Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli on Monday confirmed that former King Gyanendra Shah was the main culprit of the violent incident in Tinkune. The meeting of the 12 pro-republican parties held at Singh Darbar on Sunday held the former King Shah as the main responsible for the incident. Although Shah was found guilty by the government, even after four days of the incident, the government is not interested in forming a judicial commission or committee for investigation. Even in the cabinet meeting held on Monday evening, there was no discussion about the formation of the commission. A discussion with Congress General Minister Gagan Kumar Thapa focused on these and similar issues:

While the pro-republican parties and the prime minister were speaking in parliament on Monday, it was said that former king Gyanendra Shah was responsible for the three-cornered incident. However, should he be made responsible only by political speeches or should a commission or committee be formed to investigate?

The riots that took place on the streets that day, the kind of apolitical and chaotic incident, the perpetrators are being investigated. Since these matters fall within the scope of prevailing laws, the declaration was made from there. As we all know, this is not spontaneous. Its summoner, planner is Purvaraja. This is also the collective conclusion of every political party including Congress, UML. This conclusion of ours has become political, we are clear about that but we need some way to legitimize it. If a commission is formed for that, it will investigate the truth. That confirms our conclusion. It is easy for the state to bring it into the scope of research and investigation. 

The government does not seem to be interested in creating a commission or committee, is it not that it does not want to create one because it shows its weakness?

I also heard the Prime Minister's speech at yesterday's all-party meeting. There is no difference of opinion even when UML is president and when he is speaking in Parliament. So we have a common understanding. It is not enough to test the legitimacy of this understanding by saying it. If the commission is not made, what is the alternative? Will the police investigate? Either way should be called alternative. It means that a commission should be formed for credibility without any insistence. As the government had formed a high-level commission of inquiry under the chairmanship of former judge Shekhar Paudel to investigate the child girl incident. When there is a bigger incident in Tinkune, if the commission is not formed and there is no independent investigation, will the former king know how the future generation did this? A

not being commissioned immediately prompts the former king to be more loose. So far he had lived within a limit, so we were also within a limit. He transgressed the boundary, if we only put an opinion on it, then he has transgressed the boundary. In the future, they may dare to leave again. There is also a need for a commission to document what kind of trouble the former king has caused in the Republic of Nepal in the future and to prevent them from attacking the Republic again. In the

incident, the weakness of the government was also seen, isn't the government trying to avoid making a commission because that weakness will come and get into trouble?

I don't think so. When I watch the open discussions of the Prime Minister and the Home Minister and the internal discussions within the party, I find that they have complete confidence in their political and administrative decisions. However, there may not be as much discussion as it should have been.

When watching various videos of the incident, it seems that the security personnel took action where they should not have taken action and did not take action where they should have taken action. Savin Maharjan of Kirtipur seems to have been shot while walking on the road. If this was also investigated, the truth would have come out, wouldn't it?

I don't want to jump to conclusions based on any seen or seen scenes. I neither have that expertise, nor the qualifications. However, there is a practice of forming a commission of inquiry in the Balkumari incident, but after such a big incident and many questions started to arise, the need for it has been realized. It doesn't matter. If there is really any shortcoming and unforgivable, it should come out.

Rabindra Mishra and Dhavalshamsher, who incited the incident, were arrested, but Durga Prasai, the main planner of the incident, has not been arrested. Why couldn't he be caught in time?

The unpleasant situation that happened that day, at that time the immediate priority was how to reduce the loss of people's wealth. How to protect citizens? Therefore, a conclusion can only be reached after examining all angles. In my opinion, it is human weakness. Even the Prime Minister himself has admitted that it was not possible to predict that this level of upheaval would be created. 

I think it would be better to examine where and what happened in the context of a particular event.

The kind of behavior that Prasarin did to break the prohibition by hitting the police with a car, shouldn't he be given a chance to escape?

Therefore, if all these aspects are investigated as a commission, it will be easy for us to reach a conclusion. We did not do any kind of revenge while declaring the republic. As a former president, we did not stop him from moving around and expressing his views. At that time we could do anything we wanted. The one character we displayed while declaring a republic was that we did not retaliate in any way as republics were established in other countries. Even after that, as a former President, we never stopped traveling around the country to express our views as a respected citizen. We parties seem a bit weak. When we declared the republic, we were unprecedentedly strong. At that time, we could have done whatever we wanted, but we didn't. Therefore, whatever Durga Prasai may be personally, we expect a minimum of dignity when Purvaraja is involved in it. That was our mistake. I think it was our mistake to expect some dignity, some sanskar from the former king rather than from Durga Prasai.

Purvaraja's campaign does not seem to be limited to this. How do you proceed now?

First, this is a criminal act. But nothing happens in it. As this is a criminal act, the law is attracted. This is a violation of the constitution and the law. It is punishable, must be a party to the action. Secondly, there should be a minimum understanding among the parties in favor of the Constitution on enhancing the protection of the Constitution. Thirdly, the attempt to fulfill one's desire by exploiting the discontent of the people has become a part, the characters and tendencies involved in it should be kept aside. Yes, there is dissatisfaction and restlessness among the citizens. If we ignore it, we will pay a heavy price. We must also be true, must improve. 

After the 2062/63 movement, if the level of trust in the party and leaders had been maintained, such anarchists would not have dared to come out on the streets now. The former king could not even dream of raising his head. Where did this audacity come from? One of the reasons for this is that they had courage before. Even at that time, I did not like the constitution and change, but I did not have the courage. Now where did that courage come from? The big queue is now angry with us for not being able to deliver. We have made mistakes too. You must learn from these mistakes and weaknesses, you must. It should be viewed separately. The Three Corners incident is not forgivable because we must correct the mistake. It is a crime, criminals should be punished. Everyone including the former king should be punished. However, while giving that punishment, we must also be truthful and correct.