Excerpts of an interview with government spokesman JP Gupta.
On the dissolution of local governance institutions and the "possibility" of donors stopping aid: Firstly, donors do not have [such a] mindset. They believe in independent local governance, that these institutions should be led by elected representatives, but not the same representatives whose elected terms have ended. Donors in Nepal know well that the parliamentary elections are being held in some months, and that if we are able to hold those elections, that would open the door for local elections in the near future. As the donors are assured of that, they don't have any negative feelings. The government has no desire to keep local institutions without elected representatives. The UML had won the elections in most VDCs, and has been hoping it could keep on the same representatives even after their terms expired, in order to use the resources to influence the elections for the party's benefit. From what moral ground does the UML speak when it asks for the extension of the term of local institutions, when at the same time it sees a violation of the election code the moment there is a political appointment in the centre? The same party that seems fine with the rule of secretaries in the centre sees possible misdoing when the same thing is done by independent administrators in order to take development forward at the local level. This shows the UML's double standards.