Author: space4knews

April 30, Kathmandu – The Lower House held three sessions on Wednesday intending to deliberate and approve the policy and program presented by the President. However, all three sessions were disrupted due to opposition protests.

The session scheduled for 11 am started a bit late but failed to advance the agenda. The meeting was adjourned twice, with the third adjournment occurring at 5:30 pm.

There was an extended debate on whether the sessions could move forward in the absence of Prime Minister Balendra Shah. Ultimately, no discussion on the policy and program began.

Given the parliament building’s proximity to the Prime Minister and Cabinet Secretariat, it was unlikely that Prime Minister Balendra was unaware of the ongoing parliamentary situation.

Despite knowing that Parliament was seeking him, the Prime Minister gave no indication of attending. Consequently, the National Independent Party relied on legal provisions which permit sessions in Parliament even without the Prime Minister.

Opposition MPs were insistent on holding the Prime Minister accountable in Parliament, questioning who else would be responsible if the PM did not respond.

Both sides presented serious arguments, but the inability to resolve these differences hampered the parliamentary agenda.

Thus, the government’s policy and program for the upcoming fiscal year could not be debated in Parliament, leaving public needs and agendas unaddressed within the house.

Opposition Denied Prior Notice

It is customary for the Lower House to release the probable agenda a day before a session. The agenda published on Tuesday stated that on Wednesday, the President’s representative, the Prime Minister Balendra, would initiate discussion on the policy and program, a claim the opposition parties had accepted with confidence.

However, during the meeting of the Procedural Consultation Committee held before the session, the PM’s attendance or absence was not discussed, and an agreement was made for urgent and zero hour discussions. It was believed that the agenda would proceed accordingly.

Shortly before the meeting, however, news emerged that the Prime Minister would not attend Parliament. Following this, the agreed-upon urgent and zero hour sessions continued.

When Speaker Dol Prasad Aryal attempted to advance the agenda, opposition parties objected, reminding him that the agenda included the Prime Minister presenting the policy and program for discussion.

Speaker Aryal cited Rule 38 of the House regulations, which allows a designated minister to respond in the Prime Minister’s absence.

This led to a debate over whether the Prime Minister’s presence was mandatory. Nepali Congress MP Arjun Narasingh KC recalled the previous day’s events.

‘Yesterday when the President read out the policy and program, the Prime Minister stood up and left the session. Yet today, for the government’s own policy discussion, the Prime Minister neither attends nor responds?’ MP KC questioned the Prime Minister’s intentions.

The opposition warned they would boycott the session if it proceeded without the Prime Minister’s attendance.

‘We have no objection to starting the debate, but if the Prime Minister is absent during responses, we must boycott the session,’ KC stated.

Conversely, parliamentary party leader of the National Independent Party, Gyan Bahadur Shahi, insisted the Prime Minister’s presence was necessary.

‘It’s not merely about the Speaker’s authority but concerns our parliamentary party’s 181 MPs. We have opposed this in previous terms as well,’ he said.

CPN-UML’s Chief Whip Ain Bahadur Mahara questioned the PM’s responsibility and accountability to the Parliament due to his absence.

‘When will the Prime Minister respond in Parliament? He did not speak during the last session and is absent again this time when he should be here,’ he remarked.

When the opposition’s firm questioning intensified, National Independent Party’s Chief Whip Kabindra Burlakoti referred to Rule 38(3) of the House regulations.

The rule states that when the Prime Minister is absent, a designated minister may respond to questions raised during policy discussions.

‘The Prime Minister has assigned the Finance Minister to answer questions during the debate,’ he explained.

Countering this, CPN Chief Whip Yubaraj Dulal asked, ‘For five years, we have heard no voice from the Prime Minister citing Rule 38. Is this acceptable?’

As tensions grew, CPN-UML MP Guru Prasad Baral urged the opposition not to blame the government unfairly for parliament’s disruption.

