people’s democracy (Bahudaliya Janabad) not just as a revolutionary agenda but also as a guiding principle.
Thus, my connection is not just with the party ranks but with the entire nation. Nepali people remember Madan Bhandari and hold him dear. Apart from this legacy, they have seen me in active politics for 30 to 31 years. In this sense, I take their interest and admiration as an honor. Their love and respect for me remain, and I am ready to uphold the responsibility that comes with it. Hence, the term 'polarization' does not seem very appropriate in this context.
How likely do you think it is that leaders and cadres who want to bring you back into active politics and party leadership might face political risks in their careers?
While discussing the party's future leadership, where do the risks come from? Are there opponents of multi-party people's democracy (Bahudaliya Janabad) within CPN (UML)? Could threats emerge externally, from political competitors? Or is it about how Nepal's communist movement – particularly the ideology and principles championed by Madan Bhandari – has guided the party's progress? If some view this as a challenge, that’s a separate issue.
But for those who respect me, engage with me, and advocate for my return to leadership – shouldn’t they be entrusted with greater responsibilities?
Recently, you've been actively traveling across various provinces and districts. Do you have more district visits planned in the near future?
There have been frequent requests for me to visit districts. Comrades wish to organize programs related to the Madan Bhandari Foundation, and since I currently have the time, I’ve been honoring these invitations. Many of my contemporaries and senior colleagues hadn’t met me for 8 to 10 years—I make it a point to attend these events, both to reconnect and respond to their outreach.
Gender equality has become a pressing national discourse, and I’ve actively joined this movement. During my parliamentary tenure, I championed women’s rights, and the outcomes have been encouraging. Today, momentum for equality spans east to west.
Beyond this, I participate in climate change initiatives, sports-related events, and cultural programs. As a former head of state, I’m often invited to such engagements. Wherever feasible—when time and location align—I continue traveling across the country.
There's an ongoing debate about whether former Presidents and Vice-Presidents should return to active politics. What is your perspective on this discussion?
I haven't heard anyone say 'you shouldn't return' to politics. So let's not even entertain that notion. What does exist is the call to 'you should return' - and this sentiment has certainly created its own impact."
Ideally, it's best when the current leadership remains united - and we should support that. But sometimes, timing and circumstances matter. If the need arises and the call comes, taking responsibility becomes necessary.
This is, indeed, a matter of reflection. I've completed one term as vice-chair of the party and taken on another responsibility as the President. Therefore, it would be preferable if things progressed through the (current UML leadership). But if workers persistently say otherwise, then I too must consider the situation.
If you were presented with another opportunity to become President after Ram Chandra Paudel, would you accept? Or between the responsibilities of President and Prime Minister, which would you prefer?
Such matters are determined by the needs of the time. Our constitution explicitly prohibits a twice-elected President from running for a third term, with similar provisions for other constitutional positions.
Personally, I have no desire for such a position. If discussions emerge about what institutional arrangements would be the most appropriate, I could offer suggestions. But at this stage, hypothetical questions like 'Which would you choose?' seem premature to entertain.
I believe one must serve when the nation stands to benefit. However, focusing too much on specific positions risks appearing overly ambitious about titles.
Taking advantage of the widespread frustration among the people, the royalists have become active. At this time, it doesn't seem necessary to increase your political activism.
I don’t think there’s a risk of regression. We have a high degree of freedom of speech. Because of this freedom, various interest groups may have become active. There are still people who hold certain beliefs here and there. In such a situation, some differing opinions may emerge.
As far as Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP)'s demand for the restoration of the monarchy is concerned, in my opinion, they might be making such efforts to increase their votes.
Doesn’t it seem like Nirmal Niwas (possibly referring to a political group or leader) tried to seize the opportunity—like ‘reaching out a hand, flashing eyes’?
After 2064 BS (2007 AD), that ‘chapter’ has already ‘closed.’ However, since there is freedom, different parties can express their beliefs and work to increase their votes accordingly.
Chinese President Xi Jinping made a historic visit to Nepal during your tenure as the president. Was it because of your diplomatic initiative or the outcome of the circumstances?
It seems everything worked out since all the pieces fell into place. We had also repeatedly requested him to visit Nepal. He made the Nepal visit because he too desired it.
If we look at the history, there are a few visits from China. Our invitation also does not work out, they should have a desire for it. President Xi also expressed his desire. He accepted our invitation and visited Nepal. This is a pleasant coincidence.
From India, even the late President Pranab Mukherjee had visited Nepal. That too was a happy coincidence. I also visited India.
At that time, we were preoccupied with domestic affairs. However, during the time of the President's visit, there was a state of political stability.
But later, due to the 'mandamus' (court order), a phase of frequent government changes began. Now, however, the major parties seem committed to bringing stability to the country. Perhaps now we'll see a proper exchange of visits.
You established a personal rapport with Chinese President Xi during the exchange of two presidential visits. Are you still maintaining the same level of relationship?
I established good relations with Chinese leaders including President Xi during my tenure as the President of Nepal. I still have the same level of respect for all even today. I am doing my level best to maintain the same degree of relations even now.
You had been scheduled to participate in the 70th Anniversary of the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence held in Beijing last year. Why did you cancel your China visit at the last moment?
The time was very short. No sufficient time for preparations. I will visit China at a time convenient in the future. I will make goodwill visits to both neighboring countries. I am trying to make it happen. Following my retirement as the President, I also had a two-year cooling-off period. I look forward to visiting before long.
Which country will you visit first? China or India?
Let's see. However, we should not prioritize one country's visit over another. We should arrange visits based on necessity and mutual convenience. I will visit both China and India. These visits could be personal, too. They may focus on socio-cultural exchanges, as well.
.
