Why did Oli-Dahal become the practice of not even giving a place to those who criticized the leadership transfer and leadership?
What you should know
Before the chapter of conflict between CPN Unified Socialist Chairman Madhav Kumar Nepal and respected leader Jhalnath Khanal could be closed, the internal conflict between Chairman of Maoist Center Pushpa Kamal Dahal and Deputy General Secretary Janardhan Sharma has heated up the political arena again.
The meeting of the Standing Committee of the CPN Maoist Center suddenly made public the bitter truth that there is a Jamaat in CPN-UML that is blindly loyal to President KP Sharma Oli, and that there are also Jamaats in other parties that blindly accept everything from the party leadership. UML has a policy of not speaking against Oli. Former President Bidya Devi Bhandari announced that she wanted to do active politics while remaining in the UML and that her party membership was not renewed and the chapter that was active in the party was closed.
In the Congress and Maoists, whether the ideas were heard or not, it was possible to keep what one wanted in the party. Even in the Maoist center that door has now been closed. It is thought that Dahal has also learned a good lesson from Oli from Dahal-Oli's alliance, party unity, etc. Previously, it was not possible to speak like this in the party led by Dahal. It was open to opinions, even if different opinions were not heard. Those who have the courage to lead the party, but remain oppressed by the style of the president, continue to deify Dahal by those who do not. Even now those who are worshiping Dahal do not seem to have the ability to do anything. There is no doubt that Dahal's style has led the party to become what it is today.
In the Shah dynasty, it was rather a tradition of handing down generations. The generational transfer was recognized in the lifetime of the person sitting on the throne. Looking at the latest working style of Maoist, it seems that the same style will dominate him. However, seeing the deteriorating state of the party, it has become a matter of concern whether this party will survive after the demise of the current leadership. If we look at the tenure of the Shah dynasty in the history of Nepal, the king Tribhuvan Birvikram Shahdev who will sit on the throne for the longest period is seen. He appears to have ruled for 43 years. But Dahal is the chairman of a Communist Party who has been at the helm for nearly four decades. Is this what communist theory is all about? Whose dictionary does not have the word transfer? Shouldn't there be a transfer of leadership in a communist party? If it is not so, why did the practice of not even giving a place to those who criticized the leadership transfer and the leadership become dominant in Oli-Dahal? If the transfer of leadership must not be done, then let's revise the party constitution and abolish the system of staging the drama of the convention.
– Sujan Devkota , Palungtar-4, Gorkha