‘It is wrong to worsen the parliamentary situation without addressing opposition’s concerns,’ he said.

Nepali Congress parliamentary leader Bhishma Raj Angdembe proposed adjourning the meeting to find consensus.

‘Let’s suspend for 10-15 minutes and seek a solution,’ he suggested, and the Speaker agreed to the adjournment.

Unclear Agreement Causes Confusion

Following the first adjournment, top leaders began discussions.

The procedural consultation committee room adjacent to the assembly hall was attended by Speaker Aryal, Deputy Speaker Ruby Thakur, and others.

National Independent Party members including Chairperson Ravi Lamichhane, deputy leader Ganesh Parajuli, Chief Whip Kabindra Burlakoti, and others participated, along with Finance Minister Swarnim Wagle.

Nepali Congress’s leaders Bhishma Raj Angdembe, Chief Whip Basana Thapa, and MP Arjun Narasingh KC were also present.

From CPN-UML came Parliamentary leader Ram Bahadur Thapa Badal, deputy Padma Aryal, and Chief Whip Ain Bahadur Mahara.

CPN representatives included Chief Whip Yubaraj Dulal and MP Pramesh Hamal; Labour Culture Party’s Aren Rai and National Democratic Party’s Khushbu Oli also attended.

During the session seeking consensus, the Speaker proposed initial solutions before MP Arjun Narasingh KC addressed the room.

‘We must understand the core of the opposition’s concerns. Not everything is in writing; rules exist to remove obstacles,’ KC explained.

Congress leader Angdembe emphasized the need for the Prime Minister’s presence, stating, ‘Everyone agrees on the Prime Minister’s attendance. Why can’t the Prime Minister be called to Parliament? The Parliament seeks his response and he must at least attend.’

Finance Minister Wagle presented a letter from the Prime Minister designating him as representative.

He noted that according to House Rule 38, the Prime Minister’s appointment of a representative is valid and was previously accepted by both the former and the new Parliament, a position confirmed by Speaker Aryal.

‘I am not here to debate arithmetic. The world is watching: let’s continue today’s session and discuss again next time. I will coordinate with the Prime Minister,’ Aryal said.

CPN-UML leader Badal remained silent, while Chief Whip Ain Mahara urged understanding the opposition’s concerns beyond mere regulatory interpretation, emphasizing the Prime Minister’s parliamentary accountability.

Efforts were ongoing to find mutual acceptance.

On the same day, Finance Minister Wagle proposed starting the discussion, while MP KC maintained that the Prime Minister’s presence during responses was necessary, attempting to persuade the National Independent Party.

‘It is customary and necessary for the Prime Minister himself to answer questions in the policy and program session. In the past, Prime Ministers attended Parliament for this purpose,’ KC pointed out.

After deciding that answers would not come on Wednesday, Speaker Aryal promised to converse with the Prime Minister in the evening.

Subsequently, all parties consented to resume the adjourned meeting.

The session recommenced with Finance Minister Wagle proposing to begin discussion on the policy and program.

Congress leader Angdembe quickly raised a call to ensure questions raised during the discussion would be answered by the Prime Minister and insisted the Prime Minister attend and listen to the debate.

The National Independent Party interpreted this demand as a breach of agreement, and Chief Whip Burlakoti challenged the opposition.

Other opposition parties also echoed demands that the Prime Minister provide answers to all questions raised.

According to leaders, the ambiguous agreement among top leaders created confusion, and the opposition did not clarify whether answers would come the next day.

Following the session, doubts persisted among the opposition concerning Finance Minister Wagle’s ability to provide responses, while accusations exchanged between government and opposition continued. The opposition protested for being unable to raise people’s agendas, while the ruling party insisted the Prime Minister must be accountable to Parliament.

No further proceedings took place; the Lower House’s second session was adjourned.

Two Divided Views Within Congress

After the second session was adjourned, top leaders resumed discussions. The National Independent Party accused the opposition of violating agreements.

