Submit your Article

Deputy General Secretary of the CPN (Maoist Centre), Janardhan Sharma, has challenged Chairperson Pushpa Kamal Dahal’s monopoly and continued leadership of the party. However, most members of the party’s Standing Committee have sided with Dahal, leaving Sharma politically isolated.

Sharma had hoped for internal support to break Dahal’s long-standing grip on the party. Instead, colleagues have urged him to issue a self-criticism for making internal matters public. His call for leadership change has now cost him his standing within the party. Like in the CPN-UML, senior Maoist leaders argue that Dahal should continue leading the party, citing his central role in the armed insurgency, the peace process, and the constitution-drafting effort.

Only a handful of leaders, such as Ram Karki and Parshuram Tamang, have echoed Sharma’s call for change. Both have proposed that Dahal assume a ceremonial role, transferring executive powers to the younger generation. Karki, in particular, has proposed a rotational leadership model, arguing that transitions in communist parties are often problematic. He cited historical examples, noting that even leaders like Lenin and Mao struggled with succession. Dahal, who has been at the party’s helm since the 1980s, shows no indication of stepping down.

“We should establish a leadership transition system while Chairperson Dahal is still healthy and active,” Karki said, emphasizing that his proposal does not seek to remove Dahal, but to place him in a respected role while others assume executive authority.

With party elections approaching, it is now almost certain that Dahal will be re-elected as chairman. Party leaders have warned against making statements that could undermine party unity. Dahal himself has accused "reactionary forces" of conspiring to divide the party since it entered mainstream politics in 2006. Earlier, he had challenged Sharma to leave the party if dissatisfied with his leadership.

A few weeks ago, Sharma made waves by saying that, with the exception of Manmohan Adhikari, all top communist leaders had accumulated significant wealth. At a party meeting, Sharma stated he was willing to self-criticize for his public remarks, on the condition that Dahal also take responsibility for the party’s collective failures.

He also proposed convening a special convention to elect new leadership. He accused Dahal of spreading rumors of a party split to suppress dissent. “We once had three million members. That has dropped to just one million. The leadership should self-criticize for that,” Sharma said. “If speaking about party reform violates policy, I’m ready to face the consequences.”

During the insurgency, leaders Mohan Baidya and Baburam Bhattarai had also challenged Dahal. Baidya left in 2012 to form a separate party, and Bhattarai followed in 2015 to establish a socialist party. Since then, Dahal has enjoyed a largely unchallenged monopoly. Narayan Kaji Shrestha briefly attempted to build a rival faction but lacked broad support, having joined the Maoist party only in 2009.

In recent years, Sharma has emerged as the most vocal challenger to Dahal’s leadership, but his efforts have so far been undermined by the lack of internal support. In response, Dahal has focused on unifying communist parties to consolidate his position. He is in talks with CPN (Unified Socialist) led by Madhav Kumar Nepal and has also reached out to smaller leftist groups.

Meanwhile, internal rivalries among second-rung leaders like Shrestha, Sharma, Agni Sapkota, and Barshaman Pun have only reinforced Dahal’s position, as none are willing to back each other as the next leader. They all seem more comfortable working under Dahal’s leadership.

At 70, Dahal has given no indication of retiring. The CPN-UML’s recent decision to remove the term limit for its top leader has created a favorable environment for Dahal to continue. As things stand, both KP Oli and Dahal are expected to remain at the top of their respective parties for at least another 5–10 years. In contrast, Nepali Congress President Sher Bahadur Deuba is set to retire in 2027, as party rules bar him from seeking a third term.

It has been exactly 109 years since the world’s first press council was established in Sweden in 1916. Its goal was to create an independent media self-regulatory body facilitated by the state, but guided by the broader media fraternity and the public. Since then, dozens of countries have formed, revised, dissolved, or renamed their press councils. In democratic nations, some councils have retained their autonomy; in autocratic regimes and much of the Global South, however, they often remain under government control.

Despite these variations, the core idea behind press councils has remained consistent: to serve as an intermediary between the press and the public, promoting professionalism, integrity, and ethical standards, while offering policy input to the government. Crucially, press councils are meant to operate on the principle of self-regulation, based on the strict implementation of a code of ethics, rather than through legal regulation enforced by other government bodies. A press council should be a collective effort involving the state, the media industry, and the public. While the government may support its effective functioning, it must not seek to control it.

