Kathmandu : Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli has lashed out at Supreme Court judges and intellectuals from top leaders of the five-party opposition alliance . Prime Minister Oli, who is also the UML chairperson, spent most of his time criticizing Pushpa Kamal Dahal Prachanda, Madhav Kumar Nepal, Sher Bahadur Deuba and the court at a program organized by the Madan Bhandari Foundation at his official residence in Baluwatar on Monday. Most of all, Oli was provoked towards his former colleague Madhav Nepal.

During his address, Oli criticized his party’s senior leader Madhav Kumar Nepal’s working style and political behavior in detail.

Oli testified that none of the leaders of the opposition, constitutional bodies and intellectuals were on the right track. Like the main part of Oli’s statement :

1. Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’

• Prachanda said that the king is better than the current president. People were surprised. Why does a surprised lizard change color one at a time? If it turns gray, it will turn gray. If you go to another green, it turns green. If you reach the place where there is a little black goat, it turns black. The lizard changes color.

When will he form a ‘comfortable government’? What are our democratic neighbors looking at? Why not intervene. When will I bring a republic? Sometimes a monarchy is better than a republic. When does he massacre the Nepali people by bringing weapons from abroad ?

• Now it is being discussed in the Supreme Court of Prachandapath. Why should the kings of France and Britain be cut off as the current president and prime minister did, or should the current president and prime minister be cut off?
• It is surprising that the parties with democratic history are following the Prachandapath by appointing such people as teachers.
• 2. Madhav Kumar Nepal

• ‘I said a long time ago. Madhav Nepal is a useless activist of Prachanda. But what they are boasting about is that Prime Minister KP Oli has proposed me as the Prime Minister.
• Am I bitten by a mad dog? Will KP Oli propose to such people without getting any job or meeting any people?
• In a way, they are the tail of Prachanda.

• If the animal turns to the east, the tail is to the west; if it turns to the west, it is to the east returns. What happens next? If he goes here, he will stay there later. If I go to the Congress, I will follow it later.

• There is a man named Madhav Nepal who is running backside of the Nepali Congress. Almost everyone knows about Nepal’s politics now. Because there is a lot of talk that people can fall so far.

• His party will form a government led by the main opposition ! To move to the other side to end the communist movement and to walk as a senior leader of the CPN-UML. The discussion of such a shy person is not only positive but also negative. Not only Gandhi but also Nathuram Godse is mentioned.

• There is a limit to shamelessness!

3. Sher Bahadur Deuba

• Nepali Congress leaders have reached the level of searching for Nathuram Godse, if they are not found during the search, they will be on their own.
• Sher Bahadurji’s desire to be the Prime Minister again, he left the democratic path. He gave up the trust of the people and picked up some fake tricks and paved the way for becoming the Prime Minister through artificial undemocratic means.
• But, it would have happened from the parliament, it should have happened from the end.

• He told the people to go. What was the proposal to go to the people? The Nepali Congress has forgotten who it is ? I would like to ask Sher Bahadur Deubaji – what was February 1st (Magh 19, 2061 BS, coup of the then King Gyanendra) ?

-What was the incident of Ashwin 18 ? who unconstitutionally overthrew an elected Prime Minister? Who was or was not? Didn’t he have the courage to say the word ‘coup’ at that time? ‘

• Now when it comes to the constitutional issue of going among the people, what is meant is regression ? He even borrowed Prachanda’s language and made it his own. Feel sorry A party with a history of a democratic movement is surprised to see Prachanda in this way.

4.Judge and court

• Surprisingly, the Supreme Court did not stop the violence in its statement.

-Justices should not even suggest that you do not incite such violence in court or that you, the learned Mr. advocates, should keep your statement ?