Submit your Article

The CPN-UML’s decision to expel senior leader Bhim Rawal and strip Binda Pandey and Usha Kiran Timsena of their responsibilities has once again exposed the fragile state of intra-party democracy in Nepal’s political parties. The three leaders were penalized for opposing the party’s controversial acceptance of a land donation from businessman Min Bahadur Gurung, who is under government scrutiny for tax evasion.

Rawal’s expulsion is the culmination of years of tension with party leadership, stemming from his candidacy against KP Sharma Oli for party chairperson post in 2021. Pandey and Timsena, regarded as intellectuals within the party, have consistently scrutinized party decisions through a critical lens. Defending the move, senior UML leaders argue that penalizing dissenters is necessary to maintain discipline and prevent anarchism. However, political scientists and the public are unconvinced, seeing it as a severe blow to the already fragile intra-party democracy.

As the UML chair, Oli has consolidated power to the extent that dissent within the party is almost nonexistent. Since his rise to leadership in 2015, he has strengthened his control, leaving no significant factions to challenge him. Leaders who once opposed him, such as Madhav Kumar Nepal and Jhala Nath Khanal, have already left the party to form the CPN (Unified Socialist). Rawal’s candidacy against Oli in 2021 was a rare act of defiance.

In a Facebook post defending the party’s recent actions, General Secretary Shankar Pokharel shared a statement emphasizing party discipline. While party leaders frame their decisions as a matter of maintaining order, public discourse has shifted to the broader implications for intra-party democracy. The UML’s decision to accept Gurung’s land donation is particularly contentious. Despite a favorable Supreme Court verdict, some within the party believe that funds for party buildings should come from member contributions rather than external donations. Pandey has openly stated her opposition, criticizing the lack of internal consultation before the party’s decision to accept the donation.

The challenges facing the UML are not unique. Intra-party democracy in Nepal’s major political parties is notoriously weak. Most parties are dominated by a single leader who dictates the party’s direction and enforces strict adherence to decisions. Internal deliberations are rare, and dissenting voices are often punished as violations of party discipline. This autocratic culture stifles debate and innovation, ultimately harming the parties and the democratic process.

Nepali Congress (NC) leader Nain Singh Mahar emphasizes robust intra-party democracy as a prerequisite for a thriving national democracy. The suppression of dissent has historically led to splits within Nepal’s political parties. The UML’s split in 2021, when Nepal, Khanal and others formed a new party, is a prominent example. Similarly, the CPN (Maoist Center) has experienced multiple splits, while the NC itself has a history of intolerance toward dissenting voices, forcing many leaders to leave over the years.

The suppression of dissent within parties often leads to long-term consequences. In the case of the UML, the lack of dialogue and inclusivity has eroded trust among members and weakened the party’s internal cohesion. Political analysts argue that the leadership should prioritize fostering an environment where differing opinions are valued and debated rather than silenced. A healthy democracy within parties is essential not only for their survival but also for strengthening democratic norms in the country as a whole.

The broader implications of weak intra-party democracy extend beyond individual parties. When political organizations fail to uphold democratic principles internally, they are less likely to champion these values in governance. This creates a vicious cycle where authoritarian practices within parties translate into autocratic tendencies in national politics.

For Nepal’s democracy to thrive, analysts say political parties must evolve into institutions that encourage participation, debate and accountability. Without these reforms, the cycle of suppressing dissent and fragmenting political entities is likely to continue, undermining the country’s democratic aspirations.

Gaushala, Dec 27

On a chilly winter morning, I entered a tea shop in Gaushala for a hot cup of tea. The establishment was already abuzz with banters shared over steaming cups. I noticed six people inside. Most appeared to be regulars—devotees visiting the Pashupatinath temple, I reckoned.

In one corner of the shop, four men were engrossed in a discussion about public transport and traffic rules in Kathmandu Valley. Two of them were bus drivers, and the other two were taxi drivers. One bus driver explained that he transports school children for a private school during the morning and evening hours while operating on regular routes at other times. “During office hours, many buses are busy ferrying school children. That’s why people are left stranded, waiting endlessly at bus stops,” one of the taxi drivers remarked.

The group agreed that schools should not be allowed to use public vehicles, as it causes inconvenience for commuters. They also discussed how much money could be earned working for private schools. However, the bus driver noted that the school had not paid the bus owner for months.

