"The ruling party forced the Congress to the Well"

His resignation has been demanded. As a result of the scenes and conflicts that have started to appear in politics, there are signs that dozens of bills related to the implementation of the constitution and federalism, from the peace process, will be affected again. Edited part of the conversation between Kantipur's Kulchandra Neupane and Jaisingh Mahara with the chief whip of the Congress parliamentary party Ramesh the author on the effect of the power alliance, the role of the opposition and making the parliament effective.  ;

When Congress was in government, you used to react to the disruption of parliament by UML as irresponsible. Now you are seen in that role. Is there any difference between UML and Congress?

The most important issue in Parliament right now is the discussion on the principles and priorities of the Appropriation Bill. We have been constantly telling the Speaker and friends of the ruling party that we do not want to disrupt the House as this matter is related to the budget. I have been saying for 4/5 days that we should run the House continuously. However, suddenly the Hon'ble Home Minister presented a bill on political parties and it was put on the agenda of the Parliament. We have raised questions on the Home Minister, we have asked the Prime Minister for an answer. After he did not come to answer, he requested that we remove this matter from the list and discuss the budget. However, it was seen that the ruling party was trying to show the feeling that the House should not be moved.

Home Minister Ravi Lamichhane has responded that 'I went to answer the allegations against me but the Congress did not let me speak'?

We asked the Prime Minister for an answer, not the Home Minister. The agenda related to the Home Minister would have been removed from the House until the Prime Minister gave an answer. However, we will not remove it, after saying that even the Prime Minister will not come to answer, we have taken steps to forcefully not allow the Parliament to run.

What is the main subject of your objection with the Home Minister?

Now the victims of cooperatives are in street agitation. There is a big question that the money collected by millions of people has been embezzled by the operators. The Home Minister has also illegally taken the money deposited by the depositors of cooperatives and common people. Section 50 of the Cooperative Act states that only the members of the cooperative have the right to save, mobilize and take loans. The Home Minister did not belong to the cooperative, but took money from them. Where did he invest that money, he wanted to know. In this way, the Home Minister is not only questioned about the misappropriation of public money in cooperatives, but there is also a situation where a complaint has been filed with the police. The inquiry of Pokhara Metropolitan Municipality has mentioned this, it seems that the money has gone into his account. In this situation, he himself has become the Home Minister. Another, it is coming that the convicts were acquitted on the basis of political pressure in the Sun case. The police cannot conduct an impartial investigation on a person who is the home minister. We demand that he should be innocent but there should be a fair investigation. For that, the Prime Minister should come and assure. However, he was treated as if there was no opposition.

Yesterday you were also accused of not trying to remove the minister who went to give a statement to the authority. Can you ask for the resignation of the Minister of Home Affairs in connection with the case of co-operative fraud?

Yesterday, when the UML was in the opposition, any body that investigates the state put forward the belief that the investigation and investigation is not fair when the person under investigation and investigation is sitting as a minister. It was discussed in the House. All of them were brought to a conclusion by the Prime Minister. He replied in the House that he has removed such ministers. It established the principle that the minister who has such accusations and is under investigation cannot sit.

You took a stand yesterday that there is no need to resign in the face of indictment. If it is not the case that the charges against the Home Minister are confirmed today, isn't there a contradiction between the stand taken by the Congress yesterday and the issue it is raising today?

first and it has a different situation. We have not said that we will not remove such ministers after making a formal decision. Congress did not say that it will not remove the minister who came under investigation. Some friends in the Congress have raised the issue that they should be removed. It is the police who investigate co-operative fraud. Not by any independent body. If there is more, the investigation bureau will do it. But can the police investigate the Home Minister? Yesterday's matter was investigated by the authority. There was a minister unrelated to it. That and the current issue are different. Therefore, the norms established by the Prime Minister were violated. I hope that the Prime Minister will come to say that I removed the minister who is under such investigations yesterday, and I will remove him today.

Are you in favor of satisfying the Prime Minister regardless of his answer or are you looking for the Home Minister's resignation?

It is a basic thing that the police should investigate the home minister himself and he should not be the home minister. Why is the investigation on the issue of cooperatives not being able to proceed? It depends on what the Prime Minister answers.

One policy while in the opposition, another policy while in the government. The Congress has come to a standstill over the Home Minister's resignation. If the demand is not met, what is the way back from there?

