Within 10 months of the formation of the coalition government with Congress and UML, voices of discontent have started to be heard within the ruling parties. Due to this, rumors of change of government and change of alliance have heated up the political market.

The public statements of the leaders of the main opposition party, the Maoists, have further fueled such suspicions. Durga Khanal of Kantipur Durga Khanal of Kantipur and Ganga BC

conversation with Maoist deputy general secretary Varshman Pun, who is also the former finance minister, about the possibility of changing political alliances, the budget session of the parliament and the impact of the trade war between the powerful nations:

would say But now you have started saying that it may be necessary to go to the government. Is the Maoist government in the process of change? 

Last year's change of government is not a common phenomenon. Because, in the two decades of the democratic republic, some weaknesses appeared. This arrangement is excellent in itself. But our conclusion was that if it is not modified, it cannot continue like this. According to that conclusion, the work of attacking corruption, irregularity, exploitation of the state, manipulation of middlemen in the country was mainly done by the government under our leadership. We tried to improve and restore people's confidence in the system. But the current new alliance was formed against that effort.

This is an alliance with content that undermines efforts at good governance, social justice, economic prosperity, and ultimately perpetuates the limits, weaknesses, and distortions of democratic republics. They began to delight in perversions. We moved forward by correcting the weaknesses. Therefore, we are walking on the basis of the conclusion that we should make a target of 2084. 

But why and in what context did you give the expression that you should go to the government before 2084?

It is our main objective to remove, modify and strengthen the weaknesses and limitations of this system. For that, we have to make a separate edge and an independent identity. We are preparing for the 2084 elections in all three levels. That is why we conducted postal route-centric campaign. We got enthusiastic participation and hope from the people. Rarely do two major parties form alliances in democratically-practiced parts of the world. But here an alliance was formed due to the efforts of some interest groups.

Such a coalition government is working in the interests of the same interest groups and middlemen. Therefore, we have to give an option to the depressed people by saying 'we are'. In the by-elections at all levels, we also got a level of approval from the people when we went from different sides. Especially when we fought the local level by-election alone, we got enthusiastic support. Even in the elections of other associations/organizations, we got better results than the past when we stood in a different place than the two alliances. We also won in Swaviyu elections where two big organizations joined together. The situation is better than the past.

We are on the way to establish this independent edge. But the government did not do the work due to which the frustration among the youth and dissatisfaction among the general public also increased. 2084 would be good, but right-wing revivalist forces are now shaping up to strengthen themselves. It saw incidents and attempts to attack and weaken the system itself. There are places where the

arrangement saves and strengthens. In doing so, we can cooperate strategically. We unconditionally support the Congress, UML or the government to the extent that they struggle against regression, stand against revivalism. Now we have suspended the campaign of the party and came to Kathmandu to stand against that kind of trend. It has also helped the government. We do not accept revivalist, regressive movements. We support the government in controlling it and have done so. 

It is also heard that they are trying to revive the old alliance of Congress and Maoists again?  If we were engaged in mathematical games and government change, there was a possibility that it would change in the last month of January-February.

What kind of situation was created at that time? 

There were discontents and some maneuvering within the ruling coalition. But we were not prepared for that.  

Congress, UML or any outside group was doing such a change? The

was that there could not be too much shoulder to shoulder from the Congress. Leaders also spoke. Some of the UML's leader friends had once proposed that they should move towards left-wing unity. But we are not in the game of changing the government. Let the government do well. We were of the opinion that at least the frustrations of the people should be addressed.

Even now, contradictions appear between the ruling coalition. In appointments such as the appointment of the Chairman of the Securities Board, the appointment of the Chairman of the Insurance Authority, things like sharing or a little matching also appeared. The commissions related to the peace process did not move forward when the main parties within the ruling coalition did not agree. The recommendation committee has started working again. A month after the governor's vacancy, no appointment has been made. There is talk of financial manipulation of interest groups in the appointment. This has also created a lot of rift in the ruling coalition.

Nothing has been done in the name of good governance, it is the interest of the middleman. He is the master. Capital expenditure has not increased. Due to this, the discontents are coming to the streets. Regressive forces are increasing the pressure. We also see pressure within the ruling parties. We want both to stay in alliance. But in the context of growing conflict, they themselves are wandering for alternatives. 

The third party of the federal parliament has been running the government for 18 months. The government has been running for about a year even with the first party under the leadership of the second party. We want them to go together in this situation. But if a larger party forms the government because they cannot stay together, then we support it. Support can be by sitting outside or in some way.

Our priority is not to manipulate and overthrow the government. Let this government run, save the system, address the aspirations of the people. But they themselves leave today, leave tomorrow, in case of disagreement, naturally the first party (Congress) forms the government. In that case we say ok. After the third and second parties run the government, the only option left is for the first party to run it. If the first one (Congress) leads, we will have support. When we say 2084, we do not mean that we remain oblivious to wherever the country goes into turmoil, there are rebellions in the streets, there are protests, the reactionaries play tricks and attack the system. 

