Kathmandu, September 11
CPN-UML Vice-Chair Ram Bahadur Thapa has prepared a separate report defending party Chair KP Sharma Oli and rejecting calls for him to step down amid the party’s ongoing debate over restructuring.
Thapa, who is also coordinator of the task force formed to collect suggestions on UML restructuring, has prepared a 39-page report that directly counters key conclusions in General Secretary Shankar Pokharel’s 65-page report.
Pokharel’s report, prepared after collecting suggestions from party leaders and cadres across the country, concluded that Oli should take moral responsibility for the party’s crisis and step down from the leadership.
Thapa’s report takes the opposite position, arguing that Oli should remain party chair.
According to sources, Thapa prepared the report with Oli’s support and in his defence.
Thapa has strongly criticised the attempt to link the party’s restructuring process with Oli’s removal. He argues that Pokharel’s report focuses more on creating grounds to remove the party chair than on objectively reviewing the party’s electoral performance.
“The draft report appears to be an attempt to establish grounds for restructuring by removing the party chair rather than reviewing the election,” Thapa wrote.
Thapa says Oli does not need to resign
A major argument in Thapa’s report is that losing an election does not automatically require a party chair to resign.
He cites examples from Nepal’s communist movement to support his position, including founding communist leader Pushpa Lal Shrestha’s defeat in the 1959 election. He also refers to Madhav Kumar Nepal’s resignation in 2008, arguing that it was linked to his political ambition to become president rather than simply a matter of moral responsibility.
Thapa further argues that the March 5 election should not be treated as an ordinary, isolated election result. He claims the election was a consequence of the political developments of September 8 and 9, 2025, and therefore should not be used alone as a basis for demanding Oli’s resignation.
He also points out that Oli was elected UML chair with around 75 percent of the vote at the party’s 11th General Convention.
“The mandate of the general convention cannot in any way be undermined by the result of a particular election,” Thapa wrote.
He argues that removing Oli less than six months after the general convention would be inappropriate.
Oli compared with Pushpa Lal, Madan Bhandari and Manmohan Adhikari
Thapa goes further in defending Oli by comparing his leadership with that of prominent figures in Nepal’s communist movement.
His report discusses the contributions of Pushpa Lal, Madan Bhandari and Manmohan Adhikari before arguing that Oli has also played a significant role in advancing the communist movement.
According to Thapa, Pushpa Lal provided leadership in Marxist philosophy, literature and organisation; Madan Bhandari developed political programmes and ideology creatively; and Manmohan Adhikari offered a new example of state leadership, experience and public service.
Thapa then argues that under Oli’s leadership, the Nepali communist movement was able to advance to a high point of unity, cooperation and progress.
He also recalls the historical removal of Pushpa Lal by a majority of the party’s politburo, arguing that the communist movement subsequently paid a heavy price for that decision.
Thapa warns that a similar attempt to remove Oli through a majority decision could have serious consequences for the party.
He also criticises what he describes as a tendency within the communist movement to insult or undermine leaders while they are in power and recognise their contributions only after they are gone.
Thapa defends Oli against criticism from UML leaders
Thapa has also challenged UML leaders who are demanding greater accountability from Oli despite having been elected to party positions on Oli’s panel at the 11th General Convention.
He argues that those leaders share responsibility for the party’s successes and failures and cannot place the entire blame on the party chair.
“Those elected as office-bearers after being on the panel of the party’s main leader cannot put all the blame on the main leadership and try to become champions of restructuring,” Thapa wrote.
According to Thapa, moral responsibility for the party’s performance should be shared by the entire leadership rather than imposed solely on Oli.
Rejects proposal for special convention
Thapa has also rejected Pokharel’s proposal to convene a meeting of the National General Convention Representatives Council within Ashoj to decide on party restructuring.
He argues that such a move would deepen internal disputes rather than resolve them.
Thapa has also defended the UML’s decision to remove the 70-year age limit and two-term limit for party leadership, rejecting claims that the changes were responsible for the party’s current difficulties.
He cites the Communist Party of China and Cyprus as examples of political parties that have changed leadership restrictions according to their circumstances.
While Thapa accepts some of Pokharel’s recommendations concerning the functioning and mobilisation of the party and its sister organisations, the central message of his report is clear: the UML’s restructuring process should not be used as a means to remove Oli from the party leadership.