It is the ruling party that has forcibly sent us to Well. I had a topic with not only a problem, but a solution. I told you not to bring the matter related to the Home Minister to the House until the Prime Minister gives an answer. The request has been made to the Speaker, the Secretary General of the Parliament Secretariat for three days and today (Friday) the chief whip of the ruling party and the government ministers. However, he worked to bring the Congress to the Well by force.

It is fine to raise a matter in parliament regarding the resignation of a minister or an issue, but does not the practice of obstruction increase the risk of the parliament becoming ineffective?

It depends on the government. When I was in power, I also worked as the chief whip of the largest party yesterday. I have always said that the opposition should be given space in the parliament and the issues raised should be respected. There is no need for the government to panic as soon as the opposition opposes and criticizes it. However, the ruling party behaved as if it did not give any space to the opposition. On Friday, after the House was disrupted by raising the issue that the Prime Minister should come, the Speaker tried to force the Home Minister to the rostrum for the second time. After the meeting has started, will the Speaker call the minister to the rostrum after the main opposition has stood up and protested? If the main opposition stands up, the house is considered blocked. Calling the minister to the rostrum by ignoring this common belief is meant to say that he will take it. When you say

, does it mean that the Speaker's role is also not fair?

I have not raised any questions about the role of Speaker. However, the Speaker also forced him to come to Well. After the opposition was raised, the process was not carried forward after attracting the attention of the Speaker. Even the government did not take the Speaker to that place.

At the time of taking the vote of confidence, the Prime Minister has already replied that 'It is okay if you propose the Prime Minister but it is not okay if I make you the Home Minister', right?

If the Prime Minister gives an answer like that, we have plenty of such answers. It would have been one thing if he had responded on the same day with a sense of responsibility, but he took the matter we raised very lightly. He did not come to the house. The situation now is that the way the government is presented in the House, the role of the opposition is determined in the same way.

After the Prime Minister left the alliance with the Congress, you proposed the Prime Ministership to the current Home Minister, right?

I don't know about this. How can you say yes to something you don't know?

The demand you are raising in the House now, is it the effect of the Prime Minister breaking the alliance?

Some may have thought that after the change of government, the Congress joined the opposition, and after joining the opposition, it started protesting strongly, but that is not the case. However, when the issue comes up, it will be raised at that time. Questions have been raised about Raviji. We didn't say anything until we became the home minister, can't we raise questions after becoming the home minister? When a person comes to a place of responsibility, the question arises. Gold has been rising since yesterday. We do not know what the commission mentioned in the report as it is not public. But, if we look at the news that you have taken out, there are new things every day. However, when the Congress went to the opposition, it could not be said that this issue was raised. It took two weeks for the

alliance to break up. In the House, the way you are raising the issue that the Prime Minister has cheated, doesn't this send a message that the Congress cannot stay out of power?

Yesterday's discussion was on the same topic and we talked about it, now this chapter is over. People who were involved in co-operative fraud came as Home Minister, it has been reported that the Secretariat of the former Vice President was involved in gold smuggling. It is also connected with the current finance minister. If the Congress raises this issue tomorrow, it cannot be said that it is a power grab. Congress is in the opposition, it is not raising the issue now because it has left the government.

What would happen to you if those who cheated you in Parliament stood together? He said to the Prime Minister. Does this mean you are headed for another alternative alliance?

We are on the deceived side. It depends on what other cheated do.

Why does it matter when the power and opposition benches change about the issues raised by political parties in Parliament? Yesterday, when you were in power, you were silent about Ravi Lamichhane's co-operative fraud, didn't you even investigate when you were in government? A

is a critical discussion of current events by the opposition. That is why the opposition bench was formed. Don't take it otherwise why the opposition raised it. When we were in power, whoever was in the opposition was raising the issue. They also understand that there are factionalism in the Congress. It is raised that it opposes itself, but why is the Congress more honest than others in the matter of cooperatives, the ruling party Congress has also raised what the opposition did not raise about such incidents even in the past. From the rostrum, an honorable member of the Congress said, "Mr. Speaker, whether he is sitting on your right or on your left, if someone has come under investigation, he cannot sit as a minister." Congress said that but you don't say it. If you were in a place to investigate

, why didn't you do that?