Nepal adopted the idea of a press council earlier than many other countries. The Press Council Nepal (PCN) was established in 1971 based on the recommendations of a new communication plan. During the Panchayat era, it operated largely under government control. After the restoration of democracy in 1990, new legislation promised an independent council. However, successive chairpersons failed to uphold that promise, often becoming submissive to the government and their affiliated political parties.

There is a persistent tendency in Nepal to create overlapping institutions aimed at controlling the media, without clearly understanding or respecting their distinct mandates. The Media Council Bill, for instance, seeks to grant expanded powers to a new Media Council, many of which overlap with functions already assigned to existing government agencies. This has led to a widespread perception within the bureaucracy that PCN is merely another department under the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, damaging its credibility and undermining its intended independence. Successive PCN leaderships have done little to challenge this perception.

Simultaneously, there appears to be a growing consensus among bureaucrats, politicians, and lawmakers in favor of tighter media control, often under the pretext of curbing misinformation and disinformation. The proposed Media Council Bill must be examined in this broader context. While it does not explicitly propose the formation of a media control body, it does aim to expand the council’s jurisdiction from print to digital platforms. The name of the institution is secondary; what matters is whether its independence, both structural and operational, is safeguarded.

The most serious flaw in the Bill is the excessive power it grants to the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, particularly in appointing and removing council members. To protect the council’s autonomy, an independent commission, possibly involving a former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, should be tasked with recommending the council’s leadership and members.

However, implementing such reforms may face resistance. Organizations like the Federation of Nepalese Journalists (FNJ), politically affiliated journalist associations, and senior journalist groups may oppose changes that reduce their influence over appointments. Political parties and the bureaucracy may also seek to preserve their control through informal arrangements. In the last three decades, very few truly independent journalists or academics have been appointed to the council or similar bodies.

Parliament must seriously consider creating a transparent, independent appointment mechanism. Yet, many lawmakers lack a clear understanding of the press council’s core mission and values. Another concerning provision in the Bill is the transfer of authority to issue press accreditation certificates to the Media Council. This is not the council’s appropriate role. Even more troubling is the proposed provision allowing the council to revoke a journalist’s press pass for up to a year for violating the code of ethics. This directly contradicts the fundamental purpose of a press pass, which is to enable public information access, not serve as a tool for punishment.

The Department of Information and Broadcasting already imposes unnecessarily restrictive requirements for issuing press passes. Shifting that authority to the Media Council will only increase confusion and bureaucratic friction. Other provisions in the Bill also raise concerns, suggesting that the drafters may have drawn inspiration from press council models in more authoritarian regimes.

One welcome aspect of the Bill is the proposed removal of the council’s authority to classify newspapers. However, this change may also face resistance from journalist organizations, as classification has traditionally been used to control or reward media outlets. A separate entity, such as an Audit Bureau of Circulation, should be created to handle classifications for both print and digital platforms.

Overall, the Bill lacks a clear, forward-looking vision for the role and structure of the Media Council. It also fails to reflect on past institutional lessons. For the council to function effectively, it must have a strong, cooperative relationship with media organizations. At present, a significant trust deficit exists between the council and the Nepali media industry. The law should ensure not only participation from the media and public, but also their meaningful contribution to the council’s work. As drafted, the Bill envisions the Media Council more as a government department than an independent regulatory body. A complete overhaul is, therefore, necessary.

If parliament is truly committed to forming an independent media council, it should return the Bill to the Ministry with clear instructions to redraft it in consultation with all stakeholders, including international experts.

This debate is not about targeting the current government or any individual minister. The Bill was originally introduced by the previous government, but it now falls on the current one to refine and pass it. Political parties must rise above narrow interests and prioritize the long-term public good.

A strong, independent institution serves democracy and society, regardless of whether it aligns with a party’s immediate interests. When it comes to media accountability, as Denis McQuail puts it, two models exist: answerability and liability. Answerability is moral and social; it’s voluntary, cooperative, and involves non-material penalties. Liability, by contrast, is legal, imposed, and often punitive.

Press councils should operate on the answerability model. They should function as watchdogs that bark but do not bite, empowered to raise concerns, issue warnings, and alert stakeholders to ethical lapses, but not to take legal action against journalists. Evaluated through this lens, many of the Bill’s flaws become more evident, and more easily correctable.

