There are always criticisms that leaders are not educated. But not all leaders are like that, like Dr. CK Raut. He has studied at the Institute of Engineering Studies of Tribhuvan University, Pulchowk and Keio University in Japan. He has a PhD from the prestigious Cambridge University in the UK. He has also worked as a computer scientist in security systems at the US 'Defense Strategy'.

He returned to Nepal from Mahadeva village, a backward area of ​​Saptari, after visiting Kathmandu, Japan, Britain and the US, and is known as a 'young scientist' by the people of his village, district and Madhesh. This 'young scientist' has been practicing not only physics but also political science for a few years now. Kantipur's Umesh Chauhan talked to him about the Gen-G movement, Madhesh politics and the country's politics:

Earlier, your tie was very red. Now it is turning blue. Is this a political transformation? What does it say?

It is not that we should give meaning to everything. It is not that it does not have meaning. Earlier, when it was completely red, we used to take it as a symbol of revolution. In political theory, we had promoted community socialism. Now, we have embraced social democracy as a political party and its principle. Its color especially tends towards 'pink'. It is a mixture of red and blue. It is a middle color. But it does not mean that we should make sense of it. But after entering politics, idealism is an indicator that it has changed to pragmatism.

Going from ‘Red’ Prachanda to the current Prachanda, from the one who spent 14 years in prison to the current Oli. From the student leader to the current Sher Bahadur Deuba. Is this everyone’s process? How right is it to assume that this is your future too?

We do not look at it from a very different perspective. As long as you are in the background stage of a revolutionary, there are many idealistic things. Naturally. That happens in the leadership, in the people too. However, after becoming practical, after running the state, after being involved in parliament or the government, not everything is idealistic. One has to gradually mold oneself into pragmatism. You see that in world politics too. One by one, communist leaders later transformed. It was also seen in other characters who did not embrace communist principles. In the context of Nepal, it is seen in Prachanda. Although it is now seen in Biplavji. He was an idealistic character. However, after transformation, one naturally has to mold oneself into pragmatism. No one can change everything all of a sudden. No one wants to suddenly change the mindset of everyone from the entire staff, police and army, to the state structure, when the state comes into operation. There is a practical aspect. At that time, 'compromise' has to be made. 

You came from 'physics scientist' to 'political scientist'. You have reached the stage of using and practicing it. However, from the outside, it seems that you are struggling for your internal identity. Sometimes you are focused on the Madhesh procession, sometimes on the handover of party responsibility, sometimes on Osho Tapovan. Aren't you struggling for your identity with the situation of having to do the politics of experientialism, the politics of power, and going into spirituality and sitting in a red 'gown'?

I am not in that phase of struggle now. I certainly was before. Especially when I was in college, I was in a massive mental conflict. The conflict was whether to follow the spiritual path, whether to do politics, whether to just do my job, or just study and write. While searching, I have reached that stage today that I see other things only as characters. When playing games on the computer, there are different forms, we tend to collect them even though we know that the sword or 'coin' used there has no meaning. Now I have reached the stage of seeing whether the entire world is a 'simulation' or not. That is why I am playing my role. I only see whether it is a 'simulation' in general.

What is your assessment of the role, identity and responsibility of Satish Kumar Singh, who was the Chief Minister of Madhesh from your party?

He was the Chief Minister of Madhesh Province from the Janmat Party. He did a good job too. Not that he did not do it.

To whom you gave the responsibility of the Chief Minister a few months ago. And, after a few months, suddenly wrote on Facebook or called and asked him to leave. Is this the politics expected of you?

Shouldn't we be thanked for this? It seems that the Janmat Party should be thanked and praised. Because the Janmat Party forced its Chief Minister to resign during the Gen-G movement, respecting the movement. No one was made the Chief Minister for life. It was for a fixed period. I am the one who makes the 'agreement' as the national chairman. Especially, others do not even know that. I know how long it has been made, that the leadership of the Congress and UML knows. On that basis, he should naturally come back after the party calls him back. During the Gen-G movement, he had said that he would resign. That should also be respected. He did not say that he would not resign, that he would remain in office as soon as the movement calms down.

It has been over a hundred days since the Gen-G movement. During this period, four Chief Ministers have become Chief Ministers in Madhesh. Not only that, the army had to be mobilized in Madhesh, around the Chief Minister's office. Is it true that the Chairman of the Janmat Party himself asked for the resignation of the Chief Minister, which no one asked for? How do you review it yourself? 