I have information that a complaint was registered in Pokhara when we were involved in the investigation, in the government. It has come that not only a complaint has been registered but also that an investigation bureau has been deployed from the centre. It is also said that he returned when the alliance collapsed. Yesterday's government continued to investigate. As soon as the power changed, it stopped and the Home Minister became the person involved in it.

Tomorrow Ravi Lamichhane has left this alliance and joined the Congress to become the home minister or not.

We take that decision very seriously.

Congress General Minister Gagan Thapa said to send home those who cheat cooperatives and carry two-four citizenships. What is the opinion of the Congress about Padma Prasad Pandey, the general secretary of the law-making parliament, taking citizenship by lowering his age by 6 years when he was a government official and taking a passport by misusing it when he was a co-lawyer?

According to the provisions of the constitution, both the Speaker and the Speaker of the National Assembly were recommended by the responsible officials. There is a constitutional provision that the President cannot stop. The President studied for a few days. You must have seen the constitution and laws. There is no place to blame the President. The president is constitutional, he should do according to the recommendation. The responsibility must be taken by the recommender. Let the parliamentary committee investigate and proceed. The court has also spoken about the appointment. It is said that the Supreme Court has already said that there is no question about the appointment. As far as the issue of citizenship and passport is concerned, it is in the parliamentary committee. It is something to look at in the regular process of the government. The police will look into it, the investigation will look into it. We also study how those bodies look.

Transitional justice and the implementation of federalism have also raised legal issues in the past. What is the point of view of the Congress on these issues facing the country?

It was also mentioned in the document that an alliance had to be formed to complete the work of the TRC, I was surprised. The Congress is the most flexible and the most moderate in the TRC, where the UML and the Maoists are, and how it can be reconciled. I am involved in it. I said let's end the process if there is no agreement. While in this country, most victims of conflict are from Congress families. Victim-friendly laws should be made, transitional justice should also be seen from the point of view, and Congress has taken more initiatives on how to create a common understanding among all parties. It was done when we were in power and not.

How will the transitional justice bill be decided?

Since the previous alliance could not complete the TRC, it has been said that a new alliance has been formed to complete it. Congress is trying to be blamed for it, the Prime Minister should clarify his position. Now let's see how the government presents itself. We want to resolve the issue of TRC. We seriously disagree with the situation of not passing the TRC itself, not agreeing to it and carrying it to Congress.

In the past, UML used the transitional justice law as a 'bargaining tool' to come to power, is Congress going to do the same now?

TRC has nothing to do with our power. They have done that many times. I know that this shift also started from the TRC during the formation of their alliance. I have information that the mess where they (Dahal and Oli) live started from the TRC and reached political decisions. They have always made the TRC a subject of power bargaining.

What is the role of Congress in the implementation of federalism?

We are positive about this. If one or two bills were passed during the two sessions, they were also taken forward by Congress ministers. Even when we were in the government, the parliament did not get any business. The government has not worked on law making. The government did not provide enough bills, the bills could not move forward when the opposition blocked the House. We have to accept our weaknesses.

The aftershocks of the power coalition at the center have reached the provinces. The current coalition is trying to form a new government by dividing all the provinces, how is the Congress looking at it?

No one has a single majority in the federal and state parliaments, so there will be coalitions everywhere. As soon as the alliance in the center moves up, the aftershock reaches down. We will try to get the majority in our favor and the current ruling party will try to get the majority.

Congress will also try that?

We try. If we can reach the majority, we will form the government; if not, they will form it.

With the change of power at the center, the tendency of the government to collapse and form in the state also raises questions about federalism, it created instability, didn't it?

In other countries, provinces also have parties. Therefore, the central power equation does not work in the states. We have only national parties. The national level party has an organizational structure from the ward to the center. As soon as something happens at the center, it affects the provinces. There is no possibility of power change at the rich local level, otherwise it would have reached there. We are in federalism but the parties do not want to be at the provincial level, that has brought this situation. After

, the state is like a unit of the center?

Looking at the party basis, our provincial committee is. It is under the Central Committee in the hierarchy.

Congress president also discussed about Koshi region. There is talk of constitutional complications for the change of government. What is the opinion of the Congress on this matter?