So a humble appeal to parliament: step back from narrow debates and redraft the Bill from first principles. This is a vital opportunity to strengthen democratic institutions and ensure a free, accountable, and ethical press in Nepal.

Two major coalition partners, the Nepali Congress (NC) and CPN-UML, are reviewing the performance of government ministers, with plans to dismiss those deemed ineffective. Ministers were informed at the time of their appointment that they would face evaluation after one year and could be removed based on their performance. Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli and NC President Sher Bahadur Deub have begun consultations for a cabinet reshuffle. However, the move is likely to stir discord within both the NC and UML.

Overall, ministerial performance has been unsatisfactory. While ministers made lofty promises and generated noise, tangible results have been lacking. Meanwhile, CPN (Maoist Center) Chairperson Pushpa Kamal Dahal is once again pursuing the unification of fringe communist parties to bolster his political position. With his attempts to spark friction between the NC and UML proving ineffective, he has shifted focus to party unification.

Dahal has reached out to CPN (Unified Socialist) Chairperson Madhav Kumar Nepal for immediate unification. However, many CPN (US) leaders and cadres prefer to return to the UML rather than merge with the Maoist Center. Should Nepal decide to unify with Dahal’s party, it could trigger a split in the CPN (US). Meanwhile, the UML has taken stricter measures to curb former President Bidya Devi Bhandari’s activities within the party.

The UML has issued a circular instructing party units not to engage in any debate over Bhandari's potential return to active party politics. Intra-party tensions are also mounting in the Maoist Center, with Chairperson Dahal and senior leader Janardan Sharma exchanging public barbs. Dahal has accused internal forces of spreading false rumors that he is planning to split the party.

While Dahal shows no intention of relinquishing party leadership, a power struggle is underway. Senior leaders Sharma and Barshaman Pun are positioning themselves as his successors. In the Dahal-Sharma tussle, Pun appears to be aligning with Dahal to gain favor. All three major parties—NC, UML, and Maoist Center—face looming leadership crises as Deuba, Oli, and Dahal approach retirement.

The UML’s circular may hinder Bhandari’s ability to organize political events, as party leaders now fear disciplinary action. Since the party revoked her membership, many of her vocal supporters have stopped attending her programs. Though Bhandari has expressed her intent to stay active in politics, recent party decisions are likely to restrict her activities significantly.

Amid rumors of a challenge to Deuba’s leadership, Shekhar Koirala has admitted that his faction lacks the numbers to replace him as parliamentary party leader. Speaking publicly, Koirala said even Deuba is aware of this reality. Still, Koirala continues to ride the wave of anti-incumbency sentiment within the party to strengthen his own position, criticizing both the party and government leadership.

Deuba remains in a relatively secure position as Koirala and General Secretary Gagan Thapa, despite both wanting to prevent Deuba from returning as prime minister, remain rivals and are not working together. Their push to hold the party’s general convention before the 2027 election seems unlikely to succeed, as unresolved issues over active membership persist. Within the NC, realignments and the formation of new factions are expected in the coming days, as Deuba has announced he won’t contest the presidency again.

Meanwhile, the Nagarik Unmukti Party has expelled Chairperson Ranjita Shrestha over her alleged involvement in a corruption scandal. Once an emerging force in the 2022 parliamentary elections, the party had recently withdrawn its support to the government and now finds itself mired in internal conflict. In Nepal, intra-party power struggles have become a political norm, often resulting in splits.

The controversy surrounding the land-related bill remains unresolved. The ruling NC has proposed a five-point amendment to address differences, particularly with UML. Madhes-based parties have expressed dissent on several provisions. Upendra Yadav, chairman of the Janata Samajbadi Party Nepal, has said the bill violates the constitution and plans to challenge it in court. The Rastriya Swatantra Party has called for the bill to be returned to the Agriculture Ministry.

Parties are also preparing for the by-election in Rupandehi-3. It is still unclear whether the NC and UML will form an electoral alliance. Candidate selection is underway, and the by-poll is expected to serve as a barometer for current public support for political parties.

