Nowadays, the issue of a political party leader building a house or purchasing land in the federal capital Kathmandu is not much discussed. Because, it has become normal for a leader to add houses and plots of land in Kathmandu.

There are probably few leaders who have not owned a house in Kathmandu, whether they have held office or not, after 2046. Recently, there has been a growing trend for workers and voters to view leaders' amassing wealth as a matter of pride. How did leaders who had a normal financial situation yesterday become rich overnight? What is their source of income? It seems that an elite class has been born in politics today because of the praise and admiration they receive without calculating it. This has led to the development of a system of governance under the control of the elite.

The question arises, is it normal for those involved in politics to increase their wealth without a source of income? Even in the 1950s, the leaders of the Communist Party, who had been promoting the principle of equality for years, considered it a kind of 'crime' to acquire wealth in an opaque manner. A striking example of this is the story of the four-story house built in Kathmandu by Communist leader and writer Modnath Prasrit in 2053. Prasrit's house, which was a writer of stories, poems and novels, became a kind of story. At that time, a serious question arose as to whether or not a person involved in politics was touched by the question of morality. Many people embraced leftist ideas after reading the novels, stories and poems written by Prasrit, who was known as a progressive writer. However, he was criticized for not being able to embrace the ideas written in his books.

Prasrit, who served as the Minister of Education in the nine-month UML government formed in November 2051, was the chairman of the party's National People's Cultural Forum. When he started building a new house in Kathmandu Metropolitan City-15, there was discussion and criticism across the country. The controversy came to the surface when he informed the UML party that he had started building a house by taking an interest-free loan from a famous businessman in the country.

He had informed the party that he and his family had no income and it was difficult to run the house, so he had built a large house by borrowing money from a businessman to raise regular financial resources. He argued that the house was also necessary for storing the books he had published, saying that there was a lack of a warehouse. By then, he had published 26 books and was preparing to publish more than a dozen. Claiming that he had 12 kathas of land in Rupandehi as his property, he had also made public the names of the businessmen and associates who had borrowed money to build the house.

He informed the party about the details of taking 850,000 from Sitaram Sahitya Prasad, Chairman of Sitaram Sahitya Pratishthan, Shashi Kumar Aryal of Namaste Travels, businessmen Basanta Chaudhary, Lal Prasad Vasyal Butwal, Janak Subedi Anamnagar, Lanka Bahadur KC of Lumbini Builders Bhairahawa, Gyalche Gurung of Karma Linseling Gumba Swayambhu, Assistant Minister Jotendra Mohan Chaudhary, Minister Dhundiraj Shastri, MP Deep Kumar Upadhyay, MP Bangchhe Sherpa, Sushil Pyakurel of Informal Service Center (INSEC) and members of UML Dolakha District Committee. He had shown 31 lakh sources of income. He had bought a house for 1.35 lakh and submitted an estimate of 2.95 lakh to be spent on building a house.

Some legal practitioners and social leaders had criticized the works written by Prasrit, who was particularly responsible for building the ideals and responsibilities of creating mass culture, his occasional public statements, and the issue of amassing property contrary to the party's policies and ideals. Prasrit had argued that the house was to be used as a book warehouse and was also necessary for residence since he had a large family. But the question of morality was still alive. Some legal practitioners had called the reference to him taking donations an actionable matter.

Legal practitioners had argued that taking loans by abusing his position and power should be taken under Section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2017. They had reminded the public that according to the said act, officials cannot accept donations or gifts without the government's approval. 'If you took the money while you were a minister, taking a loan from a literary institution of which you are the president is an immoral act,' the legal practitioner had said. The then president of the Nepal Bar Association, Krishna Prasad Pant, had said that taking a loan is not a crime, but if one acts under the influence of the person who borrowed it, legal questions would arise.

Senior advocate Pant had opined that the context of taking a loan could be a question of ethics. Former MP Sindhunath Pyakurel had mentioned that one can take a loan from whoever has money and said, ‘Money is with the businessman, if not with them, who will take it from?’ It would have been better if he had not taken money from the businessman.’

Professor of political science Kapil Shrestha had said that after the achievement of democracy, there was an unfair alliance between the businessman and the bureaucracy. He had said that such activities would destroy the image and credibility of the politician. Especially after the formation of the coalition government, the talk of developing a Prado and Pajero culture in the name of maintaining power raised ethical questions about politicians (especially MPs). During Sher Bahadur Deuba's prime ministership, all MPs were given customs exemption to purchase Pajeros. The vehicles purchased by MPs were purchased by traders and driven. In the context of the protests across the country, the issue of Prasrit's house was also linked.