I have done a good review. Because it showed the 'fault line'. Whose control is the province, how is it being run, from where is it being done, how weak is our federalism? All the 'fault lines' were exposed at this time. The provincial chief took the chief minister to a hotel and administered the oath using the wrong article and clause. Why wasn't it done inside Janakpur? Was there no capacity to provide security? If not, what was the point of having so many army/police? The speaker went public with the support of the party. The deputy speaker was no longer in a position to run the provincial assembly. Even the army had to be deployed. The police remained silent when the lawmakers were beaten up. And where were the police deployed from? The deputy speaker held the provincial assembly in an open field with more than two-thirds of the lawmakers. What could be more shameful than this?

The police are still under the control of the center. They will not provide security to two-thirds of the lawmakers. In this way, one 'fault line' was seen. That is why we have no regrets. We are happy. The people also got to see it. Why are we demanding autonomy? We are not demanding it from outside the constitution. It is something written in the schedule of the constitution. However, they have refused to give authority. The provincial chief also engaged in anti-federalist activities. Is that why the provincial assembly itself will make the provincial chief elected? Is that a good option? This is how all the weaknesses came out. The slogan of the new republic that we have put forward is not only a change in the form of government, but also that the Chief Minister should be directly elected by the people. If that had happened, there would not have been four Chief Ministers in a hundred days. Now, even a party with eight seats is clamoring for a Chief Minister. The people got the opportunity to understand the shortcomings of federalism. As a result, voices have started to be raised throughout Madhesh that federalism should be strong.

Kathmandu is always suspicious of Madhesh, Kathmandu means its system, state of mind and power. On top of that, even more question marks are raised against Dr. CK Raut. Because, he had previously done politics with the agenda of an independent Madhesh and even went to jail. However, he came into mainstream politics by making a deal with the then government led by KP Sharma Oli. The last time you demonstrated that it was an autonomous Madhesh. Whereas federalism was established and is in the process of development. If Madhesh demands autonomy that Gandaki, Lumbini, Karnali, Sudurpaschim or Bagmati did not ask for and CK Raut leads it, that doubt will increase even more. Why should Madhesh be autonomous?

The reasons why Kathmandu does not want to grant rights are enough to demand autonomy. The main reason is that Madhesh is suspected, to demand its rights. It is not something to live in doubt forever. We do not want to live under the feet of Kathmandu. Today or tomorrow, that rebellion will happen. The reasons are clear. The provincial chief, police, army are all controlled by Kathmandu. In such a situation, the people of Madhesh are becoming clearer day by day that autonomy is needed to protect their rights and identity. On the contrary, when I raised my voice 10 years ago, Madhesh-centric political parties opposed it. The Madhesh people opposed it. However, now they are understanding it themselves. That is why we say that Madhesh will move towards autonomy. Many people find this new. However, it is not new. After the terrible Madhesh movement in 2064 BS, it is clearly written there. The desire of an autonomous Madhesh province will be fulfilled. It is said that the provinces will be completely autonomous and empowered. The current constitution has not given complete autonomy. It has not agreed to give much authority. The authority that has been given. Even the big parties have not agreed to give it. The employees and the police have not given it.

Even though it is said to restructure the police, the government has not made a law. That is not only for Madhesh, but also for other provinces. The government has not done what is constitutionally required. There is a question on that. The issue of adjustment of employees is also being delayed. Civil society and the media are questioning that issue too. However, here you have gone further than that and said autonomy. Is it just that there should be police, there should be employees and the province should get the rights that the constitution has 'guaranteed' or is it our demand or more than that? 

If autonomy is called 'extreme', then there is also the issue of the right to secede. We did not ask for that degree of autonomy. There is a degree of autonomy. If you say autonomy in 'Extreme', then there is also the issue of the right to secede. We did not ask for that degree of autonomy. In the first phase, let's implement the rights given by the constitution. It has been 10 years since the constitution came into being, but that intention has not been seen. There is a flaw in the intention. Our first demand is to give the rights within the constitution. Then comes the issue of what we want. There is ambiguity regarding rights. The same rights have been placed in two sections in the schedule of the constitution. Due to which unspecified rights have remained under the control of the union. They write them in accordance with the federal act in the acts, and through that, confusion has been created. That makes it difficult to implement rights. Clarity should be brought about. Let's give what we have to give, let's clarify the issues we have no intention of giving. If federalism is to be implemented effectively, the district budget should not be distributed from Singha Durbar. The local level rights should not be held by Singha Durbar. We should look at the prevailing issues around the world. Therefore, the local level rights should be brought under the province. The police and employees should also be held by the province. The armed police, army, foreign policy, and monetary policy should be held by the union. However, there was no talk of Singha Durbar allocating a budget of Rs 1 million and providing conditional grants.

