Spread the love

By Deepak Joshi Pokhrel
While the national media—both English and Nepali—were exclusively reporting the news related to the nationwide signature campaign of the Rastriya Swatantra Party, which kicked off a few days ago, to protest the imprisonment of party president Rabi Lamichhane, a blame game was brewing within the Sudurpaschim’s coalition government, leading to the sacking of Tourism, Forest, and Environment Minister Rameshwor Chadhary.
A coalition government is nothing new in Nepali politics. It has become an integral part of the Nepali political system. The political parties, as they failed to gain the absolute majority, joined hands with other parties of diverse ideologies to form the government. To say, the formation of a coalition government in Nepal has become the only option, as no parties are in a position to secure an absolute majority.
Many coalition governments in European countries have delivered an effective result. For any coalition government to succeed and deliver, the coalition partners have to demonstrate maximum flexibility and maturity. But this is not the case in our context. The partners in the coalition government see each other as their biggest enemy, creating an environment of trust deficit. They constantly seek an opportunity to defame the actions of partners. The latest episode of internal wrangling leading to the sacking of the minister of the coalition partner is a case in point.
In Sudarpaschim Province, the coalition government is led by the Nepali Congress in partnership with UML and the Nagarik Unmukti Party. The Nepali Congress has its own agenda and ideology, while the UML and Nagarik Unmukti parties are driven by their respective agendas and interests. They relentlessly work to accommodate their cadres when any opportunities emerge. This is what happened in the Sudarpaschim Provincial government.
Rameshwor Chaudhary—a lawmaker from the Nagarik Unmukti Party—was appointed minister in May 2025. Independent observers say the lawmaker and Chief Minister of the province—Kamal Bahadur Shah—had a very healthy relationship during their initial days in government. Despite differences in political ideologies, both were very supportive of each other. However, the rift started to emerge as a result of some differences between them.
It is generally believed that Chaudhary appointed his close ally to the position of Executive Director of the Khaptad Tourism Development and Management Committee without consultation. It is also believed that Chaudhary breached financial discipline during the budget drafting process. This, according to media, enraged the Chief Minister, and he decided to teach him a lesson. Soon after, he sacked Chaudhary over defiance and misconduct.
A primary question that arises at this moment is, is this really a case of defiance or misconduct? Likewise, is this a glaring example of the politics of vendetta that has become a common occurrence in coalition politics. We need to assess the events that unfolded after he was sacked to find the answer.
Many independent observers say that this is a perfect example of the politics of vendetta in coalition government. They hold the view that the chief minister, given his power and authority, was projecting himself as the sole architect of progress in the province. He was alleged to have been running the government arbitrarily, brewing the environment and distrust among the coalition partners. He was intolerant of criticism and viewed his critics as his biggest enemy—something that is unacceptable in any vibrant and functioning democracy.
Over the years, the cases of politics of vendetta have become a common occurrence in the Nepali political system. Not only among the coalition partners, but the politics of vendetta is becoming a common scene within the parties as well. Just a few months ago, the incumbent PM Oli expelled Bhim Rawal and suspended two other leaders—Binda Pandey and Usha Kiran Timilsina—for opposing Oli’s way of running the party. Oli defended his move, saying they were suspended over defiance and misconduct. However, the episode was yet another example of the politics of vendetta within the party.
Chairperson and founder of the Rastriya Swatantra Party, Rabi Lamichhane, is also a vivid example of the politics of vendetta in coalition government. Lamichhaney hogged the media limelight after he played a significant role in rescuing several Nepalese women who were trafficked to the Middle East. His action made him the darling of the masses and won him the election from Chitwan in the 2022 general election, defeating his rival from the Nepali Congress. But soon after, he fell prey to the grand design of his political opponent, becoming a victim of the politics of vendetta in the coalition government.
The list of such malpractices and unethical politics is exhaustive. As things stand now, we can say that Nepal can stake a claim of being a country where the politics of vendetta is at its best. Our politicians are intolerant of criticism, political rivals, and opponents. They hatch a conspiracy to defame their political rivals—within and outside the party—eventually compelling them to succumb to their grand design.
Next year in November, we are entering an era of prosperity and economic growth. We are graduating from the least developed countries to a developing country status. This is a huge achievement in itself. Everyone has played a significant role in taking Nepal to this stage. But if we resort to the politics of vendetta, undermining the role of each other, it will be extremely difficult to sustain the status of developing countries.
For the overall development of the nation, let’s shun the politics of vendetta and instead engage in a culture of dialogue and negotiation. This is the only path to resolve any problems, be they social, economic, or political.