The conversation then shifted to traffic rules. One taxi driver complained that large buses create chaos for smaller vehicles and motorbikes, but the traffic police ignore them. “If we make even a minor mistake, we are penalized immediately. But buses break lanes, cause accidents, and intimidate smaller vehicles. They’re practically immune to the rules,” he claimed.

The four spoke openly and candidly, unbothered by the presence of others in the shop. One of them said, “There is a nexus between the umbrella organization of public buses, the traffic police, and politicians. That’s why the traffic rules remain unenforced and ineffective.”

Another man entered the tea shop and ordered black tea without sugar. He asked the group, “Will they send him (Rabi Lamichhane) to jail for money laundering?” No one responded. He continued, stating that leaders of the Nepali Congress, CPN-UML, and CPN (Maoist Centre) had amassed more wealth than Lamichhane and couldn’t explain the sources of their income. One man agreed, arguing that proper investigations would reveal that almost all politicians would end up in jail for money laundering due to the lack of transparency in their earnings. “They live luxurious lives and have amassed huge wealth—what is the source of their income?” he questioned.

At another table, a man was reading the news about political parties’ plans to amend the constitution. “Parties say they are amending the constitution to ensure political stability. However, it’s the political parties, not the constitution, that are responsible for instability,” he said, adding that conflicting opinions among the parties had prevented a consensus on amendments. Others in the tea shop remained silent, seemingly unfamiliar with the details of constitutional changes.

Another hot topic was the ruling UML’s decision to take disciplinary action against Bhim Rawal, Binda Pandey, and Usha Kiran Timalsina for dissenting over the party’s decision to accept land donations from businessman Min Bahadur Gurung. The party expelled Rawal from general membership and suspended Pandey and Timalsina for six months.

The tea shop was sharply divided on this issue. One man, likely a UML sympathizer, defended the move, arguing that party members must adhere to discipline and not oppose the official line. Another man disagreed, stating that leadership in a major party like UML should tolerate dissenting voices. “You cannot expect all leaders and cadres to share the same views in a large party like UML. Suppressing dissent will weaken the party’s strength,” he argued.

The discussion then shifted to Foreign Minister Arzu Rana Deuba’s recent visits to Europe and India. One man pointed out that during her previous visit to India, the minister had met Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and other high-ranking officials. However, this time, she failed to meet any government officials. He claimed this reflected strained relations between the two countries under the current government.

Another man disagreed, questioning why Nepal’s prime minister would need India’s support at all. Yet another offered a reflective perspective: “Why do our leaders go abroad without sufficient preparation for high-level visits? If she went for health reasons, as has been claimed, she shouldn’t have addressed public programs.”

One participant added that despite the prime minister’s claim of an impending visit to India, Rana’s visit suggested otherwise. He speculated that India might be displeased after Prime Minister Oli’s decision to visit China first and sign the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) framework agreement.

The 1950s were a transformative period in Nepal’s history, marked by significant changes both domestically and internationally. The end of the 104-year Rana autocracy ushered in a democratic era. Following the restoration of democracy in 1950, successive governments began implementing policy changes aimed at reshaping various facets of society.

Internationally, this decade was characterized by geopolitical shifts. India had recently gained independence, Pakistan emerged as a new state, and China asserted control over Tibet, which shares Nepal’s northern border. The rise of the Communist Party in China further altered the region’s dynamics. During this time, Nepal signed the Peace and Friendship Treaty 1950 with India, establishing a foundational framework for bilateral relations that remains influential today. As Nepal’s importance grew for both India and China, it also attracted attention from Western powers, particularly the United States. Breaking away from its prolonged isolation, Nepal embraced an open-door policy, receiving reciprocal interest from major global actors.

Domestically, Nepal faced numerous challenges. The absence of established institutions and policies essential for democratic governance hindered progress. Political parties were in their infancy, lacking the experience necessary to manage the aspirations of a transitioning society. To address the needs of the people, Nepal began dismantling its feudal policies and institutions, laying the groundwork for social, economic, and structural reforms.