Who made the proposal to change the government?  The most senior leaders of the party in the government have been saying

. It sounds like we can't live together. Since both the third and second tests have been done, if the first party says that he will take the test to deal with this situation, it is like his natural right. The same is true in terms of public opinion. We support them based on their merits and demerits. This is what we have publicly said that the first party should do. It is a position rather than a deeply partisan one.

 No, we have to stay in the government and cooperate, we have to go together, if it happens that there is more mistrust when you stay outside, we will create an atmosphere of trust. We don't have tactics, tactics and political strategy to separate them. Let's change things in the constitution, reduce the reactionaries, and address the frustration. We are ready to do what we need to do for that. 

It is heard that some parties do not like this alliance because they could not adjust the geopolitical balance and are trying to change it. Prime Minister Oli has also come saying that UML has been attacked and besieged by foreign powers, right? The person responsible for

should not say that. There has been a major change in the world order. Power nations are trying to violate the established norms of the world. The world has once again entered an era of imperialism and geographical warfare.

There are signs of a major economic recession in the world economy. When there is an economic war between the big powers, our leadership should conduct foreign policy in a moderate and intelligent manner. One should protect one's independence with restraint rather than any impulse. Saving freedom does not mean bowing to anyone, it does not mean making unnecessary compromises. Looking at the changes in world politics, we should take moderate steps. 

Our international relations should have been better after the merger of the big parties, but it was not. North and South did not seem to have a relationship of faith. Western power itself appears to be in unstable policy. Building good relations with the two neighbors should not be taken in the sense of interference in Nepal. When a neighborhood experiences political instability, its security is challenged. He is naturally interested.

Taking interest and interfering are different things. We also take interest when there is something in the neighborhood. There are many sensitivities including financial, security etc. That should be seen. If someone wants interference from the neighbor, it is treason. If we say that there is foreign manipulation now, we are considered to be weak. These parties will form the government. The leader here will be the Prime Minister. It is immature to say that you will be very happy if it is favorable for you, and that you intervene as soon as the situation is unfavorable. 

It seems that the main opposition party, Maoist, failed to provide constructive support in the parliament.

We are in a restrained and constructive role as the opposition. Even in the parliament, the ruling party has not shown interest in making many laws. If the MPs of the ruling party do not come, the quorum of the parliamentary committee meeting is not enough. Regressive forces are challenging the system. The government is not able to instill confidence in the people by working. On the other hand, the necessary security arrangements have been failed.

Instead we have given the right choice by bringing thousands of people to the streets. We are saying that regression is not an option, progressive democracy is an option. It has helped the government. What would the reactionary forces have done if we had not brought thousands of people to the streets and demonstrated? We supported the government by demonstrating peacefully.

We are running a political campaign in a very peaceful manner. What would have been the situation if the opposition would have surrounded and protested in the streets? Instead, the government itself has aggravated the problem by solving it before the teachers, employees, doctors, microfinance, co-op sufferers raise their voices. Instead, the government is seen as irresponsible. We are standing together strongly against every movement of the regressives. 

It was our analysis that the reactionaries tried to spread chaos by playing on the discontent of the people when the streets were empty. That was confirmed. The government appeared unable to control the small forces of sabotage. On the contrary, he started accusing the opposition party. Regressives tried to do like Bangladesh. Some people say Maoists should also protest in the streets. Let the road be chaotic. It was prepared that the state could fail by creating great violence and anarchy by relying on that dissatisfaction. We said this publicly.

The government took it as our weakness. Finally the facts came out. Instead we said that the alternative is here by demonstrating peacefully on time. We have shown that we have a bigger public opinion than criminal acts. It does not mean that the process of regression is over. There are people's complaints and anger. There is a middleman's trick. The government is doing what the middlemen are saying. How long will people tolerate such things? The pioneer of the day when people's patience is broken? Regressive? Who is patriotic? What democracy? Not looking at anything. They have joined forces to make the situation dark. The government should still be cautious. The risk is not over.

You say that the middleman runs the government, where do you see the middleman's behavior? Is there a tendency to see mediators only after going to the opposition, and to do the same when you are in power?

We have said that we will not act as middlemen in power. We have been removed from power by not acting as mediators. At that time, we were accused of the pain of leaving power. Now that the senior leaders of the ruling party have said that the middlemen reach the Prime Minister's bed, we need not say more. The leaders of the ruling party have rejected our statement that middlemen are dominant.