Does every province need the autonomy you mentioned or only Madhesh?

More or less, all provinces need it. However, the presence of marginalized communities is not the same in all provinces. That needs to be understood. Why is only Madhesh under suspicion? But why not Bagmati? The problem of Bagmati province may be completely different from that of Madhesh. That is why Madhesh province needs federalism the most. Because there is a large population there who has been marginalized by the state. Who was considered stateless. No attempt was made to give citizenship. They were kept away from employment. Discrimination was done in every structure. Such a society exists there. Bagmati, Lumbini or to some extent Sudurpaschim need more federalism.

Now what you are saying is that the rights according to the constitution should have been transferred?

Absolutely. Honesty should have been shown in that. That is the biggest thing. Otherwise, the mentality here is that the law should remain unclear. It should always be played with. Even if a decision is made, it should not be implemented.

Due to instability in the province and the spread of corruption like at the center, federalism is also being opposed. Madhesh has institutionalized the voice of federalism. But has the Madhesh leadership been seen as honest and loyal to the structure of that province? 

First of all, the Madhesh-centric party did not play a big role in the demarcation of the province and the distribution of powers. There was a movement in Madhesh. But, there was no hearing. It was said that even the quota and 'full stop' would not be changed. The constitution was forcibly brought. Therefore, the type of federalism that has come is ugly. There is no basis for the structure of Lumbini itself. It is not possible to blame the Madhesh-centric party for that. The big parties should take responsibility for it. But the people are blaming us. They say that Madhesh, which was one from Mechi to Mahakali, was divided into 5 pieces. The Madhesh-centric parties have had to bear that blame. While they had no role. The Madhesh-centric parties were in the movement.

A Madhesh province of eight districts was formed. We do not have a big role in this. It is unfortunate, the largest party in Madhesh is the first UML, the second Congress, only then the JSP and the fourth is Janmat. We cannot be blamed for that either. We have not been able to get the decisive power. Even if we insist, our majority is not enough. We are not responsible for much of what is happening. However, despite not having our decisive seats, the Congress-UML allowed us to form the government, for which we want to thank them. They must have understood the feelings of the people. We have done as much as we can with the public opinion we have received. The Chief Minister was ours. The Finance Minister who was made from the Congress did not allow the budget to run for 8/9 months. What should we do in that situation? The people should understand that.

The largest parties, the UML or the Congress, gave the JSP or Janmat the opportunity to form the government in Madhesh province. Doesn't it seem like, the agenda you came for, was like a bee clinging to the sugar laid by the UML or the Congress, and you succeeded in establishing that they are not much different?

That's what it seems. Especially true to some extent in the case of public opinion. We didn't have many seats. We had 13 seats. Why were we given the leadership of the government? It is difficult to understand why a party with only 13 of our 107 seats was given the leadership of the government. But, we took a risk. Because, the 'dynamics' of Madhesh are different. There, people always demand more than political principles, who helped in obtaining government services, who helped in the police office, who helps in the CDO office, who builds drains and who provides tubewells. That's the mentality there. They think that even the drains that have been built in front of the house should be cleaned by the honorable. The measure there is what the leader brought. There is no point in fighting for agenda, autonomy or rights. There is no measure. Were blankets or gas distributed or not? Only those who think more broadly than that will talk about roads and drains. That is the mentality. Now, after joining the Madhesh government, we have been able to say this much – we have brought some plans. In my constituency alone, from where the Janmat Party won, there are almost 600 plans. That has given us an environment where we can say that. Since the level of awareness and access to the state is the same, we went to the government to see if something could be done.

Why did the Gen-G movement happen? Was it only in opposition to the behavior of forces like the Congress and UML? Was it also in opposition to the politics that you are learning?