Despite the abundance of literature on Nepal’s modern political history, much of the existing research tends to focus on prominent events, individuals, and familiar narratives. A new publication, Nepal in the Long 1950s, by Martin Chautari—a Kathmandu-based think tank—offers a fresh perspective on this critical period. Edited by Pratyoush Onta, Lokranjan Parajuli, and Mark Liechty, the book moves beyond the conventional focus on political milestones, delving into nuanced social and cultural dimensions that provide a broader understanding of the era.

The editors frame their exploration of the “Long 1950s” within the theoretical lens of French historian Fernand Braudel, who argued that history is shaped by enduring structural forces rather than discrete events or individuals. By situating Nepal’s transitions within broader regional and global contexts, the book sheds light on how internal developments were influenced by external dynamics and vice versa.

The ten chapters in Nepal in the Long 1950s examine diverse aspects of the decade’s transformation. For instance, Prawash Gautam’s chapter explores the rise of Kathmandu tea shops as public spheres, illustrating how these spaces fostered public opinion and supported pro-democracy movements during the decline of the Rana regime. Bandana Gyawali examines the ideological shift from “progress” to “development” in state policies, reflecting broader societal transformations. Peter Gill provides an in-depth analysis of land reform debates, arguing that legislative efforts were not inevitable outcomes of the 1950 revolution but the result of dynamic political processes involving a range of actors.

In another chapter, Onta investigates the short-lived Nepal Sanskritik Parishad, presenting it as part of a utopian cultural revival project in post-Rana Nepal. Sharad Ghimire discusses the 1954 floods, emphasizing how the disaster legitimized the state’s bureaucratic expansion and foreign aid initiatives, particularly in Chitwan’s Rapti Valley. Parajuli examines the founding of Tribhuvan University, analyzing the interplay of internal and external forces in shaping Nepal’s oldest and largest academic institution.

The second section of the book, titled “The World in Nepal,” shifts focus to the influence of foreign specialists, institutions, ideologies, and tourism on Nepal during this transformative decade. These chapters illustrate how global forces interacted with local contexts to reshape the nation’s development trajectory.

By combining previously published works with new contributions, Nepal in the Long 1950s offers an interdisciplinary approach to understanding this pivotal decade. It moves beyond conventional political history to provide fresh insights into the social, cultural, and geopolitical dimensions of mid-20th-century Nepal. This compilation is a significant addition to the study of Nepal’s modern history, offering readers a deeper and more nuanced understanding of a transformative period.

When the Nepali Congress (NC) and the CPN-UML formed a coalition in July this year, they announced plans to review and amend the constitution, which has governed the country for a decade. This declaration not only stirred national politics but also captured the attention of external actors with a vested interest in Nepal’s constitutional framework. These international stakeholders, having invested significantly in crafting what they saw as a progressive charter, are eager to discern the nature and scope of the proposed amendments.

Domestically, the proposal has elicited a range of responses. The CPN (Maoist Center) and Madhes-based parties have warned against regressive changes, cautioning the coalition not to undermine federalism or inclusion whereas the royalist Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP) is optimistic that the NC and UML might align with their agenda of dismantling federal structures and reinstating Nepal as a Hindu state. Recognizing the issue's sensitivity, NC and UML leaders have taken a cautious approach, repeatedly affirming their commitment to federalism and secularism. They are wary of destabilizing the political environment and mindful that any mishandling of the amendment process could spark unrest.

After six months of deliberation, the coalition has initiated groundwork for potential amendments. Leaders emphasize that this does not signal immediate changes but rather the beginning of a meticulous and inclusive process. A task force has been established to draft a base document, incorporating input from various sectors of society and analyzing the constitution's perceived shortcomings since its promulgation in 2015. Nepal’s constitution has undergone only two amendments: the first in 2016, addressing Madhes-based parties’ demands and resolving India's blockade, and the second in 2020, incorporating Nepal’s updated political map.

Home Minister Ramesh Lekhak has clarified that the amendment process will not unfold overnight. According to him, the task force will first identify areas requiring changes before engaging other political parties for broader consultations. The primary objective, he noted, is to enhance political stability. Leaders from both the NC and UML argue that the current electoral system, which combines First-Past-the-Post (FPTP) and Proportional Representation (PR), is inherently flawed. They propose transitioning to a purely FPTP system for electing members of the House of Representatives while addressing inclusion through alternative mechanisms. This proposal has strong backing within the two ruling parties but faces stiff opposition from the Maoist Center and Madhes-based parties, who advocate for a fully proportional representation system.

