The resignation of Gagan Kumar Thapa as president of the Nepali Congress has pushed the party into one of the most serious crises in its recent history. While Thapa framed his exit as a moral response to the party’s humiliating electoral defeat, the development reflects a much deeper and more dangerous internal breakdown. The election result—where the party was reduced to just 38 seats in the 275-member House of Representatives—was not merely a rejection by voters, but a manifestation of internal disunity, mistrust, and organizational failure.
At the heart of the crisis lies a prolonged power struggle between Thapa and the faction led by Sher Bahadur Deuba. Thapa’s rise through a special general convention had already been contested by Deuba’s camp, which questioned both the legitimacy of the process and the authority of the new leadership. The situation worsened as Deuba’s faction remained largely inactive, and in some cases reportedly uncooperative, during the election campaign. This internal sabotage severely weakened the party’s electoral machinery, leading to a situation where the Nepali Congress effectively undermined its own prospects.
The crisis has now evolved into a full-blown legitimacy dispute. With Deuba’s supporters openly claiming that there are “two presidents” in the party, the organizational structure has become deeply fractured. Key party meetings are being held without representation from major factions, and legal challenges against the leadership decision have added another layer of uncertainty. In practical terms, the party is already functioning as two parallel entities, even if a formal split has not yet been declared. Such a condition is inherently unstable and cannot be sustained for long without serious consequences.
Thapa’s resignation, though politically ethical, has intensified the leadership vacuum rather than resolving it. His departure removes a central figure who had at least some mandate from the recent convention, leaving the party without a clear and broadly accepted leader. At the same time, Deuba’s continued absence from the country has made immediate reconciliation more difficult, delaying the possibility of meaningful dialogue at a time when the party urgently needs decisive leadership.
Amid this uncertainty, calls for an immediate general convention have gained momentum as a potential way out of the crisis. However, this solution is far from straightforward. The process of updating active membership, selecting delegates, and ensuring fairness is both time-consuming and politically sensitive. Given the existing mistrust, any attempt to rush the convention without consensus risks being rejected by one faction, which could further deepen divisions instead of resolving them.
What makes the situation particularly alarming is the growing fear of an eventual party split. The absence of dialogue, combined with legal disputes and mutual suspicion, is pushing the Nepali Congress closer to a breaking point. If the two factions fail to find common ground soon, a formal division may become inevitable. Such a split would not only weaken the party electorally but also reshape Nepal’s broader democratic landscape by fragmenting one of its oldest and most influential political forces.
