Although it has split in practical terms, in technical terms it can only be said that the Congress has split. Everyone knows what happened in mid-May, and many also know that we will have to wait for the Election Commission and possibly the courts to explain what the legal meaning of this incident is.

I think that Nepal's public discourse is sometimes too polite where it shouldn't be. The risk of trying to be polite anywhere is that people are superficial everywhere. They don't know how to look at the issue in the light of history, from a political perspective. 

That's why some polite-superficial people have said, 'In any case, it wasn't good for the Nepali Congress to split.' To put it bluntly, this is not a perspective. Because it doesn't say anything about what should have happened in the Congress if that had happened. Today, I will discuss why the Congress incident of 30 Pus was a necessary 'departure' taken by Nepali society and political movements, and what our social perspective should be on this issue. And, I will offer some thoughts on how this incident connects to the current situation of other political fronts outside the Congress and the flow of the larger Nepali society.

In that process, I will also make personal comments on Sher Bahadur Deuba and two or four people around him, touch on what all this will mean for KP Oli's UML, say something about what Balen Shah and Ravi Lamichhane must be thinking now, and give political advice on how the Election Commission should look at this issue.

To form a perspective on this issue, it is important to first briefly understand how 23 and 24 Bhadau were. Why did our society explode with such a loud voice in the Bhadau uprising? The energetic new generation of Nepali society and the old and 'delivery' generation in terms of political perspective lived in the same country, but they lived and understood at different times.

The consciousness of society was much more advanced than that of the people in the leadership positions of the older generations of political parties. On the one hand, 'backward' in intellectual consciousness, on the other hand, the masterminds of all the chaos and misrule in the country, yet the country is once again in the hands of these two or four people. Wasn't that spontaneous social explosion that happened because it needed to be changed? And, if we take a 'departure' for some major transformation, we won't reach the destination. This rebellion of the Congress is a departure point for that major transformation.

This is the institutional appropriation of the demand of the Gen-G rebellion taken by the Congress as a political organization and campaign. It is an acceptance that society and its expectations had changed, but our party vision and capabilities had not changed.

If this rebellion had not happened in the Congress now, it would have meant that many would have accepted that not only Sher Bahadur, but also our political organizations were still worthy of KP Oli and Pushpa Kamal Dahal. If the special general convention had not chosen a new policy and leadership, there would have been no need to further improve Balen Shah and Ravi Lamichhane, who were competing to emerge as an alternative force.

Now let's start with Sher Bahadur and move forward gradually. What is left for him now? In the seven-decade history of the Nepali Congress, has there ever been a more tainted, incompetent Prime Minister and President than he? Who else in the democratic era has experienced as much unrest in this country as during his time? Didn't he become the President of the Nepali Congress only by an accident of history, despite the fact that a group of people who were angry at not being able to share with Girija Prasad Koirala gathered together rather than by his own ability?

Despite all this, was there anything else that made him hang on to the post of President of the Congress for a few months other than being given an election ticket as he had said on Magh 6? And did the meaning of distributing the ticket himself other than the greed of becoming the Prime Minister candidate of the Congress in the upcoming election? And, has the only political reason for him to remain as the President of the Congress been revealed so far? What did this country have to gain from him? Did anyone ever hear him say that he would do something like this for this country by becoming Prime Minister again?

All these questions are not for Deuba. He is not even worthy of being questioned. These questions are for Sher Bahadur's high-ranking disciples, including Purna Bahadur Khadka and Bimalendra Nidhi, who were present at Sanepa on 30th Poush, Shekhar Koirala and his Deuba-serving group. If you have the courage, read the above questions again. Why read it? This topic is deeper than the politics you have done, it is related to your personal self-esteem.

It is related to why you are in politics and why you have not done the opposite without knowing it, instead of saying that you will work for the country and democracy. Otherwise, after knowing that the majority of representatives have asked for a special general convention, you have stood against that process, and whose service did you serve?

Yes, this is exactly the reason why the special general convention had to go ahead. If there had been an agreement with the old establishment and the general convention had not elected a new leadership, then the Congress would have been clearly subordinate to Deuba for the next five years as well. The crowd that gathered in Sanepa yesterday, who had lost their independent consciousness and were unaware of what was happening, would once again suppress the new voice and vision within the Congress.

So the argument I made is that if such a Deuba-subordinate Congress remained intact, it would have been even more harmful to the country and to democratic good governance. Now comes the matter of Purna Bahadur. His only qualification was his incompetence. That is why Deuba had confidently given him the acting position because Deuba knew that he would not have given anything if he had done so.