Proponents of electoral reform within the NC and UML contend that the existing mixed system inhibits the likelihood of a single-party majority, perpetuating coalition governments and political instability. They argue that a streamlined electoral framework is essential for fostering governance continuity. However, achieving consensus on this issue remains a daunting task. Opposition parties have expressed deep reservations, and even within the NC and UML, some factions are cautious about pushing too hard on electoral reform without broader support.

Federalism has also emerged as a contentious topic. Within the NC and UML, voices are growing louder for a re-evaluation of Nepal’s federal structure. While senior leaders have publicly reaffirmed their commitment to the existing model, many within their ranks argue that provincial structures are inefficient and should be dismantled. They believe resources would be better allocated by strengthening local and central governments. Yet, this proposition is staunchly opposed by the Maoist Center and Madhes-based parties, who view federalism as a cornerstone of Nepal’s inclusive democratic framework.

The issue of secularism adds another layer of complexity. There appears to be a tacit agreement among key leaders—Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, NC President Sher Bahadur Deuba and Maoist Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal—that the secular provision could be revisited. However, none of them is willing to openly champion this controversial change. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in India, a long-time critic of Nepal’s secular status, has reportedly lobbied for its removal. According to insiders, even Dahal has privately signaled to BJP leaders that he might support scrapping secularism if Oli and Deuba also endorse the move.

In addition to these major issues, the task force is expected to examine other constitutional provisions based on a decade of implementation. These may include judicial reforms, provisions for decentralization and mechanisms to ensure greater accountability within state institutions. The goal, according to NC General Secretary Gagan Kumar Thapa, is to address the coalition-driven nature of current governance. Thapa emphasizes that the amendments aim to pave the way for single-party governments that can function effectively for a fixed term, reducing the instability caused by frequent coalition changes.

As the NC and UML prepare to move forward, opposition parties are not sitting idle. The Maoist Center and Madhes-based parties are reportedly conducting internal deliberations to solidify their positions on constitutional amendments. They are expected to challenge the ruling coalition’s proposals, particularly on issues related to federalism, inclusion and electoral reform.

Ultimately, the success of the constitution amendment process hinges on the durability of the NC-UML coalition. Despite ideological differences, the two parties have demonstrated a pragmatic approach, focusing on maintaining their alliance. From parliamentary cooperation to task forces on governance and foreign policy, they are working to align their priorities. However, their ability to achieve meaningful reforms will depend on forging consensus with other political forces and navigating a complex web of domestic and international expectations.

Nepal’s constitution, taken as a landmark achievement in 2015, faces its most significant test yet.

Who will succeed Nepali Congress (NC) President Sher Bahadur Deuba? This question dominates discussions within the party as Deuba’s tenure nears its end. According to the party statute, he cannot contest for a third term, setting the stage for what is expected to be a fierce competition among senior leaders to take up the party’s mantle.

Senior party figures have already begun internal lobbying and consultations. The stakes are high, as the NC faces increasing public dissatisfaction with its leadership. This discontent is not unique to the NC; major political parties across Nepal are under scrutiny for their inability to deliver on public expectations. The choice of the next NC president is being watched closely, not only domestically but also internationally. The party’s rank and file is  yearning for a dynamic leader who can revitalize its organizational structure and restore public trust, which has eroded significantly over the past few years amid the rise of new political forces.

Deuba has so far refrained from signaling any preference for his successor and is expected to maintain this neutrality. In a recent interaction with the media in Biratnagar, he dismissed speculations about endorsing a candidate, stating that the party’s general convention will decide the new leadership. However, his inner circle—leaders like Purna Bahadur Khadka, Bimalendra Nidhi and Prakash Man Singh—are all keen to secure his endorsement. Another potential contender, Bal Krishna Khand, was once considered a strong candidate but has faded into the background due to his alleged involvement in the fake Bhutanese refugee scandal. For now, none of these leaders have formally announced their candidacy, but behind-the-scenes maneuvering is intensifying.

Among these figures, Khadka stands out for his loyalty, as he has never openly challenged Deuba’s leadership whereas Nidhi and Singh have previously contested against Deuba, alongside Shekhar Koirala, in the party’s 14th General Convention. During the second round of that election, Nidhi and Singh strategically supported Deuba, helping him defeat Koirala. As a gesture of gratitude, Deuba later backed Singh’s spouse, Srijana Singh, as the NC candidate for Kathmandu Mayor in the local elections.

