Sudhan Gurung, one of the leaders of the Gen-G movement, recently spoke on Kantipur Television's program 'Fireside' and made his views known on the possibility of re-establishing parliament to amend the constitution.

It happens when the parliament is restored on the condition of amending the constitution: Sudhan Gurung

While old parties like Congress and UML are also moving the Supreme Court demanding the restoration of the parliament, there are also suspicions and comments that after Sudhan's statement with the same intention was made public , the parties and the leaders of the Gen-G movement are trying to reach the same point. Why did Sudhan raise the issue of the restoration of the parliament and what is his intention behind it? Has he also spoken to the parties on this issue? The full excerpt of the conversation that Ikantipur had with Sudhan Gurung on this and similar issues: You had said in an interview with Kantipur Television some time ago that you could go in favor of the restoration of the parliament. Is this still your opinion on this issue or do you have any more to say?

There is nothing more to say on this. We said that it is the last option. It is not the first option. We needed a plan A and a plan B to get the country out of the way. In that sense, we took it as a last resort. The first option is to put everyone together and fight the election together. If that doesn't happen, we thought of it as a last resort.

Now, old parties like Congress and UML have also filed a writ in the Supreme Court demanding the restoration of Parliament. You have also made the same demand from the street. It's not just a coincidence that your demands coincide, right?

No. We personally and our Council of Gen-Gs, that is, those who elected the Prime Minister, those who played the main role at that time. We are not even entertaining what we are doing. We thought of it as a last resort. This is our first option, we are not thinking that the restoration of Parliament is the same.

Some people are also saying that you and the parties agreed to do this by mutual understanding, right?

People are very suspicious. It is like the saying that suspicion burns Lanka. Lanka has been burned here because of a lot of suspicion. This is not the case. I have not spoken to any of the parties. There has been no dialogue.

In the meantime, have you had any dialogue or meeting with the Congress, UML and other parties?

No. They do not dare to call.
And what will be your role if the parliament is re-established as you said?

What they thought by re-establishing the parliament is to run the parliament. But our point is that the re-establishment of the parliament means making all the agreements that need to be made for amending the constitution in the first place, and that is all. That too, they have already agreed to pass it and dissolve the parliament again. But as I understand it, they are thinking of running the parliament. That is not for us. We completely disagree with that. We are not thinking of keeping the parliament running. There is no doubt about it.

The country is currently waiting for the elections. The Election Commission is working. It seems that the parties are also preparing internally. Is there a common understanding that you are going the opposite way again?

We finally came to know that people have different understandings. There has been so much negativity in Nepal that only when it is negative, it becomes news. If it is positive, it is not news. The positive thing is that we are trying to reconcile everyone. After reconciling everyone, this is our first priority before going to the elections. If no one agrees and thinks that they are more important than the country in their own way, then we have to go another way. We have to think of alternatives.

You have said that we are trying to reconcile. What does that mean?

This means that we are trying to bring together the leaders who are expected and hoped for by the people, who are seen as change, and go to the elections.

Are you saying that Kulman, Balen, and Ravi Lamichhane should come together?

Yes. Yes. This is our topic. We are continuing the same campaign.
If this campaign goes positively, there will be elections, if not, there will be no elections?

Yes. Otherwise, it is difficult to hold elections. If we move forward positively, there will be elections. If everyone goes in their own way…. This movement was not started by them. They fought hard in their respective places. But they failed. If we have brought this to a conclusion and brought about change and are saying that they will participate in the elections now, then we have brought the elections. Our request is that they should join us in that. If our movement is successful and they do not agree to go to the elections, then why would they go to the elections?

Some people believe that if the elections are not held on time, the country will go to hell. You are saying that if the elections are not held again, the parliament should be restored. Isn't this a bit of a risky step?

No one has seen the future. Now, when you and I are talking, we don't know what will happen tomorrow. Are there many experts in our country? We are seeing people who talk a lot with little knowledge. Now, after saying that the country is going to disintegrate, that is what happens in the mindset of the people. The country will get better, it will go towards better, we should move towards a solution. Whoever says that the country will deteriorate. The country has deteriorated more than they say. The so-called intellectuals say that the country will deteriorate, but this country has deteriorated because of this. We listen to them. This day has come based on listening to them. Now we do not listen to them. If you spread negative things, it will not work.

Now, as you said, if all the new faces can come together, there will be an election, if the new faces cannot come together, an alternative to the election will be sought, right?

Yes. An alternative to the election will be sought.
Looking for an alternative to the election means that we can go towards the restoration of the parliament?

We can go. Only to amend the constitution by making a national consensus. Let's not call it just the restoration of the parliament, but the restoration of the parliament and then its dissolution only to amend the constitution.
Some leaders are also opposing it. Whose words should we consider as official?

To consider official means to consider whoever made the prime minister. To consider whoever went to the war base and fought as official. Those who live in hiding and those who live hungry should not be considered official. Based on age group, a Gen-G group can emerge from each neighborhood. It is not just about Gen-G here. It is about the country. When we fought, where were the Gen-G leaders? No one came at that time, now I am also a Gen-G, and that too a Gen-G. Who gave meaning to the movement? Who made it successful? Who saved the country from discord? That is official, after all.