KATHMANDU: Rastriya Prajatantra Party lawmaker Gyanendra Shahi has strongly objected in Parliament to the controversial remarks made by Prime Minister Balen Shah, demanding that the Prime Minister himself provide a clear and satisfactory explanation to the House and the public.
Speaking during Wednesday’s House session, Shahi clarified that there was no personal hostility toward the Prime Minister but insisted that accountability must come directly from him over the issue.
Referring to the Foreign Minister’s clarification in Parliament in defence of the Prime Minister, Shahi termed the situation an unusual and reverse practice in both Nepal’s and global political history. He said that while normally a Prime Minister corrects ministers’ mistakes, in this case a minister was seen defending and explaining the Prime Minister’s controversial remarks, which he described as unfortunate.
Shahi also demanded that the controversial expression be removed from the parliamentary record, arguing that the issue was not merely political but directly linked to national territory and sovereignty. He said deleting the statement would help preserve institutional dignity and prevent it from being recorded as an official part of parliamentary history.
The lawmaker stressed that the border issue is not limited to Kathmandu’s political debate but directly affects citizens living in frontier areas. He said people in districts like Darchula continue to face hardships related to border tensions while discussions remain confined to the capital.
He also raised concerns over the long-term implications of the Prime Minister’s remarks, questioning what would happen in the future if such statements weakened Nepal’s position in sensitive geopolitical matters. He warned against treating national issues lightly and urged the Prime Minister to appear in Parliament, correct his statement, and take responsibility.
Shahi further cautioned that national interests should not be compromised, stressing that any misinterpretation or weak diplomatic stance could have serious consequences in the future.
Comment