The CPN-UML’s recent Central Committee decision to block former President Bidya Devi Bhandari from renewing her party membership has stirred visible discontent within the party. Senior leaders and members have raised concerns, signaling growing internal tension.
Kathmandu District Committee Chair Deepak Niroula criticized the move by drawing on party history. He pointed to the Fifth General Convention, where even General Secretary Madan Bhandari wasn’t allowed to speak. “History tells the story. Back then, our own General Secretary was silenced. And when People’s Multiparty Democracy was introduced, support was minimal at first,” Niroula said.
He also reflected on past leadership conduct, subtly questioning current practices. “We’ve seen meetings only being held after KP Sharma Oli left the capital. Even when there were orders not to involve him, movements didn’t stop. In fact, that became the momentum the party needed,” he added.
Central Committee Member Sarita Neupane also voiced her concern, urging others not to view the decision as being aimed only at Bhandari. “Some might think—it’s her turn today. But when it’s you, and there’s nowhere left to even express your frustration, then you’ll understand,” she said.
Decision Sparks Division Within Leadership
The ninth Central Committee meeting ended with a clear decision: former President Bhandari should not be actively involved in party politics. Her membership renewal was withheld, with the party stating that such involvement would go against the spirit and intent of the constitution.
But the decision wasn’t unanimous. Vice-Chairpersons Surendra Pandey and Yubaraj Gyawali openly disagreed during the meeting, and Standing Committee Member Karna Thapa was reportedly not given the chance to speak.
Party leaders say the decision reflects constitutional principles, but critics inside the party see it as restrictive and undemocratic. The growing debate has sparked broader concerns about how the UML balances internal democracy with ideological discipline.
Now, with opinions divided and dissent growing, the big question remains: how will the party’s leadership bridge these gaps and keep the party united?