The Janmat Party had won 1 seat out of the 165 seats directly in the House of Representatives. If you add proportional representation, how and in what form can we change the policy with 6 seats out of 275? Can we intervene in the policy? The general public had to explain it to us. It is not that we did not try. We submitted a resolution against apartheid in Parliament. However, that table did not even exist. Because our number of seats was small. If we had been a big party, the pressure would have been enough. The proposal against apartheid was something that would apply to all residents of the Himalayas, the hills, and the Madhesh. It was difficult to register the resolution proposal. The secretary did not accept it. Later, we also presented a private bill. It was not brought up for discussion. Democracy is a game of numbers. Ours is a party democracy. The party whip is used. The party's opinion on a bill works. What an individual has said does not mean anything. There should be a comprehensive analysis of the

Gen-G movement. It is not as if everyone understands everything. However, looking at the limited reasons, the main one is the lack of service delivery. Another, when two big parties, the Congress and the UML, joined forces with opposing political forces. The way they were running the government, the people's voice was not heard. Even when we were part of the coalition, we were not getting time to meet the Prime Minister for two or three months. What would happen to the common people? Even if someone wanted to make suggestions, there was no place to hear them. There was no other way to remove that government. At other times, the government would change due to simple agitation. However, after the two major parties merged, there was no way to remove them. Due to which there was such a big explosion on the streets that the country had to bear the losses.

What was the assessment of the Gen-G movement of 23 and 24 Bhadra here? You probably weren't in Nepal that day, were you? How was your information about it? How did you get the updates? How did you evaluate it? How did you formulate the concept? 

Almost the general public knew that something was not going well. Dissatisfaction was with everyone. There was unrest everywhere. But, what to do? What is the solution? We did not know. And, we had also studied the unrest of the people. That is why on 2081 Jestha 15, we held a public meeting on an open platform and proclaimed a new republic. There is a problem in the country. We said that dissatisfaction and anger are increasing. We had given 8/10 points of solution. Some incidents had given a hint that such an event would happen. Even when the shooting happened in the incident regarding the trip to Korea, a meeting was held with security personnel at Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal's residence. Even then, I had said - at least the minister has been removed and the vehicle has been set on fire. The next day, something like this will happen, they can set the minister on fire without removing him. My statement was viewed negatively. Such anger was seen in the movement at that time.

Another incident happened on Chaitra 15 last year, in the movement organized by Durga Prasai in Tinkune. Even after that, Prime Minister KP Oli had called a meeting, as a review. I had said - the state should have anticipated this matter in advance. A few days before that, it should have been possible to estimate it by looking at the mass present when the former king came from the airport. But only arrogance was seen in the government. It was like it can be suppressed no matter what. As a series of that, the Gen-G movement was seen. It was said that they are students, they will come, they will go. My assessment was the same. I do not have any intelligence. I was on a pilgrimage abroad. However, the state, which has intelligence, failed here too. They, who are in an egoistic mindset, did not even understand.

There was public outrage. There is no doubt about that. However, there are many assessments that external forces are also involved in this. Some have played a role, some have made a strategy and implemented it as planned. Was it purely public outrage, or was there also external infiltration? What do you think? 

Look, this is something that the state needs to understand. We say what we see outside. There was public outrage. Disgust had increased towards leaders, parliament, and everyone. On top of that, social media was suddenly banned. This does not happen even in a totalitarian country. Keep your own children away from the internet for a few hours, take away their mobile phones, what kind of outrage would there be.

Were there any other reasons besides that outrage? 

There is no place where it can be said with evidence. But there has definitely been infiltration in the Gen-G movement. It seems as if various forces have ‘manipulated’ it. That outrage became a ‘trigger point’. It grew from there. Later, there was infiltration. It is not possible to say with evidence. But, infiltration definitely happened. It seems like various forces have 'manipulated' it. But, I do not have the evidence. That is why I cannot say more than this.

The state could not assess. Other political parties could not assess. They also seemed confused here. They resigned en masse from the House of Representatives amidst the agitation and uproar. When the Parliament was dissolved on the 27th, they said why they did it. They called for caution. What were your expectations, what did not meet and the thoughts kept flowing?

