The parliament of that time, 29 years ago. What issues were raised in the parliament? What topics did the MPs talk about? How did the parliament function? Is there a difference in the agenda and style of the parliament then and now? Not only scholars who are curious about the operation of the parliament and the parliamentary system, but also the general public are interested. What could be the difference in the role played by MPs in the parliament before and now? The curiosity may be natural.

However, despite the differences in the faces of the MPs, political parties and times, the issues raised in our parliament, which has been refined through almost three decades of parliamentary practice, are almost the same as those raised in the 1950s. Since then, the issues of corruption and smuggling have seemed common. Just as corruption and irregularities are being discussed in the parliament now, this issue was always echoed in the parliament of that time. The then Speaker Ram Chandra Poudel had already ruled on the issue of MPs and ministers not wearing Nepali attire.

Just as there is now a discussion about Prime Minister Balendra Shah not wearing Nepali attire, at that time the Speaker raised the issue of attire within the Parliament and questioned the MPs by ruling on it, saying that they were disrespecting the Parliament. In the Parliament meeting on Chaitra 24, 2011, MPs had expressed concern that corruption had not been controlled. The opposition MPs had even demanded the resignation of the then Prime Minister Surya Bahadur Thapa and Finance Minister Rabindranath Sharma, citing the gold smuggling from the international airport. Now the issue of gold and customs smuggling and the involvement of political figures is being raised more and more. Just as there is now a discussion about the facilities that MPs receive. At that time, the issue of the Pajero purchased at customs duty and the medical treatment expenses incurred by the MP were in the news.

Discussion of corruption

Speaking in the Parliament meeting on Chaitra 24, 2011, Congress MP Bhim Bahadur Tamang had linked the incident where the then Agriculture Minister Shailaja Acharya had shown morality by saying that there was corruption in his ministry. He criticized the Prime Minister and the Finance Minister for saying that corruption existed yesterday, exists today and will continue to exist tomorrow, but they were unable to take action. In the Parliament meeting, UML MPs Bhim Rawal and Bhanubhakta Jaishi had said that the Prime Minister and the Finance Minister had failed to control smuggling. Congress MP Deepak Jung Shah had complained that the Prime Minister and the Home Minister did not investigate even though the Maoists had vandalized his house and car.

Speaking at a special time in the House of Representatives, Congress MP Shah had said, "If such an incident had occurred in the house of a gold smuggler, what would have happened overnight?" It is natural that those who are busy investigating the gold and airport issues do not have time to inquire about me.' MP Shah had expressed his anger targeting his own party's Home Minister Khum Bahadur Khadka. At that time, there was talk of gold being brought in mainly from the Tribhuvan International Airport under government protection. Home Minister Khadka was accused of bringing in gold under police protection. Kantipur had published a news item titled 'A Day in the Life of Home Minister Khadka' on 20 Chaitra 2011.

The news item included a story about Home Minister Khadka clarifying that he had no connection with the yellow metal entering Nepal through the sensitive route from Tribhuvan Airport. In an interview given on Nepal Television on 18 Chaitra 2011, Home Minister Khadka had repeatedly tried to clarify the issue of the yellow metal. At that time, there was a 'media hype' that Prime Minister Thapa remained silent and the Finance Minister and Home Minister helped bring in the gold. On that basis, Congress MP Shah had sarcastically criticized his own party's Home Minister.

Mutual criticism

When there should be criticism between the ruling party and the opposition in Parliament, the ruling party MPs were found criticizing each other. The scene was that accusations were being made between the ruling party and the opposition and between the opposition.

The ruling party MPs were criticizing the Finance Minister and the Prime Minister, while the opposition MPs were criticizing each other between the UML and the ML. UML MP Raghuji Pant had criticized ML General Secretary Gautam. In response, Siddhilal Singh of MLA had said, ‘The credibility of UML leaders has decreased, but Gautam’s credibility has not decreased.’ After the question-and-answer session started among the opposition, UML MP Birod Khatiwada had said in surprise, ‘I couldn’t understand what stage democracy has reached. This was not seen in the previous session. There were no disputes and violations between the ruling party and the opposition.’

Discussion of daura-suruwal in Parliament

Speaker Poudel had told the MPs, ‘When we go to other power centers, we go after adjusting the daura-suruwal and topi. Do we consider other power centers bigger or this parliament?’ In the parliament meeting of Chaitra 24, 2011, Speaker Poudel had ruled to wear daura-suruwal, targeting two ministers and half a dozen MPs. Opposition MP Raghuji had questioned whether ministers were not bound by the rules and demanded that the Speaker rule. 'There is a rule to come in national dress and suits even when invited to embassies.' However, the rules passed by MPs in Parliament are being violated by ministers and MPs,' Raghuji had said.

The issue of wearing daura-suruwal was raised in Parliament after Sadbhavana Party Chairman and Local Development Minister Gajendra Narayan Singh and Forest and Soil Conservation Minister Hridayesh Tripathi came to Parliament in kurta, salwar and dhoti. After hearing MP Raghuji, Minister Tripathi got up and tried to speak. However, Speaker Poudel had stopped him and asked, 'Do you not agree with the rules?'

The Speaker had questioned, saying that it was not you who passed the rules making national dress mandatory. MP Pradeep Giri had said that exemption from wearing daura-suruwal should be given on the day of the bandh. However, he himself wore a white daura suruwal that day. He had said, ‘Since I am known as an MP, I am afraid of being surrounded on the day of the bandh, so I should give you a day off.’ However, Speaker Poudel said that various questions were being raised on the MPs and that they should be worn 365 days, not on the day of the bandh.’ The MPs banged the table on the Speaker’s statement. The MPs who were not wearing daura suruwal were sitting in the back seats, blocked by pillars.