The meeting of the House of Representatives has been adjourned till September 15 after lawmakers from the main opposition CPN (Maoist Centre) and ruling CPN-UML took to scathing attack against each other over the use of ‘violence’ to refer to the Maoist insurgency.

Following Speaker Devraj Ghimire’s announcement that the term ‘violence,’ used by CPN-UML lawmaker Yogesh Kumar Bhattarai during the House of Representatives meeting on August 28 is not considered unparliamentary and will not be expunged from the parliament’s records, the main opposition party lawmakers strongly protested against Ghimire.

During Wednesday’s meeting, Speaker Ghimire clarified that the word ‘violence’ does not qualify to be termed unparliamentary based on the parliamentary regulations 2022, the discussions held during the meeting of the Business Advisory Committee of the lower house on September 3, and the opinion of the secretariat. Therefore, it would not be removed from the official record, he said.

Following this, Maoist Centre lawmakers stood up from their seats in protest against the Speaker’s ruling. Tensions rose between the main opposition and Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli’s party leading to the session being adjourned until September 15.

The controversy started when UML lawmaker Yogesh Bhattarai used the term ‘Maoist violence’ on August 28, prompting Hitraj Pandey, chief whip of the Maoist Centre, to demand its removal from the parliamentary records.

“Maoist Chief Whip Hit Raj Pandey requested for the removal of the term ‘violence’ used by Yogesh Kumar Bhattarai on August 28, claiming it was unparliamentary,” Speaker Ghimire explained. “However, based on the regulations and the suggestion of the secretariat, the term is not deemed unparliamentary, so it will not be expunged from the records.”

The Speaker however urged the lawmakers to be more mindful of the words they use during parliamentary discussions. “Figurative words used in speeches often spark debates. I urge everyone to be more careful in choosing their words,” Speaker Ghimire appealed.

In response, Maoist Chief Whip Pandey raised concerns, questioning whether the words used in parliament can be different from those enshrined in the constitution.

“The constitution is the supreme law. It has used terms such as people’s war and people's movement [to refer to the Maoist insurgency]. The term violence contradicts the Constitution and the law. Should parliamentary language diverge from the constitution?” Pandey asked.

Later, Maoist Centre lawmaker Devendra Paudel also expressed objections, stating that using the word ‘violence’ in parliament contradicts the constitution and legal framework.

Following this, parliamentarians representing the main opposition party stood in protest, disrupting the session. “We strongly object to the term used by the Speaker,” Paudel said. “I urge that words which are against the spirit of the peace process should not be used.”

In the meantime, Mahesh Bartaula, UML chief whip, and Raghuji Pant of the same party defended the Speaker’s decision, arguing that the word ‘violence’ is not unparliamentary. A heated exchange followed between the lawmakers from the ruling UML and the main opposition party in the parliament.