- The Nepali Congress faces a deepening leadership rift between President Gagan Thapa and a rival faction loyal to former leader Sher Bahadur Deuba.
- Deuba’s supporters have rejected Thapa’s legitimacy, planning a separate General Convention that risks a formal and permanent split within the party.
- The conflict reflects a struggle between generational change and traditional continuity, complicated by internal debates over restoring Nepal’s Hindu state identity.
- Legal uncertainty and parallel organizational structures threaten to alienate grassroots workers and distance the party from pressing voter concerns like economic reform.
Kathmandu, Nepal. The latest dispute inside the Nepali Congress is no longer just a disagreement between rival groups or a contest over who should control the party. It is increasingly becoming a debate over what kind of Congress the party wants to be—and who should lead it into the future.
The party is facing an unusually complicated situation. On one side is President Gagan Kumar Thapa and the central committee elected by the special general convention. On the other is a group of senior leaders, including former president Sher Bahadur Deuba, which has refused to recognize the Thapa-led structure and has now decided to hold the 15th General Convention under Deuba’s leadership.
The rival faction’s latest decision has deepened concerns about the possibility of a formal split, although the immediate outcome will depend largely on whether the two sides can still find political and institutional space for compromise.
At the heart of the dispute is something more personal and more complicated than leadership positions. Many Congress leaders and workers are asking whether the party can settle its internal differences without losing sight of the political issues that matter to voters.
A Party Divided, but Not Yet Beyond Repair
Political disagreements have always existed within the Nepali Congress. The party has survived numerous leadership struggles, ideological disputes and factional battles throughout its history.
What makes the present situation different is the depth of the disagreement.
The rival faction is not merely criticizing Thapa’s leadership. It has rejected the legitimacy of the special general convention that elected him and is seeking to move ahead with a separate organizational process under Deuba.
That creates a difficult situation for ordinary party workers.
Many Congress supporters are now faced with a question that is less about political theory and more about practical reality: Which Congress represents the party they have worked for?
For leaders, this may be a contest over organizational legitimacy and political authority. For grassroots workers, however, prolonged uncertainty can mean confusion over party structures, membership, local committees and future political activities.
That human dimension should not be overlooked.
Gagan Thapa’s Message: Listen to Dissent, but Follow the Institution
Against this backdrop, Thapa has argued that disagreement is natural in a democratic party. Leaders and groups should be free to express different views, but such views do not automatically become the official policy of the Nepali Congress.
He has emphasized that the party’s official political direction must be determined through established institutional mechanisms such as the General Convention, General Committee and election manifesto.
His argument is straightforward: a gathering can raise questions, but the party’s formal institutions must provide the answers.
That position may appeal to those who believe the Congress needs stronger institutional discipline. But it also faces a political challenge.
The rival faction does not see the current dispute simply as a disagreement over policy. It questions the process through which Thapa and the current central committee came to power.
The Supreme Court’s decision to review its earlier ruling concerning the Thapa-led leadership has added another layer of uncertainty to the dispute.
As a result, the conflict is simultaneously political, organizational and legal.
Why the Deuba Factor Still Matters
Sher Bahadur Deuba remains a central figure in the current dispute, even after leaving the formal leadership of the party.
His political influence has not disappeared with the change in party leadership. His supporters continue to command significant organizational strength, and the rival faction has now explicitly decided to recognize Deuba as its leader and organize the 15th General Convention under his leadership.
For Deuba, the issue is not simply about returning to a party position. It is also about protecting the political legitimacy and organizational network built during his long leadership of the Congress.
For Thapa and his supporters, however, the argument is different. They represent a claim that the party needs to move toward a new generation of leadership and a different political culture.
That makes the current confrontation more complicated than a simple personal rivalry.
It is, in many ways, a struggle between continuity and change.
The Hindu State Debate Adds Another Layer
The leadership dispute has been accompanied by another sensitive debate: the Congress’s position on religion and Hindu statehood.
The dissident faction’s recent national gathering adopted proposals relating to religion and the party’s political direction. The issue has brought the Congress’s ideological identity back into public discussion.
This is a difficult subject for the Congress.
The party has historically presented itself as a democratic and constitutional force and has operated within Nepal’s secular republican framework. At the same time, there are voices within the party that argue the Congress should acknowledge Nepal’s Hindu cultural and religious identity more explicitly.
Thapa has warned against making decisions simply for immediate political gain and has argued that such questions should be handled through the party’s formal process.
His position reflects a broader concern: a political party cannot easily change its fundamental identity simply because a particular issue appears electorally attractive at a given moment.
But the opposite argument is also worth considering.