Leaders from Congress, UML, and CPN maintained that the Prime Minister must appear to answer and urged the Speaker to make a ruling. Deputy Speaker Padma Aryal emphasized this point.
However, within Congress, two opposing positions regarding the ruling emerged.

Congress MP KC asserted, ‘Parliament cannot stop; let us proceed. The Prime Minister is expected to come tomorrow. Regarding the Speaker’s ruling, it pertains to checks and balances among the three state bodies.’

Meanwhile, Congress parliamentary leader Angdembe stated, ‘It is clear party policy that the Prime Minister must attend and answer questions; this will enable smooth parliamentary functioning, otherwise difficulties arise.’

According to sources, Angdembe was in continuous dialogue with Congress President Gagan Thapa and conveyed these points accordingly.

CPN Chief Whip Yubaraj Dulal underscored the necessity of the Prime Minister’s address.

‘Everyone understands the Prime Minister must address Parliament. This is not merely a regulatory matter,’ he said. ‘The Constitution clearly mandates the Prime Minister’s accountability to Parliament. So this is about more than just rules.’

Dulal explained that it is customary and proper for the Prime Minister to directly respond to questions raised on the policy and program and that the session would proceed smoothly after the PM’s response.

Even without a firm agreement, a third session was held but again adjourned without progress.

Speaker Aryal has summoned a further session for Thursday.

Will the Prime Minister Attend?

According to party leaders, by the time of the third session adjournment, Speaker Aryal had not yet communicated with the Prime Minister.

‘If the Prime Minister was ready to attend and respond to the policy and program discussion, we might have seen signals by midday. But there were none,’ said a leader from the National Independent Party.

The Speaker has expressed hope to speak with the Prime Minister on Thursday.

This situation is rooted in the National Independent Party’s position that the Prime Minister’s designation of a representative, contrary to parliamentary rules, is acceptable, and that the regulations do not mandate the Prime Minister’s presence.

Rule 38 of the House regulations addresses policy and program provisions, stating that after the President’s address and the motion of thanks, the Speaker has the authority to schedule debate days. If the Prime Minister is absent, the designated ministers may respond.

Thus, Prime Minister Balendra may remain absent but appoint another minister as representative.

According to Speaker Aryal, 35 amendments have already been registered upon which the debate will be based.

There is no binding provision demanding that the Prime Minister must personally answer all questions in the debate.

‘After the debate concludes, either the Prime Minister or the designated minister will respond,’ Rule 38(3) specifies.

Sub-rule 4 states, ‘After responses from the Prime Minister or designated minister, the debate will be considered complete. Following a decision on proposed amendments, the Speaker will present the program in the session.’

Kathmandu, 12 May – Following the Special Convention, Congress President Gagan Thapa is advancing a strategy to politically marginalize rival factions, signaling the decline of the old leadership’s influence.

After the Supreme Court rejected a petition against the Election Commission’s recognition of the Special Convention, Thapa has further weakened parallel activities undertaken by other factions within the party.

The establishment-led effort to undermine rival groups began with the nomination of members to the Central Policy, Research, and Training Institute on 6 May.

Vice President Bishwaprakash Sharma appointed Associate Professor Govindraj Pokharel, close to Dr. Shekhar Koirala, as a member of the Institute, signaling an intent to bring other faction leaders into the party mainstream.

Shortly after, on 11 May, Thapa nominated leaders affiliated with outgoing President Sher Bahadur Deuba and Dr. Shekhar Koirala to the Central Working Committee.

When expanding the Central Committee, Thapa reportedly did not consult leaders from different factions, highlighting a unilateral approach.

The establishment views these nominations as attempts to fracture party unity and weaken opposition internally.

Close associates claim that Thapa made the nominations without consulting former Acting President Purna Bahadur Khadka or leader Dr. Shekhar Koirala.

“The nominations were made without consensus or advice. Those nominated are aligned closely with Gagan Thapa,” said a leader close to Khadka.

