Let me first make it clear that I support ideas and not a particular political party. Today I saw the elections being held on T.V. Leaders spoke. The whole situation was ironical. Criminals were advocating for justice and the most corrupt ones asked the future prime-minister to work sincerely. It was like reading a very ironical Dickens book. No one really knew what they spoke about! They were saying things which could please a person who doesn’t know them but whatever they said was meaningless to themselves.

As a grade 9 student , I remember reading in my ‘Social Studies’ book that no one with any kind of criminal record can present oneself as a candidate for the election. In our case, we have a man condemned of murder winning the election .Surprisingly he also claims that he holds proof of another reputed leader being responsible for a series of bomb-blasts in the Terai (now often referred to as Madhesh). My teacher once told there is no ‘Madhesh ‘in Nepal: It is Terai we have. I quite liked what he said. When India has Madhyapradesh at center of its map; how can we have ‘Madhya- desh’ at the edge of our nation?

I also remember studying that no party can be based on particular group of people. A party must represent a particular ideology but a party representing a particular group of people is intolerable. If the parties based in Terai only claim to work for people of Terai then are they worthy of being given any position in the government? They represent a small part and the government should work for everybody: Himalis, Pahadis and people of Terai. It is referred to as government of Nepal not government of so called ‘Madhesh’.

So, a question undoubtedly arises-How did these parties and a person with criminal record get registered for election? What really was Election Commission doing? Was it that nobody knew the accords for registering for an election?? Very very surprising! Furthermore, two parties decided not to vote even when the speaker had informed that the voting was a compulsion. Having made so much of commitments to people during elections; how could they possibly do this? Choosing the right leader for Nepal would be its foremost responsibility. Wasn’t that what people entrusted them with. It was a little contribution they could make in a situation where they could not likely make any others.

So, what penalty are they going to face? Or are they not? Politics in Nepal is a book of ironies!