How do you see the Prime Minister’s address in the name of the people after the dissolution of the House of Representatives?
After the dissolution of the House of Representatives, the Prime Minister’s address is like saying whatever people want to embarrass them. There is no point in dissolving the parliament due to internal strife. The fact that your party did not support you is not related to the dissolution of Parliament. That is why the Prime Minister has addressed the nation with an excuse. This is just a matter of digesting shame. Isn’t it good for someone to defame others by making public the domestic quarrel between their husband and wife?
Anyway, the parliament has been dissolved, what does JSP do now?
Our party makes a decision on this issue. It also means that all parties will make a decision together. There is also talk of legal remedy. So we have to wait a while. Our party is holding a meeting now.
How likely is it that the House of Representatives will be reinstated?
The House of Representatives should not be dissolved in accordance with the law, it is not mentioned anywhere in the constitution. The time has not come for the process to be dissolved. There has been no famine, no vote of confidence has been registered. So the reason for the dissolution is unclear. They are doing as they say, ‘God knows the law of Nepal’. It depends on what the Supreme Court does or does not do. Even in the Supreme Court, they have been kept according to the party’s quota. What can be expected from that? However, there is no alternative. We must hope for the highest.
Has the Prime Minister also said that elections will be held for the fresh mandate of the people?
The Prime Minister has no other choice, no other excuse. All this is just a matter of shame. If a fresh mandate was needed, why is the age of Parliament fixed at five? It would have been better if elections had been held for one year at a time. Maybe there is some reason to fix the age of Parliament at five years. Now, those who did not understand the meaning of dissolving the parliament did not make any sense. Burn your neighbor’s house because of your own house fight? If the motion of no confidence has been processed, it should have been faced. If he did not succeed in that, then he had to choose that path. It would have been a logical thing to do so. But whether or not the motion of no-confidence is procedural, it is not good for him to run away for his face landing without looking at whether he can face it or not.
Is it only the fault of the Prime Minister or is it also external manipulation?
There does not seem to be any external pressure on the dissolution of the parliament. He himself said that the parliament had to be dissolved due to internal reasons. When he has disintegrated due to his own internal reasons, he should not be blamed. If someone in your party misbehaves, take action according to party law, that is your internal matter.
But was the Prime Minister under siege?
Honestly, the opposition has no strength. From a numerical point of view, the numbers are so small that the opposition can do nothing. It is a child’s thing to talk about my internal affairs, but I am under siege. Who didn’t let him work? The people are not satisfied at all. There was so much corona epidemic, but it continued in its own internal conflict. People in his own party did not seem satisfied with his work. So it’s all an excuse to put me under siege.
The role of President Bidyadevi Bhandari has also been questioned. How do you view it?
Bringing the ordinance is a matter for the government. The government found it difficult to bring an ordinance or a bill. The President will approve whatever the government recommends and sends. Besides, the president has no authority. In our country, there is only a rhetorical president. The president has no choice but to seal what the government does. Therefore, it is not appropriate to blame the President. There is no scope for the president to carry out any activities. It is only a matter of time before the president reconsiders. Only those who do not understand are involved in the President. Therefore, there is no reason to question the role of the President. He is now the president like an innocent creature.· However, former President Dr. Ram Baran Yadav has said that the President has failed to dissolve the parliament.· Dr. Ram Baran Yadav may have remembered his time.
Now the ball is in the court of the Supreme Court, can the Supreme Court reinstate Parliament?
If we study some of the past practices, there are three types of Supreme Judges. The UCPN (M), UML and the Nepali Congress have placed judges at the top according to their quotas. After all, the judges are on the same side. Now it depends on which of these three parties gets the majority. Because no single sitting can decide on this issue. If the judges act prudently and in accordance with the provisions of the constitution, then the parliament can be reconstituted. But since judges are appointed in quotas, it is not possible to say what will happen.
But, what should the Supreme do fairly?
Legally, in the current situation, there was no reason to dissolve the parliament. If the Supreme Court is to decide with impartiality, then the dissolution of Parliament must be reversed. If the Supreme Court wants, it can reinstate the parliament because there are such examples. The biggest thing was that there was no need to dissolve parliament.
The date of the election of the House of Representatives has also been fixed, the parties still fighting or preparing for a fresh mandate?
Finally, we have to go to the polls, there is no other option.