In Bagmati Province, the government faces renewed instability due to internal party rifts. Indra Baniya has been elected the party’s parliamentary leader, defeating incumbent Chief Minister Bahadur Singh Lama. Lama is under pressure to resign after losing control over his own party. Though the province had seen stability for the past year due to the NC-UML coalition, tensions are now resurfacing.

On a different front, the US government has officially confirmed that Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) projects will continue in Nepal, ending months of uncertainty. Both the Biden and Trump administrations have viewed MCC in Nepal as a counter to China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

Nepal’s decision to sign the BRI framework agreement with China earlier this year increased pressure on Washington to retain MCC support. A bipartisan consensus exists in the US on countering China’s growing influence, and the continuation of MCC underscores Nepal’s strategic importance, despite broader aid cuts.

Finally, Prime Minister Oli is scheduled to visit Turkmenistan from Aug 5–8 to participate in the Third UN Conference on Landlocked Developing Countries. Preparations are also underway for his likely visit to India in September, though the date has not been confirmed.

In recent years, Nepal has witnessed exponential growth in the use of various social media platforms. The most popular social media platforms include Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, Instagram and LinkedIn. Among these, Facebook maintains strong dominance over the Nepali social media landscape. According to data from the NapoleonCat, there were 16,479,500 Facebook users in Nepal as of Aug 2024, accounting for 51.6 percent of the population. Of these, 55.9 percent were male. 

However, Facebook’s user base is gradually declining as adult users shift toward TikTok and GenZ increasingly favors platforms like TikTok and Instagram. Meanwhile, X is gaining popularity, particularly among news-savvy and politically-engaged users. But it has also become a tool for political propaganda, with ‘cyber armies’ from various political parties engaging in online smear campaigns and character assassination. This toxic environment is pushing intellectuals and thoughtful users away from the platform. 

LinkedIn, on the other hand, is growing steadily in popularity among professionals seeking networking and career development opportunities. The spread of misinformation, disinformation, hate speech and cybercrime has become a pressing issue globally. Many countries are grappling with how to regulate social media in ways that respect freedom of speech while addressing these concerns. While many European nations have developed balanced approaches, several South Asian countries, including Bangladesh, are using social media regulations to suppress political opposition.  

Nepal is no exception. For over 15 years, authorities have misused Section 47 of the Electronic Transaction Act to arrest journalists and silence critics. Recently, this trend has intensified, with ruling party leaders increasingly targeting those who voice dissent. Criticisms of the government or political parties are often misclassified as fake news or hate speech, even when it clearly is not. This raises concerns that new laws may also be exploited for similar purposes. 

In February, the government introduced the Social Media Act Bill in the National Assembly, the upper house of the country’s federal parliament. The Bill has sparked public debate due to several fundamental flaws. The first and foremost is the flawed legislative process itself: government officials involved in consultations have adopted a narrow, bureaucratic perspective.

There is a belief within bureaucracy that regulation can be achieved by simply creating a department. This approach fails to recognize that regulating digital platforms is far more complex than overseeing traditional media like radio, television or print which are historically governed by the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology and its subordinate bodies.

Social media regulation is multi-faceted and far-reaching. No state agency can realistically monitor an entire population. Yet the ministry appears to consult only with stakeholders like the Federation of Nepalese Journalists (FNJ), organizations of journalists affiliated with major political parties and a handful of non-governmental organizations close to the ruling parties. Independent academics and experts outside the political sphere are largely excluded from the process.

This issue is not limited to social media bills; similar problems exist in other media-related legislation. While parliament has the authority to correct fundamental flaws, lawmakers often lack necessary expertise. Many rely on briefings from NGOs. This limited input, combined with their often weak academic backgrounds, proves insufficient. Lawmakers frequently raise concerns merely to appease journalists rather than engaging meaningfully in the legislative process.

From top to bottom, the bill is riddled with problems. The preamble fails to affirm commitment to international treaties and conventions and other legal instruments to which Nepal is a party. The country has signed international treaties and conventions expressing its full commitment to upholding freedom of speech and expression. But the principles laid out by those international conventions often clash with the narrow understanding held by many Nepali politicians who view criticism as a threat rather than a democratic right.

The 2015 constitution, like its previous versions, contains progressive provisions when it comes to safeguarding freedom of speech and expression. The draft briefly touches the constitutional provision of freedom of speech and expression but remains silent about international commitment. Regarding the international part, the bill states that as other countries are formulating the news, Nepal also needs to formulate the law which is a misrepresentation of Nepal’s international commitments.  The Supreme Court has also delivered landmark verdicts upholding these rights.

