Kathmandu, Nepal: The political differences between CPN-UML Chairman K.P. Sharma Oli and former President Bidya Devi Bhandari appear to have eased following a meeting between the two leaders.
The meeting comes as the UML faces internal debate over its leadership and the party’s performance in the March 5 general election. The two sides have reportedly agreed to avoid escalating their differences, but several issues remain unsettled.
The UML won 25 seats in the election and finished third. The result has led party leaders and cadres to examine the reasons for the defeat and question whether changes are needed in the party’s organization and leadership.
Oli has come under criticism from some UML leaders, who say he should take responsibility for the election result and make way for new leadership. His supporters, however, argue that he was elected chairman at the party’s 11th General Convention and that an election defeat alone is not sufficient reason for him to resign.
The disagreement has become more visible as the party discusses reports on the election result and possible organizational changes.
General Secretary Shankar Pokharel prepared a report after discussions with party cadres in different parts of the country. The report raises concerns about the party’s organizational condition and recommends changes.
Vice Chairman Ram Bahadur Thapa submitted a separate 39-page report. Thapa has taken a different position, arguing that Oli should continue as chairman and that the election result by itself should not lead to his resignation.
The two reports reflect the differences within the UML over how the party should respond to the election result and whether its current leadership structure should be changed.
Bhandari’s possible return to active party politics is another issue under discussion. She served as president for two terms and left office in 2023. She remains an influential figure among sections of the UML.
Her party membership was not renewed, preventing her from taking part in the UML’s 11th General Convention. The decision disappointed her supporters and became another source of disagreement within the party.
Her possible return also raises questions about what role she would have in the UML. Given her political experience and former position as president, her supporters are likely to seek a significant role for her. Such a move would affect the existing balance among senior party leaders.
Oli also has reasons to avoid allowing the disagreement with Bhandari to grow. He is already facing criticism over the election result, and an extended dispute with Bhandari could add to the pressure on his leadership.
Bhandari, for her part, also has an interest in avoiding an immediate confrontation. An agreement with the existing leadership could provide a way for her to return to party politics without creating another major dispute within the UML.
The recent meeting therefore appears to have reduced the immediate tension between the two sides, rather than settled their differences.
The questions surrounding Bhandari’s party membership and possible position remain unresolved. The debate over Oli’s leadership is also continuing, particularly as the party considers the reasons for its election loss.
The discussion is not limited to senior leaders. UML cadres at the provincial, district and local levels are also assessing the election result and calling for changes in the party’s working methods. Some younger leaders have been seeking greater responsibility and more opportunities within the organization.
Others believe the party should concentrate on strengthening its organization under the current leadership instead of beginning another leadership contest.
The UML leadership therefore faces competing demands. Calls for changes have grown following the election result, while Oli’s supporters continue to defend his position as chairman.
The party must also determine how Bhandari can return to active politics, if an agreement is reached, and what position she would hold. Any decision on her role could affect relationships among existing leaders.
Oli’s position as chairman remains unchanged for now. However, the discussion over his leadership is likely to continue as the party reviews its election performance and considers organizational reforms.
For Bhandari, the next issue is whether her understanding with Oli will lead to a formal return to the UML and, if so, what role she will take.
The coming decisions on the party’s organizational structure, leadership and Bhandari’s political role will determine whether the current understanding develops into a broader agreement.
For now, the meeting has reduced the possibility of an immediate public dispute between Oli and Bhandari. It has not, however, settled the larger disagreements within the UML over leadership, electoral responsibility and the party’s future direction.
