Congress reins pass to Gagan Thapa and Bishwa Prakash Sharma

Gagan Thapa and Bishwa Prakash Sharma are senior Nepali Congress politicians whose partnership began in the Nepal Students Union. Thapa served as Sharma’s vice-president when Sharma led the student organisation in 2000. Their rise is presented as a generational change in the party.

Thapa won the party presidency with 6,584 votes, defeating Shyam Krishna Khadgi, who received 375. Kishor Singh Rathore withdrew. Sharma was the only candidate for senior vice-president, so he was elected unopposed. Pushpa Bhusal also won the women’s vice-presidency without opposition.

The pair now must steer a party still divided by factional rivalries. Thapa became president at a special convention in January, and Sharma backed his bid. Their leadership also connects the party presidency with Thapa’s endorsed role as prospective prime ministerial candidate, although Congress later suffered a heavy election defeat.

The Nepali Congress is described in the article as Nepal’s oldest democratic party. It is a nationwide political organisation with a formal presidency, vice-presidencies, central working committee, conventions, and competing factions. Its internal elections therefore determine more than symbolic titles: they set the direction and leadership of a major force in national politics.

The article gives a clear example. The special convention endorsed Thapa as the party’s prospective prime ministerial candidate after Sharma backed his presidential bid. Congress then contested the March election, but suffered a heavy defeat, and Thapa lost his parliamentary seat. This shows how party decisions connect internal leadership with national elections.

In a parliamentary democracy, parties help decide who governs by selecting candidates, campaigning for parliamentary seats, and supporting a leader who can command legislative backing. The article does not detail Nepal’s government-formation rules, but it shows that Congress leadership can influence both the party’s policy direction and its choice of potential prime minister.

Thapa’s victory was exceptionally large inside the party convention. He received 6,584 votes, while rival Shyam Krishna Khadgi received 375. The difference was 6,209 votes, producing a 93.88 percent vote share. Kishor Singh Rathore had also filed a nomination but withdrew before the contest.

The key mechanism is the scale of support among voting party representatives. A result above nine-tenths gives Thapa a powerful formal mandate to lead the organisation. It is much stronger than a narrow win, because few delegates supported the only remaining challenger. Sharma’s unopposed election further strengthens the appearance of a united top leadership.

However, the result should not be confused with complete party unity. Former president Sher Bahadur Deuba remains outside the Thapa-led mainstream and is pursuing a separate convention process. More than 30 former Deuba allies have shifted toward Thapa, but the continuing split means Thapa’s mandate faces an organisational test.

The phrase describes a change in who leads the Congress and how the party may represent its membership. Thapa and Sharma are portrayed as genuinely young in age, speech, qualifications, and political emotions. Their arrival contrasts with the older rivalries associated with leaders such as Sher Bahadur Deuba, Ramchandra Poudel, Girija Prasad Koirala, and Krishna Prasad Bhattarai.

Pradip Giri captured the intended partnership in 2021 by calling Thapa and Sharma a “pair of oxen” that should pull the Congress plough forward together. They had already worked together in the Nepal Students Union, and both later became general secretaries, though from different factional panels. Their shared rise therefore combines age, experience, and cooperation.

The shift is also built into the party’s structure. The 15th general convention reserves 21 central working committee seats for people under 35. That could give younger members a stronger institutional voice, although the article warns that old factional rivalries and political habits remain powerful.

Factional rivalry means Congress leaders organise around competing camps rather than always acting through one settled leadership structure. The article shows that Thapa’s decisive election did not end this pattern. The party still carries a political culture shaped by rival leaders and disputes over who should control its organisation.

The clearest example is Sher Bahadur Deuba. He remains outside the Thapa-led mainstream and is pursuing a separate convention process. At the same time, more than 30 leaders who were previously aligned with Deuba have moved toward Thapa. Other senior leaders have also changed position, showing that alliances are being rearranged rather than simply disappearing.

The party also faces a legal dispute over Thapa’s special convention, although the Election Commission recognised the leadership elected there. The 15th general convention is now reshaping the organisation, but competing convention processes leave the party’s authority contested. Thapa and Sharma must therefore turn a strong electoral result into practical unity.

The main possible change is a more youth-oriented Congress structure. The 15th general convention is the first full-scale national gathering since Thapa became president, and it is reshaping the party’s organisation. The change matters because younger members would gain a formal route into the central leadership rather than relying only on older factions.

The clearest mechanism is the reservation of 21 central working committee seats for people under 35. These seats can increase younger representation in the body that helps organise and direct the party. Thapa and Sharma’s partnership may also encourage closer coordination at the top, especially after Sharma backed Thapa’s presidential bid.

Still, the outcome is not guaranteed to be unified or transformative. Deuba is pursuing a separate convention, and the leadership elected at the special convention remains involved in a legal dispute. Youth representation may broaden participation, but Thapa and Sharma must also manage old rivalries and shifting alliances.

In a parliamentary democracy, political parties are the main link between voters and government. They select candidates, publish political directions, campaign for parliamentary seats, and organise lawmakers after elections. The party or alliance able to command enough legislative support can put forward a leader to head the government. Party leadership therefore affects both election strategy and governing power.

The article illustrates this process through Congress. At the special convention, Sharma backed Thapa for party president, and delegates endorsed Thapa as the party’s prospective prime ministerial candidate. Congress then entered the March election with that leadership arrangement. The party suffered a heavy defeat, however, and Thapa lost his parliamentary seat.

This example also shows the limits of internal authority. Winning a party presidency does not itself make someone prime minister. The leader still needs electoral success and parliamentary backing. Thapa’s strong convention mandate gives him control inside Congress, but the party’s defeat and continuing factional disputes complicate its ability to shape Nepal’s next government.