However, recent rulings by lower courts appear to contradict the precedents set by the apex court. These decisions only briefly acknowledge the constitutional guarantee of free speech, signaling a shift away from the earlier commitment to protecting this fundamental right.

The Social Media Bill reflects this trend. It fails to clearly state that its purpose is to strengthen freedom of speech and expressions. Instead, it focuses more heavily on regulating social media users, given the impression that its main intent is to restrict, rather than protect, free expression.  

Undeniably, countries across the world are moving quickly to regulate social media to mitigate its negative impacts on society and democracy. But such efforts must never come at the cost of fundamental freedoms, especially freedom of speech, expression and press. Nepal should study how other nations have successfully enacted social media without undermining democratic rights.

Before drafting the bill, the government should have consulted with representatives of major social media companies. Content regulation and moderation are core to the functioning of these platforms, and without their cooperation, any regulatory framework is likely to fail. In this context, Nepal’s top political leadership should use its diplomatic and political channels to engage with these companies. For instance, a few months ago, there was communication between Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli and Elon Musk on certain issues. This shows such outreach is possible.

Regrettably, the ministry issued a public notice demanding that social media giants register in Nepal and obtain licenses. It even set a deadline that went ignored. The ministry also threatened to shut down social media platforms, a move widely seen as immature and impractical. A more constructive approach would have been to initiate dialogue, revise the proposed provisions in consultation with these companies and then develop a feasible licensing system.

As it stands, the bill grants sweeping powers to a government-formed department to oversee all social media-related issues. Given the scale and complexity of regulating digital platforms, this is highly problematic. What’s needed is an independent, empowered commission—free from political interference, bureaucratic control, corporate influence and other vested interests. Such a body should be authorized to work directly with social media companies to ensure effective and fair regulation.

The current draft appears to be designed with the aim of removing political content critical of ruling parties. In recent years, there has been a clear trend of political parties using state agencies to target and punish critics of the government and party leadership. If passed without meaningful amendments, the bill risks becoming an extension of the Cyber Bureau, an institution that has already been misused for political purposes.

One positive aspect of the bill is its commitment to launching a large-scale awareness campaign on the responsible use of social media. It proposes to raise public awareness through publications, broadcasts, websites, seminars, public service announcements and dialogues. However, the government does not need to wait for the bill to be passed to begin this vital initiative.

In conclusion, the government must take proactive steps to address the fundamental flaws in the draft bill as it is evident that the agencies involved have failed to adequately study international best practices or documents prepared by global institutions.

The long-standing comradely relationship between KP Sharma Oli and Bidya Devi Bhandari has soured. Soon after Bhandari openly challenged her removal from the post of party chair, the Central Committee of CPN-UML officially decided to bar the former head of state from active party politics.

Although UML leaders have defended the midnight decision, claiming it was made to uphold the sanctity of the presidential office, many within the party and the general public remain unconvinced. While it’s still unclear how this episode will unfold, Bhandari has signaled her intent to stay active in party politics. However, by denying her even an ordinary party membership, the UML has created a barrier for her to engage directly with party leaders and cadres.

Previously, there were assumptions that a fair number of party leaders and cadres might support Bhandari, but the Central Committee meeting told a different story. Only a handful of leaders stood by her, while the overwhelming majority sided with Oli, which is likely due to his current status as Prime Minister. Just two leaders, Surendra Pandey and Yubaraj Gyawali, opposed the party’s decision to bar Bhandari from political involvement.

Bhandari’s limited support within the party’s Central Committee poses a serious challenge to her ability to become politically active or pose a meaningful challenge to Oli, who retains a firm grip on the party. Oli is poised to secure a third consecutive term as party leader, barring any dramatic developments. In Bhandari’s absence, no leader appears willing to contest the party leadership at the upcoming general convention.

Meanwhile, within the Nepali Congress (NC), senior leader Shekhar Koirala has been meeting with both ruling and opposition party leaders, though the reasons remain unclear. Prime Minister Oli, however, reportedly views these meetings as attempts to unseat his government. Seven NC second-rung leaders also held a luncheon at Prakash Man Singh’s residence, but the meeting failed to generate any notable impact within the party.