Singh currently holds the influential positions of Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Urban Development. Nidhi, despite a history of strained ties with Deuba after contesting for the presidency, is actively seeking to mend fences. He argues that his seniority and status as a prominent Madhesi leader make him a deserving candidate. However, his task is far from easy, as he must navigate both internal rivalries and the broader dynamics of party politics.

From the anti-Deuba camp, two prominent leaders—Shekhar Koirala and Gagan Thapa—are gearing up for the race. Koirala has already launched a nationwide campaign to bolster his candidacy. In contrast, Thapa is taking a more calculated approach, weighing his moves carefully to avoid jeopardizing his relationship with Deuba. Over the years, the two have found common ground on several issues, which has eased tensions between them. Deuba has even publicly praised Thapa’s contributions within and beyond the party, signaling a certain level of mutual respect.

At the same time, there is speculation that Deuba is working to elevate his spouse, Arzu Rana Deuba, to a senior party position—possibly vice-president—during the upcoming 15th General Convention. This potential move adds another layer of complexity to the ongoing leadership contest, as it could shift internal alliances.

Koirala, for his part, remains vocal in his criticism of the party’s leadership and the government’s performance. Thapa, in contrast, has adopted a more measured tone, carefully calibrating his public statements to preserve his rapport with Deuba. Despite his relatively weak organizational base, Thapa enjoys strong support among the party’s youth, who view him as a symbol of hope and renewal. His popularity among younger members gives him a distinct advantage, even as he faces challenges in consolidating his position within the broader party structure.

It remains unclear whether Koirala and Thapa will form another alliance, as they did in the 14th convention, or choose to compete independently. In the previous convention, their alliance saw Koirala lose the presidency while Thapa secured his position as general secretary. This time, both leaders are carefully weighing their options. All prospective candidates are eager to secure Deuba’s endorsement, given his strong influence over the party’s Central Working Committee, provincial structures and local levels. However, Deuba’s silence on the matter has left many in his camp anxious.

Candidates like Koirala and Thapa have reportedly reached out to Deuba’s allies, offering positions in their potential leadership teams to win support. Yet, insiders say Deuba is likely to remain non-committal until the eleventh hour, a strategy that could leave his faction in a state of uncertainty. As the NC moves closer to this crucial juncture, the party’s leadership race promises to be a defining moment for its future.

Dec 19, Balkot, Bhaktapur

“This country will never improve, believe me,” a man declared as I entered the teashop. His voice, laden with frustration, carried across the room. “People are suffering endlessly—corruption is rampant, and those aligned with the major political parties are getting richer, while people like us continue to struggle.”

The conversation quickly shifted to Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) Chairperson Rabi Lamichhane, turning the teashop into a lively arena of debate. “Look,” one man said in Lamichhane’s defense, “the media allegations about his unusual bank transactions have already been proven baseless. His wife clarified they’re just repaying a home loan in installments.”

Not everyone was convinced. Another participant retorted, “The details of the ongoing police investigation are still unclear. Let’s not jump to conclusions.”

Since starting this column, I’ve noticed Kathmandu Mayor Balendra Shah rarely faces criticism, while opinions on Lamichhane remain sharply divided. In this teashop, too, some argued that Nepali Congress and CPN-UML supporters were targeting Lamichhane out of political vendetta, while others accused him of involvement in cooperative fraud.

The discussion veered towards the apparent disinterest of Nepali youth in politics. “Young people in their 20s today have no understanding of the political movements of 2006-2007, or even the contributions of Nepali Congress and CPN-UML,” commented a participant who seemed educated and politically aware.

According to him, the younger generation’s detachment stems from the lack of coverage of Nepal’s significant democratic milestones—like the movements of 1950, 1980, 1990, and 2006—in the school curriculum. “They don’t value democracy because they’ve never experienced autocracy,” he stated, as others listened in reflective silence.

He reminisced about his college days when campuses were vibrant political hubs. “Now, private colleges are politically apathetic. Government colleges still show some awareness, but it’s fading fast,” he said with concern.