In the fifties, when he was in the power scene since he became the Home Minister in the same Deuba cabinet, why did he have any vision in leading the Congress? It is not worth listening to, I have not heard it. If Gagan Thapa and Bishwaprakash Sharma had made a deal with Deuba and accepted this Purna Bahadur as the president, in essence, that would not have been the starting point for any transformation.

As far as Shekhar Koirala's alternative was concerned, he is a good person in terms of personal temperament, which is good. But unfortunately, he is only a good person in terms of political vision and ability. There is no vision there, nor any fighting spirit. His only good thing is that he is more honest than Koirala's other two, Shashank and Sujata, but I don't see anything more politically. His 'prime' was when he competed with Deuba earlier.

He has now gone back to the past with the harmful ambivalence he displayed during the special general convention and the merger with Deuba in the end. Among the leader's sons, there was Bimalendra Nidhi, who had his own history, but listening to the current Nidhi, it seems that he is not the person known to society before. The Congress, as it was, remaining the same, the country's largest democratic party entrenched under the control of the old establishment that arouses discontent with the same face, would have been bad for the country as a whole.

The new-led Congress has already conveyed hope to a large number of the Gen-G group. That hope has spread to other generations as well. The mere awakening of hope has great meaning in Nepali society now. At least one committed and enthusiastic effort has left the station saying that it will take the country to a beautiful destination. 

So, what does the Congress, formed from the rebellion of the world, mean to other parties? Let's start with the UML. In fact, what Oli did to the UML after being elected as the chairman for the first time was not only a tragedy for the Nepali left-wing politics but also for the country. A center-left party remaining in competition through a democratic system would have been positive for a country with an economic and social system like Nepal. Therefore, it is painful for any 'sensible' citizen to see a major left party reach such a leadership and see the anomalies it has carried.

What is more painful is that the comrades who took such risks during the Panchayat period and shouted that they would change the country are now shrinking after seeing Oli as a 'politician'. What is even more ironic is that the future of the UML has not yet been seen. But it seems that there are a large number of people within the UML who say, 'This is what should happen to us too' due to the rebellion of the sky and the world.

The rebellion of the Congress and the selection of a new leadership have already troubled Oli and those around him. It was easy to compete with the Congress of Sher Bahadur-Purna Bahadur, but not anymore. What they still hope for is that the Election Commission recognizes the old Congress so that it can easily coordinate in the elections. It was already visible until Bhadra that Oli used to think that he was 'the state'.

Even though our commissions are constitutionally autonomous, it has been seen from some of the previous election commission officials how our commissions remain loyal to those who appoint them after death. It seems that Nepali society will be keeping a close eye on the undue influence that Oli and Deuba are trying to exert on the commission. What has happened positively is that the UML, which has just concluded its general convention, was more focused on the general convention than before.

The remaining combative ranks within the party, who understand that the current UML leadership does not have the ideological and delivery capabilities to compete with the Gagan-Bishwa generation and their capabilities, may emerge somewhat stronger, which is good for the UML itself.

The most interesting thing is the scenario of the new generation of the Congress led by Balen Shah and Ravi Lamichhane on one side and Gagan Thapa on the other. A large section of Nepali society must have been excited by this. During an autocratic regime, many leaders may not emerge as leaders in the fight for democratic rights. But in an impatient society with a democratic ‘framework’, leaders of all kinds may emerge as alternatives from time to time. A large section of the people may see hope in them.

No one knows how Balen Shah will lead this country towards good governance and prosperity if he becomes the Prime Minister. But the reality of our society is that many wish Balen had come. On the other hand, there are many who can be said publicly without being afraid, that is, there are many who say 'I will build the country', but the only leader who has a clear vision of how to build it is Gagan at the moment. Perhaps Balen also knows that, Ravi Lamichhane and Swarnim Wagle already knew it.

What can be good for society from the healthy competition between these two parties is if the National Independent Party, and especially its Prime Ministerial candidate Balen, goes into the election campaign with his vision and 'content'. If he does not do so, why will he not be happy? The Congress led by Gagan now has 'content', has credibility in his personality and is not burdened by Deuba's history. Similarly, what Gagan needs to learn from the Rashtriya Swatantra Party is how to 'brand' the Congress led by him that it is not an old rotten party? Because Balen is not just a brand yet. 

In conclusion, the Nepali Congress rebellion is a matter of a party, but its context is a new political departure point sought by Nepali society. It is the aspiration that a new society should become a political organization that leads it in accordance with the new consciousness of the times. The waves created by this incident have touched the wider society. Those waves should be felt even more elsewhere. It should be in the UML, in some cases, in the RSP. The meaning of this rebellion should be sought in the context in which it took place. Even though it is a reference to a party, it should be understood as an expression of a political impulse that society is trying to move forward.