Koirala has separately met opposition leader Pushpa Kamal Dahal and former President Bhandari. He has grown increasingly vocal in criticizing the government, arguing that UML is attacking the core values of the NC and that the party should withdraw from the coalition. Some speculate that Koirala is positioning himself to become prime minister by dismantling the current coalition. However, he lacks the numbers needed to become the parliamentary party leader. Koirala believes that if he can ascend to the premiership before the party’s general convention, he could influence the party’s internal elections.

Several key bills related to land, education, and the Constitutional Council have become contentious issues among coalition partners. Serious differences persist between NC and UML on these matters, and while they may not immediately threaten the coalition, they are a source of growing friction. Senior leaders from both parties are engaged in ongoing discussions, but efforts to bridge the divide have thus far failed. NC leaders are also pressuring President Ram Chandra Poudel to reject the bill concerning the Constitutional Council.

UML is under public scrutiny for its apparent double standards on the “cooling-off” period in the Civil Service Bill. While some of its National Assembly members support removing this provision, both the NC and the CPN (Maoist Center) are firmly opposed to any compromise. In a previous incident, the bureaucracy altered a draft bill passed by the House of Representatives, prompting the formation of a probe panel to investigate.

Within the Maoist Center, the rift between party chair Dahal and Janardhan Sharma is deepening. Sharma is reportedly trying to form a rival faction within the party. Recently, he publicly remarked that apart from Manmohan Adhikari, all communist leaders have engaged in the accumulation of vast wealth, a comment that has irritated Dahal. While several second-tier leaders are seeking a change in leadership, Dahal remains unwilling to step down.

The Rastriya Prajatantra Party, once in the national spotlight, is now mired in internal disunity. Senior leaders like Dhawal Shumsher Rana and Prakash Chandra Lohani have criticized party chair Rajendra Lingden for alleged bias against party members and cadres. Senior leader Rabindra Mishra, however, remains silent amid the growing intra-party conflict.

This week, media reports suggested that Prime Minister Oli is planning an official visit to New Delhi. Some outlets have speculated on possible dates, but officials have yet to confirm details. Nonetheless, both countries have recently discussed important matters such as mutual legal assistance and an extradition treaty.

The government has declared Madhesh Province a disaster-affected zone due to a prolonged drought that has severely impacted drinking water supplies, irrigation, and agriculture. Climate change is dramatically reshaping life in the region, from drying springs to plummeting rice yields. Locals say they feel increasingly estranged from the very elements that once sustained them. “Neither the rice feels like ours anymore, nor the water,” many say, as parched fields and vanishing water sources force families to walk miles just to collect a single bucket.

The discord between CPN-UML Chairman KP Sharma Oli and former President Bidya Devi Bhandari has further escalated, with both remaining adamant in their respective positions.

Prime Minister Oli and a majority of leaders in the party’s Central Committee (CC) believe that a former head of state should not return to active party politics. However, Bhandari has shown no signs of heeding the suggestions from Oli, UML leaders, or even opposition parties. A day after Oli instructed the CC members not to act as a ‘spokesperson’ for the former president, Bhandari warned against attempts to ‘terrorize’ her supporters. Speaking to a group of journalists, she reiterated her return to UML politics and firmly stated that she would not back down.

Whether out of deference to Oli or genuine concern, most CC members have echoed the view that a former president re-entering active politics would have negative implications for the nascent republic. Only a few leaders spoke in her favor during the CC meeting, and even they refrained from explicitly endorsing her political comeback. Meanwhile, most CC leaders have rallied behind Oli’s bid to lead the party for a third consecutive term at the upcoming general convention. To facilitate this, the UML is preparing to amend its statute at the upcoming statute convention. Some party leaders have even suggested that the ongoing CC meeting should unanimously propose Oli as party chair for the next five years.

A one-on-one meeting between Oli and Bhandari on Sunday failed to narrow the rift; instead, it appears to have widened it further. Outside the UML as well, the political environment remains largely unfavorable for Bhandari’s return. The largest party, Nepali Congress, has reiterated its stance that former presidents should refrain from active politics. “We have a clear position that the former president should not engage in active politics,” said NC leader Gopal Man Shrestha.

