CPN-UML Slams Nepal’s Upcoming Budget as Irresponsible and Unrealistic

The CPN-UML has sharply criticized the government’s upcoming fiscal year budget, calling it irresponsible, unrealistic, and out of touch with public expectations. The party says the proposal does not reflect the urgency of national transformation despite the government’s two-thirds majority.

At a parliamentary party meeting held at Singha Durbar on Saturday, Chief Whip Ain Bahadur Mahar said the budget failed to address the aspirations of citizens and did not show the kind of planning expected from a government with such strong parliamentary backing.

UML says the budget misses the mark

According to the party’s assessment, the budget is not only weak in design but also immature in its priorities. The UML argues that it overlooks the interests of poor and marginalized groups, raising questions about whether the government has truly understood the country’s social and economic pressures.

The criticism adds political heat to a budget season already shaped by anticipation and scrutiny. The Council of Ministers had approved the budget for fiscal year 2026/27 just a day earlier, setting up the next stage of parliamentary debate and public reaction.

Focus on expectations, not just numbers

The UML’s comments suggest that the dispute is about more than spending figures. The party is framing the budget as a test of political responsibility, arguing that a large governing majority should deliver a more ambitious and inclusive plan.

Chief Whip Mahar’s remarks point to a broader opposition message: a budget must do more than allocate funds. It must also signal direction, confidence, and fairness, especially for communities that feel left behind in national development plans.

What happens next

With the budget now approved by the Cabinet, attention is shifting to parliamentary discussion and the political battle over its priorities. The UML’s reaction suggests the opposition will press the government on whether the budget is capable of supporting meaningful economic and social transformation.

That debate is likely to center on whether the government has balanced ambition with realism, and whether its fiscal plan can genuinely serve the country’s most vulnerable populations.