KATHMANDU: Prime Minister Balendra Shah’s recent cabinet appointments and handling of key political controversies have sparked fresh debate over his relationship with the ruling Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), with observers pointing to growing signs of a disconnect between the government and the party that brought him to power.
The discussion intensified after Shah on Tuesday reappointed Sudan Gurung as Home Minister and inducted independent lawmaker Mahabir Pun as Minister for Science, Technology and Innovation.
Gurung had resigned on April 22 following controversy over his property disclosures. A government-formed investigation committee submitted its report on June 6, and the Cabinet formally received the report on June 9. However, before the findings were made public, Gurung was reappointed to the Home Ministry the same day.
The move drew criticism from opposition parties and governance advocates, who argued that the government should have disclosed the committee’s findings before reinstating the minister.
Pun’s appointment also surprised many political observers. The independent MP, known for his work through the National Innovation Center, had previously campaigned for greater state investment in innovation and technology. Although he had not actively sought a ministerial position, Shah appointed him to lead the newly established ministry that aligns closely with his long-standing advocacy.
The decision has fueled speculation about Shah’s relationship with the RSP leadership. Despite the party holding a strong parliamentary majority, the prime minister opted to appoint an independent figure rather than selecting a minister from among the party’s lawmakers.
RSP General Secretary Kabindra Burlakoti rejected suggestions of internal conflict, insisting that Pun’s appointment was made in consultation with party chairman Rabi Lamichhane.
“His expertise matches the ministry’s objectives, and the decision demonstrates the party’s openness to capable individuals beyond partisan considerations,” Burlakoti said.
A unique relationship with the ruling party
Shah entered the RSP in January after resigning as mayor of Kathmandu Metropolitan City, positioning himself as a candidate for national leadership. Following the March elections, the RSP secured a commanding majority with 182 seats.
Under an understanding within the party, Lamichhane stepped aside and supported Shah’s nomination as parliamentary party leader and prime minister despite Shah not formally assuming a significant role within the party structure.
Since then, however, Shah has maintained a noticeable distance from party affairs. He has rarely attended parliamentary party meetings and has largely focused on governing rather than party organization.
Political observers note that this arrangement has created an unusual situation in which the prime minister leads the government while remaining relatively detached from the ruling party’s day-to-day activities.
Border remarks trigger controversy
Questions over Shah’s leadership style intensified following remarks he made in Parliament on May 31, when he stated that Nepal had also occupied Indian territory in some areas.
The statement triggered strong criticism from opposition parties, which accused the prime minister of undermining Nepal’s national position on border disputes with India.
Opposition lawmakers demanded that Shah personally address Parliament and clarify or retract his remarks. The controversy contributed to repeated disruptions in parliamentary proceedings for more than a week.
Although opposition parties later softened their stance and indicated they would accept a written clarification, Shah did not directly respond in Parliament. Instead, Foreign Minister Shishir Khanal later explained that the prime minister had been referring to issues related to cross-border occupation and encroachment in border areas.
The episode has drawn criticism even from some lawmakers within the ruling camp.
During Thursday’s House session, RSP lawmaker Bipin Acharya questioned whether issues raised by MPs were receiving adequate government attention.
“If concerns raised during the zero hour disappear into a vacuum, then it should no longer be called zero hour but a black-hole hour,” Acharya said, in remarks widely interpreted as criticism of the government’s responsiveness.
Analysts warn of growing divide
Political analyst Puranjan Acharya believes recent developments point to a broader tension between the government and the party structure supporting it.
According to him, Shah appears focused on pursuing an independent governing agenda while showing limited interest in party-building activities.
“His desire to bring change through government is evident, but Nepal’s constitutional system is fundamentally based on political parties,” Acharya said.
He argued that a gap appears to be emerging between the government and the ruling party, a pattern that has historically contributed to political instability in Nepal.
“Whether the prime minister remains accountable to Parliament is becoming the central political question,” he added.
Acharya noted that while Shah has projected himself as a reform-oriented leader willing to take bold decisions, sustaining a government within Nepal’s parliamentary system requires continued engagement with party structures and elected representatives.
As debates over cabinet appointments, parliamentary accountability and government decision-making continue, the evolving relationship between Prime Minister Shah and the RSP leadership is likely to remain a key focus of Nepal’s political discourse in the months ahead.
Comment