Dr. Koirala’s secretariat also stated that the central committee nominations were made without their knowledge. “We were not consulted at all,” said Koirala’s private secretary Dinesh Chandra Thapaliya.

Ram Hari Khatri, a leader from another faction, acknowledged the nominations as a positive gesture but emphasized they do not constitute ‘full unity.’ He stressed that excluding Khadka and Koirala makes genuine unity improbable.

“If the committee was formed by consensus, that would be good. But is unity achievable by including only members except for Purna Bahadur Khadka and Shekhar Koirala? While this is a step toward party integration, everyone must be included,” Khatri said.

Khatri insisted that the upcoming 15th Convention must be deeply unifying and that extensive dialogue among leaders should precede nominations.

“There can’t be significant discussion just between individuals at this level. A broad conversation about including 14th Convention members, maintaining active membership, forming election committees, and ensuring the 15th Convention is unifying is essential,” he stated.

After Thapa’s unilateral nominations, Dr. Koirala met on the morning of 14 May with close leaders and the nominated members.

Following discussions, Koirala stated that the nominations have harmed the broader party unity.

“The appointment of 19 members to the Central Committee on 28 April has damaged the party’s wide-ranging unity,” he wrote on Facebook.

Koirala emphasized that the 15th Convention should be completed as a unity convention, building on the renewed active membership established after the 14th Convention.

Among the 19 nominations by Thapa, seven belong to Koirala’s faction.

Leaders from the Deuba camp have also expressed that these nominations negatively affect the overall unity process.

Former Acting President Purna Bahadur Khadka remarked, “I was neither consulted nor involved in any discussions concerning the Central Committee decisions of 28 April.”

He expressed that the nominations have adversely impacted efforts toward comprehensive party unity.

Khadka voiced hope that party leaders will move forward collectively with shared sentiments and ideas.

Political Disputes Persist

Although the Supreme Court legally resolved the official status dispute, political disagreements remain within the party. Despite the petition against the Election Commission’s recognition being dismissed, the dissatisfied factions led by Deuba continue parallel activities.

After the Election Commission recognized the leadership selected at the Special Convention, Acting President Khadka approached the Supreme Court. However, the petition filed on 18 April was rejected.

Following the verdict, the Deuba faction chose a wait-and-watch approach strategically.

After the meeting ended, President Thapa visited Khadka’s residence in Gairapatan, but substantive dialogue was reportedly lacking.

Sources stated that Khadka called a meeting on 29 April to prepare further strategies, criticizing the absence of reconciliation efforts after the court’s decision.

The two-day meeting in Hotel Smart, Dhumbarahi, included former central members as well as district and regional chairs. It concluded that the current leadership chosen at the Special Convention cannot successfully organize the 15th Convention with all key party participants included.

The Deuba faction demanded a party-wide unity campaign at all levels based on the revised constitution from the 14th Convention.

The meeting also recognized the need for a shared structure. The establishment is seen attempting to resolve disputes by including dissatisfied groups.

Deuba Faction Active in Provincial Meetings

Claiming the establishment lacks the will to create a joint convention structure, the Deuba faction has initiated provincial-level meetings.

These meetings coincide with provincial programs run through the Central Policy, Research and Training Institute, while the Deuba faction organizes internal strategy sessions.

Leader Min Bishwakarma said the provincial meetings aim to keep the faction united and enhance internal discussions effectively.

According to him, the Deuba group is preparing for the 15th Convention through these provincial gatherings.

“The provincial meetings are intended to strengthen party organization, advance convention preparations, and reactivate members who have become disillusioned,” Bishwakarma explained.

Krishna Prasad Sitaula and Anand Prasad Dhungana coordinate in Koshi and Madhesh provinces respectively. Mechalal Shrestha, Prakashman Singh, and Dr. Prakashsharan Mahat oversee coordination in Gandaki and Bagmati provinces.

