During the discussion on the government's policies and programs in the House of Representatives on 29 Baisakh, UML leader Ram Bahadur Thapa (Badal) demanded that the statements made by him on the political rise of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Party and the army be removed from the 'record', calling them objectionable.

RPP MP Khushbu Oli had also demanded that the statements on the army be removed. The next day, Speaker Dol Prasad Aryal ordered that Thapa's statements be removed from the parliament's record, calling them 'unparliamentary'. 

After this incident, a debate has started on what kind of language used in parliament is unparliamentary or unruly. The debate on this question is not only now, but has been going on since the Panchayat. 

Tanka Chaulagain's book 'Rudane', based on the biography of Rupchandra Bista, contains an episode of the Rastriya Panchayat. The Rastriya Panchayat of 2038. When it is Roop Chandra Bista's turn to speak, he stands up and says, "Our main political problem is the dogs that have the words 'king, country and system' written on their faces, but they are barking and biting at the rights of the people."

The meeting immediately becomes abuzz. National Panchayat member Hiralal Bishwakarma stands up and objects. Chairman Kamal Shah orders Bista to take back his words. Then Roop Chandra sarcastically says, "The words I spoke are mine, your work is done. Come back."

Four and a half decades have passed since the incident mentioned in 'Roop Chandra'. The system has changed, the constitution has changed, the parliament has changed. But the controversy over removing words from the parliament's records remains the same, even today. The debate in parliament over which words are parliamentary and which are non-parliamentary is complex.

On April 29, UML leader Thapa stood on the rostrum during a discussion on the government's policies and programs in the House of Representatives. He questioned the political rise of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the Gen-G movement and the role of the Nepali Army. “Why did the Nepali Army, the main protector of the nation, mysteriously become a mute spectator when the country was in ashes and the headquarters of its own sovereign was attacked?” he had said.

Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) MP Khanal objected to Thapa’s statement. Since Thapa was speaking, Speaker Aryal had said that he would “give time for the order after he has spoken.” Then, as soon as Thapa’s speech ended, Khanal demanded that it be removed from the record, calling it an “unparliamentary word.” RPP MP Oli also demanded that the comment on the army be removed from the record. The next day, the RSS MPs repeated the same demand.

Speaker Aryal ruled to remove the words “crowd of anarchists”, “those who burn the country under the national flag” and “Nepali Army as mute spectator” from the official records of the parliament. But the controversy did not stop there. UML Chief Whip Ain Mahar questioned why words like ‘bharaute’, ‘asepaase’ and ‘narasanhar’ used by ruling party MPs Ganesh Parajuli and Ramesh Prasai were not removed from the record. Then on April 31, Speaker Aryal ordered that those words also be removed from the record.

Every word spoken in Parliament is preserved in audio, video and written form. This is called a ‘verbatim record’. The Speaker can remove any expression from the record if he considers it unbecoming. In some cases, such parts are ‘muted’ or ‘blurred’ even in audio-video materials.

The Constitution has given MPs the privilege of complete freedom of expression within Parliament. Cases cannot be filed in court based on what MPs say in Parliament. Former Secretary of the Federal Parliament Rajendra Phuyal says that freedom of expression within Parliament is a basic condition of democracy. ‘Our parliament is a place of complete freedom of expression, but one should not go beyond social decency,’ he told Kantipur. ‘If we are to understand it simply, words that cannot be used socially are considered unparliamentary words.’ 

The House of Representatives rules prohibit the use of rude, obscene, insulting, racially or sexually derogatory words. But there is no clear list of ‘insulting’ and ‘unparliamentary’. ‘It is not possible to say exactly which word is parliamentary and which is unparliamentary,’ says Phuyal. ‘It is important to know the context, time and situation in which the word was used.’ This is where the controversy begins. Some call the expression ‘the Nepali Army has become a mute spectator’ a democratic question, while others call it an unfair comment on a national institution. 

