Sarcasm About Khula Manch Does Not Answer Questions About Parliament

Sanket Kiranti

After the opening ceremony of the Nepali Congress general convention, Prime Minister Balen Shah wrote on social media: “Thank goodness Khula Manch was improved; now a new party can hold an event there and abuse me.” It was a brief, pointed remark that quickly drew political attention. But a comment made by a prime minister cannot be dismissed as an ordinary social media jibe. It raises serious questions about how the prime minister views criticism, how he understands his responsibility to Parliament and what language is appropriate for someone holding public office.

At the convention’s opening, Congress President Gagan Thapa suggested that Parliament could not be considered open unless the prime minister was present there. This was a political criticism whose factual basis and merit the prime minister could challenge. Yet his response offered no clarification about his attendance, his participation in parliamentary business or the question Thapa had raised. It confined itself to sarcasm about the improvement of Khula Manch and the opportunity to criticise him. The central issue, therefore, is not the prime minister’s jibe but the parliamentary question he left unanswered.

In a democracy, the prime minister is not above criticism. But the level of accountability expected of a prime minister is greater than that of other public figures. A single comment from the head of government can signal the administration’s political culture, its respect for dissent and its attitude towards public institutions. Describing criticism from a party platform as “abuse” risks reducing political debate to a matter of personal insult. If the criticism is wrong, exaggerated or politically motivated, it should be answered with facts—not sarcasm.

Parliament is the constitutional forum for questioning the government. Whether the prime minister attended its proceedings can be checked against the public record. Meeting reports, attendance records, agendas and the prime minister’s responses in Parliament can be made public. If Thapa’s claim is wrong, the prime minister can refute it with evidence. If it is right, he can explain his absence. Either way, citizens deserve an answer grounded in parliamentary accountability. The question of who oversaw the improvement of Khula Manch does not provide one.

Improving Khula Manch is unquestionably a matter of public interest. The use of open spaces for public meetings, dialogue and expression is part of democratic life. If a public space was improved during a representative’s tenure, that work can be credited and assessed. But public infrastructure is not the private property of a leader or a party. Its construction and management involve public resources, institutional decisions and citizens’ shared rights. If Khula Manch has been improved, it has also provided critics with a place to speak. This should be understood as the ordinary use of a public space, not as a favour granted by the prime minister.

The phrase “new party” in the prime minister’s comment also points to another political discomfort. Whether a party is new or old, its right to criticise the government does not depend on its political standing. In a democracy, the legitimacy of criticism is determined not by the critic’s age, history or organisational strength, but by the facts and public significance of the question being raised. Dismissing a new party because it criticises an older one, or treating questions directed at a new government as “abuse,” weakens political debate.

The prime minister’s use of social media is not, in itself, a problem. Direct communication with citizens can be useful in modern governance. The problem arises when a social media quip displaces a public answer, diverts attention from the duty to respond to criticism or reduces the government’s formal accountability to a personal retort. Millions of citizens read the prime minister’s words as signals from the government. His language, therefore, is not merely a matter of personal style; it is part of the political culture of governance.

One argument in the prime minister’s defence is that political leaders should be free to respond to criticism directed at them. That right is unquestionable. But the right to respond and the responsibility of a prime minister are not the same thing. As a party leader, he could trade retorts on the campaign trail. As prime minister, he must answer questions about Parliament, the government and state institutions. Public office does not take away freedom of expression; it adds a duty of public accountability.

The episode also raises questions about the prime minister’s communication priorities. A government is judged by its record, the transparency of its decisions, its relationship with Parliament and the services it delivers to citizens. Political sarcasm may briefly energise supporters, but it does not resolve questions of policy or governance. A prime minister need not respond to every criticism. But dismissing a question about a constitutional institution with sarcasm is not an acceptable answer. The questions a government chooses to address—and those it chooses to ignore—reveal its priorities.

What is needed now is not a personal exchange of barbs but clear evidence. The prime minister’s parliamentary attendance record should be made public. The government’s participation in parliamentary proceedings and the prime minister’s engagement with the legislature should be regular and transparent. The question raised by Thapa deserves an answer from the prime minister, supported by attendance records, an account of his participation in parliamentary business and a commitment for the future. Citizens can then assess both the criticism and the response on the basis of facts.

The prime minister may take pride in the improvements made at Khula Manch. But that achievement cannot substitute for an answer to questions about Parliament. Managing a public space well is one aspect of governance; accountability to Parliament is a foundation of democratic responsibility. The most effective response to criticism from a prime minister is not to mock the critic, but to answer the question through his actions, public record and conduct towards institutions.