Former Co-General Secretary Kishor Singh Rathore was assigned to Lumbini, former Chief Minister Jeevan Bahadur Shahi to Karnali, and NP Saud to Sudurpashchim provinces.

While the establishment started provincial-level meetings in Deuba’s home province Sudurpashchim, dissatisfied factions organized their meetings in Koshi, the home province of Vice President Bishwaprakash Sharma.

The party is also conducting province and local-level meetings in all seven provinces through the Central Policy, Research and Training Institute.

A meeting chaired by Vice President Sharma on 7 May decided to hold gatherings in all seven provinces. The Sudurpashchim provincial meeting was held in Dhangadhi, Kailali on 9-10 May.

Additionally, a two-day Karnali provincial meeting started in Surkhet on 12 May. Gandaki’s is scheduled for 14-15 May in Pokhara, Bagmati’s for 16-17 May in Dhulikhel.

Madhesh Province will hold its meeting on 18-19 May in Bardibas, Mahottari; Koshi Province on 20-21 May in Laukahi, Sunsari; and Lumbini Province on 26-27 May in Tilottama, Rupandehi.

Formation of Convention Organizing Committee Unlikely

The Deuba faction has insisted on forming an organizing committee that includes all factions to ensure participation, but the establishment side argues that forming a separate committee for the Convention is not feasible.

General Secretary Pradeep Poudel stated that the dissatisfied group’s understanding of forming such a committee is inaccurate. “The Central Committee does not delegate authority to outsiders to ensure fairness,” he said.

General Secretary Ghimire also said the tradition of having a separate organizing committee does not exist within Congress, making it impossible to meet the dissatisfied group’s demand.

Party spokesperson Devaraj Chalise added that no decisions outside the constitution will be taken in the name of reconciliation. “Those who respect legal governance cannot violate laws,” he said.

Maximum Flexibility to Include Dissidents

According to establishment leaders, President Thapa is preparing a ‘roadmap’ to resolve differences and unify the party.

General Secretary Poudel mentioned plans to distribute responsibilities within constitutional boundaries to make the 15th Convention fair and free from bias.

They indicated readiness to include the dissatisfied factions within the mandate of the Special Convention.

Another General Secretary, Ghimire, noted that the party intends to incorporate dissident factions into the Central Committee and other key structures.

President Thapa has also signaled his openness to include dissatisfied groups where necessary to bring the party together.

The membership management committee, formed under General Secretary Poudel’s leadership, has left some positions vacant to ensure representation from the dissatisfied group. Committee members include Co-General Secretary Yogendra Chaudhary and Prakash Rasailee.

The establishment plans to involve dissident leaders in the Central Committee and other major party bodies.

Spokesperson Chalise confirmed that dissident factions will be included in the Discipline Committee, Election Committee, and the Membership Management Committee.

“Membership management is most critical to ensuring a fair convention, so dissidents will be involved,” he added.

Dialogue Initiated, but Agreement Remains Unclear

On 7 May, President Thapa visited former Acting President Khadka’s residence in Gairapatan for a discussion, accompanied by Vice President Sharma.

After arriving at 11 a.m., Thapa and Sharma held talks with Khadka for about an hour and a half.

A close leader of Khadka said, “We were told to bring a roadmap at the previous meeting, but nothing was presented this time.”

General Secretary Ghimire stated that President Thapa continues dialogue efforts to reconcile with the dissenting group.

While the establishment is striving to create a credible environment for full participation in the Convention, a clear path to consensus has yet to emerge.

According to Ghimire, problems must be solved within the boundaries of the constitution and through mutual agreement.

Topics Revealed by Khadka After the Meeting

a) The belief that the nation’s nationalism and history are at great risk.
b) Nepal Congress is facing its most challenging period historically.
c) Ongoing attacks on constitutionalism and democracy.

Khadka emphasized that without broad and comprehensive party unity, effective national politics is unattainable. He tasked Gagan Thapa and Bishwaprakash Sharma with primary responsibility for maintaining unity.