It had been exactly 7 years since the collapse of the Panchayat system in the 2046 People's Movement. The former Panchayats had been in power since the 2051 mid-term elections. It had been three weeks since the last Panchayat Prime Minister Lokendra Bahadur Chand became Prime Minister with the support of the CPN-UML (United Left Front in the 2046 Movement), one of the main components that participated in the movement to bring about multi-party democracy. Some political parties, including the Nepali Congress, were criticizing the UML for giving the Panchayats the opportunity to lead the government so soon. The UML, on the other hand, had decided to make Chand the Prime Minister, accusing him of weakening democracy during the Prime Ministership of Congress leader Sher Bahadur Deuba. The UML had made Chand the Prime Minister, saying that good governance had not been established in the country and that corruption had taken root, and that it also had an important share in the government. Even bigger than that, the UML seemed to have a huge 'ego' towards the Congress for overthrowing its nine-month-old minority government and making Deuba the Prime Minister. The UML was in the mood to make Purva Panch Chand the Prime Minister but not allow the Congress to run the government.

Political developments were developing rapidly. The games played to maintain power were vile and brought disrepute to the parliamentary system. In the same context and background, the MPs of the ruling and opposition parties drew attention to some interesting and sensitive issues in the Parliament meeting on Chaitra 14, 2053. The issue of the series of character assassinations of top leaders in the name of power change and the encouragement of the anti-democratic elements was raised loudly in the Parliament. Young MPs in particular expressed such concerns.

The young MPs of both the ruling and opposition parties were of the opinion that politics was gradually being turned upside down. In the parliament meeting, ruling UML MP Shankar Pokharel had said that the role of major parties in national politics is being weakened and the character of leaders is being assassinated. He cited the incident of Ganeshman Singh and Krishna Prasad Bhattarai being weakened under one pretext or another and said that the tendency to break discipline by violating the whip is prevalent in his party too.

MP Pokharel had said that he had become a leader who broke discipline by violating the whip twice by taking the name of his party leader and Home Minister Bamdev Gautam. Pokharel had said that the disciplined UML party was in a cycle of violating the whip. Gautam had played an active role in making Chand the Prime Minister and coming to power. That is why he was made Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister. In the UML Central Committee meeting, leader Ishwor Pokharel had accused him of embezzling funds for power and being involved in buying MPs.

Shankar Pokharel had said in Parliament, ‘RPP’s Chand has become innocent by strengthening a force within the party and his image has been exposed with the help of UML.’ He had accused RPP Chairman Surya Bahadur Thapa of being innocent and following someone. Thapa was in favor of not toppling the Deuba government. But after his own party leader Chand became the Prime Minister, he faced a moral crisis.

Jayaprakash Prasad Gupta, the main opposition party in Parliament, had said that a conspiracy was being hatched to make the Democratic Party ineffective. He had expressed the view that the country’s politics had been thrown into turmoil. He had said that the parliament had been rendered useless and the government had become uncooperative in this. He was of the view that the politics of fear and suspicion could lead to a crisis in the country.

Congress MP Devendra Raj Kandel had said that there was a hint of a civil war, linking the activities of the Maoists and the government. He had protested against the government's hasty release of the Maoists in custody. The armed rebellion that the Maoists started on Falgun 1, 2052, was gradually growing from the western districts at that time.

The distortions seen within the parties for power had come to the surface at that time. Such events showed the attitude that anything was right to achieve power. Some leaders had been criticized for the game that had been going on for 18 months to remove Sher Bahadur Deuba and make Chand the Prime Minister. Politics was being portrayed as a distorted game.

Manmohan did not want to sit with Surya Bahadur

Jagruti Prasad Bhetwal, a member of parliament from the ruling UML, had informed Speaker Ram Chandra Poudel that his party chairman and former Prime Minister Manmohan Adhikari had not been given a seat. ‘Where will Manmohan Adhikari sit, the Speaker should have ruled,’ Bhetwal had demanded.