Another voice in the room offered a starkly different perspective. “The root of Nepal’s problems lies in the end of the Panchayat regime in 1990 and the premature establishment of democracy,” he asserted. Democracy, he claimed, deeply politicized Nepali society and fractured its unity. “Before 1990, we were united. Our forefathers helped one another, and there was a sense of community. Now, politics has divided us.”

While some nodded in agreement, others appeared skeptical, challenging his romanticized portrayal of the past.

As expected, the conversation shifted again, this time to the escalating trend of youth migration for education and employment abroad. Most blamed political instability and job scarcity, but one person took a different stance. “It’s not just unemployment,” he said. “Today’s youth migrate for luxury. They see the affluence of wealthy countries and dream of that lifestyle, even if they can earn well here.”

He argued that migration is a global phenomenon, not limited to Nepal. “Even in countries like China and India, youth are leaving. Job creation and political stability might not solve this entirely,” he said, expressing concern over Nepal’s ageing population. “Soon, countries like Japan, South Korea, and Germany, which face their own ageing crises, will offer attractive packages to lure our workers.”

Another participant turned the focus to internal migration and its consequences. “As people flock to Kathmandu for education and jobs, fertile land in villages is being abandoned,” he lamented. “If another crisis like Covid-19 forces us back to the villages, we’ll face severe problems with no food to sustain us.”

The discussion also touched on the rampant spread of misinformation. One man claimed Prime Minister Oli had been attacked during a visit to Banepa, only to be contradicted by another participant who called the video fake. “How can it be fake when there’s a video?” another argued, illustrating the confusion sowed by unverified information.

The topic then shifted to a recent video of UML leader Surya Thapa, head of the parliamentary probe panel investigating cooperative fraud. In the video, widely shared on social media, Thapa defended Rabi Lamichhane, stating no evidence linked him to the cooperative scandal. The debate over the authenticity of such claims reflected the broader challenge of discerning truth in a digitally driven society.

Since Sept 2019, the United States has provided over $700m in foreign aid through programs administered by the US Department of State and USAID. These aid initiatives have focused on health, economic growth, democracy and governance, and food security, according to a spokesperson for the US Department of State.

The US is committed to deepening its long-standing partnership with Nepal in supporting its democratic resiliency, promoting economic opportunity, and protecting and advancing its sovereignty, the Spokesperson  said in an email interview.  “Our robust people-to-people ties are the cornerstone of our relationship, fostering friendship, understanding, trust, and goodwill.”

According to the Spokesperson , the $500m Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) Compact, along with the Government of Nepal’s additional $197m contribution, is another great example of the US commitment to Nepal.  The Spokesperson said the MCC projects will bring high quality, green energy and improved roads to the people of Nepal to power continued economic growth. “$260m in US International Development Finance Corporation loans and equity investments will support agricultural and small and medium sized enterprises, particularly women-run enterprises.”

With the re-election of Donland Trump as president of America, foreign policy watchers in Nepal and India are keenly watching whether there will be any changes in US policy toward South Asia and Nepal. The Spokesperson  assuaged the doubt by stating that the US do not have any changes in policy to announce at this point of time. Nepal recently signed the Cooperation Framework for Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), raising eyebrows in New Delhi and Washington. Both New Delhi and Washington have advised Nepal to accept the support under BRI in a transparent way to prevent debt burden.

Commenting on Nepal’s BRI agreement, the Spokesperson said, “It is up to the Government of Nepal to determine which agreements and partnership will benefit its people.” He, however, added that such partnership between two countries should be open, transparent, and mutually beneficial. That is the basis of our partnership with Nepal, and we will continue to seek opportunities to support Nepal’s ongoing development efforts.

During Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli’s visit to China on Dec 2-5, the two sides came up with a statement which has been a topic of discussions in the political and diplomatic circles. The statement says that Nepal firmly supports China’s efforts to achieve its national reunification and opposes Taiwan’s independence.

Though the issue of Taiwan independence and shift from one China policy to one China principle was mentioned in the joint statement during former Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal’s China visit last year, China’s “national reunification” effort is a new development.