Coincidentally, I was out of the country when the Gen-G movement took place. I was on the Kailash Mansarovar Yatra. There was no objective assessment of what was happening here. The availability of the internet was low. It was not easy. Therefore, there were not many updates. I was not getting information at the right time. A proposal came from here that everyone should resign. It was said that the whole country was on fire. I resigned at that time. After returning to the hotel from Mansarovar, I started 'monitoring' the incident. Some people were seen talking about abolishing the constitution. Some were heard talking about abolishing federalism. They started saying that the parliament should not remain. Then we said that the parliament should not be dissolved immediately. We said that it would create a vacancy. Even though we have resigned, we still came out in favor of the parliament remaining. The parliament should remain for the sake of the movement. We said that the constitution should be amended by the parliament to address the demands of Gen-G. Gen-G was murdered during the movement. We left the parliament on moral grounds. This should be taken positively. When no party spoke. At that time, the party that spoke was public opinion. We said that the constitution should not be attacked. If there was talk of taking away the rights granted by the constitution, we said that we cannot support the movement. Then, on the contrary, threats came. When no one was speaking, the threats came after they said that let's not abolish the constitution, let's save the parliament. My job is to provide guidance. I said what I think is right.

After the incident of the 24th, Nepal's political institutions became inactive. Then, the army, representing the President, took the initiative for talks. The army had direct and indirect dialogue with people and leaders whom it considered stakeholders, including Kathmandu Metropolitan City Mayor Balen Shah, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) President Ravi Lamichhane, Kulman Ghising, Hark Sampang. It also had dialogue with Durga Prasai. In the meantime, you, who are a new political force. Did any organization try to engage them, get their opinions, or get their suggestions?

can be seen from here. How dangerous was it to dissolve the parliament at that time? Although there is some stability now. However, if external intervention was wanted at that time or if the army wanted to run the country itself, it would have been easier. At that time, Madhesis and other marginalized people were not considered stakeholders. The army was playing the main role. The army still does not consider Madhesis to be the main nationality. That is clear. The people of Tarai Madhesh are 54 percent. They should have been called. They should have been asked. But no one was called. They even refused to recognize the word Madhesi as much as they saw in the name of Gen-G. When someone talked about Madhesi representation on 'Discord', they were told not to talk about it. The new Gen-G started rejecting the identity that the constitution has already accepted, let alone rights. As in a monarchy, one language, one disguise is dearer than life - we became a little wary of Gen-G. We reached a situation where we could not support it with our eyes closed. The constitution that gave rights to Madhesis, women, and the marginalized was tried to be scrapped. How could we support it with our eyes closed after talking about scrapping federalism. At that time, the 'elite' class of Gen-G in Kathmandu seemed to be dominant. Nepali people live outside Kathmandu as well. There are marginalized communities. The trouble of people who do not realize that was seen. The army and the president should have called all parties. This country is not just for the Congress, UML, and Maoists. That is where the mistake happened.

You were excited by the 23rd and 24th Bhadra movements. You had given a statement saying thank you, Gen-ji. However, the agenda they put forward by representing the general Gen-ji in the ‘negotiations’ with the army, was it aimed at the demands of the progressives, Madhesis, marginalized, women, Muslims, Dalits, and indigenous peoples? Were they trying to go beyond that?

It was a very backward agenda. That is why we became aware. I took a stand that the rights given to the Madhesis, the constitution, and federalism cannot be revoked, even at the risk of my life. Other parties had not spoken. After returning from the trip, I did not sit in fear. I went to see Singha Durbar. I reached the office of my parliamentary party. I went to meet the injured Gen-ji. They also gave a positive response. However, they were not very prepared for the agenda. The agenda was imposed later. Those who took advantage of the opportunity did it. The forces that ‘manipulate’ it did it. The one who was promoted as the leader of Gen-G was not able to say an agenda at the press conference. It was seen that even a single agenda had to be said by asking others. Even after 100 days, they say they do not know what the agitation was for. They are killing and beating.

So you are saying – is the agitation of 23 Bhadra different and the agitation of 24 Bhadra different? Are the people who will reach the talks on 25 Bhadra even different?

The agitation of 23 Bhadra was not for an agenda. It was in anger. Social media was closed. It was also in protest against the weaknesses in service delivery and widespread corruption. The agenda was not fixed. There was no maturity to present a political proposal at that level. The legislature and the executive did not seem to understand either. That is why they went to the parliament and set it on fire. They saw the most corrupt parliament, they did not see the employees or the police. Poor MPs reach the parliament by taking a tempo. Only 10 percent of MPs are rich or corrupt. Parliament is the place where people's representatives live. It is the most sovereign place. They went there and set it on fire. On the second day, it was 'manipulated'. Even the negotiations went into someone else's hands. 