Speaker Poudel had answered the question raised by Bhetwal, saying, ‘If he sits as a former Prime Minister, a special place has been allocated for him. Otherwise, he can sit anywhere.’ A special chair was arranged in the House for former Prime Ministers to sit. Surya Bahadur Thapa was sitting there. But Manmohan did not want to sit with Surya Bahadur.

Manmohan Adhikari did not agree to sit with Thapa. Even on the day Deuba took the vote of confidence, he sat in the seventh row with other MPs. RPP and UML were in the government, but Manmohan did not agree to sit with Thapa, the party chairman in the government. That is why UML MP Bhetwal had asked Speaker Poudel where Manmohan would sit.

Discussion of National Panchayat in Parliament

While speaking in Parliament, RPP MP and Vice President Padmasundar Lawati had said to Speaker Poudel, ‘You treat me with disdain . I can speak as much as I want, what are you doing ?’ His statement had caused a lot of uproar and accusations between each other in the Parliament meeting on Chaitra 14, 2053.

Lawati had spoken for 15 minutes, saying that the time provided by Speaker Poudel was insufficient. Even though the Speaker requested him to shorten his speech, he did not agree. Lawati had accused Speaker Poudel of being biased by saying that he would give time to someone and not to someone.

The Speaker had said to Lawati, ‘Will you rule or should I?’ Even though the Speaker warned him that he should speak at the stipulated time, Lawati did not stop speaking. After that, opposition Congress MPs approached Lawati and threatened the Speaker. There was a lot of uproar in the House after the Speaker's ruling was not implemented even though everyone had to follow it.

Congress MPs Homraj Dahal, Naresh Bahadur Singh, Krishna Prasad Gautam, Tirtha Bhusal and others had expressed their anger by approaching Lawati and saying that he was being bossy. Lawati was about to speak. Leaders including Congress MP Ram Sharan Mahat had reminded their MPs. UML MPs were demanding that Lawati be allowed to speak. After the arguments and uproar between the two sides, Speaker Poudel asked the MPs to sit in their respective seats. MP Homraj had demanded disciplinary action against Lawati for insulting the ruling.

After saying that the authority had lost its mind...

RPP MP Lawati was very angry when he was accused of corruption in the fertilizer procurement scandal when he was the Agriculture Minister in the Sher Bahadur Deuba cabinet. He criticized the authority in Parliament for being mentally sound. While speaking in Parliament, he said, ‘I am the only minister who has received the special title of having committed corruption worth Rs 70 million. If the authority had been mentally sound, other ministers would have also been looked at.’

After listening to Lawati, MP Homraj objected. He said that MP Lawati’s statement was motivated by the intention of insulting and threatening the parliamentary system. Homraj said, ‘Can a dignified MP make a statement that a constitutional institution like abuse of authority is mentally sound? Lawati should withdraw this statement.’

Lawati said that he was adamant about the authority’s mental state. He said, ‘It is true that the authority is mentally sound. I will continue to say it. I will not be intimidated by you and no one can stop me.’ After Lawati spoke, there was an altercation with the opposition MPs. But Speaker Poudel ruled, ‘You cannot sit across the aisle and gossip.’

‘This is a building of a national panchayat’

Disagreeing with Lawati’s statement, Congress MP Dhruv Sharma had sarcastically said that this is not a national panchayat. Urging not to remember the Panchayat period, he had said, ‘This is the House of Representatives. Speak with restraint and keep parliamentary dignity in mind.’ Even after that, Lawati did not stop speaking. He had said, ‘Speaker, I know that this is not a panchayat, I understand that it is a multi-party system. That is why I came here elected by the people, I did not come here to enter the parliament by running.’

Opposition MPs had objected to Lawati’s statement, saying that this is ‘not a national panchayat’. Speaker Poudel had stopped the opposition MPs from speaking on Lawati's speech, saying that it might have been a 'slip of the tongue'. But Lawati made another argument, 'Everyone knows that this is not a national panchayat, but it is a building of a national panchayat.' As the Speaker said after the multi-party system, during the panchayat period, it was customary to address the person as the chairman when speaking in the national panchayat. That is why the opposition MPs said that Lawati, a prominent figure in the panchayat, had become an old habit in the multi-party house and addressed him as the chairman.