Political scientist Saugat Gautam expresses concern that the tendency to suppress critical expression by calling it unparliamentary may increase. ‘The job of parliament is to monitor. The main job of the opposition is to raise questions about the government,' Gautam told Kantipur, 'They question the government, they question the army. If political comments are also called unparliamentary, then the critical role of Parliament will be diminished.'

Shiva Gaun, a journalist knowledgeable in parliamentary affairs, also says that such an issue will ultimately be linked to the Speaker's discretion. According to him, the Speaker should not view every protest language as unparliamentary, but truly unparliamentary language cannot be ignored either. 'The Speaker should be very careful about which words are parliamentary and which are unparliamentary,' he said. 'This cannot be solved by making a dictionary. Ultimately, this depends on the Speaker's discretion and impartiality.' According to Hari Bahadur Thapa, a journalist and writer knowledgeable in parliamentary affairs, the practice of unparliamentary words in Nepal was initially more associated with abusive language or language that belittles marginalized communities.

‘In the 2016 Bhadra 29 meeting of the House of Representatives, Mrigendra Shumsher Rana, an MP elected from the Gorkha Council, used the word ‘invalid’. The then Speaker Krishna Prasad Bhattarai had instructed not to use that word, calling it unparliamentary,’ says Thapa.

According to Thapa, for a long time, the word unparliamentary was understood to mean expressions that belittle women, Dalits, marginalized communities or individuals. ‘But recently, even when questions are raised about state institutions, there has been a trend of dismissing them as unparliamentary,’ he said. ‘If a question is raised about an institution politically, there should be a parliamentary investigation. Not removing it from the record.’

Parliamentary history Such controversies are not new. After Maoist leader Gopal Kirati said in the 2064 Constituent Assembly, ‘We will reduce those who do not allow the constitution to ashes,’ the then Speaker Subash Nembang had instructed to remove Kirati’s expression from the parliamentary record. After Rashtriya Janamorcha leader Chitra Bahadur KC called the parliament a 'vendho', it was also removed.

In 2073, when MP Amresh Kumar Singh said that the then Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli's 'mental condition was not good', the Speaker ruled to remove that statement from the record. Discussions on the policy and program for 2076/077 were underway. The time came for Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli to answer the questions raised and he appeared in the meeting of the House of Representatives of the federal parliament on 24 Baisakh 2076. At the beginning of the meeting, Prime Minister Oli said, 'Thank you for the questions and inquiries, I will answer the questions without paying attention to the expressions of anger, frustration and nimchara'. When Prime Minister Oli himself used the word 'nimchara' in the parliament, the same issue created a controversy. The Congress protested and the then Speaker Krishna Bahadur Mahara had directed to remove the word 'nimchara'.

Such records also show that the practice of removing words in the parliament is not new. But now the problem is not only one of practice, but also of credibility. Journalist Shiva Gaun says, “Since the matter of removing from the record is a matter of the Speaker’s prerogative, the Speaker himself should be able to maintain credibility on such a matter.” International practice is also linked to this debate. In the British Parliament, words like ‘liar’ or ‘blackguard’ are considered unparliamentary. If an MP directly calls another MP a liar, the Speaker immediately asks them to retract their words. In Britain, there is also a tradition of the Speaker remaining separate from the party after being elected, so that questions about impartiality are not raised.

There is a practice in the Indian Lok Sabha to update the list of unparliamentary words every year. A few years ago, words like ‘corona spreader’, ‘spoon’ and ‘tyrant’ were kept as unparliamentary words. However, the question was raised that ‘words used to criticize the government are becoming unparliamentary’ there, rather than words used to criticize the government being unparliamentary.

Former Secretary Rajendra Phuyal says that in Nepali parliamentary history, books were distributed to MPs regarding language. According to Phuyal, in 2048, the Parliament Secretariat published a book of unparliamentary words. He says that a book called ‘Inside Parliament’ written by the then General Secretary Jeevan Lal Satyal was distributed to the MPs.