LALITPUR: CPN-UML Chair KP Sharma Oli has rejected calls for leadership change through the political report he presented at the party’s ongoing Central Committee meeting on Monday.
Despite continued pressure from General Secretary Shankar Pokharel and other leaders, Oli has maintained a firm stance against stepping down. His handling of dissent at the meeting, including a heated exchange with Central Committee member Krishnagopal Shrestha and a decision to prevent leader Karna Bahadur Thapa from immediately presenting his separate document, has drawn attention.
The third Central Committee meeting, which began Monday at a party palace in Bhanimandal, Lalitpur, saw Oli present a political report titled “Party Reconstruction, Defence of Democracy and a New Resolve for National Sovereignty.”
In the report, Oli said he would take moral responsibility for the party’s electoral defeat but rejected the argument that the defeat should require him to leave the leadership.
Arguing that the leadership should not abandon the party during a crisis, he rejected demands for a change in leadership.
Oli identified two risks facing the UML: party members abandoning the party out of frustration following the defeat, and weakening the party by attacking one another using the defeat as an excuse.
He said both approaches were wrong and called for “rigorous self-assessment, factual rebuttal, organisational reconstruction, a public-opposition role focused on people’s livelihoods, and the defence of the country, democracy and the Constitution.”
“Defeat is a political fact. But the direction chosen after defeat is a major fact that determines the future,” Oli said in the report. “We will not choose escape. We will not choose surrender. We will not choose revenge. We will not choose division.”
He claimed the UML still had deep roots and that its history, cadres and ideology remained its strengths. He called for the organisation to move forward in a new way.
“UML will rise again. We have to rise again,” Oli said. “But not through speeches alone, through work. Not only from the past, but from the future.”
Heated exchange with Krishna Gopal
Although Oli’s report stressed the need for self-assessment and party reconstruction, some leaders expressed dissatisfaction with the way the meeting was conducted.
Former minister and UML Central Committee member Krishna Gopal Shrestha questioned why General Secretary Shankar Pokharel was not allowed to conduct the meeting. Shrestha also urged that the general secretary be given a role in presenting the report.
Oli responded that he would conduct the meeting in accordance with the party statute, leading to a heated exchange with Shrestha. Oli reportedly asked Shrestha to sit down, saying his allotted time had ended.
Shrestha then protested, reportedly asking Oli, “Who are you to tell me to sit down?”
The atmosphere became more tense after Shrestha repeated his demand that the general secretary be given responsibility for conducting the meeting. He subsequently left the meeting, according to reports.
Karna Thapa stopped from presenting document
Central Committee member Karna Bahadur Thapa also sought to present a separate document expressing his dissent at the meeting. He reportedly requested permission to present a 40-page document, but Oli did not immediately allow him to proceed.
Thapa has long advocated retaining the party’s 70-year age limit and the provision limiting leaders to two terms. He has recently been active among leaders opposed to Oli.
Thapa has also presented dissenting views at previous party meetings. His attempt to present the document at Monday’s meeting was reportedly blocked from proceeding immediately.
Leadership debate intensifies
The UML has faced an intensified internal debate over its leadership, organisation and electoral strategy following its defeat in the March 5 election. The debate has also included calls for leadership restructuring.
Leaders advocating leadership change have argued that the party cannot be revitalised or improve its electoral performance under Oli’s leadership. Oli, however, has rejected the argument, describing it as a narrative promoted by his opponents.
Although Oli has accepted moral responsibility for the electoral defeat, he has refused to accept that he should step down as party chairman.
The Central Committee meeting therefore appears to have further opened debate over leadership, working style and party reconstruction rather than immediately easing the internal dispute.
Central Committee members are scheduled to begin presenting their views on the political report from Tuesday. Their positions are expected to provide further indications of the internal dynamics and the party’s future direction.
Comment