The main opposition, CPN (Maoist Center), has not taken a clear position, partly due to its own moral quandary, as former Vice President Nanda Kishwor Pun has already joined the party, ignoring similar objections about returning to active politics. Speaking from her private residence, Bhandari made it clear that there is no turning back. Oli and Bhandari have long shared a cordial relationship. Oli played a key role in securing her presidency in 2015.

At that time, there had been intense debate within the UML over the party's presidential nominee. Senior leaders like Madhav Kumar Nepal supported Jhala Nath Khanal or Astha Laxmi Shakya, but Oli stood firmly behind Bhandari. During her tenure, Bhandari and Oli maintained a close working relationship, with Bhandari often criticized for approving Oli’s decisions, including the controversial dissolution of Parliament, without any scrutiny. 

Tensions began to surface when Bhandari publicly expressed her intent to return to active politics. Initially, Oli did not oppose her. However, in her Nepali New Year message, Bhandari hinted at the need to review the party's current leadership, an indirect challenge to Oli’s position. This statement was widely interpreted as a signal that she aimed to displace Oli.

Despite the tension, the two leaders continued to meet regularly, either at Baluwatar or at Bhandari’s residence. In June, Bhandari visited China for a week, and the two met both before and after the trip. Her supporters claimed that China sees Bhandari as a future leader of the UML, potentially uniting the broader left. According to Bhandari, she had informed Oli of her intention to return to politics even while serving as president.

Relations soured further after Bhandari declared in an interview last week that she wishes to lead the party. In response, Oli reminded her that her party membership renewal is still pending. Bhandari had relinquished her UML membership after becoming president in 2015, upholding the principle that the head of state should remain impartial.

After her term ended in 2022, Bhandari submitted an application to renew her party membership. She claims to have done so six months after leaving office, and at the time, no UML leaders raised objections. However, party leaders now argue that the issue is political rather than technical. It remains unclear how the UML will resolve the matter of Bhandari’s return to active politics.

Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli is preparing to lead the CPN-UML for a third consecutive term, a move not uncommon in communist parties. To facilitate this, the party is set to amend its statute at the upcoming statute convention next month. The proposed amendment would remove the two-term limit and the 70-year age cap for the party leadership. The rationale is straightforward: Oli is already 74, and party insiders argue there is no other leader capable of steering the party through the current challenging situation.

“In the seventh general convention, I myself had proposed the 70-year age limit, but the context of the party and the country has changed entirely,” Oli told the UML Central Committee on Monday. His push for a third term is not without precedent. Madhav Kumar Nepal, now leading a separate party, served as the UML's executive general secretary for 15 years, from 1993 to 2008. Still, within UML, there is no clear or consistent policy regarding age or term limits for top leadership roles.

Oli’s supporters insist he must remain at the helm for at least five more years, arguing that the party faces a monumental challenge in becoming the largest political force in the 2027 elections. Within the UML, Oli continues to project himself as the undisputed leader, and is determined not to allow the rise of any rival faction. According to leaders close to him, Oli has repeatedly made it clear that he will not settle for being the party's second-in-command.

Oli has also consistently warned against the formation of factions. In the ongoing Central Committee meeting, Oli cautioned leaders against acting as “spokesperson” for former president Bidya Devi Bhandari, as speculation grows about her potential entry into party politics. Among UML’s senior leadership, figures such as Ishwar Pokhrel, Yubaraj Gyawali, Astha Laxmi Shakya, Ram Bahadur Thapa, Surendra Pandey, Shankar Pokhrel, and Pradeep Gyawali remain influential. Of these, only Pokhrel and Pandey are seen as sympathetic to Bhandari.

Oli first became UML chairperson in 2015 after defeating Madhav Kumar Nepal, and won again in 2021, decisively beating Bhim Rawal, despite his aim for a unanimous endorsement. Following disagreements with Oli, Nepal left UML to form the CPN (Unified Socialist), while Rawal also exited the party. Within Nepal’s communist parties, long-term leadership is not uncommon. CPN (Maoist Centre) Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal has led his party since the 1980s without holding intra-party elections and has indicated that he intends to remain in power indefinitely.

Dahal’s key rivals, Baburam Bhattarai and Mohan Baidya, have already departed from the Maoist party. Although Janardhan Sharma has emerged as a potential challenger, he has yet to pose a serious threat to Dahal’s leadership. Meanwhile, CPN (Unified Socialist) Chair Nepal has refused to step down, despite ongoing corruption cases filed against him by the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority.

