A few days ago, I was at a small gathering. Out of about 25 people, about 10 of them said they were running in this election. Five of them were on the proportional list. I listened to their speeches silently. And then I sat down to write down what came to my mind.

It is a beautiful thing to aspire to be a member of the House of Representatives. There is no public wrong in wanting to participate in politics. Although that aspiration may have some impact on a person's personal and professional life. However, just because it has an impact does not mean not fulfilling the aspiration, not taking risks. 

Be it sports, acting, literature, whatever, there are definitely some questions before participating in each. There is no question that some questions will not arise with participating in politics. Saying that no specific qualification is required for politics does not mean that ineligibility is a qualification. 

We are definitely more interested in some issues in our society. We have some study, research, and experience in those issues. We are more interested in some issues. However, I have not yet found out what the areas of interest of some of my candidates are. For me to find out, they must have spoken, written, or done something publicly!

When I have not heard any questions, complaints, ideas, or solutions from them on any issue. When I have not seen them angry or agitated about anything. When I have not seen them holding a different opinion from the crowd. When I have not seen them taking even a small step towards reform in their field, then on what basis should I see them as MPs? 

I want to see new people as MPs. But before that, I want to see them understand the state and society. I want to see a series of specific questions within them. 

When the country is drowning in corruption, they are silent. When some people are fed up with corruption, they laugh, and even actively defame the agitators by saying that they are being manipulated. When there is a movement, Satyagraha, or sloganeering against the bad attitude of the rulers, they are saying that they are alternative party/leaders. I am surprised. How can I consider those who abuse three times more than the old party leaders, who attack questioners more, and who cover up their accusations with logic as an alternative? 

Isn't it surprising that closed-mouthed people who couldn't even speak because Nawaraj Vishwakarma was killed undeservedly, or because they are not invited to festivals and concerts in the country and abroad, are on the blacklist? It is a terrible tragedy to say that those who remain silent on the issues of Nirmala Panta and Angira Pasi will build the country by becoming an MP. I don't believe that those who do nothing like Ram Bahadur Thapa Badal on these and other issues after becoming the Home Minister, and who only talk nonsense, will do anything again. I remember being a witness to the noise that rapists are also our fans, don't tease them. 

It seems like telling a joke to say that those who remain silent on the party divisions that occur in every organization, but who become a partaker, not only build the country, but also build the country. How can someone who takes the voice of the soul hostage and blends into the crowd during a national event lead a genji-jagran? 

Some people from the fields of cinema, music, journalism, comedy, bureaucracy, NGOs, manpower, contracting, smuggling, land brokerage, cooperatives, social media, content creators, viral, 'sensational social service', silence, etc. have come and are coming into politics. They did not have to speak or stand up for what they did not know or experience. But, were they ever in favor of good governance in their field? What did they say or do when they were there or got the position? Are they the ideal standard in their field? If not, how can they be new? How can they be alternative?

They think, I can easily rule my fans-followers. Remember, those who like it must have 'liked' your acting, proclamation, joke, face, and not your political-social consciousness!

Those who are sitting on election platforms must have thought that speaking is only done after reaching office. Speaking outside the parliament is useless. 

If you think like this, you should take a basic course in political science and sociology. A warrior, whether he gets an office or not, whether he is in a party or not, always speaks, fights, and always remains alive. A person without questions is dead. A person without ideas is a vagabond. (I am not saying that ideas are right or wrong here. It is better to be right than not speaking publicly, those who speak are less wrong.)

The sight of people who do not even understand the basics of how a state runs? How does a society function? What is the role of institutions in a state? Becoming or trying to become MPs is shocking. The scoundrels, scoundrels, and dirty party leaders of yesterday should be thrown into the trash can, not into the ballot box. But, do the so-called new ones really deserve the ballot box? Is there internal democracy there? I don't think so. If it were, someone would have been heard saying Ushakiran-Binda when Himalayan and tribal women were given foreign contracts. Yesterday, when the court action was taken against Wagle, Khadka, and Gupta, the party did not seem to be fully defending itself. And how independent are the new ones? Even if the identity is 'independent', the power is not independent!  

‘Whenever there is a movement in this family home. How many have come here?’, ‘Does this old man have no work, or is he on a hunger strike again.’, ‘Does a country become a country by talking and writing? Does a country become a country by gossiping? It is not talk, it has to be done!’ ‘Who is this guy who constantly stands on the streets without allowing the elected mayor to work?’ I am surprised to see people who say such things on the candidate list/line. 

The contribution of every citizen is no less than the contribution of a political party or MP to society. Not only party office-bearers who ‘build the country’, but every individual and institution. Kedar Bhakta Mathema’s short contribution as the Vice Chancellor of Tribhuvan University is not a significant contribution. In my opinion, whatever he says or does not say, wherever he stands or does not stand from then until today, is an even greater contribution and politics. We also need Bhagwan Koirala, Sanduk Ruit, who build institutions. And, we also need Govinda KCs who speak, fight, and struggle to make institutions strong without staying within the institution. Not ‘also needed’, ‘necessarily needed.’ Not one, but many are needed. Whether inside or outside the party, when questions, movements, satyagraha, and different opinions die (especially are killed), then that society will not survive. 

Author Narayan Dhakal was once an MP.  Many do not remember what he did as an MP. However, every one of his books, articles, and interviews is strong politics for me. If he had wanted to, he could have easily reached the academy. He has not reached it yet. This is bigger politics. And, such politics has great meaning in terms of making society alive. 

I request those who want to become MPs but always remain silent like my beloved singer Bachukailash to remain silent. If you only speak when you should not and keep giving unilaterally through social media, you have the right to contest the election, but the voters have no duty to vote for you. 

You are confident that you will become MPs by sitting on the proportional closed list. However, I am not confident seeing your political illiteracy and social irresponsibility. You should do 'better than the old', but the possibility of doing 'worse than the old' is clearly visible from your chairs and benches.  

I have a suggestion and question for the candidates who are still holding electioneering. The laws are strong here. You should read the right to information. Ask for information. Seek transparency in every program, budget, appointment, and activity in your field of interest.  Make them accountable. Hold a sit-in. File a complaint. File a writ. Write a letter. Write an article. Give creative solutions. Organize public hearings. Remind citizens of their rights. If necessary, hold a protest. Go on a hunger strike.

Before you become a politician, be honest and active as a pressure group. Support sugarcane farmers and meter badge victims. Question the destruction done in the name of development. 

What did the Bibeksheel Dal do in the beginning, what is the alternative party doing today? They used to go to the office and demand an account. They openly called for a shutdown of Nepal. They used to clean up the mess that the RPP did in Bhrikuti Mandap. They used to stand together in the movement against the mafia and middlemen. They used to speak in civilized language, saying that they would do civilized politics. Abusive language was not in their dictionary. This is another matter, after being mixed with sewage, they also ceased to be discreet. 

There is not only a party in politics. There are pressure groups that are equally important. To say that you contribute only from the party, from your position, from your chair, from the parliament is either ignorance or a lie. Leaving a powerful local government in the middle is just a feudalistic idea of ​​'big above' and a petty ideology of 'small below'.  

If someone in your village needs financial assistance, do you go to the ward, municipality, or ministry and ask questions about social responsibility or do you start by collecting donations and becoming a 'social worker'? I have respect for 'social workers', but I have even greater respect for conscious citizens who ask for tax returns from offices and hold sit-ins. 

A young candidate with political understanding who does not contribute anything, but who asks questions to the bosses is a wise candidate rather than a 'social worker' who is a beggar.