The pre-budget discussions got delayed due to the dispute between the ruling coalition and opposition parties. After an agreement with the ruling coalition and the opposition, the  atmosphere became conducive to table policies and programmes in the parliament. As in  the previous policies and programmes, the government prioritised constitution-drafting this time also. The Constituent Assembly members kept their pressure to allocate 50 million rupees to their constituencies. The parties in the Constituent Assembly tried to reach out to the parties outside the Constituent Assembly including CPN (M) to ease the process of constitution-drafting. There was sharp polarisation in CPN (UML) due to the party’s forthcoming ninth general convention. The long-running dispute within the UCPN (M) seemed to be over for the time being.

Parliament in Business after Agreement

Accusing the government of not implementing previous agreements and of massive non-budgetary fund transfers (virement), main opposition party UCPN (M) and other opposition parties continuously obstructed the parliament. Speaking in the parliament, UCPN (M) Constituent Assembly member Janardan Sharma accused the government of robbing the country by naming new projects where none existed and the government not responding to the ruling of the Constituent Assembly chairperson.1 UCPN (M) spokesperson Dina Nath Sharma stated that by not even taking the coalition partners in confidence, it was totally inappropriate misuse of state treasury.

Madhesi Janadhikar Forum Nepal chairperson Upendra Yadav accused the government of building bridges where there are no rivers and blacktopping where there are no roads. Rastriya Prajatantra Party Nepal president Kamal Thapa accused the government of kleptocracy in the name of democracy and demanded parliamentary investigation into the non-budgetary fund transfers. UML Constituent Assembly members also accused the Congress ministers of deliberate and wilful transfer of funds. However, Finance Minister Ram Sharan Mahat argued that there had been rupees 35 billion of non-budgetary transfers and this was a regular occurrence and within the laws.

While the government was not flexible towards the opposition, the opposition also did not back down from its demands. Ruling Congress and UML held talks with the opposition to resume the parliament. However, the talks were not immediately successfully. During the talks, UCPN (M) had demanded the formation of a high-level political mechanism and its leadership. the parliament could not resume due to UML insistence that such leadership should not be given permanently to UCPN (M). UCPN (M) vice-chairperson warned that the parliament would not resume until its chairperson Dahal was made the chair of the political committee as the previous agreements or it might stall the parliament further.

As the parliament was being stalled, Prime Minister Sushil Koirala went on China visit. UML parliamentary leader KP Sharma Oli held talks with UCPN (M) chairperson Pushpa Kamal Dahal then. When there was criticism for not holding discussion on pre-budget sessions, there was an agreement among the ruling and opposition parties, which included implementing previous agreements and notifying the parliament of any budgetary transfers. Then the parliament resumed. However, by the time of the agreement between the ruling and opposition parties, it was quite late to hold extensive discussion on the pre-budget; yet, there were a few days of discussion on it.

Constituent Assembly Members Demand 5 billion

As the government was preparing to bring out the budget, the Constituent Assembly members started a campaign to raise the amount of the fund being given to every electoral constituency from 1 million to 5 billion rupees. Congress and UML Constituent Assembly members took leadership on this issue. They collected signatures to pressurise the government. The Constituent Assembly members claimed that the amount would be spent on development after consulting proportional members and different stakeholders. UML Constituent Assembly member Bidur Sapokta stated that the amount would not be spent alone by the members but only on projects selected by a committee comprising of elected Constituent Assembly members, local residents, and government employees.8 Congress Constituent Assembly member Chandra Bhandari said that since there had been misused, a strong mechanism for allocation and regulation should be established, and the amount should be raised to 5 billion.9 A total of 299 signatures collected from Constituent Assembly members demanding 5 billion was submitted to Finance Minister Ram Sharan Mahat, among whom 124 were Congress Constituent Assembly members, 135 from UML, and the rest were from Madhes-centred, ML, RPP, and other parties.10 The Constituent Assembly members divided into camps in favour of the rise in the amount and against. Rastriya Janamorcha Constituent Assembly member Chitra Bahadur KC argued that 5 billion should not be allocated. The main opposition UCPN (M) also opposed this demand. UCPN (M) Constituent Assembly member Bhakti Pandey commented that this tradition of allocation would enrich the developed areas and rich ones and further impoverish the poor and backward areas. However, most of the Constituent Assembly members insisted on appropriation of 5 billion rupees.