Spread the love

By Our Reporter

The revolt inside KP Sharma Oli’s camp came into the open just as CPN UML prepared for voting on its new leadership. In the first clear signs of trouble, several long time Oli loyalists broke ranks or showed open discomfort. Pradeep Gyawali walked out of the Bhrikutimandap venue in frustration. Bishnu Poudel expressed unhappiness over the repetition of Shankar Pokhrel as general secretary. Rajendra Gautam quit Oli’s panel and filed as an independent candidate for deputy general secretary. Raghuji Pant shifted towards the Ishwar Pokharel camp.

Former minister Bhim Acharya left Oli’s side and filed for vice chair. Lalbabu Pandit rebelled after being offered only a central committee seat and filed for secretary. Agni Kharel revolted and filed for secretary. Krishna Gopal Shrestha, Sher Bahadur Tamang, and Jwala Kumari Sah voiced displeasure. Ananda Pokhrel filed for deputy general secretary. Lekhraj Bhatta stepped aside from the secretary race, later landing a deputy general secretary slot after Bhanubhakta Dhakal was pushed down.

These names matter because they show the scale of unease inside what was supposed to be Oli’s solid camp. This was not a dissatisfaction from the margins. It involved senior figures who defended Oli through party splits, street protests, and the Gen Z criticism phase. Their discomfort turned into defiance on the eve of voting, creating a sense that the outcome may not be usual as many expected.

The core reason behind the revolt lies in Oli’s tight grip on ticket distribution. Despite expanding the number of office bearers from 15 to 19, Oli’s panel repeated familiar faces and offered limited space for second line leaders. Many felt the expansion was cosmetic. Positions looked available on paper but real power remained concentrated. Leaders who expected elevation found themselves pushed into central committee roles, a move seen as a polite sidelining rather than promotion.

The general secretary slot became the flashpoint. Oli’s insistence on repeating Shankar Pokhrel sent a message that loyalty alone was not enough unless it fit Oli’s inner circle. Pradeep Gyawali’s case exposed this tension clearly. Seen by many as a natural candidate for general secretary, Gyawali was instead offered vice chair. For a leader who carried ideological and public weight for the party, this felt like a downgrade disguised as respect.

Managing ambition has always been Oli’s challenge, but this time the numbers worked against him. Too many senior leaders wanted meaningful roles, and too few were willing to accept symbolic placements. Padma Aryal’s admission that leadership was struggling to manage aspirants summed up the problem. Talks continued, but the damage was already visible.

Meanwhile, the Oli-Ishwar Pokharel tussle sharpened these divisions. Pokharel’s entry into the chair race turned dissatisfaction into an alternative option. Backed by former president Bidya Devi Bhandari and projecting a rule based, collective approach, Pokharel attracted leaders who felt boxed in by Oli’s command driven style. Surendra Pandey’s candidacy for general secretary gave that camp further structure.

Unlike Oli’s side, Pokharel’s camp showed fewer cracks, largely because it promised change without demanding blind loyalty. For many undecided delegates, this contrast mattered. The revolt was less about ideology and more about space, respect, and predictability inside the party.

As UML heads into voting, the unrest inside Oli’s camp signals a shift. Even if Oli retains the chair, the message from the floor is clear. Control without accommodation now carries a cost, and this election may mark the point where that cost becomes visible.