It has been confirmed that middlemen have reached the Prime Minister's bed. After the leaders in the political apparatus said it, it was confirmed. Yesterday, the Maoists were accused of not being able to eat. We do not bow down to various interest groups, middlemen. We will create a competitive market. Trust the private sector. We are not in favor of making laws for the benefit of some selfish groups, handing over regulatory bodies to them. I took this stand when I was the finance minister. Even though it cost me my life to prevent me from bringing the budget, I brought the budget.

How I got hit when I brought the budget. I am a sufferer myself. Who appointed the Chairman of Nepal Securities Board (Seven)? The prime minister and the minister can say, who made the appointment? Similarly, who appointed the chairman of the Insurance Authority? Did you bring a qualified person during the appointment? That appointment is scheduled to go on the day the court hears it. No qualification, no appointment according to law. Appointed out of pocket. What is the reason to stop appointing the governor of Nepal Rastra Bank? There are dozens of expert candidates here for governor. The leaders of the ruling party are saying that billions are involved in this. This is the bare truth. We are in an open market economy.

Who regulates it? Who controls? The state will regulate the problems seen in the market and the private sector through regulatory bodies. Who will run the state when the regulatory body is handed over to interest groups? At this time, the state is run by political parties and leaders? The state is run by interest groups. Now, so many distortions have increased that now the interest groups are changing the prime minister instead of the minister. This is sad. Let's remove such distortions and inconsistencies.

The state is run by political parties and leaders, not by interest groups. The chief secretary, secretary was made, had to be transferred. IG had to be made, and who is being active in appointing various regulatory bodies? The media is writing. If so, why are the leaders sitting? What is the point of parties? If this is what they do, then what is the meaning of competition in the private sector? How can the syndicate of limited people, run in the interests of limited people, compete? How does the economy run?

The government claims that the broken economy is on the right track?

When the Prime Minister answered the MP's questions, he said that you made this budget. They say that what you sow will grow. The prime minister admits that this situation is due to the budget brought by the previous government. And it is not reasonable to say that they have done well in the economy. On the other hand, if we look at the data from four years ago, it was negative. This year we projected 6 percent. A 6 percent increase would have been achieved if the budget was implemented properly. Now it is seen that the economic growth will be around five. The objective projection of the budget was correct. The policies taken by the budget were correct. The program was correct.

The implementation of the budget we brought was not good. If it had been implemented, economic growth would have reached 5 to 6 percent. What has the current finance minister changed and economic growth? The economy has recovered since four years ago. We have to worry about moving the economy faster than this. Let's find a way to accelerate economic growth. Let's aim for that. You did not give a double answer saying that we have done better than the previous government, on the other hand it is the budget that you have brought. Take ownership of the budget I have brought and implement it and also take ownership of the results it will bring. 

 US cooperation 'MCC' and USAID have been closed. What is your opinion on this? This is also an opportunity to strengthen the

economy. There is concern that if US aid stops, there will be a shortfall in the budget for health, education and the environment. I have given suggestions to the Finance Minister both formally and informally. Especially if the support in education, health, environment and climate operated through USAD is stopped, the budget should not be a problem. The tendency to take anything for free should be stopped. Discourages the tendency to always clap hands when some help stops. It has given a good education that one should mobilize one's limited resources and means in a scientific manner. While preparing the next budget, attention should be paid to increase the area of ​​foreign investment. 

The MCC was an agreement between the two countries. But after the US unilaterally closed the MCC, how will the related projects proceed?

In the context of the suspension of MCC, the priority of the energy sector, its promotion should not change in the state's policy. Power transmission lines should be built using alternative sources. Project is necessary. Changing contexts are both challenges and opportunities for political leadership to advance our neighborhoods and other relationships in new ways.

Another thing is that since the US Parliament has passed the MCC, it should not be repealed by executive order. It is in the form of a law as we have also passed it through Parliament. It cannot be dismissed easily. The government must have discussed it. The US government should also talk about the MCC passed by the parliaments of both countries. This is not a common occurrence.

Parliament's budget session has started. What is the role of the Maoists as the opposition?

Despite this budget session, millions of teachers are on the streets. Let the government formulate a law by giving priority to this. As the opposition, we fully cooperate. We have also agreed with the teachers in the past, we will support them to pass the law. The Federal Civil Service Bill is under discussion. It is time to review the constitution, but federalism has not been implemented. When it comes to budget policies and programs, on the one hand there is a trade war taken by the US.

To face this challenge, a new economic reform is necessary. Normal budgets and policy programs no longer work. Due to the inability to maintain economic discipline and good governance, Nepal has been included in the 'grey list'. There should be a policy to get out of it. Another thing is that since there have been two decades of system change, we must think about how to address youth aspirations. People are looking for a change in the situation. Everything will not happen now, a ray of hope must be shown. The influence of middlemen in budget and policy programs must be stopped.