In the current politics, what kind of possibilities are you working on for collaboration, integration, and alliance with the leaders who came representing Gen-G, leaders of new parties, or old political forces?

The Gen-G movement has not been able to give the same kind of results as it did. There is still time. After the loss of so much wealth and people to the country, let's institutionalize some political achievements. Let's institutionalize change If collaboration and alliances are especially election-focused, I must say with great sadness that we are not doing much work. It is the same thing that has been happening. It does not achieve anything new. That is why we are not very enthusiastic about election-focused alliances and unity. We have remained silent. The Gen-G movement has not been able to give the same kind of results as it did. There is still time. After the loss of so much wealth and people in the country, let's institutionalize some political achievements. Let's institutionalize change.

Who will you tell that to? 

Let's call it misfortune, who will we tell? You did the right thing. If we go and tell the Gen-G activists, they will not consider us human beings. They are arrogant. If there is any solution at the moment, it is with the Janmat Party. Let the proposal of the new republic be read. Let others take 'credit' but let it go to the 'solution'. Holding the 2084 elections now is just a double expense. Later, the provincial elections will also have to be held. It is also difficult for us as a party. 

Extensive publicity has already started for the political parties that have come up now. How have you assessed their potential?

Just as the Maoist movement gave birth to a parliamentary party. Just as the CPN-Maoist came up at that time, which party did the Gen-G movement give birth to? No. The Gen-G movement took place, dozens of people seized the opportunity and opened a party. They do not carry the agenda of the movement. They are not a representative party of the movement. They are not a representative party of the Gen-G movement. Everything has become person-centered. The agenda is not focused. 4/5 people left my party and started a party. However, there is no agenda. If there is a lot of agenda, the Janmat Party is carrying it through the New Republic. We have put forward an agenda like a directly elected executive head of state, MPs not becoming ministers, heads of constitutional bodies including the Authority being elected by the people, and social democracy as an economic policy. The Janmat Party is carrying something similar to the Gen-G movement or even more than that. Initially, the Maoists also carried it. A directly elected executive head of state, but after the Maoists reached the level of determining the Prime Minister together with 3/4 top leaders, they have never taken that agenda seriously. Even if they do, they do not carry it. The Janmat Party is the party of the Gen-G people. This will only happen if everyone raises this issue nationwide and goes to a two-thirds majority. We cannot change by just symbolically raising 10 seats. If we were to go through the parliamentary system, we would have to bring two-thirds for change or we would have to create pressure to do so.

What is the presence and influence of new political parties in Madhesh? 

There is no influence in Madhesh. It is difficult to 'penetrate' in Madhesh. The problem there is completely different. When the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) was at its 'peak point'. At that time, the deposit was confiscated when it contested elections in Bara. While it was the 'popular candidate'.

What is the political message given by the unity of Balen, Ravi and Kulman and what impact do you see on the upcoming election results?

Balenji, Raviji and Kulmanji coming together has sent a very positive message to the people. This has also increased the possibility of new political forces coming up with a strong alternative and bringing a majority, which has increased the hope for change. We also hope that this will definitely cause some disruption.

What about the possibility of Janmat Party collaborating with them?

It may be. We are considering it. They do not have a grip on Madhesh, if they give Janmat a seat in Madhesh, there may be coordination.

On the one hand, they have to show ‘populist activity’ and on the other hand, they have to spend money in the elections. Should they spend in this way in the elections or after winning, they have to pay off the debt from the first day and prepare for the next election. Is the Janmat Party also in a position to separate from this?

How can the Janmat Party separate, when the system is the same? No. Who does not want to do idealistic politics? We are already asking for recommendations for candidates to contest the elections. The Election Commission may say that 30/35 lakhs can be spent, but that is not enough. You do not have to give money, but you have to arrange for materials for the campaign. If you add everything up, the cost of one area comes to 1.25 crores. That does not include petrol, snacks, and food for the workers. The cost of the campaign alone, without adding the cost of public mobilization, reaches 1.25 crores. Where will it come from? The state will not give it. We have to find a candidate who can afford it. The ideal will disappear there. The workers who have been working for 10 years. There is a rush to do something. They are not in a position to contest the election. So, whoever wins, must be corrupt? They will try to recover some of the expenses. Those who have spent 1.25 crores will not do that. They should be given some benefit.