UML, however, has traditionally operated differently from the Maoists and other fringe parties. Since 1990, it has held regular intra-party elections to choose its leadership, the last of which was in 2021 that re-elected Oli. To win a third term, Oli will once again need to secure internal support.

The recent public statement by former President Bhandari announcing her return to active politics has sparked criticism of Oli’s third-term ambition. Oli maintains that he deserves another term, citing significant progress in party organization. He told the Central Committee that ordinary party membership had increased by 28 percent under his leadership. Moreover, he emphasized the absence of ideological or policy disputes within the party and called on all members to work collectively to position UML as the decisive political force in 2027.

Bhandari’s re-entry into party politics could pose a serious challenge to Oli’s dominance. However, Oli has publicly stated that a former head of state should not return to active politics, arguing that doing so would undermine the dignity of the presidential office. Referring to leaders close to Bhandari, he accused them of deliberately trying to create discord within the party. Oli is aware that Bhandari’s political engagement could lead to the emergence of a strong rival faction, potentially challenging his leadership at the upcoming general convention. In recent months, Bhandari has been quietly working to consolidate her influence within the party. Nevertheless, Oli continues to enjoy a firm grip over the party, with dissenting voices largely subdued.

Former President Bidya Devi Bhandari’s announcement to rejoin active politics has raised widespread concerns about the impartiality and integrity of the presidency. Political leaders and experts argue that her decision undermines Nepal’s nascent republic, which is already facing challenges from royalist forces.

Former Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai criticized the move, stating that it contradicts the CPN-UML’s professed ideology of multiparty democracy, as championed by Madan Bhandari. “Bhandari’s return to active politics is not just an internal party matter. It has serious implications for national interests, the spirit of the federal republic, and governance,” he said.

Nepali Congress (NC) leaders warned that Bhandari’s political reentry could intensify attacks on the republic and erode public trust in the presidency. Over the past year, Bhandari has been conducting parallel party activities and has openly declared her ambition to lead the UML and eventually become prime minister.

In contrast, former President Ram Baran Yadav (2008–2015) has refrained from active politics, focusing instead on social work. While former Vice President Nanda Kishor Pun joined Maoist politics, observers note that the roles of president and vice president carry vastly different symbolic weights, making Bhandari’s case more contentious.

Political analysts warn that if Bhandari resumes active politics, the presidency may no longer be seen as an impartial institution, weakening the republican system. Past decisions by both Yadav and Bhandari have already faced public scrutiny. Yadav clashed with non-NC prime ministers, while Bhandari was accused of favoring the UML during her tenure. Her latest move reinforces the perception that presidents prioritize party interests over national ones. Unlike in democracies where former heads of state typically engage in philanthropy, Bhandari’s decision sets a concerning precedent.

Prime Minister and UML Chairperson KP Sharma Oli has opposed Bhandari’s return, calling it detrimental to both the country and party unity. He noted that the UML supported her presidency assuming she would adhere to constitutional norms barring former presidents from active politics. “Her plan to rejoin politics is alarming, given her former role as head of state, supreme commander of the Nepali Army, and a symbol of the republic,” Oli said.

Bhandari is pressuring the party to clarify her position, reportedly seeking senior leadership status before next month’s statute convention. However, the UML has delayed renewing her ordinary membership, citing ongoing review. Senior leader Surendra Pandey claims her membership was renewed two years ago, but the party has not officially confirmed this.

Meanwhile, Bhandari has been expanding her influence through the Madan Bhandari Foundation, a think tank named after her late husband, and touring provinces to bolster her support base.

As Bhandari maneuvers for a comeback, the UML is preparing amendments to allow Oli a third consecutive term as chairman and abolish the 70-year age limit, a move opposed by Vice-chairperson Ishwar Pokhrel but met with silence from other senior leaders. Leaders like Pokhrel, Ananda Pokhrel, Karna Bahadur Thapa and Gokul Banskota have openly backed Bhandari, while top figures remain noncommittal.

Amid rising tensions, Oli and Bhandari held a one-on-one meeting at the UML headquarters on Sunday, signaling unresolved negotiations over her political future.