The violent protests of Sept 8–9 led to the collapse of the powerful coalition government led by the Nepali Congress (NC) and CPN-UML, with KP Sharma Oli at the helm. More than three weeks have passed since the formation of the interim government under Sushila Karki, established on the mandate of the GenZ protests.
Second-rung and youth leaders from the major political parties—NC, CPN-UML, and CPN (Maoist Center)—who had long demanded changes in party and government leadership, have now aligned with GenZ’s core demands: curbing corruption, restoring law and order, and initiating leadership reforms.
The CPN (Maoist Center) has already dissolved its Central Committee to prepare for a general convention. Within the Nepali Congress, leaders Gagan Kumar Thapa and Bishwa Prakash Sharma are pushing for a leadership transition.
However, within the UML, resistance to change remains strong. While some party leaders have voiced that KP Sharma Oli should at least step down as chairman, Oli has remained defiant. Critics within the party warn that maintaining the status quo could damage the UML’s chances in upcoming elections.
Oli, who has faced a storm of criticism—particularly on mainstream media and social media—for the deaths of 19 youths during the protests, has shown no signs of accepting responsibility. A senior UML leader who attended a recent party meeting said, “Even after such major changes in the political landscape, Oli has not acknowledged his mistakes.”
According to the leader, Oli dismissed the protests as being driven by foreign interference, claiming that “Nepali citizens would never engage in such violence.” He also reportedly told colleagues that his nationalist policies and efforts to strengthen ties with China made him a target of foreign conspiracies.
As Oli continues to deflect blame, he has made it clear he has no intention of resigning as party chair. Over the past week, he has repeatedly insisted that he never ordered the police to open fire on protestors. Oli has also labeled the current interim government “unconstitutional,” accusing it of coming to power through violence and destruction. In response, the government has imposed restrictions on his movement: he is barred from foreign travel and must seek permission from the probe committee to leave the Kathmandu Valley.
Despite growing internal criticism, Oli retains support within the UML. Of the party’s 18-member Secretariat, more than half still back his continued leadership. His loyalists argue that removing Oli now would further weaken the party, and blame second-rung leaders for the UML's current disarray. Nevertheless, some leaders are now openly challenging Oli’s authority. While Oli has signaled that any leadership transition will follow party procedure—beginning with a Central Committee meeting to discuss a general convention—calls for fresh leadership are growing.
Some voices within the party have even floated the idea of bringing back former president Bidya Devi Bhandari as a unifying leader. However, the party has already formally revoked her membership, complicating that possibility. As pressure mounts, the UML stands at a crossroads—torn between loyalty to a controversial leader and the growing demand for reform from both within and outside the party.
