The CPN (Unified Socialist) is facing a widening rift between its Chairman Madhav Kumar Nepal and Respected Leader Jhala Nath Khanal.
The internal party dispute has surfaced after both leaders openly criticized each other at public forums, party events, and press conferences.
The feud between the two leaders became public when Khanal raised the issue of leadership change after a corruption case was filed against Nepal in connection with Patanjali’s land.
The impact of this dispute is evident in the youth and student wings, with factions loyal to Nepal and Khanal carrying out separate activities.
Khanal has recently concluded that the decision to split from the CPN-UML in August 2021 has not been justified.
The two leaders also disagree on the issue of unification with the CPN (Maoist Center).
As the dispute escalated, Nepal has told Khanal to leave the party.
Responding to journalists’ queries in Biratnagar on Friday, Nepal said that there was no place for Khanal in the party.
"There’s no place for him in the party anymore, he has no moral authority left. He should submit his resignation immediately and leave. This is an institutional decision. He is the number one violator of party decisions," Nepal said in Biratnagar on Friday, without directly naming Khanal.
Khanal responded by holding a press conference on Saturday.
Khanal expressed sadness over the remarks made by the chairman in Biratnagar.
“I heard that he asked me to leave. I reflected on it, and it deeply saddened me. I assumed that a leader who has been with the party since 1975 would understand the rules and policies of a communist party,” he said, adding, “But his thinking is at such a low level.”
At the press conference, Khanal made five points addressing Nepal.
He expressed dissatisfaction that the socialist program document, passed by the party’s 10th general convention, has not been made public even after 13 months.
“The socialist program document passed by the party has not been published even after 13 months. What are 150,000 party members carrying? There’s no goal at all,” he said.
Khanal said that despite repeatedly urging clarity on the party’s direction, policies, and principles, and calling for reorganization, his concerns have not been addressed.
“The party’s statute doesn’t resemble that of a communist party. There’s a need for debate and discussion within the party, but that hasn’t happened,” he said.
He clarified that the dispute with Madhav Nepal is not a personal conflict but a policy-based debate within the party. He noted that he never said the rebellion was wrong but that its justification could not be proven.
“My view isn’t that the rebellion was wrong, but if we fail to justify it, it will automatically be proven wrong,” he said.
Khanal mentioned that since 1975, he and Nepal have fought together on issues of direction, policy, and principles. Therefore, he considers Nepal a comrade rather than a leader, he added.
“I never thought of Madhavji as my leader who gives me orders. He’s a comrade. We’ve collaborated since 1975. I thought he was mature in terms of study, practice, and ideology, which is why I asked him to become chairman,” he said.
He expressed that he would be satisfied if the movement moves forward and people achieve progress, but that he has not been satisfied so far.
“Are we to follow the path of scientific socialism or multiparty people’s democracy socialism? I see them leaning toward democratic socialism, which is considered a bourgeois ideology,” he said.
Khanal noted that Nepal didn’t need to react impulsively to journalists’ questions in Biratnagar.
“I assumed a leader who has been with the party since 1975 would understand the rules and policies of a communist party. But now, as the chairman of CPN (Unified Socialist), he reacted impulsively to journalists’ questions in Biratnagar, ordering me to leave the party,” he said.
Khanal asserted that he would not leave the party just because he was ordered to.
“Does a party member or leader leave just because they’re ordered to? Is this the stature of a leader? I’m deeply saddened. I saw him as a great leader, but his thinking is at such a low level,” he said.
Khanal also described Madhav Nepal as someone suffering from “petty bourgeois” thinking.
“I didn’t expect such a statement from Madhav Kumar Nepal. If my words or writings have caused any issues, a party meeting can be called to discuss and resolve them through dialogue,” he said.
Khanal recounted the series of disputes with Nepal since the formation of CPN (Unified Socialist) after rebelling against the UML.
Khanal said that he was against passing the MCC, while Nepal supported it.
He also accused Nepal of advocating participation in any government.
“There should be a stance on which governments to join and which not to. His approach seems to be to join any government,” he said.
Khanal said that he supports joining leftist governments but not non-leftist ones, calling it a surrender.
“I told him not to do that, but he didn’t agree,” Khanal said.
He also expressed disagreement on forming electoral alliances.
“He didn’t agree. He followed the Congress. Now everyone says we were betrayed. Why did we go to get betrayed when it was guaranteed to happen?” Khanal said.
Khanal also highlighted differences on the party’s ideological direction.
He argued that after the 2006 People’s Movement and its changes, multiparty people’s democracy has been fulfilled, and the party’s policy should now be scientific socialism.
“But they want to carry on with that,” he said.
Khanal emphasized that he is not in favor of leaving the party because of disputes. Instead, those unable to lead should leave, he added.
“I don’t even imagine leaving the party. That word isn’t in my dictionary. The party formed through rebellion needs to be strengthened ideologically, politically, and theoretically. It needs transformation. I don’t even imagine running away from it or resigning. Just because someone asks me to resign, I won’t resign and leave. If someone doesn’t need this party, they can leave themselves,” Khanal said.