We discussed with the chairpersons and leaders of the parliamentary parties of the seven provinces about what is going on with the state committee, state parliamentary party and leader. It would have been better if the center had issued a circular, but federalism has the right to make their decisions. When it comes to Lumbini and Far West, if the parties there can get along with other parties, they can form an equation. But why is there no possibility of meeting, if the party is the same. This government was formed in Koshi using the last resort of the constitutional system. Rather than a party, the government is formed by the majority of the members of the state assembly. Since that is the case, it seems that this government will remain. One thing is that Congress does not want to go to mid-term elections in any state.

Parliamentary system is a numbers game. What will happen in Koshi if the majority members go to form an alternative government?

Since this is a government formed in the last exercise, there is a question of constitutional interpretation. It will be discussed after which section of the constitution, who will come to change this government, how will they come. How they come will be discussed later.

In our parliamentary practice, the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee is the leader of the opposition. Now the president is a UML MP. After you went to the opposition, was there a discussion about the change of chairman?

This topic has not been discussed. There has been weakness on our part in the past as well. We took the chairmanship when we were in the opposition and then we did not leave even after we went to the government. That is our fault. If they say that we will continue that practice because we have done wrong, then we should say yes. Now let's do the practice correction, if you want to do the correction then let's do the correction. The leadership of the other committees, where the Congress president remains. It is only a matter of the Public Accounts Committee, there is no question about the chairman of other committees.

Have you estimated how many days the current government will last? We are not counting the days of

government. It depends on what the activities of the government are.

There is an attempt to come to power by forming another alliance, right?

We are in opposition. We have used three words: effective, constructive and strong opposition. We do politics within the religion of the opposition.

The prime minister's public statement about the reason for the collapse of the alliance with the Congress is being discussed. But with close people, he was planning to throw away the constitution, geopolitical activities about republic, secularism were also connected. KP Oli, the leader of the opposition, protested all over the country and advocated for the republic, but the chairman of the Congress just sat waiting for power and did not say anything, instead he went to Chitwan and spoke about religion, he allowed the issue of religion to be raised in the General Committee, so it has been said that the alliance had to be changed for the protection of the constitution. How has the Congress taken it?

That is why he is upset. Whatever he decides, he interprets accordingly. Congress is weaker than anyone about the republic? The constitution was made under the leadership of Congress. It is not only the Congress but it was the Congress that brought everyone together. The Constituent Assembly was formed in 2064 and the constitution was not formed when the Congress was weak. Congress became the largest party in the Constituent Assembly of 2070. Congress was the government, the constitution was made and all these arrangements are not? Would this constitution and system have been possible if the Congress had not been so committed to the federal democratic system? And doesn't it hurt to question the Congress in that way? You have changed the alliance, it is fine, it keeps changing, but it is not right to make unwanted comments and imaginary things to the Congress.

The Congress General Committee did not say anything about the then power alliance. Regarding the election of 2084, whether to make a prepoll alliance and whether to conduct a post poll. Is the discussion even barred? This is not a communist party. First, it should be understood as a form of Congress. It is not a party where the leader has a particular line and cannot speak beyond that. It is a party that believes in pluralism and fights for individual freedom. And should I panic when I speak at my party? Where has Congress officially spoken against the Constitution? no There is no compromise with the federal democratic system. This constitution was made under our leadership. We have said that its protection is our biggest responsibility.

Congress-UML cooperation talks are going on, how far or close is it? There are many possibilities in

politics. Now we are talking with UML, there is nothing about our alliance.

From the rostrum of the parliament, Oli said that instead of 'talking to us and not talking', Deuba said 'now we will talk', right?

That is our honesty. Therefore, it is different to make ten kinds of arguments to justify a decision after making a decision by talking about imagination and suspicion. Asti Oliji said that in the varnashram system, water is always available, rice is always available, pulses are always available, but nothing is available. The truth is repeated over and over again. Because we were in an alliance. Talking to UML is cheating. Even if he only talked to the UML, the Prime Minister would be suspicious. If he created so much apprehension and terror when he thought that the Prime Minister should be succeeded without doing anything, if he had talked to Oliji, he would have used it as an excuse.

UML breaking alliance with us is a betrayal of Maoists. Just like why ask the way to the village without going, when there is no alliance with UML, why talk about it? What Oli Comrade said is true. Now the religion of the opposition is to be fulfilled.