[ad_1]
23 June, Kathmandu. When the Nepali Congress was in the opposition, General Minister Gagan Kumar Thapa was seen as a strong opposition ‘face’. But when he participated in the theoretical discussion on the budget in the Parliament on Wednesday, General Minister Thapa looked confused.
‘We have to say that this budget does not include this, this does not include that, this does not match, that does not match’, said General Minister Thapa while standing in Rostam and expressed his confusion. Again! Will your own expression be sloppy again!’
UML was in the opposition when the budget for the current financial year came, but it became the ruling party in February. And the Congress, which was in power at that time, has now joined the opposition, hoping to bring Prachanda back to its alliance.
Congress leaders got excited after the chief ruling party, CPN-UML, KP Sharma Oli, expressed his displeasure immediately after the budget was announced. He did not want to provoke Prachanda by strongly criticizing the budget brought by the Maoist finance minister.
Finance Minister Pun benefited from this. Despite the dissatisfaction of the ruling UML, it said that it would support the passing of the budget, and the Congress did not have to worry too much as it did not criticize. Even while answering the questions raised in the theoretical discussion of the budget, his ease was evident.
UML’s ‘Friendly Firing’
Finance Minister Pun brought a budget of 18 trillion 60 billion for the next financial year. UML President KP Sharma Oli held a parliamentary party meeting on 19th June, the day before the general discussion on the budget began, and commented that they did not discuss the budget enough with them and that the budget looked like that of the Maoists.
In the general discussion on the budget, all the MPs of UML presented themselves in the style of President Oli.
Former finance minister Bishnu Paudel, who first spoke on behalf of the UML, said, ‘…the minister was so busy that he did not go to consult with the leaders of the major parties and get suggestions from the parties participating in the government.’
Most of the MPs of UML who participated in the discussions held on 20th, 21st and 22nd complained that there was not enough discussion with the leaders of the major political parties in the government during the preparation of the budget.
He also objected to the inclusion of the word people’s war in the budget statement. He also complained that there was no discussion in the budget of the work done during the government led by KP Sharma Oli.
‘It looked like she was shy to adopt. Every day it was seen like that’ UML MP Gokul Baskota said, ‘…after 2074 to 2079, the progress of education, health, physical infrastructure and reconstruction is extraordinary, the facts show that.’
According to the Maoist leaders, Oli did not directly ask Finance Minister Pun to discuss the work of his government. But some UML leaders met Finance Minister Pun and said that it is necessary to manage the achievements of the then CPN-led government in the budget. Finance Minister Pun did not do that.
The UML had told the ruling MPs that a scheme worth Rs 7 to 10 crore should be allocated and implemented through the Ministry of Physical Infrastructure and Transport. According to the wishes of UML, the ruling MPs have not received the 7 to 10 million plan, depending on the access it has been more or less.
In addition, Finance Minister Pun put the plans of MPs in the Ministry of Urban Development along with the Ministry of Physical Infrastructure and Transport. “It is natural for the leadership to want us to do it through the ministry held by our party,” says one of the UML officials.
Maoist leaders say that it is unacceptable that UML President Oli was not consulted during the preparation of the budget. According to the leaders, Finance Minister Pun had extensive discussions with UML Senior Vice President Ishwar Pokharel as well as former Finance Minister Bishnu Paudel, Yuvraj Khatiwada and Surendra Pandey.
‘Who would have believed that a leader like Varshman Pun brought the budget without consulting the president of the main ruling party?’ An official of the Maoist center says, ‘They (UML leaders) may have some political purpose or reference, which is why they recorded it in the parliament.’
Examination of Prachanda-Deuba dialogue
According to the leaders, there was a hidden political motive behind the UML’s dissatisfaction with the budget.
UML President Oli is clear that the power coalition should be maintained until 2084. But Madhav Kumar, president of United Samajwadi Party of Nepal, was going to the meeting of the opposition parties. After the Prime Minister himself reached the residence of Congress President Sher Bahadur Deuba, Oli wanted to check to what level the dialogue had reached. Therefore, Oli expressed his displeasure by saying that he will pass the budget in a deliberate manner.
‘Friendly firing’ is done to put pressure on the parties in alliance and to see how much the opposition will move, which has become a practice in the budget’, says a leader, ‘It has political meaning, there is no immediate harm/loss to anyone.’
According to them, just as the Congress came to give a vote of confidence to the Prime Minister on 26 December 2079, if they had come to pass the budget now, then it would have been understood that politics was going in a different direction.
But Congress did not come like that. Rather confused. He didn’t protest the budget, he didn’t even come to say that we will pass it if UML doesn’t support it. From this, UML understood the position of the opposition and it became easy for the finance minister to answer the budget.
Easy for the finance minister
Finance Minister Pun, who is also the Maoist Deputy General Secretary, discussed with Prime Minister Prachanda and the party’s leading leaders what to do about the ruling UML’s dissatisfaction with the budget.
The leaders came to the conclusion that it is not necessary to answer the politically posed question. Finance Minister Pun did not say anything about UML’s dissatisfaction while answering the questions raised in the theoretical discussion on Wednesday.
Mahesh Bertaula, chief whip of UML, also says that it is natural that the finance minister did not reply.
According to him, this matter was not raised in the Parliament expecting an immediate reply from the Minister of Finance.
“We have participated in the general discussion on the budget saying that we accept it politically, we support it practically and we suggest it theoretically,” he says. This is a suggestion for the future. An immediate answer was not expected, no.’
[ad_2]