If significant sections of society are raising questions about identity, culture and religion, a major political party cannot simply dismiss those concerns. It has to listen, debate and explain its position.
That is where the Congress faces a genuine ideological challenge.
The Debate Is Bigger Than Hindu Statehood
The religion debate is only one part of a much larger question facing the Congress.
Nepali voters have changed. Younger citizens are increasingly concerned about jobs, education, migration, corruption, public services and economic opportunity.
Many are also impatient with traditional political parties and the way they operate.
The Congress therefore faces pressure to modernize its political message without abandoning the principles that define it.
That is not an easy balance.
If the party changes its political position every time public sentiment shifts, it risks losing its identity. But if it refuses to listen to changing public expectations, it risks losing touch with voters.
The challenge is to find a middle ground.
Generational Change: More Than Changing the President
Thapa’s rise has been closely associated with the demand for generational change within the Congress.
But generational change should not simply mean replacing older faces with younger ones.
If younger leaders continue to use the same factional structures, the same decision-making practices and the same political culture, the change will remain largely cosmetic.
The real question is whether a new generation can make the party more open, more responsive and more connected to ordinary people.
A young voter who is struggling to find employment or considering leaving Nepal for education or work may not be particularly interested in which faction controls a particular committee.
That voter is more likely to ask a simple question: What will the Congress do differently?
The party will eventually have to answer that question.
Deuba’s Future Role
Thapa has previously suggested that Deuba should be given an honorable and respected role after the 15th General Convention rather than remain at the center of day-to-day executive politics.
The idea reflects an attempt to separate respect for senior leadership from executive control.
There is political logic to such an arrangement. Deuba has decades of political experience and a significant organizational network. Completely ignoring that experience would not necessarily help the party.
At the same time, allowing the former leadership to continue exercising decisive control over the party could make genuine generational transition difficult.
The question, therefore, is not whether Deuba should remain relevant. He almost certainly will.
The question is what kind of relevance he should have in a Congress led by a new generation.
The Risk of Two Congresses
The most worrying aspect of the current dispute is the possibility that the party could gradually begin functioning as two parallel organizations.
The rival faction has already rejected the Thapa-led central committee and announced plans for organizational activities under Deuba’s leadership.
If that continues, the dispute could move beyond statements and into practical questions involving party membership, local committees, sister organizations and future conventions.
At that point, bringing the two sides together would become much more difficult.
This is why political dialogue remains important even when the two sides disagree fundamentally.
A compromise does not necessarily mean that one side must surrender its political position. It can mean finding a process that both sides consider legitimate.
What Congress Workers Want
Behind the leaders and their competing statements are thousands of party workers who have invested years in the Congress.
They may not care about every detail of the leadership dispute, but they do care about whether their party remains united, credible and capable of competing politically.
Long periods of internal conflict can be exhausting for them.
Local leaders need clarity. Party workers need a functioning organization. Voters need to know what the Congress stands for.
That is why the current leadership struggle cannot be treated simply as a Kathmandu-based contest among senior politicians.
Its consequences will eventually reach the grassroots.
The 15th General Convention Will Be the Real Test
The upcoming 15th General Convention could become the decisive moment in this conflict.
But the convention will have to do more than select a president.
It will need to address questions about the party’s ideological direction, organizational structure, leadership transition and relationship with its traditional support base.
The Congress will also have to decide how much space it wants to give competing political ideas while maintaining a coherent national position.
If the convention becomes merely another battlefield for factional control, the underlying problems will remain.
If it becomes an opportunity for genuine political renewal, the current crisis could ultimately strengthen the party.
A Choice Between Confrontation and Renewal
The Nepali Congress is not facing an ordinary leadership contest.
It is facing a moment in which its past and future are meeting—sometimes uneasily.
Deuba represents a long political history and a deeply established organizational network. Thapa represents a younger generation seeking a different political style and a stronger institutional framework.
Neither side can simply wish the other away.
The older generation cannot ignore the demand for change. The younger generation cannot ignore the experience, influence and organizational strength of the old guard.
The Congress will have to find a way to accommodate both.
That is why the most important question is no longer simply who will lead the Congress?
The deeper question is what kind of Congress will emerge from this struggle?
A party that manages to turn disagreement into dialogue, competition into healthy internal democracy and generational change into institutional reform could come out stronger.
But if the current confrontation develops into two permanently competing structures, the damage could extend far beyond one leadership contest.
For ordinary Congress workers and supporters, the hope is probably much simpler than the language of political factions suggests: they want a party that knows who leads it, what it stands for and where it is going.
The responsibility now lies with the leadership on both sides to determine whether the Congress can give them that clarity—or whether the party’s internal struggle will become bigger than the political mission that brought its members together in the first place.