Addressing this issue, the Spokesperson said that their approach to Taiwan has remained consistent across decades and administrations. “The United States has a longstanding one China policy, which is guided by the Taiwan Relations Act, the three Joint Communiques, and the Six Assurances.” The Spokesperson further added that their one China Policy is distinct from China’s one China principle. “We do not take a position on the ultimate resolution of Cross-Strait differences, and we maintain that Cross-Strait differences must be resolved peacefully, free from coercion, and in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” 

Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli continues to reassure his key coalition partner, the Nepali Congress (NC), that he will hand over the government leadership to its President, Sher Bahadur Deuba, after 18 months. Oli seems to be operating under a constant fear of betrayal by the NC. At the same time, a section of NC leaders doubts whether Oli will actually relinquish power, suspecting he might pivot to the CPN (Maoist Center) to revive the left alliance agenda for the upcoming elections.

Every other day, Prime Minister Oli, his ministers, and senior party leaders publicly declare that the coalition will endure until 2027 and that no external force can topple it. On Sunday, Shankar Pokharel, General Secretary of the CPN-UML, stated that the government is strong and will remain stable unless one of the coalition partners decides to break it. On Monday, Home Minister Ramesh Lekhak echoed similar sentiments, asserting there are no immediate threats to the coalition. For now, Deuba appears committed to maintaining the alliance, hopeful of assuming the premiership in 18 months. Upon his return from a five-day official visit to China on December 5, Prime Minister Oli reaffirmed that there are no significant differences between the NC and UML and that Deuba would become Prime Minister with UML’s backing after the agreed period.

There was initial dissatisfaction within the NC over the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) deal with China. Some NC leaders argued the deal contradicted the party’s position that Nepal should only accept grants under the BRI framework. However, the contention subsided after Deuba strongly defended the agreement. The deal’s inclusion of “aid financing,” which encompasses both grants and loans, stirred concerns that it paves the way for Nepal to take loans. Prior to Oli’s China visit, BRI was a major point of contention between the two coalition partners. However, they managed to resolve their differences by forming a joint task force. As a compromise, both China and Nepal agreed to “aid financing” as the investment modality for infrastructure projects under the BRI.

Senior NC leaders are now defending the government to protect their positions, as any coalition reshuffle could jeopardize their roles. Deuba, too, seems reluctant to alter the coalition, as a new arrangement might not guarantee him the premiership. Meanwhile, CPN (Maoist Center) Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal has reportedly been communicating through multiple channels to assure Deuba of his party’s unconditional support for an NC-led coalition until the next elections. This is contingent on NC’s willingness to forge an electoral alliance. Key NC leaders, including Vice-chairman Purna Bahadur Khadka, are said to be in constant talks with Dahal, exploring the feasibility of such a coalition.

A few weeks ago, NC General Secretary Gagan Kumar Thapa leaked information about potential coalition talks, prompting Dahal to quickly dismiss the claims, stating he had not proposed a new coalition to the NC. Sources, however, suggest that a potential coalition could include the NC, CPN (Maoist Center), Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), CPN (Unified Socialist), and Madhes-based parties. This coalition would likely function as an “election government.” Many political leaders believe abrupt changes in the coalition remain a possibility for two main reasons. First, Dahal publicly criticized the government’s “retaliatory action” against RSP Chairman Rabi Lamichhane, signaling potential collaboration. Second, Dahal appears to be consolidating his political base, raising questions about the coalition’s stability.

A section of NC leaders believes that Oli’s signing of the BRI deal with China has strained his relationship with New Delhi. They argue that the current coalition was formed against India’s preferences. Although the BRI agreement does not include sensitive provisions, New Delhi has historically opposed the initiative. While India has not officially reacted to the Nepal-China BRI agreement, its discontent remains implicit. Recognizing this, Prime Minister Oli is actively working to mend ties with New Delhi, hoping to stabilize the coalition.

Meanwhile, dissatisfaction with the government’s performance is also growing. Although the coalition appears strong in numbers, its inability to deliver on promises has drawn criticism. Both Prime Minister Oli and Deuba publicly downplay these differences, with Deuba defending the government’s performance. However, within the NC, senior leaders like Shekhar Koirala have begun voicing concerns about the government’s functioning.

Political analysts suggest that the coalition’s fate largely hinges on internal dynamics within the NC. While Deuba maintains strong control over the party’s parliamentary and central committees, efforts are underway to undermine his authority. For this to succeed, leaders like Thapa and Koirala would need to join forces. Some NC insiders predict that Deuba may eventually face pressure to reconsider his alliance with Oli. However, it remains unclear why ministers and senior leaders continue to issue reassurances about the coalition’s longevity.