Internal feuds are a constant irritant for most of the political parties in Nepal. And as such, the newly established communist party CPN (Unified Socialist) hasn’t remained immune to it either. The party is currently facing renewed internal turmoil, just over two weeks ahead of its fourth anniversary on August 18.

The dispute centres on the public spat between party chair Madhav Kumar Nepal and second-in-command Jhalanath Khanal, both of whom are former prime ministers. Both of them also led the CPN-UML party, before they came together to form the Unified Socialist after a bitter power struggle with UML chair KP Sharma Oli.

Khanal has now raised questions on the basic premise of the party’s formation.

The Unified Socialist was established in August 2021 by a splinter faction of the country’s largest communist party, CPN-UML. The split was once projected as a rebellion against the UML chair KP Sharma Oli’s “autocratic and unconstitutional” moves. They challenged Oli’s move to dissolve the House of Representatives twice and touted it as a new political chapter in Nepal’s political history.

Of late, Khanal has leveled serious allegations against Nepal’s leadership style and even questioned the grounds of splitting from the UML. He has said that the party has failed to justify the split.

In a strong rebuttal during a media interaction at Biratnagar airport on Friday, Nepal suggested that Khanal could leave the party if dissatisfied.

Khanal, in an interview with Image Television last week, argued that although their rebellion against the UML leadership [Oli] was labelled a struggle against ‘right-wing opportunism’, the new party’s leadership [party chair Nepal] failed to prove it ideologically and politically.

“A rebellion without justification holds no meaning,” Khanal said.

Som Prasad Pandey, the party secretary who is close to Nepal, said the two leaders must sit together and find a solution.

Rivalry between the two leaders, however, is not new. The relationship between Nepal and Khanal has long been bitter, despite their prominent roles in shaping Nepal’s communist movement.

Both leaders share a long history with UML. Nepal led the party for nearly 15 years until 2008, while Khanal was the first elected chairman of UML following its eighth general convention in 2009.

Khanal led the CPN (Marxist-Leninist) in early 1980s before it was merged with the Communist Party of Nepal (Marxist) in 1991 to become the CPN-UML.

Political historian Gopi Raman Upadhyay says that ideological differences between Nepal and Khanal have existed for decades.

Khanal held differing views on the People’s Multi-party Democracy propagated by late Madan Bhandari and adopted as its guiding principle by the UML. Instead of People’s Multi-party Democracy, Khanal has consistently advocated that the party should adopt Scientific Socialism as its core ideology. Khanal maintains the critical view to this day.

“As far as I understand, the current differences between them also stem from this fundamental disagreement with regard to the party’s principle,” Upadhyay told the Post.

A statement given by Khanal on Saturday substantiates Upadhyay’s analysis. “This is not a quarrel between two individuals,” Khanal said addressing a press conference. “The real question is whether we choose the path of ‘scientific socialism’ or not.”

His remarks came a day after party chair Nepal said that someone who questions the formation of the party might as well leave the organisation. In response, Khanal clarified during the press meet that he would not quit the party at someone’s suggestion.

Nepal and Khanal have extensive experience leading parties and serving as prime ministers. Therefore, both enjoy strong organisational influence.

However, when it comes to holding command in the party organisation, Nepal has prevailed in the past couple of years. During the party’s general convention last year, Khanal initially stood as a candidate for the position of chairperson but later settled for the second-in-command. Nepal was unanimously elected the party’s chairperson.

This suggests that Khanal lacks sufficient strength within the party to challenge Nepal.

Krishna Pokhrel, a professor of political science, says that Khanal rallied himself to senior leader status by extending his support to Ghanashyam Bhusal as the party general secretary. But the recent tussle between Nepal and Khanal might have resurfaced mainly after another heavyweight leader joined the Unified Socialist.

Former UML vice-chair Bamdev Gautam, who had remained inactive since the UML split in 2021, joined the Unified Socialist last month.

“Khanal might have expected to lead the party after a corruption case was filed against Nepal in the Patanjali land scam in June,” Pokhrel said. “Instead of relinquishing the party leadership on moral ground, Nepal instead brought Gautam into the party, which may have irked Khanal.”

Party secretary Pandey agreed that Khanal had not raised questions to the party establishment earlier.

“Gautam joining the party and Khanal questioning the party’s relevance came at the same time,” Pandey said. “People might link the events.”

Khanal, in the television interview, without directly accusing Nepal of wrongdoings, asked whether ‘moral integrity should be essential in political leadership’ and whether ‘rules that require suspension of a lawmaker after facing a serious charge should also apply to the party leadership’.

He was referring to the case when Nepal was suspended as a lawmaker immediately after the anti-graft body filed the corruption case against him at the Special Court.

Pokhrel added that their tussle is based on a difference in personal preferences. Nepal appears to have developed close relations with Maoist Centre chair Pushpa Kamal Dahal while Khanal seems to be inching closer to the former party, UML.

Recently, Maoist Centre leaders claimed that a unification with the Unified Socialist could take place any time soon. Is Khanal unhappy with the development?

Professor Pokhrel, however, denies the possibility of unification between Unified Socialist and the Maoist Centre.

The UML’s schooling is that of Pushpalal Shrestha and Manmohan Adhikari, whereas for the Maoists, it is that of Mohan Bikram and Nirmal Lama. These two schools historically look at politics from different approaches.

“The issue of party unification was raised to divert the issue of the case against Nepal in the Special Court,” Pokhrel argued, “so that a challenge to him from within the party could be thwarted.”